Alan Grayson is in the House

And his whip-smart (and ever-witty) thoughts and exhortations are often appearing in my In box, too. I'm publishing his latest e-mail in its entirety:

Dear Deborah,

In the New York Times for June 13th, the Pentagon proclaimed that Afghanistan holds almost one trillion lira - no, sorry, that's one trillion dollars - in hitherto-unknown mineral wealth.

Allow me to offer these revelations:

(1) Paris Hilton actually is Albert Einstein, with a wig. Think about it - you've never seen them together, have you?

(2) The Moon is made of green cheese. Specifically, a lovely Camembert, slightly fruity, that goes very well with cabernet.

(3) While you were at work today, someone broke into your house, stole everything, and replaced it with an exact duplicate (apologies to Steven Wright).

$1 trillion dollars in mineral wealth in Afghanistan. What a lame excuse for a lame excuse.

But the interesting thing is that the Pentagon felt it necessary to serve up this fevered imagining. Why? Because they say that they need another $33 billion for the war by July 4th, or, or, or, I don't know - they just say that they need it. And for once, Congress isn't falling all over itself to give the generals whatever they want. So get ready to hear about lithium in Afghanistan, oil in Iraq, and diamonds in your bathtub.

With 14 million Americans out of work, support for endless war is crumbling. People want an America that is #1 in health, #1 in education, #1 in quality of life, not #1 in number of foreign countries occupied.

Send an e-mail to your Member of Congress. Ask him or her to oppose the "emergency supplemental" for more and more war.

Hope. Change. How about some peace, for a change?

Courage,

Alan Grayson

P.S. I am the first Democrat to represent my district in 34 years. I depend on ordinary people like you to support my campaign. If you'd like to make a contribution, please do so here.

Comments

[low-tech cyclist]

I've said it before, but:

Franken/Grayson 2016!

[low-tech cyclist]

Like Kevin Drum, I don't see how we've got any chance of stabilizing Afghanistan.

And it's gotten to the point of absurdity. Afghanistan is simply not that important. The only reason we care about it is that nine years ago, it was used as a base from which to plan the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

But the thing is, there are LOTS of places in the world that are similarly ungoverned and ungovernable that could be used by terrorists as a base for future attacks. There's nothing particularly unique about Afghanistan.

Of course, there's still the matter of bin Laden, who's hiding out on one side or the other of the Af-Pak border, as the kool kids now call it. I'm all for doing whatever we can, within reason, to either capture him and bring him to justice, or kill him. But that's completely orthogonal to what the bulk of our troops in Afghanistan are doing. If we get bin Laden, we're going to get him with a combination of intelligence-gathering and Special Forces activity. We don't need 100,000 troops in Afghanistan; we need governmental permission for a few thousand operatives to have the run of the country.

Other than that, it's time to get the hell out of Dodge, er, Afghanistan.

[litbrit]

ltc, I would enthusiastically support that ticket!

I only wish we were able to vote for Grayson--his district is Orlando/Winter Park. You drive a mere two hours from St. Pete and you get a Congressman who's in another ideological universe than ours. Lucky Orlando.

[oddjob]

I don't see how we've got any chance of stabilizing Afghanistan.

What person or set of people has ever done so in the course of recorded history (except possibly for just a few years, where afterwards it splintered apart again)? Given that many centuries of instability that instability can only be considered the standard state of affairs there, how can it be anything but magical thinking to assume we have any chance of truly stabilizing Afghanistan?

[oddjob]

You drive a mere two hours from St. Pete and you get a Congressman who's in another ideological universe than ours. Lucky Orlando.

In the Philadelphia area it happens much faster than a two hour drive. In the usual course of affairs you only need to drive across the city line southwest into Delaware County and you're suddenly in the district of a Republican representative. Joe Sestak (a Democrat) ousted the idiotic (& probably corrupt) Curt Weldon in '08, but Weldon ruled the roost there for about 25 years before that.

If you keep driving south on Route 1 (the same one that takes you to Key West) for another 30-40 mins. you end up in the district of a House reprsentative who is openly fundy and firmly anti-abortion. It wasn't that way when I lived in that district (then the representative was a nondescript more or less moderate Republican whose name I can't quite even remember), but nowadays that part of the world has gotten more teabagger-ish than it was in the 1970's.

[minstrel hussain boy]

if there is anything at all unique about afghanistan it is the way that monsterous empires and war machines have been ground into the dust and tossed into the compost heap there.

cyrus the great, alexander the great, ghengis khan, babur the magnificent, kitchener, gordon, rostelnikov (for peter the great), about six modern russian generals the list is close to endless.

every single one of those would be conquerors marched in with the finest war machine in the world, some of them like alexander had never lost a battle. alexander kept that winning streak alive, but only because the afghans would not offer battle. they looked at the macedonian phalanx and said "fuck that shit." and disappeared into the gullies, caves, and goat paths. coming out only to harry and bleed. then, as now, only around 15% of aghan land was fit for agriculure and then, as now, their main crops were poppies and hashish (which alexander's soldiers indulged in mightily calling them pank and nazz). supply lines there are always a problem. alexander's army had to pack drinking water and nearly all of their supplies with them. unable to live off the land, they also had to cope with the afghan's constant raiding, and their favorite target was the supply trains. the afghani's were short of all of that shit too.

i got into a pretty productive email exchange with a couple of the guys from votevets over the sheer insanity of our trying to accomplish there what has never been accomplished in history. one of them wrote back to me "they haven't seen the modern american army."

i replied "don't you think that's what all of the other guys said going in? cyrus said 'they haven't seen my immortals...alexander said 'they haven't seen my silver shields...' ghengis said 'they haven't seen my golden horde..' the afghani's haven't changed a lick."

we won't fail there because of anything we do or do not do. we will fail because we are who we are and they are who they are.

[minstrel hussain boy]

p.s. i think it is safe to say that we are not bringing any alexanders to that fight niether...

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sorrry, but i will continue to be very reluctant to join the Grayson bandwagon, and watch him as carefully as anyone else that I fear. Part of this is pure 'gut feeling' part of it is 'evidence-based' (NO one should pitch Progressivism to the Alex Jones audience, plus my reservations not just about the company he claims to have founded but about my knowledge that he did NOT found it, as well as echoes of past left-wing demagogues of the past.)

If the next coupke of years proves me wrong, i will gladly admit my mistake, but I'd gladly bet that, by 2013, most of you will feel about Grayson the way i do.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

'past...of the past' etc. Sorry, friend due to arrive shortly, rushing, and will probably be quiet for the afternoon and until at loeast the end of the Mets-Yankees game.

[Sir Charles]

How many Republicans and conservadems are going to clamor about the need to pay for the Afghanistan supplemental bill, like they did over the jobs bill? What cuts in the rest of the Pentagon budget will they make so that this pays for itself?

I think you all know the answer to this.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Actually, if they support the Frank-Paul-Jones-Wyden committee recommendations, they might just be able to find this much money -- though it's not where I'd spend it even though i am still more fond of our Afghan adventure than most of you. (For me the Taliban -- even more than Bin Laden -- is the symbol of today's evil and I can't support compromise with them if it is at all avoidable.)

[big bad wolf]

prup, is withdrawal compromise? what if we just said, we've done what we needed to do in 2001 and we're leaving. we think you should try to maintain the gains women have made in the last few years and we think you should try not to let the taliban reutrn. you can ask for foreign aid for assistance in those tasks if you'd like and we will think about it.

[ballgame]

Franken/Grayson 2016! 2012!

[oddjob]

Yes, the Taliban is vile in its extremism as far as I'm concerned.

So also is the mainland Chinese government, but we don't have the resources to overthrow that government and we don't have the resources to stabilize Afghanistan or wipe out the Taliban.

As mhb rightly points out, Afghanistan is where empires die. You go there if you must, but the only sensible way to do what you must is to keep the objective extremely limited and do what you can as quickly as possible. Then if you are a smart empire you leave them alone again.

[low-tech cyclist]

Unfortunately, we seem to have become a very, very stupid empire.

[minstrel hussain boy]

oddly enough, my study of history shows me that stupid especially stupid fucking war, is the most common cause of death for empires.

the historically inevitible punishment for stupid is death.

[big bad wolf]

"the only emperor is the emperor of ice cream."

well, since we are on wallace stevens

http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/stevens-snowman.html

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Poetry/Stevens/sunday_morning.html

[Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle]

oddjob:
Do you mean Joe Pitts?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

If one of the Congressmen you were referring to was Jeff Miller (R-Pensacola) he did at least one thing right today. He not merely condemned Barton's 'apology' -- and the half-hearted 'walkback' -- he called for Barton to be removed as ranking member on Energy.

And, according to Dave Weigel, he has independently confirmed the Republican leadership told Barton to back down or lose his position.

Meanwhile, from the tea-baggers and voices on the right, I see plenty of anger, but at Obama, plenty of defenses of both BP and Barton, and calls for more drilling -- and this ignores the customary conspiracy theories that have Obama somehow causing the spill to stop drilling -- or to help his Muslim brethren in the oil countries.

Which proves yet again what a cinch it will be to get the tea-baggers to join in an anti-corporate combination.

(The line references the discussion of ballgame's arguments that i started here and finished four posts down.)

[ballgame]

Prup, you're a master at misconstruing what people say.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Ballgame:
That is hilarious coming from someone whose entire argument -- if it is sincere -- is based on totally misunderstanding what the tea-baggers say, and simply denying they believe what they say they believe.

That's why I took your own words, a paragraph that seemed to be a summing up of your position, and showed that not one phrase reflected an accurate view of the situation.

What I gave you a pass on, and what I am no longer willing to do so on, was your ducking of my previous challenge. In a long post here I had given a list of what I considered 'core progressive values' and asked you to show me one place where the tea-baggers shared them enough so they could be allies in advancing them. (I also pointed out that in some areas -- including gay rights and infrastructure rebuilding -- there was no conflict between our unterests and corporate interests, so it was not inconceivable that we could ally with them on those areas -- but tea baggers were philosophically opposed to any movement in them.)

You ducked me. In fact, even after a specifically asked you to avoid a 'tu quoque' response, that was all the response you made. And, thinking back, I can't recall your own positions on them -- maybe only because you are a better writer in opposition. But, other than arguing against the 'corporate-controlled media' I can't remember any positive positions you have taken. (And fighting against 'corporate control' is a popular position anywhere along the spectrum. Even those Congressmen who are totally 'in the pocket' of a corporation with a strong presence in his own District or State can earn 'populist cred' by opposing other 'corporate monsters.' And of course the Far Right's 'Secret Master' paranoias always feature business or banking interests at the heart of the sinister group that's 'behind everything.' (And only a part of them are sure of the 'ethnic background' of those interests, and I'm not implying you share their bigotry, just that these are the types of people you call on progressives to ally with.)

So i'll ask you again, not just whether you can point to any of those 'core values' I listed and say that tea baggers would work to advance them -- no, this time I'm asking you if you share them, and what your own list of 'core values' includes. What do you want us to accomplish by forming the alliances you suggest?

[ballgame]

[Prup:] That is hilarious coming from someone whose entire argument -- if it is sincere -- is based on totally misunderstanding what the tea-baggers say, and simply denying they believe what they say they believe.

This is bullshit, Prup. Since I’ve never said what I think teabaggers say, you have no basis to assert that I ‘totally misunderstand’ them. I’ve never denied ‘they believe what they say they believe.’ You’re arguing with a strawman, which is frankly a pattern I’m seeing in your comments (i.e. when you said Greenwald ‘supports’ Grover Norquist and implied — and later retracted — that his Citizen’s United stance was a political concession).

My “entire argument” was that people like Glenn Greenwald (and Jane Hamsher, and Noam Chomsky, and Ralph Nader) are all important leaders of the left and have all made/are making outstanding contributions to the progressive movement, and they deserve to be treated with respect and not contempt. It is possible — even desirable — to criticize things they’ve said or done, because they make mistakes just like everyone else, but it’s contemptuous to vilify them.

I explicitly noted that the whole ‘teabagger issue’ was a red herring to my main argument above.

Let me quote my exact words:

[ballgame:] Jim, I have not made the argument that you're implying I made. I've simply pointed out that a tactical alliance with teabaggers on specific issues which challenged the corruption of the establishment parties has been successful and is a positive thing [as I noted, I was referring to the successful Audit the Fed bill. —ballgame], and Glenn and Jane's openness to the possibility of other similar opportunities is shrewd and not at all a cause for the calumny that has been flung at them.

I also believe that a portion of the teabagger movement is comprised of working class people who are justifiably disgusted at the behavior of the establishment parties and rightly alarmed at the direction the country is taking, but who have been fundamentally mislead about the dynamics of what is happening by the right wing corporate media. I believe at least some of those individuals could be open to a progressive viewpoint if they were ever exposed to one in meaningful manner. Once again, to the extent that this is what Glenn is saying, I think it's laudable and not in any sense a justification for accusing him of being a "political illiterate."

You now characterize your subsequent parsing of my second paragraph with this comment:

[Prup:] That's why I took your own words, a paragraph that seemed to be a summing up of your position, and showed that not one phrase reflected an accurate view of the situation.

… which I think is an interesting misconstruing of your own comment, which included the following phrases:

[Prup:] … if you are talking about their actual financial and social status you are right about a substantial portion of them …

… and …

[Prup:] Oh you are right about that …

Of course, the bulk of your comment was disagreeing with a misinterpretation of what I was actually saying. I never said teabaggers had ‘progressive values’, so your ‘challenge’ which implied that I did was moronic and not worth replying to.

I also have never ‘called on progressives to ally with them’ though I do think — as noted above — that ‘tactical alliances on specific issues which challenge the corruption of the establishment parties’ (like the Audit the Fed initiative) is a good thing. (Does anyone here think auditing the Fed is a bad thing??) However, it’s not a ‘call to action’ that I’m issuing personally, and I respect those progressives who disagree with this idea. But agree or disagree, other progressives who DO think it’s a good idea should not be vilified on that basis.

I’m of mixed minds about the extent to which it’s a worthwhile progressive strategy to reach out to current teabaggers to try to open their eyes and convert them to a progressive mindset. I DO think rightwingers like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly etc. are consciously trying to appeal to working class people by feeding them lies and fake solutions to genuine problems. I DO think progressives need to try to keep them from being successful, because to the extent they are successful it is/will be disastrous for the country. I DO think it’s bizarre that any progressive would disagree with this.

Surely everyone here agrees that it’s essential for progressives to win the battle for the hearts and minds of working and middle class people in the struggle against the elite assault on our standard of living. It is baffling to me why there should be so much confused invective directed against people who are trying to do just that.

As to your ‘litmus test,’ Prup, I’m a democratic socialist and would happily support a candidate who embraced your list over the kinds of people who are running now. I would probably quibble over some of your phrasing. For example, I’m a huge fan of John Kenneth Galbraith but there are progressive issues with “total Keynesianism.” ‘Military Keynesianism’ (which is what we’re getting with Obama) might be preferable in some sense to no Keynesianism at all, but it’s still horrific in its impact, and the crux of the theory (grow your way out of debt) becomes problematic when you’re running up against the ecological and resource limits of the planet as we’re doing now. (Lest there be any continued misunderstanding, I completely support deficit spending on alternative energy and infrastructural renovation, but ultimately this debt needs to be paid for by higher taxes on the rich, and TARP was disastrous in many respects.)

I will say, though, Prup, that I find it extraordinarily difficult to reconcile the idea that you actually agree with the progressive values you list while you simultaneously disparage some of the most important figures of the American post-war left, calling Noam Chomsky an ‘embarrassing Platonic idealist,’ accusing Ralph Nader of having ‘no accomplishments,’ and using strawman arguments against Glenn Greenwald.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Starting with the end comment, I deny utterly that Nadewr has had any accomplishment after his first Corvair expose -- which, when it was discussed here was criticized by other progressives in terms that seemed to cast doubt on it, but as a life-long nin-driver, details i am unable to comment upon. Since then his only real accomplishments have been in the field of self-promotion.

Chomsky has had almost no influence on the left that has been perceptible to me in those years -- can anyone point to any he has that I missed? As I've stated his Platonic position has made his linguistics as junk as his politics.

As for Greenwald, it was not just his support of ron Paul which turned me from an avid reader to someone who questions the value of his influence, it was his attacks on Dave Neiwert, attacks he made rather than directly replying to the charges Neiwert correctly made against Paul.

I will reply to your other comments later, but you do a great job of goalpost-moving, and i will ask if you disagree with someone recommending a stupid-to-the-point-of-suicidal strategy being vilified, whatever his past accomplishments -- which I have credited.

[Joe]

Prup, do you really think the work associated with Public Citizen is useless ? A lot of the Nader's Raiders stuff seemed to be really helpful in pushing the ball forward on cosumer protection and ecology issues.

[Sir Charles]

I think Ralph Nader did an immense amount of good in the 60s through the 80s. I would not minimize his contribution to the public weal during this period.

However, he bacame an egotistical crank during the 90s, culminating in his horrific decision to run in the presidential race of 2000, during which his pretense that Gore and Bush were effectively one and the same began modern day firebagging, with disastrous results for the country. He couldn't manage to be contrite for what he had helped do in electing Bush and doubled down in 2004 despite the incredible damage that Bush had already done to the country. His decision in 2004 was unforgivable -- simply unforgivable.

I am happy I haven't seen him on the streets here, as I used to in my younger days. I'm not sure I could restrain myself.

[Krubozumo Nyankoye]

Sir Charles,

To your last post, here here. Nader deserves nothing but opprobrium for his effect in tossing the country to the wolves in the 2000 election. (My apologies to all real wolves.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And I will somewhat modify my own comments -- though I still think that Sir Charles vastly overstates the 'immense amount of good' he did through the Seventies -- he retired from Public Citizen in 1980 to begin other, less successful campaigns. (And even much of that can be traced to people 'inspired' by him.) His skill, as I said, was and is primarily Public Relations, but, to be fair, he uses it as much to benefit his causes as to benefit myself. (I'd compare him, quite respectfully, to Jerry lewis, whose telethons both increase awareness and funding for MD and keep his own career alive.)

I have many arguments with his blunderbuss tactics and overstatements, certainly his political influence has been almost entirely negative, and I'd love to see a scoreboard on how all his campaigns -- and those of his organizations -- have gone. And I'd certainly question some of his choices of campaigns.

Overall, his influence is considerably negative and probably was even before 2000, but I was certainly overstating it to say he had no achievements. But a 'hero'? hardly worthy of the name except in his own self-written scripts.

[Krubozumo Nyankoye]

MHB and others,

My exit strategy for the banana stand.

First we take over the whole system of production of hashish and opium because we have the most money and we are the biggest dog in the fight at the moment, simply put, okay dope growers, we are open for business, sell your product to us. Once we have a lock on the market
we can scale back the muscle to a few local tough guys and bring our troops home, big big payback on that orders of magnitude greater than what it would cost us to buy all the opium and hash in Asia. Wholesale.

Then what - well, you could probably count the number of hash addicts in the world on one hand, but herion is another story, still they are just people, so instead of spending $100,000 per year to jail them, why not put them on a program of okay, we'll give you enough smack to get by, slowly turning it down until you can get by without it, but you will have to do something for it in return, you will have to work at this thing... whatever it is, filling pot holes, picking up trash from parks, auditiing the books of churches, whatever, a transition program. Instead of treating junkies worse than murderers and rapists, we talk to them, give them something to work for and make it as easy as possible to get there.

So in a couple decades we have pretty much solved the problem of herion addiction, it has not vanished but it is managable, we have taken away the prime source of revenue from the lunatics in the banana stand, and we have folded our tents and are gone saving us hundreds of billions of dollars. If the banana stand turns into somalia well... I don't see a mandate in the constitution that says we have to save the world from itself.

That leaves the outstanding question of the criminals still at large, associated with Bin Laden. It seems simple really, redirect 50% of the ridiculous and counter productive effort to imprison 1% of the population on charges of being self indulgent and have them go look for the guy and his antecedants. They are brave and macho, they can handle a couple of years in deep cover in Pakistan talking native Pashtun. Give 'em a shot!

In case this seems like a trolling post be assured, it is not. The surest way to end our involvement in the banana stand is to take over their main business. It would be cheap compared to what we are doing.

[minstrel hussain boy]

If the banana stand turns into somalia well... I don't see a mandate in the constitution that says we have to save the world from itself.

i cannot recall any language to that effect in the united nations charter either. nato might be a different story...

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

KN: before I discuss your good -- if hardly practical -- solution and how I'd tweak it, let me inform you about hashish. All it is is the resin and/or pollen of the marijuana plant, and the effects are basically identical. It's always been a 'luxury' item for obvious reasons, an individual plant provides much less hashish than marijuana, and it requires some effort to gather and process. (Marijuana's 'processing' is 'pick bud, let bud dry, sell bud.')

It was somewhat 'cost-effective' in the 70s, when the difference in potency could counterbalance the cost, but as the 'minimal salable potency' for commercial-grade marijuana has risen, there's been no need for hashish, and I believe it has become relatively rare in the US. (Anyone know if it is sold in 'medical marijuana' stores in CA?) And the rise has grown even more. Maybe I'm just lucky, but the current 'high-grade commercial' in NY seems to be a variety of "NY Sour Diesel" which was a luxury variety a year or so ago -- maybe not the top-level version of the variety, but certainly an acceptable one.

I do think that, once marijuana becomes legalized, there will be a return to favor for hash -- especially if tariffs are tilted to favor imported hash over imported marijuana. It's always had a 'coolness' factor, lots of people like the taste (Afghani soft black hash was the tastiest -- but that's 3 decades ago), and it will play as a 'moderate luxury' item even to people who can't afford $33,000 matresses.

But for this -- and even were your fantasy about opiate legalization to come true -- Americans should provide capital, marketing advice, security where necessary until the legal market is set up, but the business -- and most of the profits -- should stay in Afghani hands.

In fact, getting back to Afghanistan in general, the key for us to have any chance of not leaving a worse disaster is to strengthen the secular middle class -- which is traditionally the best counter-weight against increasingly radical Islam. (See Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. Only hopefully we could also work on eliminating corruption.)

[Joe]

Prup, you certainly could (on a temporary basis) buy up most of the poppy product in Afghanistan and use it for medical production of opiates while destroying the rest. It would have to be coupled with an effort to return many of the farmers to traditional Afghan crops (mainly hardwood fruit and nut trees that have roots which can survive the droughts).