Ideology

The last in my series of articles on activism just came out in Global Comment. I'm hoping to work this up into a book proposal this fall. I think it's important stuff.

Today, I write about the need for a new leftist ideology in order to fight global capitalism. We live in the time of the Last Great Ideology--Friedmanesque Capitalism. Until we create an ideological structure to systematically fight this scourge, the right will eat our lunch.

Here's a bit from the article:

The triumphalist rhetoric in the aftermath of communism’s collapse created a climate allowing capitalism to become so ingrained in our lives that we hardly recognize it as an ideology anymore. It’s become more a basic element of our life like water and food than an economic system that nations have accepted or rejected. To even mention the word “capitalism” today almost marks you as suspect or an anachronism because so few people seriously critique it today.

This is a very bad thing.

Without some kind of ideological framework to fight capitalism, the left cedes the intellectual field to conservatives. Even many young progressive bloggers and writers openly disdain ideology, preferring to focus on policy and winning elections. This allows conservative extremists to set the rhetorical and political agenda.

Terms like “tax relief,” “border security,” “the war on terror,” “illegal immigrants,” and “government waste,” are part of a successful right-wing agenda to roll back the progressive gains of the last century. The more we buy into their language and to the idea that capitalism is inherently good, but just needs some reform around the edges, the more capitalism becomes ingrained in our souls as an immovable force.

To retake the political momentum and to roll back the evils of untrammeled capitalism, we need more than to just reform tax policy to ensure some semblance of a welfare state. We need an ideological framework that rejects fundamentalist free-market capitalism in favor of a more just world. We need a new generation of intellectuals to build on the great thinkers of the past and create a new, post-Soviet socialism to fight the ravages of free market capitalism.

Floods, Dams, NGOs, and Africa

Nathalie Rothschild writes an impassioned article about NGOs and floods in Africa, claiming that aid organizations don't care about ending poverty in Africa because they oppose dams.

So why are NGOs like Survival International and International Rivers, which are spearheading the protest against Gibe III, not focusing their efforts on lobbying for investment in smart, ambitious and truly sustainable solutions to prevent the disastrous, and avoidable, effects of floods which every year displace, kill and plunge thousands into poverty? Why are they opposing large-scale development projects – like dams – that could contain the impact of both droughts and torrential downpours?

The answer is because their interest in preserving the lifestyles of ‘indigenous peoples’ really means that they do not want Ethiopia and other poor nations to modernise and have what we in the West have: industrialisation.

In the case of the anti-Gibe III campaign, NGOs say the dam will disrupt the lifestyles of tribes living along the Omo River, who depend on flood-retreat cultivation to (barely) sustain themselves. They say the dam will ‘end the [Omo] river’s natural flood cycle, on which the downstream communities have depended for growing food, fishing and grazing animals for thousands of years’. But this dependence effectively amounts to river-enslavement, with Ethiopians living at the mercy of nature rather than taming it.

The NGOs’ ostensibly humane impulse to protect ‘indigenous tribes’ in fact represents an abhorrent, paternalistic attitude to Africans, whom they treat in the same way that a zoologist might treat an exotic animal species. They regard these people as belonging to nature rather than to human society, as being part of a fragile ecosystem which should be preserved at the cost of social progress and material development.

This certainly raises very important issues. Rothschild is not all wrong--certainly there is an aspect of romanticization of pre-industrial lives in developed world-developing world relations. Aid organizations have a very mixed history in Africa that I have criticized before. As far as I can tell, they have nothing to stabilize Africa. And while it's not their job to do that per se, studies have suggested that aid organizations taking over governmental functions simply provides cover for governments to not govern. Moreover, there's the constant theme between Africa and Europe/US that whites must take care of brown people who can't do it for themselves--and you can read just about any Nick Kristof column for proof of that.

However, this topic is not nearly as simplistic as Rothschild makes it out to be. Let me just point out a few ways.

1. Protecting indigenous rights is important. States traditionally run roughshod over indigenous rights, whether in the U.S, and Australia in the late 19th century or India, Thailand, and Ethiopia today. If we value the complexity of cultures that the world has traditionally seen, don't we have a duty to learn from our past mistakes and lend assistance to indigenous peoples who are trying to maintain traditional lives and some autonomy from centralizing state authorities that openly plan to oppress them?

2. Floods do hurt people. But are dams a good solution? In the long-term, they may well not be. They will prevent the flood tomorrow. But to rely on dams for flood control in the long-term assumes a continued state and international investment in the project as well as ongoing technological development that will allow for the dam to remain safe, siltation to be removed, and the water to be used with some level of responsibility. There's been many dam projects that have ignored all of these issues, particularly in the developing world. Yes, we should be worried about protecting Ethiopians and everyone else from floods. But should that be our only concern? Dams do come down. Water will eventually overcome humans' desire to control it. And the damage when that happens will be catastrophic.

3. Long-term environmental damage. Dams provide humans much. But they also destroy ecosystems. In a world with disappearing ecosystems, shouldn't we give some thought to protecting the most valuable of them all--riparian ecosystems? Environmentalists always find themselves open to criticism for placing ecosystems in front of people.  But a healthy ecosystem also leads to a healthy human population. Rothschild talks about the need to "tame nature." Can we ever really tame nature in the long-run? Aren't we part of nature? This isn't some abstract theoretical question. It's fundamental for understanding our place in the world. At best, these dams will only temporarily stop floods--but how healthy will humans be during the lifetime of the dam.

4. Who do we listen to in Ethiopia? Does the government really represent people? If the Sudan wants to build a dam in Darfur in the name of protecting the majority of Sudanese from flood damage (I realize there's not enough water up there probably, but this is a hypothetical, so hang with me), are NGOs obligated to support this, even though the government doesn't represent the people of Darfur or Sudan at large? I find this dubious. Do the majority of Ethiopians want a dam? Possibly, were there to be a poll. Does the government want a dam in order to fund projects that would enhance their power? Absolutely. Does that mean aid organizations and western governments should rush to fund this? I don't think it follows that they should.

I'm not saying dams shouldn't be built in Ethiopia. There are arguments in their favor including providing electricity to an impoverished population, as Rothschild points out. But it's a lot more complicated and nuanced than she's presenting.

Most Prominent Politicians From Each State (X): Virginia

Virginia's most powerful politicians not surprisingly come from the early years of the republic. I was somewhat struck at how hackish their politicians were in the late 19th and much of the 20th century. Also, although Woodrow Wilson was from Virginia, his political life was entirely in New Jersey, so he's there, not here.

1. George Washington--I rank him first because of his stabilizing influence over the country in its early days. I know Washington's star has fallen a bit in recent years, but he was important for who he was, irregardless of policies he made as president. His choice not to accept a lifetime appointment alone ranks him here.

2. Thomas Jefferson--Actually a pretty bad president, but so successful in the rest of his political life and in creating American ideology.

3. James Madison--he only wrote the Federalist Papers, was Jefferson's Secretary of State, and a 2 term president.

4. John Marshall--most important Supreme Court justice in history. Really created the Supreme Court as a legitimate institution.

5. James Monroe--an important figure of early America, even if he wasn't the most memorable president.

6. John Tyler--one of our worst presidents, Tyler significantly furthered the pro-slavery cause by hitching his political hopes for the 1844 election to southern extremists. Named John C. Calhoun Secretary of State, who proceeded to declare southern slavery expansion as the foundation of U.S. foreign and domestic policy. Good times.

7. Patrick Henry--core figure of the American Revolution and its immediate aftermath. Turned quite conservative in later years and became an ally of John Adams against Jefferson and Madison. Would have been more prominent in the early republic if, a) he had accepted Washington's offer as Secretary of State in 1795 and b) he hadn't died of stomach cancer in 1799.

8. Harry Byrd, Sr.--segregationist senator from 1933-65. Dominated the Democratic Party in Virginia during the mid-twentieth century. Opposed much of the New Deal and activist government policies more broadly. Leading segregationist. Received unsolicited electoral votes from southern voters opposed to both political parties in 1960.

9. Carter Glass--Secretary of the Treasury, 1918-20; Senator, 1920-46. White supremacist who openly advocated discrimination. Most remembered today for the Glass-Stegall Act, which has received much attention from people interested in banking reform today. That's fine, but let's not allow his sensible fiscal policies to cloud the fact that even for a man of his time and place he was a hell of a racebaiter.

10. Howard Smith--Congressman from 1931-67. Also a notorious racebaiter. Most famous for proposing protecting women under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a way to undermine support for it. Because who thinks women should have equal rights.... Smith actually claimed that he was serious in supporting women's rights and he had some history here. However, I find it extremely hard to believe that he would add a women's rights clause to a bill he so vociferously opposed, and of course voted against. These were the years that Sam Rayburn dominated the House. A southerner himself, he worked to reduce Smith's power in Congress because of his racism. Yet other southern Congressmen always ensured Smith would speak for them.

Next: New York

Historical Image of the Day

Sign welcoming visitors to the Civil Rights Trail, marking the march from Selma to Montgomery that led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The issues surrounding civil rights tourism are pretty interesting. It's a good thing in many ways. It brings tourist dollars to economically depressed areas. It marks some of our most important events. It's also often controlled by the same white people who opposed civil rights in the first place. It also reinforces very specific tales about racism and the civil rights movement that both blunt the movement's ultimate goals to fight economic and quasi-legal discrimination and make it seem like this is a story of the past. Thus conservatives can construct a Martin Luther King that somehow would support gutting the social safety net and discriminating against immigrants and Muslims.

My Historical Marker on the 1921 San Gabriel River Flood

Pictured above is the historical marker I just completed, along with my graphic designer, Carlos Barron. It's an interesting story I found. In 1921, a hurricane hit the coast of Mexico and spun north into Texas. It headed up into central Texas as a tropical storm, dumping a tremendous amount of rain. And I mean tremendous. One town received around 38 inches of rain in 24 hours, which at the time was the U.S. record. The rivers flooded. About 100 people died in Williamson County, Texas. About 100 more died around the rest of the state.

Williamson County has traditionally been a pretty white place. Like most of the Texas, the power structure has remained white and conservative since Americans arrived in the area. The flood is one of the most important events in the town's history. Local historians have told the story. Sort of.

What they did was tell the story from a white perspective. They interviewed local whites about their experiences and wrote them up in books. But most of the people who died weren't white. They were Mexican migrants. Probably fleeing the Mexican Revolution, which led to the first wave of migration north from Mexico, these people worked the cotton farms east of Georgetown on the San Gabriel River. The employers rarely provided workers housing. So they set up tents or shacks along the river, where they could bathe and have a fresh water supply.

Unfortunately, camping along the river also made them susceptible to flooding. The river rose in the middle of the night and washed them away.

In researching this issue, I wanted to tell the Mexicans' story. I found a Spanish language newspaper out of San Antonio that interviewed a woman who survived the flood. She was driving with her son from San Antonio to Taylor, about 20 miles east of Georgetown. The flood washes both her and her son out of the car. She managed to cling to a tree. Her son drowned.

In creating a historical marker around this issue, it was very important to me to make it bilingual. Williamson County, like much of Texas, has seen a huge increase in Latino migrants over the past few decades. They use the park where the sign was placed. Yet their history is not told at all on the historical markers. I thought I would receive some push back from my insistence on a bilingual sign. I know that the old people behind the local historical society have shown zero interest in putting up bilingual signs in the museum for instance. And I wondered if Texas had some kind of English-only law. But no, everyone was cool with it.

So there it is.

But it almost didn't make it. Literally a week after it was put in, which was two weeks ago, the tropical storm that headed into Texas did almost the exact same thing as the 1921 storm. It literally dumped on the I-35 corridor. About 14 inches of rain fell in Georgetown. The San Gabriel River flooded. I was sure my sign would be washed away. I thought this would be the ultimate of ironies. But while the park lost about 60% of its light poles, someone the sign survived.

Historical Image of the Day

19th century log cabin, Cades Cove, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee. Cades Cove is the most popular part of the Smokies, and possibly the most crowded road in the National Park system. It's supposed to represent the ways of the mountain people and provide a sort of 19th century fantasy for visitors. It is however quite a bit of a fantasy. When the National Park Service took it over, they got rid of all the evidence that people used the valley for anything other than subsistence farming, when in fact it had been a resort community as well.

Oh South Carolina....

Oh boy.

This was the scene at the National Federation of Republican Women meeting in Charleston recently. The guy in the middle--only South Carolina Senate President Glenn McConnell.

Nothing like remembering back to ye ol'antebellum days. Complete with slaves playing washboards and dancing oh so happily. And then emancipation came and everything went to hell....

Next time someone argues that the Republican Party isn't racist, I'm going to send them this picture.

Our Immigration System--Not At All Afflicted with Racial Profiling....

The story of a Mexican-American kid who had his birth certificate with him when cops pulled him over and was forced to sign a statement saying it was a forgery and was then deported is truly disgusting.

Luis Alberto Delgado, 19, was carrying his American birth certificate, Social Security card and Texas ID when he was pulled over in a routine traffic stop on June 17, according to Houston immigration lawyer Isaias Torres, who represented him in his legal battle for repatriation.

A South Texas sheriff’s deputy who apparently believed the documents were not authentic handed Delgado over to U.S. border agents. After eight hours of questioning, Torres said, Delgado felt pressured to sign a document agreeing to voluntary removal from the country and waiving his right to a lawyer. The Border Patrol then drove Delgado to Matamoros and left him, he said.

He was finally able to return home over the weekend, Torres said.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection service said it could not comment specifically on Delgado’s case. But in a statement it said, “When an individual requests and is granted a voluntary return, they sign a notice of rights where they are admitting to being in the U.S. illegally and give up their right to a hearing in Immigration Court.”

...

“They kept saying, ‘These are not your documents. You’re lying to us. You’re going to go prison for 20 years’,” Torres said. “They basically wore him down. He’s a 19-year-old kid.”

With the resurgence of open racism in the U.S., we increasingly define citizenship by color and language more than actual, you know, citizenship.

Plus the fact that the Border Patrol has zero interest or incentive to find out whether the people they want to deport are actual citizens shows the deep institutionalized flaws within that agency.

And that this all took place in Texas surprises not at all.

Things Just Ain't What They Used To Be...

In fact, they are far safer.

The industry of parental fear and guilt makes me sick. The idea that there are rapists and molesters and kidnappers and murders all over the place ready to kidnap our children is extraordinarily antisocial and damaging to society. That we have to protect our children from even the possibility that they might fall and scrape a knee or get scratched up by blackberry nettles or that they might hit a rock and fall off their bike if they ride down the street--this is all insane.

There was a time when we needed to worry about our kids in public spaces--the 1970s and 80s. When I was growing up, there was significantly greater danger to kids. We never wore bike helmets. There was no Amber Alert. People didn't watch over kids with the same hawkish view.

I'm not exactly saying those were good times. But the overreaction is ridiculous. And as the link shows, crime rates have plummeted from their 1970s highs, a trend holding through the recession.

Delaware

Of course, the internet is abuzz with discussion of Tea Party extremist Christine O'Donnell's upset victory of Mike Castle in the Republican primary in Delaware.

People have different views on this. The most interesting debate is whether this is good for the Democrats or not. Yglesias says not really:

A lot of people I know are excited about O’Donnell’s surge since it gives Coons—who’s much more progressive than either—the best shot. My view is that that kind of partisan view is a little short-sighted. Both parties are destined to govern approximately half of the time and what matters most is the strength of progressive ideas in either party. The increasingly rigid conservatism of the GOP is a huge impediment to progressive causes and Castle’s problems reflect that.  

Jamelle Bouie agrees with this:

The Republican Party's rigid conservatism is completely inhospitable to progressive ideas, and a federal government dominated by these figures and a Republican White House is vastly more likely to start needless wars and redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top. A GOP raised on lies and mired in extremism is helpful in the short-run but dangerous for the future; liberals don't have to help moderate Republicans -- or even like them -- but they should at least appreciate their value.

Lemieux dissents:

Given that if he won Castle could be expected to vote as a teabagger when it matters, isn’t it better not only for the Democrats but for electoral accountability if an actual unapologetic teabagger runs for the seat, rather than the bait-and-switch the Republicans preferred?

Given all this, on the proposition that Democrats should be unhappy about a certain near-term advantage because of speculative long-term effects that a Castle win in the primary wouldn’t have done anything to advance anyway, I vote “no.” O’Donnell’s win is, in fact, excellent news for the Democrats.

I think the basic answer is that everyone is right here. There's no question that Castle's loss is a huge win for the Democrats. The Tea Party has killed Republican chances of picking of the Senate.

Or at least, I think they have. The reality is, no one knows what's going to happen this year. I really believe with Yglesias that the extremist takeover of the Republican Party is horrible for America. The media always presents two sides to every story. When one side is insane or extreme, it legitimizes it.

Let us review the climate change debate for a refresher on how this goes:

Reporter: Mr. Climatologist, is climate change for real?

Mr. Climatologist: Almost certainly. The vast majority of scientific evidence suggests that humans are causing a rapid change in the Earth's climate. Not a single peer-reviewed article suggests otherwise.

Reporter: Very interesting. Mr. Skeptic, what do you think about this evidence?

Mr. Skeptic: Absurd. We used to ride dinosaurs! Also, Jesus. Hey, there's some play-dough I can eat!

Reporter: You've heard both sides of the debate. What do you think?

These Tea Party ideas are presented pretty much the same. Rand Paul and Christine O'Donnell legitimize extremist ideas for the public. This is terrible for the nation in the long-term

Plus, there's always the chance that some of these people get elected. Paul is almost certainly going to win. Sharron Angle in Nevada may well do so. Delaware is neither Kentucky nor Nevada, but while O'Donnell probably loses, I wouldn't discount her ability to build a grassroots campaign and at least make it close.

Of course, as Lemieux points out, you can't predict the future with too much confidence. What seems good now may be terrible in the future. Or the other way around. And really, Castle and O'Connell would have voted the same 90% of the time anyway.

So it is a Democratic victory in Delaware. But one that I do believe has ominous overtones for the future.

Historical Image of the Day

Gone with the Wind slot machine game, circa 2010

Historical Image of the Day

Postcard celebrating the lynching of Lige Daniels, Center, Texas, 1920

The entire phenomena of lynching postcards are one of the creepiest things in American history. That you'd actually advertise the event and connect it with a specific place in a positive way is absolutely bizarre. But I guess you can sell racism as much as anything else.

Rebranding High Fructose Corn Syrup

What happens when people begin attacking your disgusting product? Just rebrand it!

That's what the American food industry is doing with high fructose corn syrup. Under attack for being terrible for you and for infecting our entire food supply, they are renaming it "corn sugar." From a corporate perspective, this makes a lot of sense. Americans don't understand where any of their farm products come from anyway. If you asked Americans where sugar came from, I'd bet less than 20% would be able to say from sugar beets. Maybe 30-40% would say sugar cane. Both are correct of course. Since sugar is not closely associated with a single plant anymore, doesn't "corn sugar" sound like the same thing.

To me, the biggest problem with HCFS isn't so much that it exists. It's that the food industry has inserted it into everything, creating a gigantic national sweet tooth in products where sugars of any kind don't need to be--peanut butter, ketchup, bread. The artificality of it is bad too, but so much of the food we eat comes from chemical labs that it's hardly worth picking on HCFS for this alone. I mean, what is a Diet Coke anyway? A giant lab experiment.

Also, HCFS tastes gross. While many of the attacks on HCFS come over issues of health and our national addiction to corn products, I think they miss a major point. The soda companies are marketing products with natural sugars in them again because they taste much much better. It started with the so-called "Mexican Coke," which is really just that HCFS hadn't been effectively pushed in Mexico. Those bottles trickled back up to the U.S. for the growing Latino population and food hipsters rediscovered the glories of this drink.

This may be a really effective marketing strategy. But I don't think marketing can entirely cover-up the problems with HCFS. It's not just a simple advertising question--it's a question of land use, health, and most importantly, taste.

Gingrich Influenced by Racist, Pro-Colonialist Worldview

Today's big uproar stems from Dinesh D'Souza and Newt Gingrich claiming Obama's unsuited to lead American foreign policy because of his "Kenyan anti-colonial" worldview. Even if this is true, and it is based upon the idea that because his father was foreign, obviously Obama believes everything his father believed, would that be a bad thing? Of course not.

But then again, Newt Gingrich is openly pro-colonialist. An embarrassment to my profession, Gingrich has a Ph.D. in history. His dissertation was a notorious screed defending Belgian conduct in the Congo.

So for Gingrich, being anti-colonialist is an actively bad thing. Such remarks are too embarrassing for even leading Republicans to endorse, though they probably agree with him behind closed doors.

Historical Image of the Day

This week's images will be of tourism in the South. This is actually a harder subject than it sounds because few people really conceive of image categories in this way.

I'm also starting to organize the week's images around a book I am reading during a given week. It makes it easier in my mind. It allows allows me to promote a few books. This week's images are inspired by Anthony J. Stanonis' edited collection, Dixie Emporium: Tourism, Foodways, and Consumer Culture in the American South, published by the University of Georgia Press in 2008. Like most edited collections, the essays are mixed, but some are quite fascinating. I read this book in preparation for future discussions of food history in my courses. The book provides relatively few of these and really the title is more than a little misleading on this. But it was interesting nonetheless. 

South of the Border, a notorious tourist trap along I-95 in South Carolina, just over the North Carolina border, circa 1970

Lions for Lambs, circa 1865

Unfortunately, Robert Redford continues to make ham-handed movies about current politics. "Lions for Lambs" looked like the worst movie ever made. I can't say I feel much better about his new film, "The Conspirator," about the hunt for people involved with John Wilkes Booth. From Ebert:

Yet a fever for revenge runs strong in the land, and Mary's rights are brushed aside. Despite a last-minute stay of execution, which is overruled by president Andrew Johnson, she is hanged. But her case resulted in enactment of strong habeas corpus guarantees being written into U. S. law. It can not have escaped Redford's attention that the prisoners at Guantanamo have been held without charge under both the Bush and Obama administrations, in apparent violation of the principles Mary Surratt essentially died to bring into being.

Ebert doesn't slam on it.  But he doesn't praise it either, so maybe he is waiting for his real review. Either way, it looks scary bad. Though with good beards. 

Kevin McCarthy, RIP

Had no idea the star of Invasion of the Body Snatchers was still alive.

Dowd

How lazy and out of ideas is Maureen Dowd?

Her column today consists of Dowd calling her sister and asking her what she thinks of Obama.

How did she (and others) hold on to their columns at major newspapers?

NCAA Top 25

Haven't done this the last couple of years, but I've decided to do my own Top 25 poll this year. I didn't do it the first couple of weeks because it's so meaningless until there's a body of work to show. Unfortunately, starting high in the rankings gives teams an advantage because many pollsters are loathe to drop someone unless they lose. It really has nothing to do with the actual games played. However, that is starting to change with more voters actually watching the games and taking this seriously.

Anyway, here we go, with notes on some teams.

1. Ohio St.--many would pick Alabama, but I believe they are the best team in the country. And they just hammered Miami. Very impressive. Pryor is my pick for the Heisman.
2. Alabama--on the other hand, Alabama looks great too. But I also think Penn St. just isn't any good.
3. Oregon--completely dominant at Tennessee, best offense in the country.
4. TCU--very tough team, but it's just hard to know what to think of them now. A win over Oregon St. is great, but how much does it tell us? Too soon to say.
5. Boise St.--I don't really want to punish them for Virginia Tech's loss to James Madison. After all, it was Boise who sucked the life out of the Hokies to the extent they couldn't even get up the energy to beat a team like JMU. But it clearly hurts their national championship hopes with only Oregon St. an interesting game ahead.
6. Oklahoma--this is why one game means nothing. They looked horrible against Utah St., just pulling out the win. Then they bludgeoned Florida St.
7. Iowa
8. Wisconsin
9. Nebraska
10. LSU
11. Arkansas
12. Michigan--Denard Robinson has been amazing. I don't think the Wolverines can really keep it up, but with Robinson the best player in the country the first two weeks, who knows how far they can go. While I have Ohio St., Iowa, and Wisconsin above the Wolverines, I remain somewhat unconvinced by the latter two.
13. Texas--the classic example of being ranked too high in an early poll. They are still #6 despite looking like crap against two inferior teams. Yet someone still has them ranked #1. That voter has obviously not watched football this year.
14. Florida--exact same comment as Texas, minus the #1 vote. Both teams have slipped some, showing that some voters are paying attention.  But neither has slipped enough. And Florida just has no running game.
15. Utah--great win over Pitt, could make a run for the national championship game. I'm serious.
16. South Carolina--nice win over Georgia. Marcus Lattimore is a sick beast.
17. Arizona--nation's most underrated team. Wouldn't be a bit surprised to see them upset Wisconsin this week.
18. Stanford
19. Houston
20. California--also underrated--watch out for the resurgent Golden Bears.
21. Miami (FL)--the only ACC team in my top 25 and they have a loss. Pathetic.
22. Auburn--I know they are ranked much higher by most, but uninspired and boring wins over Mississippi St. don't suggest much to me.
23. West Virginia--lucky to escape Marshall. The Big East sucks this year. Not as bad as the ACC though.
24. USC--have looked terrible against Hawaii and Virginia. Feel like the season is already about the come off the wheels. Yet they are 2-0.
25. Oregon St.

3 Best Games of Next Week
Very poor week ahead with few interesting matchups.

1. Iowa at Arizona. Clearly the game of the week. Will say a lot about both teams.
2. Air Force at Oklahoma. Seriously. Air Force just pounded BYU. Oklahoma has been inconsistent. Obviously the Sooners should be favored.  But I considered Air Force for this list. And I think this could be a very good game.
3. Arkansas at Georgia. Key SEC matchup. Is Arkansas really that good? Is Georgia as bad as they looked against South Carolina? This game should answer both questions. 

2010 NFL Preview-AFC West

San Diego Chargers (10-6): It pains me to say that, at least for one more year, the Chargers will take the division. It won't be a slam dunk by any stretch, because the division has improved in every team except for San Diego, who are missing two very valuable pieces. Without Marcus McNeill to protect Philip Rivers at left tackle and without Vincent Jackson for him to throw to, he's going to have a pretty hard time of it, especially with a diminished defense. They're banking big on a running game they've never seen. Ryan Matthews may be superb, but pretending they return to the LT days with Matthews is delusional.

Denver Broncos (9-7): The loss of Elvis Dumervil is devestating, but by all accounts, Robert Ayers and Jarvis Moss, both disappointing thus far in their careers, have stepped their games up considerably. That the consensus that the Broncos will be incredibly bad is really stupid and nobody has given a real explanation for why. Normally, it comes down to a general hatred for Josh McDaniels. They've improved at every position except receiver, and that's even addition by subtraction. Marshall was nothing but a distraction. The D-line is way tougher, their secondary is superb, the O-line is one of the best in the league, Kyle Orton has looked fantastic in the preseason. I see a pretty good, but not quite playoff-bound team.

Oakland Raiders (7-9): Oakland is on the way up. If they get there, I'm going to get physically sick, literally, probably for days. I've always thought Jason Campbell got a raw deal in Washington. He'll do well in Oakland, if for no other reason, because the team actually wants him there. Confidence goes a long way at that position. I think they had a sadly excellent offseason, with draft picks that don't make Al Davis look like an insane fool (though he still is, of course). If Davis is willing to keep players and coaches consistent for a couple of years, they might be closer to where they were a decade ago.

Kansas City Chiefs (5-11): The Chiefs are going to be better than their five wins make them look. Like the Raiders, they've improved in all facets. Not quite as much as Oakland, but they had farther to go anyway. Matt Cassel isn't very good, and might do better with his old job as a Bruce Campbell impersonator, but he's helped by a huge upgrade with Thomas Jones at running back, improvement on both sides of the line and, also like the Raiders, actually consistency from year to year. The only question is whether OC Charlie Weiss eats one of the players during halftime.

NFL 2010 Preview-AFC East

Miami Dolphins (11-5): So, about a month ago, Erik calls me up because he wants to make fun on Teddy Bruschi who, in Erik's unesteemed opinion, had just said two of the dumbest things he'd ever heard. He asked me two questions. The first, "Who will be the comeback player of the year?" I can't remember my answer, but Bruschi's was Wes Welker, which is indeed stupid. The second, "Who will be the most improved player this year?" I answered with Chad Henne. This was Bruschi's answer and, of course, Erik was flabbergasted. It made me laugh. With Brandon Marshall demanding the ball, a solid defense, and the perfection of the Wildcat, Henne may not be the most talented quarterback in the world, but he's going to look great.

New England Patriots (9-7): New England's goose is finally cooked. They're old and beat up, they have no running game, and their defense is suspect. Tom Brady is still a very good quarterback, one of the best, but his receivers get worse every year. How many games will Wes Welker play before destroying another knee? That they believe they can continue with Laurence Maroney and Sammy Morris at running back tells me they think they're better than they are. Nine wins isn't bad, of course, but their loser fans will be disappointed without another playoff run. They really need to think about a certain amount of rebuilding, but they are much too arrogant for that.

New York Jets (7-9): I love a team that talks smack, but if you don't back it up, you wind up like me in fantasy football: hated and bad. This is the Jets, who are a massively overrated group who pulled a real Redskins-style offseason, signing up every veteran jerk on the market. Mark Sanchez plain isn't good and, while their defense certainly is, they aren't going to be able to score any points. It'll be funny to watch them fail, since they think so highly of themselves. Will Revis get complacent now that he's been paid? It's always a danger; teams are certainly going to test him this year. I'm sure he wants them to bring it on, but these guys aren't going back to the playoffs this year, no way.

Buffalo Bills (4-12): It's easy to forget that they field a team in Buffalo, but I'm always reminded when I see their low number on the scoreboard. This is a terrible team; not quite Rams terrible, but really close. CJ Spiller has a chance to be good, but not on this team. They have some good players on defense and Lee Evans is an excellent receiver who has had a waste of a career due to the ridiculous choices the team makes at quarterback. They're going to be brutal to watch this year. Four wins might be a stretch.

2010 NFL Preview-AFC North

Baltimore Ravens (11-5): The Ravens retake control of the South this year by way of its excellent young quarterback and running back, and the hugely improved receiving corps. It may be a bunch of number twos, but they're two of the best second receivers in the game. They're both going to do very well with Flacco throwing to them. The defense is great, of course, but we always knew that. As old as some of their players are, the organization has been consistently great at replenishing their bench with young players and, when they finally get to play, they fall right into the squad's usual high-quality play.

Cincinnatti Bengals (10-6): I'm still a believer in TO, and next to Ochocinco, Carson Palmer once again has a fantastic duo to throw to. They're getting old, true, but Owens hasn't slowed down much at all, at least given how long he's been playing. They don't have a real running game, and Cedric Benson doesn't count, so they're going to get a lot of chances for big plays. There are going to be a whole lot of high-scoring affairs, but I think the defense is improved enough to keep the score down for them. They're not going to win pretty, but they get to play the Browns twice, so that pads their schedule.

Pittsburgh Steelers (7-9): The Steelers are going to be pretty bad this year, but it's not because The Rapist is out. I think they're going to win at least two with Dennis Dixon under center (Hook 'em Ducks!). When The Rapist comes back under center, he's going to be out of step with the rest of the team; it's easy to think the team has started giving up on him anyway. Plus, he'll be frustrated since he hasn't raped anybody in nearly a year. Beyond the quarterback play, the vaunted running game is a mess and, while their defense is good, they're getting pretty old. Mike Tomlin's job won't be in jeopardy, but The Rapist's might.

Cleveland Browns (5-11): Trend should feel good; five wins is quite an improvement. They're still one of the worst teams in the NFL, but they aren't the worst. Jake Delhomme is a terrible quarterback, but I guess that's forward progress from the Anderson/Quinn gambit they've been trying. Eric Mangini is a terrible coach and seems like a real asshole, but he may just look that way. Their defense is their saving grace, especially the linebackers, who I think is one of the deepest and most underrated groups in the league. Otherwise, not so much. Josh Cribbs is pretty good, but it appears that they believe they can win with only him. They can't.

Historical Image of the Day

Little Johnny Mine, Leadville, Colorado, 1941

2010 NFL Preview-AFC South

Finally, to the only conference that actually matters.

Indianapolis Colts (12-4): You really can't bet against Peyton Manning. He's the best quarterback in the league and the best quarterback of the last decade; even at his age, he has shown absolutely no sign of slowing down. Even when the defense isn't very good and even when you've never heard of any of his receivers, Manning finds a way to win. The team has no running game and it seems like they should be declining, but I've thought this for years and they win their division every time. Until they prove otherwise, I just can't pretend like they'll be bad.

Houston Texans (9-7): Since Gary Kubiak became coach of the Texans, I've rooted for their success and I've certainly overrated their chances. But now that they're being heralded as one of the big rising teams, I'm the one calling them overrated. The front seven of their defense I thought was going to be so great has consistently underperformed and their secondary is really pretty bad. Matt Schaub and Andre Johnson are both good players, but the offensive line is still a mess, making it the sack-happy affair it always is. Arian Foster is touted as a great new running back, and all because he's better than Steve Slaton. That's great, I can think of fifty backs I'd rather have than Slaton.

Jacksonville Jaguars (8-8): The Jags have a great running game, and a pretty good line, but that's about all. David Garrard doesn't make many mistakes and won't lose any games for the team, but he's not going to carry the team on his back either, especially with their receiving corps, a lackluster group for years and now fronted by Mike Sims-Walker...hot. The defense isn't much better. I like Jack Del Rio, but I think he gets fired after this season. The team hasn't been terrible under his watch, but he hasn't taken them a single step forward.

Tennessee Titans (5-11): In the up and down world of Vince Young, this is going to be another down year. Probably another benching, as well, and probably more pouting. It's probably not all his fault, though. He's constantly under pressure and he has nobody to throw to. Chris Johnson is sure nice to have, but he's going to be a huge target this year, especially with his claims of another 2000-yard season, so he'll be a little down. Jeff Fisher keeps his defense going year after year, and I've heard of nearly nobody on that side of the ball, but I expect them to still be pretty good. Too bad they're going to be forced back on the field after all those interceptions.

2010 NFL Preview-NFC West

San Francisco 49ers (10-6): How do you know you're writing about the worst division in the NFL? The best team--by far--is starting Alex Smith as their opening day quarterback. Don't get me wrong, Mike Singletary is an excellent coach (though I'd be too scared to say otherwise) and they have excellent players in Frank Gore, Vernon Davis, and Michael Crabtree, but Alex Smith? That's like telling me they're throwing Tim Couch out there; it just doesn't make sense. They aren't great defensively, but they have the best linebacker in the game in Patrick Willis; he's a great leader and that doesn't hurt. I figure they'll lose only one division game and make the playoffs, but I don't think they're quite good enough to do much past that this year.

Arizona Cardinals (7-9): Speaking of quarterbacks, how does Jeff Garcia not have a job in the NFL. The Cardinals rightfully get rid of Matt Leinart, but how can they possibly think that Derek Anderson is the answer? All Jeff Garcia has ever done is throw for a ton of yards on crappy teams and caught flack for it. He's playing in the UFL; he wants to play and he's clearly better than Anderson. I don't understand. Regardless, Larry Fitzgerald takes a huge hit with him under center and the loss of Anquan Boldin to the Ravens. He's a great receiver, but they don't have a lot to help him. I'm not sold on their running game and nobody covets their defense; the Cardinals are much closer today to what they were five years ago than in their run to the Super Bowl.

Seattle Seahawks (6-10): This has all been so hilarious. First, they hire Pete Carroll, the most abhorant coach in the Pac-10. Then, he trades actual picks for Charlie Whitehurst to back Matt Hasselback up. Finally, he stocks his team with former USC players, including Mike Williams, the former Trojan washout. I'm guessing that Carroll covered the football in frosting in practice, finally finding a way for Williams to chase after the ball. Imagine his suprise when there's no frosting on the ball during the game; I sense a huge breakdown. Seattle seems to have never realized that they began to dwindle in about 2006, and now it's too late. Seeing the Seahawks lose and seeing Pete Carroll fired in discrace are both worth waiting for. Plus, Erik will be miserable watching it, though he'll say he doesn't care. There's a lot of win in Seattle's sucking.

St. Louis Rams (2-14): Once again, the quarterback is the story of the team. Is there nobody the Rams could get that could stay the starting of Sam Bradford? Given the right circumstances, I think Bradford could be a very good NFL quarterback and, though it was fun to hang out with Erik in a bar in Jonesboro, AR, and see Bradford get injured, I'm actually a fan of his. The circumstance he's in, however, is closer to David Carr than Aaron Rogers, and that doesn't bode well for his future. It appears to have worked with Matt Stafford, so I guess we'll see. Otherwise, they have one good player on offense in Steven Jackon, who has been overworked for years, and one good player on defense in Oshiomogho Atogwe, who is irrelevant when the rest of the D sucks. They were the worst in the NFL last year and so again this year.

Historical Image of the Day

Child labor in a coal mine, Pittston, Pa, 1911

2010 NFL Preview-NFC East

God, I loathe this division....

Philadelphia Eagles (10-6): Because I seethe with hatred for every other team in the NFC East, the Eagles become my de facto favorite. Regardless how I feel, though, this is really the only team good enough in this overrated division to compete with the real contenders in the conference. Philly will take a step back with Kevin Kolb replacing Donvovan McNabb at quarterback, but his very young, very good receivers will certainly minimize the damage, and LeSean McCoy, my favorite young back in the league, is perfectly suited to this offense. Eagle fans will go crazy on sunday when they lose to Green Bay, calling for Kolb's head when he throws two picks and bemoaning the defense's four TDs allowed to Aaron Rogers, but they're still winning the division, don't worry.

New York Giants (8-8): The first of two .500 teams, the Giants get the first not because they're slightly less disgusting for me to talk about. Eli's an overrated fool, riding the coattails of his superior brother, and he doesn't have anybody to throw to. I think Brandon Jacobs will show a resurgance in power now that he's in a secondary role, but for Tom Coughlin to think that Ahmad Bradshaw is a worthwhile starter makes me think he takes roster advice from his quarterback. Their eight wins come via their defense, which I think will be ferocious after a couple of down years, if Eli doesn't tire them out with too many picks or try to teach them math.

Dallas Cowboys (8-8): What can you say about a team called a Super Bowl contender every year, even though they've one a single playoff game in over a decade, and that was last year. Not only is "Playboy" Tony Romo the most drastically over-hyped quarterback in the league today, he has to play behind a barely above average line, when they're healthy, and a poor one in the state they're in to open the season. It's laughable to say this, but they're going to sorely miss Flozelle Adams, who they jettisoned for good reason and replaced with nothing. Admittedly, I really like outside linebackers DeMarcus Ware and Anthony Spencer, but they aren't enough to overcome an average defensive line and a bad secondary. Seriously, when did the Cowboys have a safety worth a shit? Many of the Cowboy fans who can read and work the internet read this site; maybe one of them can tell me.

Washington Redskins (5-11): Forgive me if I snicker at the latest Dan Snyder moves to win a Super Bowl this year, but it's the same every year, although these annual add-ons don't always get along too well. I can't exactly argue with removing Jim Zorn from power--John Zorn could have done as well--but the Mike Shanahan insertion is suspect. The man reason for his success in Denver was the hands-off attitude of owner Pat Bowlen. Dan Snyder is more hands-on than your creepy uncle and he'll hamstring his coach's precious control. Luckily, he has his little son as his OC, knowing that he taught Kyle long ago not to talk back to his father. McNabb will work really well in his offense, though, and should put up some good numbers. Overall, however, this is an awful team. Will Dan Snyder give Shanahan the same two years he gave Zorn? I say no.

Why There Shouldn't Even BE A Debate Over the AL Cy Young Award This Year

Posnanski has it covered:

When you compare him [Sabathia] to, say, Felix Hernandez in any way except wins, he falls short. He has thrown fewer innings, given up more runs, given up more hits, has a significantly higher ERA, has walked more batters, has struck out fewer batters, has fewer complete games, does not have a shutout. Those advanced statistics that some people love and other people despise make it very clear hasn't just been better than Sabathia - he has been a lot better. Hernandez's WAR is 5.7/5.9 (Baseball Reference/Fangraphs) while Sabathia's is 4.0. Hernandez's fielding independent numbers are all markedly better than Sabathia. Hernandez has also faced better competition, not least because he has had to face the Yankees three times while Sabathia has gotten to face the Mariners three times. And those Mariners are as bad an offensive team as I can ever remember.

Yes, yes, and yes. It's ridiculous that anybody still needs to say this, but I'll say it again: wins tell us almost nothing. What little useful information we can derive from wins tells us about as much as a team's offensive abilities as it does about a pitcher's abilities. There was a time where wins were a good indicator of a pitcher, but that time is long, long past. Based on any metric, King Felix is this year's AL Cy Young winner, and it's not even close. It's the most open-and-shut case in the Cy Young in a long time.

So of course, don't be remotely surprised if and when the Cy Young voters give it to Sabathia instead.

M.R.E.'s Around the World

This is a really  interesting photo essay of what the different nations with troops in Afghanistan feed their soldiers in the field.

I was disappointed by the lack of Cheetos in the American M.R.E.--what's more American than disgusting chips with cheese-like powder on them?

The Best Friend Terrorists Have Ever Had

I've always thought Joe McCarthy was a far better agent of the Soviet Union than whoever was actually spying for them. McCarthy weakened American democracy, undermined the Voice of America, gave the U.S. a horrible international reputation, and made the nation's rhetoric about freedom look like hypocrisy. What actual agent could do more?

Similarly, I don't know who could better advance terrorist aims more than Terry Jones. Who could do more to undermine American foreign policy aims, our relationship with the Islamic world, and to expose everything we say about freedom as complete hypocrisy? No one. The proof is in the increasingly bloody pudding.

Historical Image of the Day

Farmington Mine Disaster, West Virginia, 1968

2010 NFL Preview-NFC South

Green Bay Packers (12-4): The only place I don't see as completely solid is at running back. I've never been sold on Ryan Grant, but he'll look better than his ability through the superiority of the passing attack. The organization has done a brilliant job of drafting over the past few years, building a very solid, very young squad. Aaron Rodgers is a top-5 quarterback and their defense is very tough. Green Bay is my pick for the NFC Championship.

Minnesota Vikings (10-6):The Vikings have a superior defense and some hugely talented players, but there are too many oddities for me to think they'll be a great team. Brett Favre's age; Adrian Peterson's fumbles; Percy Harvin's migraines; these are Minnesota's main offensive weapons and their offense could collapse at any given time. If any of this does hurt them, and it will, the defense is good enough to compensate and help them win games, but they're no coop of spring chickens anymore, either. Tonight's opener is the perfect test for this team in all aspects.

Detroit Lions (7-9): The post-Millen era of the Lions is in full swing, and they've continued to improve across the board. Matt Stafford comes into his second season under center with improvment in all facets. He's had more consistency, both in players and in coaching, than any Lions QB in a decade, which is obviously a big reason why. He has a potential superstar behind him in running back Jahvid Best and, of course, Megatron. This is an up-and-coming offense, for sure. Ndamukong Suh will be a monster at defensive tackle and help their entire defense tremendously. No winning season in Detroit yet, but they're at least as good as the Bears. That, however, says more about the Bears than it does the Lions.

Chicago Bears (6-10): The Bears of recent years remind me of the Dallas Cowboys: they always pick up one huge free agent and declare themselves Super Bowl bound, even while they take clear steps backward. Last year was Jay Cutler and his own brand of high-octane suck; this year, Julius Peppers comes in to delight Bears fans with whiney, lazy play and OC Mike Martz gets to help Cutler with his record-breaking season...for interceptions. Combine a quarterback who slings the ball down the field without looking with a coordinator whose philosophy is to throw the ball where the receiver isn't and you wind up with a big shiny pile of garbage. This is a team deep on its way down without ever having realized it.

Vigilantism in Mexico

A curious incident took place last month in Oaxaca. (See also here) A 17 year old kid, wasted out of his mind and probably desperate for another score, robbed a girl of her cellphone in broad daylight. He did this in one of the oldest and most stable neighborhoods of Ciudad Oaxaca, where most of the residents' families have lived for centuries. Instead of shaking their heads and watching the kid run away with the phone, residents chased him down. They then strung him upside down from a big tree, as you see above. I believe I know this very tree and the church behind it. And then they tried to figure out what to do with him. The kid was screaming, the cops came though they didn't do anything for hours, probably because they were almost as scared of the residents as the kid. Finally, they cut him down.

You never want to make too much out of a single event like this, but this incident is pretty emblematic of the increased failures of the Mexican state. Oaxaca has not suffered the same drug violence as many other parts of Mexico, but petty crime has risen significantly in the past year or so. And it's hardly surprising that residents are getting pretty sick and tired of it. Let's just quickly list how the government failed here:

1. Failed to keep kids in school
2. Failed to instill trust among its citizens in the police force
3. Failed to train its police force well enough to take charge of the situation upon arrival
4. Failed to hold crime down
5. Failed to provide any kind of options for this kid--even if he wanted to get off drugs; even if he wanted to get off drugs, treatment centers are few and far between, particularly for the poor.

It's hard to approve of vigilantism. But with the Mexican state so corrupt and incompetent, is is hardly surprising that people took the law into their own hands? Of course, they have started down a slippery slope. Will they kill the next punk they catch? Does the Mexican state, or the Oaxacan state government, have even the slightest ability to stop this from happening? Do they really even care?

Historical Image of the Day

Inside the Anaconda Mine, Butte, Montana. No date, but I'm going to guess around 1900.

The Changing Country

Despite what racist white people are organizing to stop, the growing dominance of Latinos is pretty unstoppable. Evidence? How's this for you?

Univision was the most popular network among television viewers aged 18 to 49 years old last week, the first time a Spanish-language station has beaten the English ones in this key demographic in the United States.

That's not going to happen every week of course, but the fact that it's even possible is pretty amazing.  This may seem relatively minor but it's precisely this kind of evidence that historians use to track societal changes. So it's possible that historians of the future will see last week as a key turning point in American history. We don't always realize change when it happens around us.

2010 NFL Preview-NFC South

I skipped football prognostication last year, both because I'm lazy and terrible at prognostication, but I felt like doing it again for '10. I'll start with the teams playing on the silly Thursday game, which does little but diminish Sunday's actual opening to the season. Anyway, to the NFC South.

New Orleans Saints (12-4): The only thing that keeps the Saints from contending again for the Super Bowl is overconfidence. They've spent all kinds of time on floats during the offseason; does their celebratory mood hint at satisfaction? Excluding the loss of Darren Sharper, no doubt a significant one, they're the same team of overachieving workmen. I doubt Drew Brees will put up the same kinds of numbers he did last year, but it's hard to argue that, as a whole, they aren't the team to beat.

Atlanta Falcons (9-7): I like Matt Ryan; I think he's developed into a really good quarterback. I think Mike Smith is an excellent coach who is a lot angrier than he looks like he ever could be. I don't like that they continue forward with a number one receiver and a slew of number fours. I mostly don't like that they insist on running Michael Turner five hundred times a season. Good as he is, he's not made of stone and I think we're going to see very similar numbers to last season. Combined with a vastly overrated defense, I claim nine wins for Atlanta, but it could just as easily be seven.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers (8-8): I seem to be in the vast minority of people who believe the Bucs will go a long way toward turning it around this year, but I think a lot will depend on the improved play of QB Josh Freeman, who was thrown in much to soon, but should be much more functional. If it is as it appears, Carnell "Corvair" Williams might have some legs under him once again. If that's wrong, though, the other options aren't pretty; people named Huggins and Lumpkin do not inspire confidence. I like their defense, though, and Raheem Morris was the coach I wanted in Denver last year, so I believe in them. I've always been a fan, though, except for the Gruden days, where they made me sick.

Carolina Panthers (5-11): Matt Moore is not a real starting quarterback; not in the NFL, not in the UFL, maybe in the Arena League. If he busts, as I believe he will, they're left with Jimmy Clausen, the douchiest quarterback since Philip Rivers. I hope for the best for Jonathan Stewart and, barring his ridiculous foot problems, I think he's one of the best young running backs in the league, but the team surrounding him is not very good. Their talented players are ancient and people are going to realize that Jake Delhomme wasn't the only problem in Cackalacky. People rave about their defense but, aside from John Beason, I see spares. Mostly, though, nothing good comes from Matt Moore at QB...nothing.

NFC North tomorrow, since they're playing.

Asleep at the Wheel

Deutsch Bank's decision to move its investments out of climate changing industries and into green energies has surprised many. With the lack of government leadership in the U.S., private business is a possible agent for change, though one would hardly expect it. And certainly it'd be shocking for a U.S. corporation to take the lead on something like this.

Kevin Parker, global head of the Deutsch Asset Management Decision ripped the U.S. for its head in the sand attitude toward climate change. Noting his company's lack of investment in American clean energy ($45 million out of $7 billion worldwide), Parker said:

“They’re asleep at the wheel on climate change, asleep at the wheel on job growth, asleep at the wheel on this industrial revolution taking place in the energy industry,”

Indeed, we are asleep at the wheel. And not in the good way seen and heard below. 

Historical Image of the Day

The mining boom town of Deadwood, South Dakota, 1888

How the Democratic Party Fell Apart

Joan Walsh's excellent discussion of Jefferson Cowie's new book, Stayin' Alive: The 1970s and the Last Days of the Working Class and subsequent interview with Cowie provide an enlightening discussion of the split between the New Left and the American working class that has weakened the Democratic Party for the past 30 years.

Cowie's book just came out today so I haven't read it, though I highly recommend his 2001 book Capital Moves: RCA's 70 Year Quest for Cheap Labor for a brilliant discussion of deindustrialization and globalization.

Cowie spreads plenty of blame around on the fall of the New Deal coalition, including to the AFL-CIO, to the architects of the New Deal itself who left out workplace protections for everyone who wasn't a white man, to American capitalists who moved jobs overseas just as grassroots unionists and the federal government were forcing workplace integration, and, to a lesser extent, the new identity politics intentionally alienating the white working class. Most of all, he blames AFL-CIO President George Meany and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley for refusing to support George McGovern in 1972, thus showing to the New Left that the old racist white establishment would never support them, even in a fair fight. The book sounds fantastic and I can't wait to read if (if I can ever find the time).

I do want to qualify one point from the interview.

You also explain the way the New Deal set up some of this conflict by leaving out service and agricultural workers, largely blacks and women, from a lot of  protections -- Social Security, the Wagner/labor relations act. Then, when we turn to the agenda of individual rights in the '70s, those protections get administered very separately, through the Civil Rights Act. So we created equal opportunity, but there was never an integrated approach to women as workers, or black people mainly in their economic context. The New Deal that we hail now built in that separation and segregation.
 
Definitely. I'm trying to get around this very common problem of pitting some ideal sense of class politics against identity politics, which is often the way the debate goes here. There's probably a little something to upset both sides on this. As this vibrant rights movement takes off, it really does present that zero-sum problem you were talking about. But then there are these ideas that show people were kind of aware of that moment. Like the Humphrey-Hawkins [full employment] Act. Now it just seems like crazy talk: "We can guarantee a job to everybody." But it provided a material foundation for everybody to be able to have economic rights.

If everybody's going to have equal opportunity, you are probably going to have to make sure you also expand opportunities.
 
Exactly right, and when the steel mills are closing, at the same time that blacks are getting positions in the steel mills, that's not going to do any good.

OK--but I think the racial problem is about quite a bit more than the government forcing the all-white unions to allow black people into the workplace. I agree entirely that declining economic opportunities combined with white racism and the civil rights movement's success to make whites believe that black people and a federal government they believed served black people were at the root of their problems. But even in a period of expanding opportunity, racist politics within the white working class moved union members to the Republican Party, at least on the local level.

As the exploding historical literature on conservatism's rise has shown, in cities like Detroit and Chicago during the 1950s, public housing and desegregation of schools moved white working-class people to revolt even as their union victories with the active assistance of Franklin Roosevelt's administration were fresh in their mind. Just because an activist government helped them didn't mean they wanted an activist government to help other people. Race trumped class, as it has through much of American history.

None of this contradicts Cowie's interview, but I think that even without declining economic opportunities and deindustrialization, the white working class probably still more or less abandons the Democratic Party by 1980 over the issue of race and other cultural changes associated with the New Left and identity politics. I'd call deindustrialization more the nail in the coffin than the bullet that killed the New Deal coalition.

Hit Piece

Steven Zipperstein's hit piece on the newly deceased Tony Judt in the Chronicle is unfortunate to say the least.

Zipperstein's claim that Judt did not think in a nuanced fashion about Israel because he turned against Zionism is absurd and not backed up by Judt's writings on the subject. Rather, we are again reminded here that no one can speak against the state of Israel and come away unattacked, not even one of the world's most prominent Jewish intellectuals.

And I don't care about speaking ill of the dead, but it seems somewhat inappropriate for Judt's former friend Zipperstein to publish this when Judt can no longer defend himself.

Historical Image of the Day

Hydraulic mining, Nevada County, California, 1866

Historical Image of the Day

This week's images concern the history of mining in America.

Coal mine rescue party, West Virginia, 1918

Most Prominent Politiicans From Each State (IX): New Hampshire

New Hampshire's list is very weak. Basically, it's suffered from being a very small state bordering the state with probably the most prestigious list, Massachusetts. If you created a list of political figures born in New Hampshire, it would be a lot more impressive. New Hampshire also suffers from a history of not reelecting people much. Nonetheless, here we go:

1. Franklin Pierce. One of our worst presidents, served from 1853-57

2. Levi Woodbury, Senator, Supreme Court justice, 1845-51, leading Democratic figure of the Jacksonian period. Secretary of the Navy, 1831-34, Secretary of the Treasury, 1834-41. Given that Woodbury was Secretary of the Treasury during the Panic of 1837, this probably isn't something to be too proud of. But in New Hampshire, it's as good as it gets. 

3. H. Styles Bridges, Senator, 1937-61, Senate Minority Leader, 1952-53. Reactionary Republican who thought FDR and the CIO were communists. 2 time Chairman of Appropriations Committee.

4. David Souter. Supreme Court justice, 1990-2009

5. Warren Rudman, Senator, 1980-93, best known for his leadership on economic policy.

6. Jacob Gallinger, Senator 1891-1918. Fairly well-respected Republican insider of the late Gilded Age and into the Progressive Era, but really pretty nondescript.

7. John Sununu, Sr., Governor, 1983-89; Chief of Staff for President George H.W. Bush

8. Henry Keyes, Senator, 1919-37. Did virtually nothing, but did serve longer than almost any New Hampshire Senator. 

We're going to end it here, because to go to a top 10 for New Hampshire is an exercise in just randomly picking people at this point. There probably is some governor who passed something important in the 1880s or something, but I'm no expert on New Hampshire.And I have a lot of trouble believing that Judd Gregg really belongs on this list.

Next: Virginia

Historical Image of the Day

"Duck and Cover," the classic 1951 civil defense film.

Why We Lose

My series on the state of American activism continues at Global Comment. Today, I explore the conservative movement and talk about why conservative activism is so successful. Of course, there are many reasons for this. But this is what I think is the most important:

Conservatives know how to use power. People keep asking where the Tea Parties came from. People point to their funding, their astroturf roots, their old and white demographics. All true. But people don’t seem to recognize that this movement is six decades in the making. After World War II, conservatives, disgusted by the New Deal, liberalism, and government expansion, began organizing. At first, they operated in fringe groups like the John Birch Society, railing about fluoridized water and communist spies. Most people saw them as lunatics.

Soon however, conservatives began gaining respectability. Shunning the more radical elements, they worked to take power rather than just complain. Moreover, they recognized quite clearly how to reclaim the Republican Party from the soft conservatism of Dwight Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller. In the 1950s, conservatives in Orange County, California; Texas, Atlanta, and other parts of the nation began joining local school boards to influence their children’s education. They also started volunteering for their local Republican Party committees and taking on the least desirable tasks within the party and local government. Each one of these people helped build a base within local Republican parties for a resurgent muscular conservatism that openly rejected the New Deal and social liberalism, refusing to compromise for electoral relevance.

Finding themselves newly empowered by their political activism, conservatives quickly rose up the ranks of many state parties and increasingly in the national party. In 1964, they managed to secure the Republican presidential nomination for their hero, Barry Goldwater. Lyndon Johnson crushed Goldwater and pundits declared the nascent conservative movement dead on arrival. But a mere two years later, conservatives got Ronald Reagan elected governor of California and then pushed Richard Nixon into the presidency in 1968. Building on those victories and Reagan’s enduring popularity, conservatives increased their power within the Republican Party for the next four decades. Today, the entire Republican Party is beholden to the conservative movement.

Conservatives knew how to take power and they started a successful multi-decade effort to do it. Ever since the Carter Administration of the late 1970s, progressives have found themselves as alienated from their party leaders as conservatives of the 1950s. But instead of organizing within the party, by 2000, many progressives decided to support Ralph Nader’s quixotic run for the presidency.

The Nader campaign showed progressives completely misunderstanding to how create change. Change doesn’t begin at the top; it comes from the bottom. A Nader presidency without a massive grassroots campaign to build a Green Party would have been disastrous and short-lived. Similarly, progressive hopes that Barack Obama would herald a new future completely miss that Obama lacks to power to convince Congress to pass a progressive program, even if he wanted to do so. Only the fear of an angry base can move Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln. Centrist Democrats have no reason to fear that base because we aren’t organized within the party structure.

The next time you wonder why Olympia Snowe caves to the right on major votes while Ben Nelson shows no respect to progressives, understand that the answer is sixty years in the making. We have to understand how change happens within the American political system and act upon that knowledge to transform the Democratic Party to our liking. Only then will we hold the power that conservatives do today.

Round Two

And yet another oil rig explodes off the coast of Louisiana. Supposedly, it's not producing at the present. But if it wasn't producing, why would it explode? And we didn't think the first oil rig was that big of a deal for the first week.

Good times in America.

Republicans Get the Game. Democrats Still Don't

There's a bit of a kerfuffle going around the blogosphere today after Yglesias slammed Kos' new book, American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right. I have zero interest in reading that book. It doesn't sound particularly revelatory. But then I'm probably not really the audience. However, Yglesias I think really misunderstands what is happening in American politics today.

There are scenarios in which tagging your political opponents with smears can be effective, but I don't see any evidence that the particular apocalyptic "my enemies are totalitarian madmen" strain of Birch/Beck/Goldberg conservatism has helped anyone win any elections...
.
This stuff doesn't win votes anyone because, after all, it's a form of preaching to the choir. Which is fine-the choir needs some sermons. But there's no real upside in lying to the choir. Political movements need to adapt to the actual situation, and that means having an accurate understanding of your foes. You need to see them as they actually are so that you know the right way to respond. Either underestimating or overestimating their level of viciousness and evil can lead to serious miscalculations. Which is just to say that getting this stuff right is more important than coming up with funny put-downs.

No actually. That's completely incorrect. Jay Stevens at Left in the West really nails it:

Can you think of any "crazy lies" being discussed in mainstream discourse? Obama as socialist? As Kenyan? As Muslim? Health care reform as "socialized medicine"? The Tea Party isn't racist, Obama is? Climate change is a conspiracy theory? I'm sure I could reel off a half-dozen more if I put half a brain towards the exercise. The point here isn't that these are accepted, it's that the crazy lies sow doubt and uncertainty, and suddenly we're not debating Keynesian economics and strategies to extract ourselves from economic recession, we're debating whether Obama's a Muslim - which would grossly irrelevant even if he were. Which he isn't.  

Yes. Yglesias and a lot of the other young progressive policy bloggers seem to believe that factual knowledge, rational discussion, and policy somehow matter in American elections. And I see very little evidence that this is so.

I can see why Yglesias doesn't like Markos' style--I don't either in a lot of ways. Screaming from the rooftops, painting your enemies in shades of black, making fun of the other side, taking emphasis away from policy and toward personality--all this stuff makes me want to shoot myself.

It's also what wins elections. Stevens provides tons of evidence for the truth of this--health care only matters as policy in this election in the sense that it represents foreign ideologies for people who don't understand what socialism even is. Discussions over actual racism have been replaced by Republicans screaming that Obama is a racist.

The Republican strategy since the 2008 elections has proven tremendously successful. They are going to win the House and quite possibly the Senate. Republicans understand a great deal about American politics, even if they have no ability to govern. They know that demagoguery works. They know that screaming about your opponents' lack of patriotism works. They know that fear works. They know how to use the levers of the Senate to shut down the government. They know how to employ powerful rhetoric.

The Republicans are awe-inspiring masters of politics.

What's sad is that even our best and brightest young writers, politicians, and intellectuals don't seem to understand what the Republicans instinctively know. It's not about policy. It is about a general sense of the economy, but most people have no desire to go specifically into the details. If they are doing OK, then things are probably OK. It is very much about perception, personality, and painting your opponents as evil. If you can do that, you are probably going to win.

Just like in November 2010.

Historical Image of the Day

"Plowshare: The Peaceful Atomic Atom," 1950s

Deep-Fried Beer

For some reason, I find this deeply disturbing.

Malnutrition in Honduras

A mere 72% of Hondurans suffer from malnutrition. Glad those coup leaders have done so much to make life better for their citizens.....

Ichiro!

Let's hope Frank Deford starts a trend and all major sports journalists write columns about the awesomeness of Ichiro. 

One quote in particular:

The fact is, though, that Ichiro is probably better at the task of putting a bat on a pitched ball than anyone — ever — in history.

Is this true?  It's actually quite possible. Ichiro has 2199 hits in under 10 seasons. If you include his Japanese numbers, he has 3600 professional hits. Perhaps he wouldn't have quite so many if he had played exclusively in America. But it would be pretty close. He started in the U.S. at age 27. If you assume 5 additional seasons averaging 220 hits, which is pretty reasonable and doesn't even include a cup of coffee he probably would have received a previous year or two, that would give him about 3300 hits at the age of 36. 3300 hits alone would make Ichiro 11th in major league history. He will gets 200 hits for the 10th consecutive season this year. Only Pete Rose has 10 200 hit seasons, and they weren't consecutively. If he had 3300 hits now, he'd need less than 600 to be in the top 3 all time. Ichiro almost assuredly has 600 more hits  in him.

Will Ichiro reach 3000 American hits? It's hard to say. He needs another 801 and he is 36 years old. That would mean averaging 200 hits a year into his age 40 season. I don't know if he can do that. But he is a truly remarkable athlete who has already done things no one else has. Maybe he should take a few more walks and maybe he doesn't hit for any power, but he is an amazing player for what he does do and anyone who doesn't vote for Ichiro as a 1st ballot Hall of Famer should have their voting privileges stripped.

Most Prominent Politicians From Each State (VIII): South Carolina

Oh South Carolina, have you ever elected decent politicians?

The top 10:

1. John C. Calhoun--the architect of secession. Only man to serve as Vice-President for two presidents of different political parties. Secretary of State under Tyler. One of the most evil men in American history.

2. Strom Thurmond--leader of the Dixiecrats in 1948. Arch-segregationist led the white southern charge from the Democrats to the Republicans when it became clear that the Democrats were willing to accept African-Americans as part of their coalition. Long-time senator and another of the most evil men in American history.

3. Ben Tillman--Originally a leading Populist, Tillman quickly turned to race-baiting white supremacy of the most virulent form to advance his political career. Governor of South Carolina from 1890-94 and then senator from 1894-1918. Censured by the Senate in 1902 for physically assaulting the other senator from South Carolina.

4. James Byrnes--Leading Democrat of the early and mid-20th century. Senator, governor, Supreme Court justice, and, most famously, Secretary of State from 1945-47. One of the most powerful men in American foreign policy for much of his career. Considered himself a moderate on racial issues, but still actively supported segregation while governor in the 1950s.

5. Robert Barnwell Rhett--only a senator from 1850-52, but one of the most important people in South Carolina political history because of his leadership for secession. A fireeater of the worst kind, Rhett actually resigned his Senate seat in 1852 because a South Carolina secessionist statement was not worded strongly enough for his tastes. To the right of John C. Calhoun on secession, he actively supported South Carolina secession in 1860, but found himself marginalized within the Confederate government, leading him to resign from the Confederate Congress and become an active critic of Jefferson Davis.

6. Wade Hampton--Confederate general and Redemption politician. Redemption was a term white Southerners used for those who "redeemed" them from the supposed tyranny of northern occupation and black politicians. Used massive violence and voter fraud to win the 1876 governor's election. Later a senator.

7. Jesse Jackson--We don't usually think of Jesse Jackson as from South Carolina, and of course, he could never get elected to office from that state. But in fact, Jackson grew up in South Carolina before becoming a civil rights leader and 2 time candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

8. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney--2 time Federalist presidential nominee (1804 and 1808).

9. Ernest Hollings--senator from South Carolina from 1966-2005. Although a man of limited achievements in the Senate, he remained a popular figure, running for the Democratic nomination in 1984. He even endorsed Jesse Jackson for the presidency in 1988.

10. Preston Brooks. It's not that Preston Brooks had any real achievements as a politician. He served in Congress from 1853-57. But he became a hero to the South and helped spur on the nation's collapse by walking into the Senate chamber in 1856 and beating abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts to within an inch of his life with his cane. People from around the South sent Brooks new canes to replace his broken one (he used a cane after being shot in the hip during a duel in the 1840s). Didn't do him much good though, because Brooks died from the croup in 1857. All around great guy...

Next: New Hampshire

Historical Image of the Day

"Fallout Shelter," 1950s.