[amzn_product_post]
[amzn_product_post]
[amzn_product_post]
This article –
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
I’ve been meaning to make note of something about Iraq for a while, and a story today in the LA Times provides the perfect hook:
A group of U.S. diplomats arrived in Libya three years ago to a memorable reception: a throng of cheering men and women who pressed in on the startled group “just to touch us and thank us,” recalled Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security advisor….But in three years Libya has turned into the kind of place U.S. officials most fear: a lawless land that attracts terrorists, pumps out illegal arms and drugs and destabilizes its neighbors.
….Now, as Obama considers a limited military intervention in Iraq, the Libya experience is seen by many as a cautionary tale of the unintended damage big powers can inflict when they aim for a limited involvement in an unpredictable conflict….Though they succeeded in their military effort, the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies fell short in the broader goal of putting Libya on a path toward democracy and stability. Exhausted after a decade of war and mindful of the failures in Iraq, U.S. officials didn’t want to embark on another nation-building effort in an oil-rich country that seemed to pose no threat to Western security.
But by limiting efforts to help the new Libyan government gain control over the country, critics say, the U.S. and its allies have inadvertently helped turn Libya into a higher security threat than it was before the military intervention.
The view of the critics in this piece is pretty predictable: no matter what happens in the world, their answer is “more.” And whenever military intervention fails, it’s always because we didn’t do enough.
But I don’t think Obama believes this anymore. He mounted a surge in Afghanistan, and it’s pretty plain that it’s accomplished very little in the way of prompting reconciliation with the Taliban or setting the stage for genuine peace. Even lasting stability seems unlikely at this point. That experience made him reluctant to intervene in Libya, but he eventually got talked into it and within a couple of years that turned to shit too. Next up was Syria, and this time his reluctance was much more acute. There would be some minor steps to arm the anti-Assad rebels, but that was it. There was a brief moment when he considered upping our involvement over Syria’s use of chemical weapons, but then he backed off via the expedient of asking for congressional approval. Congress, as Obama probably suspected from the start, was unwilling to do more than whine. When it came time to actually voting for the kind of action they kept demanding, they refused.
By now, I suspect that Obama’s reluctance to support military intervention overseas is bone deep. The saber rattlers and jingoists will never change, but he never really cared about them. More recently, though, I think he’s had the same epiphany that JFK had at one time: the mainstream national security establishment—in the Pentagon, in Congress, in the CIA, and in the think tanks—simply can’t be trusted. Their words are more measured, but in the end they aren’t much different from the perma-hawks. They always want more, and deep in their hearts the only thing they really respect is military force. In the end, they’ll always push for it, and they’ll always insist that this time it will work.
But I don’t think Obama believes that anymore, and I think he’s far more willing to stand up to establishment pressure these days. This is why I’m not too worried about the 300 advisors he’s sent to Iraq. A few years ago, this might very well have been the start of a Vietnam-like slippery slope into a serious recommitment of forces. Today, I doubt it. Obama will provide some limited support, but he simply won’t be badgered into doing more. Deep in his heart, he now understands that Iraq’s problem is fundamentally political. Until there’s some chance of forging a genuine political consensus, American troops just can’t accomplish much.
Excerpt from –
President Obama Has Finally Learned the Limits of American Military Power
Mother Jones
LA Times columnist Steve Lopez thinks it’s long past time for everyone to figure out a way to end the Dodgers TV blackout in Southern California:
This all began in 2012 when the Guggenheim Group, or whatever they call themselves, paid too much money — about $2 billion — to buy the Dodgers from the hated Frank McCourt….The new owners then managed to dupe Time Warner Cable into spending an even more obscene amount — $8.4 billion — for the rights to broadcast the games on SportsNet LA.
….They figure they’ll get all of it back from you and me by raising the price of tickets and hot dogs and the fees for getting the games on TV….But in the case of the Dodgers, there was a snag along the way. DirecTV and other companies didn’t like Time Warner’s asking price for the right to carry the games, and they told the cable giant to stuff it. So the standoff continues, with half the season gone and no relief in sight.
Actually, I don’t think this is quite right. It’s not the asking price per se that cable companies don’t like, it’s the fact that Time-Warner is demanding that their spiffy new all-Dodgers channel be added to the basic cable menu. Other broadcasters aren’t willing to do this. If Time-Warner wants to set a carriage fee of $5 or $10 or whatever, that’s OK as long as it’s only being paid by people who actually want to watch the Dodgers. It’s not OK if every single subscriber has to pay for it whether they like it or not. At that point, it basically becomes a baseball tax on every TV viewer in Southern California.
Of course, this is just another way of saying what Lopez said: Everyone involved in this fiasco has overpaid. Time-Warner is demanding that their Dodgers channel be added to basic cable because they know they can never justify their purchase price if they can only get subscription revenue from the one-half or one-third of all households who actually care about the Dodgers. So they’re holding out for the tax.
I’d like to see the Dodgers on TV, but I hope everyone holds out forever anyway. It’s time for a revolt against the absurd spiral in prices for sports teams, and maybe historians will eventually point to this as the straw that finally broke the sports bubble. But that all depends on how long everyone can hold out.
Continue at source:
TV Strike Against Dodgers May be the Straw That Breaks the Sports Bubble
Mother Jones
For the love of God, can everyone please stop chattering about whether Hillary Clinton’s latest minuscule miscue is going to be a huge problem for her if she runs for president? Is there truly nothing else to write about?
The correct answer is: no, it will not be a problem. You know why? Because it’s June 2014. The election is scheduled for November 2016. That’s it.
Now can we all move on? I think I’ve only read about 20 explainers today on the path forward for the US at the World Cup. That’s probably not enough, so how about writing a couple dozen more?
Read more:
Mother Jones
Atrios makes a point today that’s been on my mind as well. So instead of writing it myself, I’ll just let him say it:
I think more people need to make the point regularly (even Krgthulu!) that the lack of inflation risks isn’t simply because we don’t have any actual inflation, it’s because if there’s one thing the major central banks know how to do — and are biased in favor of doing — is killing inflation. If we do wake up and discover that we’ve had sustained inflation at, say, the unimaginable level of 3% for several months, ushering in the Zombie Apocalypse, our great and glorious central banks will actually step on the brakes. Genuine inflation risk isn’t about a few months of too high inflation (which we should have but that’s another discussion), it’s about “irresponsible” central banks that will keep stepping on the gas even as hyperinflation is destroying the world. But that isn’t going to happen and no one with half a brain really believes it’s going to happen. Are those who fret about inflation evil or stupid? I have no idea, but…
In addition, I’d expand a bit on his aside that a few months of high inflation would be a good thing. That’s true, and it’s the primary reason we shouldn’t let inflation fears overwhelm us. If the CPI rises by 4 or 5 percent for a few months, that’s not a problem. It’s happened before, and then reverted back to the mean. Even a year wouldn’t be a problem. In fact, it would probably be helpful since it would implicitly reduce real interest rates and act as a spur to the economy. And if inflation stays at an elevated level for more than a year? Then Atrios is right: if there’s one thing the Fed knows how to do, it’s kill inflation. There’s a ton of controversy over whether and how the Fed can influence other things (growth, employment, strength of the dollar, etc.), but there’s no question about its ability to curb inflation if it wants to. This is something that left and right both agree about.
So yes: we should tolerate higher inflation for a while. With the economy still as weak as it is, there’s a lot of potential upside and very little potential downside.
See original:
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Unless you’re down in Rio watching the World Cup, tomorrow marks the beginning of summer. And you know what that means: lots of snoozing in the sunshine for Domino. Yesterday she got a head start, seeking out sunny spots in the garden that are free from the evil mockingbirds. Not that she really cares about them. They can mock away and she just yawns. I think they’ve even given up their dive-bombing routine since Domino so obviously poses no threat to their lifestyle. Mankind may have fallen centuries ago, but here at Casa Drum the critters live in a state of prelapsarian laziness.
Read more:
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Brian Beutler thinks Republicans are likely to force yet another government shutdown, this time over the EPA’s proposed restriction on coal-fired power plants. But unlike the last shutdown, which came last September because it literally seemed like their last chance to prevent Obamacare from taking effect, they have more leeway this time around:
I think history and reason both suggest they will not shut down the government before the election—but that their vehement interest in emitting as much carbon pollution as possible, combined with the likelihood that they’ll win several Senate seats in November, presages a dramatic confrontation between Republicans Congress and the White House either right after the election or early next Congress.
….The crucial difference between last September and the coming one is that Republicans (particularly the hardline/opportunist faction) were staring down the imminent launch of the Affordable Care Act on October 1, 2013….The EPA rule is nothing like that. Or, at least, it isn’t there yet. If Republicans cave now, or simply punt a confrontation over it until after the election, they’ll have sacrificed nothing other than the opportunity to pants themselves in front of God and everyone a month before the election. And if they win a bunch of seats in November, their hands will be strengthened when they actually do go to the mattresses during this year’s lame duck session of Congress or in early 2015.
This makes perfect sense. That doesn’t mean Republicans will do it this way, of course, since common sense has been in short supply in the GOP caucus lately. Still, the recent election of relatively non-insane folks to the House leadership suggests just enough adult presence to keep the yahoos in line and the government open at least through November. After that, it’s anyone’s guess. If they’re really going to do it, though, it might be best to wait until late next year so they can force all their presidential candidates to weigh in. That should do maximum damage to the GOP brand, which seems to be their real goal here.
More:
Libros
