Informed Comment

This world
that was our home
for a brief spell
never brought us anything
but pain and grief;
its a shame that not one of our problems
was ever solved.
We depart
with a thousand regrets
in our hearts.

For the life and thought of the Iranian humanist, Omar Khayyam, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry.

Translated by Juan Cole from this text:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Thomas Frank writes at Tomdispatch

“Pity the Quarter-Billionaire
Take a Ride on the RINO in 2012
By Thomas Frank

Dear Tea Party Movement,

For the last few months, the world has been fascinated by your frenzied search for a presidential candidate who is not Mitt Romney. We know that you find the man inauthentic and that you have buoyed up a string of anti-Mitts in the Iowa polling — Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich — buffoons all, preposterous figures whom you have rightfully changed your minds about as soon as you got to know them.

It was quite a spectacle, your quest for the non-Romney — and I think we all know why you undertook it. In ways that matter, Romney is clearly a problem for you. His views on abortion, for example, change with the winds. Ditto, gay rights. He designed the Massachusetts health insurance system that was the model for Obamacare. And he’s even said that he approved of the TARP bank bailout, the abomination that ignited the Tea Party uprising in the first place.

Grievous offenses all, I have no doubt. Still, my advice to you idealists of the right is this: get over it. Not for sell-out reasons like: Romney has the best chance of beating Obama. No. You should get behind the charging Massachusetts RINO (your favorite term for a Republican-In-Name-Only sellout type) because, in a certain paradoxical way, he may turn out to be the truest of all the candidates to the spirit of your movement.

After all, given everything you represent, why wouldn’t you line up behind this quarter-billionaire who’s calling for just a little human love and sympathy for billionaires?  I’m sure you already understand me perfectly well, but just to be certain, let me make the case.

The Gimme Candidate of 2012

Start with those issues where Romney’s positions so offend the sensibilities of you Robespierre Republicans. First, of course, the social issues.  If nothing else, you in the Tea Party movement have spent the last three years teaching Americans that they no longer matter — not when we’re supposedly in a battle for the very soul of capitalism.

And here comes Mitt Romney, the soul of American capitalism in the flesh. Look back over his career as a predator drone at Bain Capital: Isn’t it the exact sort of background you always insist politicians ought to have? Isn’t it the sort of titanic enterprise for which you lust, as you wave your copy of Atlas Shrugged in the air?

You accuse the former Massachusetts governor of opportunism, but from where I stand, the bad faith is all on your side. What offends you about Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare plan, for example, isn’t that it crushes human liberty, but that it provided the model for President Obama’s own healthcare overhaul, which you spent the last two years decrying as the deed of a power-grabbing socialist.

If the public ever learns about the Republican provenance of Obamacare — and if Romney is the candidate, they most certainly will — it will become obvious that your movement was not telling the truth about all that Kenyan Stalinist death-panel stuff. It is indeed a moment to fear, that day when the nation finds out that you were, ahem, exaggerating in your bullhorn pronouncements about the communist in the White House.  Still, if the Tea Party movement is all about truth-telling and straight shooting, then you need to face it like a patriot.

And yes, Mitt Romney has also said that the bank bailouts of 2008-2009 were necessary, while you regard them as a mortal sin against free-market principles. (To his credit though, at least in your eyes, he was also a total hardliner about the auto industry bailouts, displaying the pointless meanness you seem to admire in nearly any other politician.) In truth, though, the candidate’s only offense on the bailout question was his candor. He merely admitted what should be obvious to any billionaire from a study of bank history: that conservatives have no problem doling out, or grabbing for, government money when the chips are down.

After all, President Herbert Hoover himself distributed bank bailouts in the early years of the Great Depression. Calvin Coolidge’s vice president, Charles Dawes, helped out in Hoover’s bailout operation, later changing hats and grabbing a big slice of the bailout pie for his own bank. Ronald Reagan’s administration rescued Continental Illinois from what was then the largest bank failure in our history.

Citibank’s market-worshiping CEO Walter Wriston begged for (and of course received) the assistance of big government when Citi needed it — after making loans to the troubled Penn Central Railroad. And don’t forget, every single one of you is guilty of taking a government bailout any time you make a withdrawal from a bank that’s been rescued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

The reason they — I mean, you — do these things should be as obvious as it is simple: “free market” has always been a high-minded way of saying “gimme,” and when the heat rises, the “market” is invariably replaced by more direct methods, like demanding bailouts from the government you hate. Banks get bailouts for the simple reason that they want bailouts and have the power to insist on them — the same circumstances that got them deregulated in wave after wave in the Eighties, Nineties, and Aughts.

In this sense, Romney, who is loud and proud when it comes to the need for further deregulation, has actually been more consistent than you. He’s the gimme candidate of 2012 and so he should really be your guy.

Promethean Job Creators and Heroes of Venture Capital

You say Romney is an unprincipled faker. Fair enough — he is. He’s so plastic he’s almost animatronic. But have you looked in the mirror recently? Aren’t you the ones who fall for it every time Fox News wheels out some Washington hack to confuse this or that corporate issue with the sacred cause of freedom or states rights or man’s inalienable right to mine uranium in his backyard? Aren’t you the ones who thought that Glenn Beck’s tears were markers of emotional sincerity? And for Pete’s sake, your populist Tea Party movement was actually launched from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade!…”

Read the whole thing

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

At dawn a shout
    awoke us in
     that watering hole…
you crazed
        carousing
            drunk!
Get up and grab that bottle
   let’s finish what we started
            before fate starts to finish us

(Khayyam uses a lot of bawdy language, which embarrassed the Victorians. I think it sounds contemporary, like a raw rock song, and don’t think it should be covered up with elevated diction. Wine is a central metaphor for Khayyam. It probably means imbibing the meaning of life. Some have interpreted him as a libertine, and there is no doubt he was a humanist who advised people to enjoy life. Others make him a Sufi mystic and see wine as a symbol of intoxication with God. If wine just meant literally either the good life or divine intoxication, however, then why suggest his drinking companions wake up from their stupor just to drink more? They are missing out on something more than being drunk, whatever “drunk” means.)

For the life and thought of the Iranian humanist, Omar Khayyam, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

The Muslim Brotherhood received a little over a third of the votes in the third round of elections for the lower house of parliament. Since the fundamentealist Nur (Light) Party, backed by the Salafis, also did well, Muslim religious parties will have a majority in the new parliament.

There are four reasons for which this victory of the Egyptian equivalent of the Tea Party does not necessarily imply that Egypt is turning into another Iran.

1) The Brotherhood is much more moderate than the Salafis and probably will not seek a legislative coalition with the latter. This skittishness about the Salafis derives both from a desire not to be tarred by the brush of religious intolerance and by the difference in the two traditions (the Muslim Brotherhood is much less hostile to traditional Egyptian Muslim practices such as attendance at saints’ shrines or Sufi spirituality). Therefore, the Muslim Brotherhood is saying that it prefers to partner with parties such as the secular Wafd in forming a governing majority rather than with the Salafis. The Wafd has many Coptic Christian supporters. A Brotherhood-Wafd alliance would resemble the government in Tunisia.

2. Power still resides in the presidency in Egypt. Until a new president is elected, the officer corps says it fulfills that function.

3. The ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is under no obligation to appoint a prime minister from the largest party in parliament. SCAF has indicated that it will retain Prime Minister Ganzouri, a secularist, as prime minister, regardless of the outcome of the elections. Thus, unlike in Europe, where the parliamentary majority chooses the prime minister, in Egypt there can be a disconnect between the PM and the parliament’s majority.

4. The military will appoint 80 of the 100 members of the constituent assembly that will draft the new constitution. That the Brotherhood and its allies will have a majority in parliament is irrelevant to the draft.

The ameliorating factors in Egyptian politics that forestall a Muslim Brotherhood majority from ruling high-handedly may not last very long. The Brotherhood now has a popular mandate, after all. And, they are anti-democratic in giving so much power to unelected officers. But until SCAF is sent back to the barracks, assuming that can happen, they do prevent the Brotherhood from instituting a theocracy.

Posted in Uncategorized | 32 Comments