Will’s review of Drift > Likes and Comments
218 likes · Like
Excellent review, Will!
Thanks, Jim. While I have some issues with the book, I regard Rachel as a goddess.
You opine very effectively, Will. Sounds like Maddow's account is unbiased and well-reasoned (which isn't the same as saying "fair and balanced"). This is such an important issue, but it seems to get less attention than it deserves. I suspect that the drifting nature of the forces behind it are part of the reason, as you've said. The fact that neither side can claim the moral high ground, at least not entirely, must have something to do with it, too.
It is the nature of presidents to want to rule like kings, I believe, so there seems a natural pull of power toward the oval office. When there is a Congress of a different party there might be resistance to the pull, but when one party controls the three branches, utilizing unitary, and Borg-like discipline, then whatever Lola wants...
Also, the growth of the MI-Complex has generated massive vested interest in keeping things as they are, and even growing. How many Senators and Representatives might be willing to stand up to the force of well-funded military contractors? and their lackeys in media? I would not expect to see many stories in, say, Fox News, about bloat, corruption and the general supersizing of the MI-complex.
Will wrote: "Thanks, Jim. While I have some issues with the book, I regard Rachel as a goddess."
Rachel is seriously awesome in my regard, too. A major-league intellect who does her homework and sees the big picture.
How or whether this gets turned around is a big chunk of the problem we have been discussing. I will make a wild guess: if the U.S. does avoid a fiscal collapse (big if), it will certainly involve a hard look at what we are getting for our money in the midst of the Drift.
Wild guess #2: that hard look will take place if and only if the Ryan budget gets really close scrutiny, from the citizens who will be directly affected. If so, the word 'tradeoff' will be in frequent use. And neither of those hard looks will get much coverage on Fox News.
It is amazing that so many of the people, who would be devastated by a Ryan-budget blitzkrieg on working people, have been convinced, What's-the-matter-with-Kansas style, to vote against their own interests. I know a few of these folks personally and it drives me nuts. Are people really that stupid, or is it just inherent human meanness that is so easily played by right-wing appeals to fear? In a larger picture, it seems to me that nation-states are in the process of being reduced in significance relative to transnational corporations, and attacks by the right are not so much about making our country better as making our actual nation-hood irrelevant. In that way I see Ryan and many of his compatriots not so much as patriots arguing over the direction of the nation but as a fifth column intent on undermining the very foundations of one of the few entities that can interfere with the wishes of his true bosses. This is not to imply that this is a conscious, organized plot with a contemporary Ernst Stavro Blofeld stroking his white cat while overseeing a planned world domination, but ultimately things are working out as if that were the case.
Ryan's budget got a pretty chilly reception the first time. In an election year I would expect it to figure largely in policy debates. No, Fox will never really tell its viewers what the plan would do to them, but maybe enough information about it will seep through in other major outlets.
Somehow the tradeoffs that are discussed almost never impact the wealthy in a meaningful way. I am pessimistic about the likelihood of real change as long as we have a Supreme Court that tilts so heavily toward the corporate and against the individual, and as long as candidates for office have to kowtow to monied interests in order to finance their campaigns.
Will wrote: "Somehow the tradeoffs that are discussed almost never impact the wealthy in a meaningful way. I am pessimistic about the likelihood of real change as long as we have a Supreme Court that tilts so heavily toward the corporate and against the individual, and as long as candidates for office have to kowtow to monied interests in order to finance their campaigns."
Those are all very good points, Will. Campaign finance is at the heart of the problem, and the SuperPACs, along with 5 votes on the Supreme Court, are huge factors in that problem and a lot of others.
But I do think that you will see an effective counterattack from many sources, at least in terms of putting accurate information out there that people can see. Rachel Maddow is a very important example, but there are many others. The financing for a lot of these efforts is by small contributors, and a lot of the effects are from online petitions.
What the majority will understand in the upcoming elections is very much up for grabs, in my opinion. I just keep making small donations and signing online petitions, and putting my two cents in on discussions like this one.
It may not work. But a lot of ordinary people will be financially devastated if the Ryan budget becomes law, and in the end it is really up to the voters to see what is in their interests. If they look at their paychecks and see what they have been paying for Medicare and Social Security, and understand the math about how these programs can be protected, it shouldn't be that hard.
I think you might be giving people too much credit. The right has shown that using fear and screaming "socialist" and "national Security" and railing against immigrants that they can pull effective baits and switches most of the time. What's the matter with Kansas is still the matter. People will vote against their own economic self-interest when the right appeals to their darkest nature.
I agree with the hopefulness you express re petitioning. I too spend a portion of each day signing on to many. I agree that it can have an impact. I am not sure if that impact will be enough. But I take heart from your confidence. I just wish I felt as hopeful as you do.
I certainly can't see the future, and I agree with all that you are saying about the power of fear, and the way it is used. I am powerfully impressed by Thomas Frank's books, and The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule is at least as scary (to me) as What's the Matter with Kansas.
But there is an ebb and flow to every tide, and the question I am looking at is which way the tide will go next. The feel that I get is quite different from 2010, and the House majority has a pathetically poor record to defend. There is a lot of fragmentation on the right at the moment. And then there is the war on women...
I see logical steps to take, and it seems clear that we are both taking them. It may go very badly from here, but the best approach for me is to stay positive and keep moving.
The only cure for bad thinking is better thinking. Keep writing great reviews like this one! Rachel Maddow is promoting better thinking, and so are you. :)
You are very kind, Jim. I hope you are right about the pendulum. I do take your point about fragmentation, and the war on women, but it seems to me that, while they do not get away with all their craziness, the fact that they are even proposing things like the Arizona law that declares pregnancy to begin with the end of a woman's last period is something that is new. The crazies are not afraid to go on the public record with their insanity. They used to keep those conversations in their bunkers. Still, we keep signing the petitions and occasionally win a battle. It may be madness to keep on when the world appears to be heading in another direction, but if this be madness...
On the other hand, I just came across a piece from the NY Times about some unpleasantness in Europe that should give everyone the shivers, Round Up the Usual Scapegoats, by Frank Bruni. It does give one the feeling that it might be a good time to begin stocking up on small arms.
Will wrote: "It may be madness to keep on when the world appears to be heading in another direction, but if this be madness..."
It does get a little comical when people who think the earth is 6,000 years old start using scientific arguments to promote their agenda...
But a lot of women are paying attention to these initiatives, and they do (still) have the right to vote. It is reasonable to think that their votes will reflect a certain resentment about these attacks on their rights, but we shall see.. Most of the women that I talk to are pretty angry about what they are seeing, but of course there are two sides to every issue.
I don't think it is ever madness to follow most-good, least-harm principles. There are, of course, honest differences of opinion about what those principles should be. I accept that.
But I also believe that a lot of these issues are generational. Most of the students I have worked with, over the years, are not amused by any of these developments. They are not changing their views as they get older, and they will be around when the others are gone.
So my advice is to hang in there, and do what you think is right. I want to have some respect for the person I see in the mirror. The best way to do that is to think about what I believe, and why, and then stick to my convictions.
Hi Will
One book I read The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade discussed how the ratio of army personnel to contractors in the field has increased dramatically over the years. In World War II there were 7 soldiers per one contractor. It was a little less during Vietnam, but in Iraq/Afghanistan it was almost even! I find this shocking when the government starts to outsource it's military personnel. It would, in my mind, start to effect who is really running the war - and how a war is being fought. I wonder if this was discussed in the book?
You also mentioned the National Guard. I wonder if they are being recruited for overseas service? My understanding of these guys is that they are more like part-time soldiers - hardly ready for vigorous combat in a terrain like Afghanistan.
Mikey B. wrote: "Hi Will
One book I read The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade discussed how the ratio of army personnel to contractors in the field has increased dramatically over the years. In World War..."
The Feinstein book looks interesting.
In Chapter 7 of Drift, "Doing More with Less (Hassle)" Rachel does indeed look into the increase in contracting relative to military personnel, specifically LOGCAP (Logistics Civilian Application Program).
I seriously doubt that National Guard recruitment uses foreign combat as a draw. The NG and the reserves are used to make up the difference between military personnel needs and army staffing levels. One method of not reinstituting an unpopular draft.
Rachel Maddow used to blow me away night after night with her innovating way of presenting news. Her mind I imagine is like New York lit up at night all the time. Insightful and intelligent review WB. Smart women are just so damn sexy.
just re-read this review. it is SO GOOD. keep em coming. :)
Will wrote: "Thanks, E. One a week, need it or not."
lucky us!
I am a Maddow fan, so I expected to like this book, but it was even better than I thought it would be. I do agree, however, that there was much more of the war history of this country that could have been covered. There are a lot of other topics that I would like her to write about as well. Perhaps she will give us some more books. I hope.
Thanks, Christy. Rachel is also an Army brat.
I hope she writes more too, Jenny.
I could even understand the initial invasion of Afghanistan, as they had been harboring Bin Laden. But to have remained so long is definitely problematic.
Amazing review Will! Will surely read that book.
sounds fascinating! thanks for the great review!
Don't worry, the earth is about to kill us all off for our arrogance. Soon the earth will be free of humans and their wars and insanities. In 100,000 years, a tiny amount of time, the earth will be beautiful again with only the barest hint of the stupidity of man.
Bhavya Govil wrote: "Amazing review Will! Will surely read that book."
Thanks, BG
Marie wrote: "sounds fascinating! thanks for the great review!"
Thanks, Marie
William wrote: "Don't worry, the earth is about to kill us all off for our arrogance. Soon the earth will be free of humans and their wars and insanities. In 100,000 years, a tiny amount of time, the earth will be..."
Cheery. I imagine a trace or two will remain.
This is a great review! Thanks for sharing it. I've put this on on my to read list.
Thanks, Scott. It's a really smart book.
Thanks, E. Rachel is the real deal. Her serious analysis makes an incredibly important and always-relevant point, explaining a lot about how the USA conducts foreign policy by kinetic means.
Soldiers are the grease of the military industrial complex. Wars are designed to destroy the equipment, requiring the production of ever more. The citizens are taxed maximally to fund production. The politicians provide the illusion of democracy. And the super-rich run the whole show.
- me
We are finding out some of the limits of democracy. It will be interesting to see if anything can be done to improve things.
Seems like a timely book offering a lot of insights into the business of war. Great Review. I hope to read this soon.
Thanks Will. Reading your review I immediately thought of Trump accusing the deep state and US military leaders of pushing the forever wars for the sake of their own profit, while boasting that he saved Crown Prince bin Salman of Saudi Arabia in order to protect one of the biggest arms deals in history. But aside from noting hypocrisy, do you figure that the psychological sense of what threats we need guard against is shifting? Could the enormous demand for collective defense shift and focus much more on environmental threats?
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jim
(new)
Apr 24, 2012 04:11AM
Excellent review, Will!
reply
|
flag
Thanks, Jim. While I have some issues with the book, I regard Rachel as a goddess.
You opine very effectively, Will. Sounds like Maddow's account is unbiased and well-reasoned (which isn't the same as saying "fair and balanced"). This is such an important issue, but it seems to get less attention than it deserves. I suspect that the drifting nature of the forces behind it are part of the reason, as you've said. The fact that neither side can claim the moral high ground, at least not entirely, must have something to do with it, too.
It is the nature of presidents to want to rule like kings, I believe, so there seems a natural pull of power toward the oval office. When there is a Congress of a different party there might be resistance to the pull, but when one party controls the three branches, utilizing unitary, and Borg-like discipline, then whatever Lola wants... Also, the growth of the MI-Complex has generated massive vested interest in keeping things as they are, and even growing. How many Senators and Representatives might be willing to stand up to the force of well-funded military contractors? and their lackeys in media? I would not expect to see many stories in, say, Fox News, about bloat, corruption and the general supersizing of the MI-complex.
Will wrote: "Thanks, Jim. While I have some issues with the book, I regard Rachel as a goddess."Rachel is seriously awesome in my regard, too. A major-league intellect who does her homework and sees the big picture.
How or whether this gets turned around is a big chunk of the problem we have been discussing. I will make a wild guess: if the U.S. does avoid a fiscal collapse (big if), it will certainly involve a hard look at what we are getting for our money in the midst of the Drift.
Wild guess #2: that hard look will take place if and only if the Ryan budget gets really close scrutiny, from the citizens who will be directly affected. If so, the word 'tradeoff' will be in frequent use. And neither of those hard looks will get much coverage on Fox News.
It is amazing that so many of the people, who would be devastated by a Ryan-budget blitzkrieg on working people, have been convinced, What's-the-matter-with-Kansas style, to vote against their own interests. I know a few of these folks personally and it drives me nuts. Are people really that stupid, or is it just inherent human meanness that is so easily played by right-wing appeals to fear? In a larger picture, it seems to me that nation-states are in the process of being reduced in significance relative to transnational corporations, and attacks by the right are not so much about making our country better as making our actual nation-hood irrelevant. In that way I see Ryan and many of his compatriots not so much as patriots arguing over the direction of the nation but as a fifth column intent on undermining the very foundations of one of the few entities that can interfere with the wishes of his true bosses. This is not to imply that this is a conscious, organized plot with a contemporary Ernst Stavro Blofeld stroking his white cat while overseeing a planned world domination, but ultimately things are working out as if that were the case. Ryan's budget got a pretty chilly reception the first time. In an election year I would expect it to figure largely in policy debates. No, Fox will never really tell its viewers what the plan would do to them, but maybe enough information about it will seep through in other major outlets.
Somehow the tradeoffs that are discussed almost never impact the wealthy in a meaningful way. I am pessimistic about the likelihood of real change as long as we have a Supreme Court that tilts so heavily toward the corporate and against the individual, and as long as candidates for office have to kowtow to monied interests in order to finance their campaigns.
Will wrote: "Somehow the tradeoffs that are discussed almost never impact the wealthy in a meaningful way. I am pessimistic about the likelihood of real change as long as we have a Supreme Court that tilts so heavily toward the corporate and against the individual, and as long as candidates for office have to kowtow to monied interests in order to finance their campaigns."Those are all very good points, Will. Campaign finance is at the heart of the problem, and the SuperPACs, along with 5 votes on the Supreme Court, are huge factors in that problem and a lot of others.
But I do think that you will see an effective counterattack from many sources, at least in terms of putting accurate information out there that people can see. Rachel Maddow is a very important example, but there are many others. The financing for a lot of these efforts is by small contributors, and a lot of the effects are from online petitions.
What the majority will understand in the upcoming elections is very much up for grabs, in my opinion. I just keep making small donations and signing online petitions, and putting my two cents in on discussions like this one.
It may not work. But a lot of ordinary people will be financially devastated if the Ryan budget becomes law, and in the end it is really up to the voters to see what is in their interests. If they look at their paychecks and see what they have been paying for Medicare and Social Security, and understand the math about how these programs can be protected, it shouldn't be that hard.
I think you might be giving people too much credit. The right has shown that using fear and screaming "socialist" and "national Security" and railing against immigrants that they can pull effective baits and switches most of the time. What's the matter with Kansas is still the matter. People will vote against their own economic self-interest when the right appeals to their darkest nature.I agree with the hopefulness you express re petitioning. I too spend a portion of each day signing on to many. I agree that it can have an impact. I am not sure if that impact will be enough. But I take heart from your confidence. I just wish I felt as hopeful as you do.
I certainly can't see the future, and I agree with all that you are saying about the power of fear, and the way it is used. I am powerfully impressed by Thomas Frank's books, and The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule is at least as scary (to me) as What's the Matter with Kansas.But there is an ebb and flow to every tide, and the question I am looking at is which way the tide will go next. The feel that I get is quite different from 2010, and the House majority has a pathetically poor record to defend. There is a lot of fragmentation on the right at the moment. And then there is the war on women...
I see logical steps to take, and it seems clear that we are both taking them. It may go very badly from here, but the best approach for me is to stay positive and keep moving.
The only cure for bad thinking is better thinking. Keep writing great reviews like this one! Rachel Maddow is promoting better thinking, and so are you. :)
You are very kind, Jim. I hope you are right about the pendulum. I do take your point about fragmentation, and the war on women, but it seems to me that, while they do not get away with all their craziness, the fact that they are even proposing things like the Arizona law that declares pregnancy to begin with the end of a woman's last period is something that is new. The crazies are not afraid to go on the public record with their insanity. They used to keep those conversations in their bunkers. Still, we keep signing the petitions and occasionally win a battle. It may be madness to keep on when the world appears to be heading in another direction, but if this be madness...On the other hand, I just came across a piece from the NY Times about some unpleasantness in Europe that should give everyone the shivers, Round Up the Usual Scapegoats, by Frank Bruni. It does give one the feeling that it might be a good time to begin stocking up on small arms.
Will wrote: "It may be madness to keep on when the world appears to be heading in another direction, but if this be madness..."It does get a little comical when people who think the earth is 6,000 years old start using scientific arguments to promote their agenda...
But a lot of women are paying attention to these initiatives, and they do (still) have the right to vote. It is reasonable to think that their votes will reflect a certain resentment about these attacks on their rights, but we shall see.. Most of the women that I talk to are pretty angry about what they are seeing, but of course there are two sides to every issue.
I don't think it is ever madness to follow most-good, least-harm principles. There are, of course, honest differences of opinion about what those principles should be. I accept that.
But I also believe that a lot of these issues are generational. Most of the students I have worked with, over the years, are not amused by any of these developments. They are not changing their views as they get older, and they will be around when the others are gone.
So my advice is to hang in there, and do what you think is right. I want to have some respect for the person I see in the mirror. The best way to do that is to think about what I believe, and why, and then stick to my convictions.
Hi WillOne book I read The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade discussed how the ratio of army personnel to contractors in the field has increased dramatically over the years. In World War II there were 7 soldiers per one contractor. It was a little less during Vietnam, but in Iraq/Afghanistan it was almost even! I find this shocking when the government starts to outsource it's military personnel. It would, in my mind, start to effect who is really running the war - and how a war is being fought. I wonder if this was discussed in the book?
You also mentioned the National Guard. I wonder if they are being recruited for overseas service? My understanding of these guys is that they are more like part-time soldiers - hardly ready for vigorous combat in a terrain like Afghanistan.
Mikey B. wrote: "Hi WillOne book I read The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade discussed how the ratio of army personnel to contractors in the field has increased dramatically over the years. In World War..."
The Feinstein book looks interesting.
In Chapter 7 of Drift, "Doing More with Less (Hassle)" Rachel does indeed look into the increase in contracting relative to military personnel, specifically LOGCAP (Logistics Civilian Application Program).
I seriously doubt that National Guard recruitment uses foreign combat as a draw. The NG and the reserves are used to make up the difference between military personnel needs and army staffing levels. One method of not reinstituting an unpopular draft.
Rachel Maddow used to blow me away night after night with her innovating way of presenting news. Her mind I imagine is like New York lit up at night all the time. Insightful and intelligent review WB. Smart women are just so damn sexy.
just re-read this review. it is SO GOOD. keep em coming. :)
Will wrote: "Thanks, E. One a week, need it or not."lucky us!
For such a lefty she did an academically and politically bipartisan job with this, I agree! It was sort of like Eisenhower warning us again 60+ years later about the military industrial complex. (Saw a Zappa quote just today - ala the election - "politics are the entertainment division of the military industrial complex".) Great review, Will!
I am a Maddow fan, so I expected to like this book, but it was even better than I thought it would be. I do agree, however, that there was much more of the war history of this country that could have been covered. There are a lot of other topics that I would like her to write about as well. Perhaps she will give us some more books. I hope.
Thanks, Christy. Rachel is also an Army brat. I hope she writes more too, Jenny.
Yes, I was going to mention that Rachel's dad was military, so she has that serious perspective, even as a hard lefty herself. (My dad's bad eyes got him booted out of ROTC flight school, so he became a war historian!) Was going to mention I'd just thumbed through this but my Dad (moderate/"bollweeivil" Dem) was reading it at my elbow when it came out and he deemed it "fair and balanced". :-)
I knew a philosopher that in the early 90s gave a talk to a Dartmouth Poli Sci department (at least half ex-CIA hawk types, as can still be typical of PoliSci) and as he had lunch with the faculty afterwards he was taken that *all* agreed that we'd have to go back to some mythical battle from the Bible for a war less justified to enter than what Bush started after 9/11 in Iraq and Afganistan.
I knew a philosopher that in the early 90s gave a talk to a Dartmouth Poli Sci department (at least half ex-CIA hawk types, as can still be typical of PoliSci) and as he had lunch with the faculty afterwards he was taken that *all* agreed that we'd have to go back to some mythical battle from the Bible for a war less justified to enter than what Bush started after 9/11 in Iraq and Afganistan.
I could even understand the initial invasion of Afghanistan, as they had been harboring Bin Laden. But to have remained so long is definitely problematic.
Amazing review Will! Will surely read that book.
sounds fascinating! thanks for the great review!
Don't worry, the earth is about to kill us all off for our arrogance. Soon the earth will be free of humans and their wars and insanities. In 100,000 years, a tiny amount of time, the earth will be beautiful again with only the barest hint of the stupidity of man.
Thanks for the reassurance, William. :-)
Bhavya Govil wrote: "Amazing review Will! Will surely read that book."Thanks, BG
Marie wrote: "sounds fascinating! thanks for the great review!"Thanks, Marie
William wrote: "Don't worry, the earth is about to kill us all off for our arrogance. Soon the earth will be free of humans and their wars and insanities. In 100,000 years, a tiny amount of time, the earth will be..."Cheery. I imagine a trace or two will remain.
This is a great review! Thanks for sharing it. I've put this on on my to read list.
Thanks, Scott. It's a really smart book.
Thanks, E. Rachel is the real deal. Her serious analysis makes an incredibly important and always-relevant point, explaining a lot about how the USA conducts foreign policy by kinetic means.
Soldiers are the grease of the military industrial complex. Wars are designed to destroy the equipment, requiring the production of ever more. The citizens are taxed maximally to fund production. The politicians provide the illusion of democracy. And the super-rich run the whole show. - me
We are finding out some of the limits of democracy. It will be interesting to see if anything can be done to improve things.
Seems like a timely book offering a lot of insights into the business of war. Great Review. I hope to read this soon.
Thanks Will. Reading your review I immediately thought of Trump accusing the deep state and US military leaders of pushing the forever wars for the sake of their own profit, while boasting that he saved Crown Prince bin Salman of Saudi Arabia in order to protect one of the biggest arms deals in history. But aside from noting hypocrisy, do you figure that the psychological sense of what threats we need guard against is shifting? Could the enormous demand for collective defense shift and focus much more on environmental threats?
