Be INFORMED

Sunday, March 25, 2012

American Dream? Not Anymore

   Let us venture down south and into Mexico for a quick look at what some of the citizen's of the country think about the American election season.

Watching America   :   » American Dream No More

American Dream No More



By Emilio Zebadua

Why bother replacing Obama when he has done everything in his power to maintain the political status quo, which at the moment assures attractive bonds and rates of return on Wall Street, even though the rest of the country hasn’t yet emerged from the economic recession? It’s no wonder the elections aren’t generating much enthusiasm.

Translated By Lisa Steward

21 March 2012

Edited by Gillian Palmer


Mexico - El Universalmas - Original Article (Spanish)


Yesterday in the state of Illinois, near the middle of the U.S., they voted to elect the GOP candidate to the White House. But in reality the presidential race was resolved months ago, outside the electoral process. The November election will be won by the incumbent President Barack Obama, without a Democratic challenger and most likely against the indefinable Republican candidate, Mitt Romney.




Until now the electoral process has centered around the Republican Party’s internal contest. The frontrunner has always been Romney, a multimillionaire entrepreneur with links to corporate banking, mergers and acquisitions. During his time as governor of Massachusetts, he ruled alongside and on behalf of the business sector; as it happens, he occupies a moderate position in the U.S. political spectrum. And for Romney, this fact is precisely the problem. The “center” which he represents is too far to the left of the highly organized neoconservative Republican Party base, one made up of victims of the mortgage crisis, people behind in their payments, those without access to medical care, members of evangelical church support groups, workers with reduced or flat salaries and considerable unemployment risks or small business owners in danger of bankruptcy.



The conservative base is collectively sponsored by special interest industries such as arms manufacturers, retail and consumer sectors, insurance companies as well as what is left of the protectionist factions (with the exception of the automotive industry and including independent oil companies), among others.



For these right-wing entrepreneurs, Romney’s link to Wall Street puts a damper on his aspirations. That’s why they have sought out a candidate to the right of him — anyone will do, really: from Sarah Palin, charismatic enough to carry the most radical camp but deemed unable to deliver by her financial backers, to Rick Perry, who as Texas governor possessed the natural base from which to garner support from inside the Republican establishment. Since the George W. Bush presidency, diverse business interests have put forth candidates (Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann), all of whom have generated a scant amount of supporters and votes and certainly not enough to lessen the flow of funds from the financial wing of the GOP, who all the while have never stopped backing Romney.



The latest challenger to emerge from the most reactionary of the radical right wing has been Rick Santorum, who began to weave his web of support among the religious right, an interest group that has been actively funding candidates for the past decade. He was even prepared to lose his 2006 reelection as senator of Pennsylvania in exchange for the backing of these groups. In depressed economies like those in states like Illinois, parts of the middle class, small businesses and impoverished workers have cast their votes for Santorum in order to prevent the banks from dominating the entire Republican Party. These groups don’t have the money to win, but they can prevent Romney’s victory from being a landslide.



The nomination is not at stake, just Romney’s popularity. That’s why he doesn’t pose a definitive threat to the White House. He lacks the support from the extreme right — although he doesn’t actually need it as long as he consolidates the center or those to the right of the national spectrum, where his approval has been partial or insufficient at best. Obama is solidly entrenched in the center, yet he has not stopped inching to the right since he began his presidency.



Romney intends to replace Obama without changing the current government’s policies. This is what will assure his defeat, rendering him not only unattractive, but too costly, for the coalition of business interests, bankers and industrialists who support the present fiscal policy, the withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and the remainder of the bank bailouts. Why bother replacing Obama when he has done everything in his power to maintain the political status quo, which at the moment assures attractive bonds and rates of return on Wall Street, even though the rest of the country hasn’t yet emerged from the economic recession? It’s no wonder the elections aren’t generating much enthusiasm.



The author has a doctorate in law.




CLICK HERE FOR
ORIGINAL VERSION

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Software Test

  I am trying to migrate from Windows to Linux. I have been using both systems for some time but I keep Windows only because I like their blogging software. Live Writer cannot be beat by anything that the Linux community has.

  So now i'm trying out ScribeFire, which is an add-on to Firefox. We'll see how this goes, and if I like it, then it is goodby Microsoft!

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Ryan's Budget Shot Down In The Senate...

... as if there ever was even a slight chance that this piece of crap bill would pass in the adult chamber of our government. The nice thing is that 5 Republicans grew a spine and then voted " no " on the Ryan budget plan. The Democrats wised up and they all voted " No." The vote was 40 in favor, 57 opposed. Republican voting No: Scott Brown Susan Collins Lisa Murkowski Rand Paul Olympia Snowe

Monday, March 14, 2011

Republicans Holding Social Security, Medicare Hostage

This may be the point where all of those senior citizens who voted for those American Taliban members wish that they hadn't as it seems that the American Taliban leadership in the Senate (Mitch McConnell ) has once again stated that the GOP will block any debt ceiling raise unless the Democrats agree to cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Meanwhile, on the other side of Capitol Hill, Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, says "it's time to pick a fight" over top Republican priorities like banning family planning funding and repealing health care reform. If his party doesn't get its way, Pence says, they should refuse to fund anything at all, forcing the closure of the federal government.
You would think that after having lived 50,60,or more years on this earth that one would know when they are being conned. The sad thing is that this ignorance/stupidity has trickled down to many of the younger generation.

Friday, July 09, 2010

Those Florida Budget Cuts..

... are really starting to have an effect on the state of the state of Florida.
I see signs on government businesses on an almost daily basis saying that the particular office will be closed on such and such date due to budget cuts. In the county of Hillsborough ( Tampa ), the county commissioners take an occasional furlough due to those lousy budget cuts.
Why am I on this topic? Because of the political bullshit that those candidates for governor (Alex Sink (D), Rick Scott (R),Bill McCollum (R) )are pushing down the throats of the Florida villagers. Not only is the race for the governorship blowing smoke up our asses, but those running for the Senate ( Mark Rubio (R), Charlie Chris (R) are doing the same thing.
My problem with those Republican candidates is that they are still into pushing for more tax cuts for Florida, which will help increase jobs in the state. This crap didn't work under Jeb Bush and it is not going to work this time either.
Who will get these tax cuts? The residents of Florida? Not hardly since there is no income tax on residents. That leaves only businesses which will reap the tax cut benefits. It is reported that Florida business pays only a measly 4% in taxes, if they pay any at all. Some of those running for political office would like to see that tax rate lowered to around 1.5%.
Get real you fucks! Those libraries which close one Friday per month and the furlough which county commissioners and city council members have to take are not due to budget cuts folks. They are due to TAX CUTS brought about by your favorite Republican business lackey.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

2010: The Battle for who Sucks Less ...

... and this comes from dailykos.com.

2010: The Battle for who Sucks Less
by Dr Teeth Wed May 26, 2010
So yesterday I'm chatting with a Republican friend of mine, I have known since I volunteered on the Clinton campaign. I've been charmed to have lived in swing states, blue states and red states. Nothing beats a swing state (with the exception of maybe being in Wichita during the height of the abortion protests).
Well, I knew this guy before that first election. We actually were on opposite street corners, and I waved at him while others yelled insults at each other. The sight of these run down western PA downtown regions is somewhat surreal. On the only intersection with a few businesses and municipal buildings, groups with signs stake out opposite corners. If one group changes intersections, the other moves as well. It is rather comical.
Well my friend and I realized how silly this election already looks.

The Democratic Platform for 2010
Republicans are bad for America

The Republican Platform for 2010
Democrats are bad for America
Turns out after looking at some polls, Americans have an interesting take on this.
Both Parties are Half Right

It turns out a majority of Americans don't like either Republicans or Democrats on just about anything. On any issue both parties can't seem to find any kind of plurality. If Obama intended to change politics the in Washington, he can at least say that he stopped the ebb and flow of things. Now people just seem to universally hate politics in general.
As far as the hope thing, I'm afraid that ship has sailed. The electorate just seems to be toggling between anger and depression. They honestly just don't believe they can get a square deal economically or politically. There is always another Goldman Sachs or BP, and the story of government collusion that follows.
Now I wasn't alive in the 60s, so I can't speak for all of history. I have never seen an electorate so beat down in my lifetime. I'm not talking about political division either. I'm talking about universal political dismay. If there was an environmental, economic, ethical and political tipping point, people just seem to have accepted our country has gone over that cliff.
So where is 2008 now? The President has seemed fortified in the White House as of late. Congress looks like they are a fighter in the 11th round in a fight they are losing. Republicans seem just as tired and absent. Everyone still talks in their perspective echo chambers, but there is very little back and forth occurring. Everyone seems to be avoiding the biggest ecological disaster in the history of our country.
So what's the plan for 2011? Are the Democrats all governed out?
If I'm not mistaken this country is still facing huge problems.

-A Failing Education System
-Climate Change
-No Energy Policy
-High Unemployment
-Crumbling Infrastructure
-Federal and State Deficits
-Social Security Insolvency
-Trade Deficits
-No Immigration Policy
-Corporate Influence in Government
That is just off the top of my head. None of those I would even call progressive issues. They are national issues that resonate with just about anybody. Neither party as of today has any kind of platform. Is this election really just going to be about who sucks less?

Sad to say, but, I do think that the Democrats are about to get their asses handed back to them in the coming elections, for the most part. I'm not so sure about yourself, but the Democrats haven't done a whole hell of a lot for me since Obama and gang swept into office. Health care reform? I'll believe that when it is actually implemented. If it survives the "party of no" assault. Don't count on that happening.
Have you ever notice that the Republicans have always managed to stick together while coming up with a message to the American people that the people actually buy into? This is what will be going on once again. the Dem's have gotten to weak minded and spineless to fight back in any favorable way.
Sure, we have all become sick and tired of the way in which our government operates, but what is one to do about it? We basically have no good candidate to choose from, so we'll keep on voting for the man,or woman who says the things that we want to hear.
Sad day in America!

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Conservative Health Care Woes

Jonathan Chait on the coming conservative freak-out
by blue aardvark Sat Feb 20, 2010
From The New Republic:

The Coming Conservative Health Care Freakout

You can imagine how this feels to conservatives. They've already run off the field, sprayed themselves with champagne and taunted the losing team's fans. And now the other team is saying the game is still on and they have a good chance to win. There may be nothing wrong at all with the process, but it's certainly going to feel like some kind of crime to the right-wing. The Democrats may not win, but I'm pretty sure they're going to try. The conservative freakout is going to be something to behold.
And Paul Krugman adds this:
If this works out — I’d think the odds now are that it will, though it’s by no means a done deal — there will be endless debate about whether Anthem Blue Cross was wot did it. My sense is that a final push was always available, as long as the White House was willing to take a stand; Anthem may just have helped provide an occasion.
I think Krugman's correct. And Chait, too.
The Democrats are going to pass something. It's going to be less than it should have been, but better than nothing. And then what's going to happen?
The answer is the Republicans, especially the Tea Party types, are going to lose their collective minds. They will scream about the use of reconciliation. When they do, we must be ready to point out how often Bush used it. And that only a few 'amendments' were passed that way.
They will scream that the public doesn't want Obamacare. And that's where the hard work will be. Educating the public that the vast majority of the provisions in the bill are ones they like - tax breaks for small business, the exchange, and so on.
We need to force the screaming crybabies to explain why the public doesn't want those enormously popular items at the top of the chart. The time to start thinking about framing it that way is now. They are going to frame this as the Democrats using a trick to pass a bill the public doesn't want. The Democratic Party needs to get the truth out about this bill.
Lean on your Senators. Lean on your Representative. Tell them to support reconciliation to pass health care. Tell them to include the public option and the millionaires tax (the only two popular items not in the Senate Bill per Nate).
Let's get this done. Because if we play it correctly, the GOP is going to look like sore losers. And if there's one thing Americans dislike, it's whiny crybaby sore losers.

And just for grins, here's a quote from Newt Gingrich:

February 20, 2010
I'm not frightened by bipartisanship... We should be brave enough to stand up and say let's work together until we finish defeating the left and then we won't have to work with them as much.
Supplied via Political Wire
Update:
I think this is my first trip to the top of the Recommended List. I think it's because it's a slow Saturday evening, but I thank all those who clicked the little button.
From dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/20/839072/-Jonathan-Chait-on-the-coming-conservative-freak-out"

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Obama's Speech: Your Reviews...

... which are comming to you by way of Dailykos.com. Sorry for the link to the story missing, I'm still not able to post the link in the way that I wish it to be shown.

"OBAMA EATS REPUBLICANS' LUNCH"! Reviews, bonus, poll, photos
by blackwaterdog
Sat Jan 30, 2010 (edited for content)
Hello,
After the last couple of days, i'm thinking maybe Monarchy is not such a bad idea.
First: best three random reactions out of hundreds, maybe thousands, that i've read all over the web yesterday:
"It was as though Obama reauthorized torture for 90 minutes—a masterful performance".
"This was like something straight from The West Wing. Glad i've been alone so i could shout to the TV: LET OBAMA BE OBAMA!"*
"I scared the bejeezus out of all three dogs cheering Obama on! That was absolutely the best political teevee I have ever seen, outside Election night last year and Inauguration Day!!
Third, all kinds of reviews:
Ambinder:
Obama's Question Time: An Amazing Moment
The moment President Obama began his address to Republicans in Baltimore today, I began to receive e-mails from Democrats: Here's an except from one of them: "I don't know whether to laugh or cry that it took a f$$@&$* year for Obama to step into the ring and start throwing some verbal blows... I'm definitely praying at mass on Sunday morning that this Obama doesn't take another 12 month vacation."
This e-mail comes from a very influential Democrat.
Accepting the invitation to speak at the House GOP retreat may turn out to be the smartest decision the White House has made in months. Debating a law professor is kind of foolish: the Republican House Caucus has managed to turn Obama's weakness -- his penchant for nuance -- into a strength. Plenty of Republicans asked good and probing questions, but Mike Pence, among others, found their arguments simply demolished by the president. (By the way: can we stop with the Obama needs a teleprompter jokes?)
More than the State of the Union -- or on top of the State of the Union -- this may be a pivotal moment for the future of the presidential agenda on Capitol Hill. (Democrats are loving this. Chris Hayes, The Nation's Washington bureau chief, tweeted that he hadn't liked Obama more since the inauguration.)
... Republicans may have wished they had spoken to John McCain about what happened to him in the presidential debates before they decided to broadcast this session. The president looked genuinely engaged, willing to discuss things. Democrats believe that he tossed away the GOP talking points and lack of real plans into a bludgeon against them. "The whole question was structured by a talking point," he told Jeb Hensarling. Obama took the blame for not living up to some of his promises on transparency in health care negotiations. He displayed a familiarity with Republican proposals that seemed to astonish those who asked questions of him. And at the end, Republicans rushed up to him, pens and photo cameras in hands, wanting autographs and pictures.
Mused one mid-level White House official: "This really is the best thing we've done in a long, long time".
Ezra:
Remember the old joke, "I was at a fight and a hockey game broke out?" Well, earlier this afternoon, I was at a photo opportunity and a policy debate broke out.
Obama's Q&A session with the House Republicans was transfixing. What should have been a banal exchange of talking points was actually a riveting reminder of how rarely you hear actual debate -- which is separate from disagreement -- between political players.
This was a surprise. The session was clearly proposed so that Obama could appear to be taking real steps to reach out to Republicans. That implied warm feelings and a studied unwillingness to cause offense. But that was not the event we just saw. Instead, Obama stood at a podium for an hour and hammered his assailants. That makes it sound partisan and disrespectful. But it wasn't. It was partisan, but respectful.
There's a value in proving that you understand the other side's ideas deeply enough to disagree with them. And that was the message of Obama's session. Not that the Republicans were right. But that he'd looked hard enough at their ideas to realize they were wrong. I'm willing to work on tort reform, Obama said, but it's not a credible way to rein in health-care spending. The GOP budget might save a lot of money in theory, he admitted, but it does that by voucher-izing Medicare and holding its spending constant even as health cost increase -- which means seniors will go without a lot of necessary care. And it's hard to take that proposal seriously coming from the party that spent the past few months saying slight decreases in Medicare Advantage reimbursement represented an unforgivable threat to seniors.
Amazed that Obama knows offhand that Ryan wants Medicare vouchers. More amazed he can explain it offhand. This is a command performance.
Yesterday, I interviewed David Axelrod and was struck by his inability to explain how the White House would highlight the the difference between disagreement and obstruction. Today's session, if it becomes a regular event rather than a one-off, provided part of the answer. He'll debate them directly. But that may be tough to do. Republicans are already spreading the word that they made a mistake allowing cameras into the event. Apparently, transparency sounds better in press releases than it does in practice.
But if this is to be the last of these we see for a while, make sure to take the time and watch it, or read the transcript. It's some of the best political television I've seen in memory.
Benen:
I'm reasonably certain I've never seen anything like it. GOP House members were fairly respectful of the president, but pressed him on a variety of policy matters. The president didn't just respond effectively, he delivered a rather powerful, masterful performance.
It was like watching a town-hall forum where all of the questions were confrontational, but Obama nevertheless just ran circles around these guys. I can only assume caucus members, by the end of the Q&A, asked themselves, "Whose bright idea was it to invite the president and let him embarrass us on national television?" .
Note, however, that this wasn't just about political theater -- it was an important back-and-forth between the president and his most forceful political detractors. They were bringing up routine far-right talking points that, most of the time, simply get repeated in the media unanswered. But in Baltimore, the president didn't just respond to the nonsense, he effectively debunked it.
Republicans thought they were throwing their toughest pitches, and Obama -- with no notes, no teleprompter, and no foreknowledge -- just kept knocking 'em out of the park.
It's easy to forget sometimes just how knowledgeable and thoughtful Obama can be on matters of substance. I don't imagine the House Republican caucus will forget anytime soon -- if the president is going to use their invitation to score big victories, he probably won't be invited back next year.
Nevertheless, the White House should schedule more of these. A lot more of these.
Yglesias:
...It was sort of like Prime Minister’s Questions and it revealed, simply put, that Barack Obama is a lot smarter and better-informed than his antagonists. A lot. He very calmly and coolly dismantled them.
To me, personally, it’s not a surprise. I debated policy with Mike Pence once and the guy is a stone-cold idiot. That was a years ago and I’ve been surprised since then to learn that conservatives consider him an unusually sharp policy mind and I take leading rightwingers at their word about that. But it’s the kind of thing that I think most Americans aren’t aware of. Obama knows what he’s talking about. A lot of the members of Congress you see on TV all the time talking smack don’t. That’s not always clear to people since the TV anchors interviewing them usually also don’t know what they’re talking about. Judd Gregg’s whining freakout on MSNBC yesterday punctured the illusion of calm confidence and so did Obama’s back-and-forth.
Mike Madden:
Before President Obama started speaking to the House Republican conference's retreat in Baltimore Friday, the GOP presented him with a little book, one that wrapped up all of the policy ideas they've had since he took office that have languished. It had a catchy title: "Better Solutions." The pamphlet may not be an ideal blueprint for governing -- it only takes 30 pages to wrap up everything from economic stimulus to national security to financial reform -- but, as it turned out, it did make for a pretty good prop.
Which Obama demonstrated about an hour into what was easily the most entertaining program C-SPAN (or any cable news network, really) has aired in a long time "You say, for example, that we've offered a health care plan, and I look up -- this is just {in} the book that you've just provided me, 'Summary of GOP Health Care Reform Bill,'" Obama said, casually flipping through the book as Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., stood by. Price had demanded the president tell Republicans how they should answer constituents who don't like the way the White House says the GOP hasn't offered any ideas. So Obama played it deadpan. '"The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing America's number one priority for health reform.' I mean, that's an idea that we all embrace. But specifically it's got to work."
Two days after his feisty State of the Union speech, Obama's trip to the retreat started off slowly, with a speech that could have worked almost anywhere with only a few edits ahead of time. And then the question-and-answer session got started, and the event turned into a spectacle, the kind of thing that hasn't been seen in American politics in years -- and probably won't again, once the people responsible for putting it together go back to look at the video. (Which is too bad, because NBC does have an opening for a 10 p.m. show, and this was a lot more watchable than Leno.) Rarely has his administration done such a good job of bluntly underscoring the differences between what Obama wants to do and what Republicans would prefer if they had power. The president was funny and disarming, but he defended his policies fiercely, and he tiptoed up to the line of calling Republicans liars to their faces...
The whole thing basically went like that: Republican asks obnoxious question rooted in Glenn Beck-ian talking points; Obama swats it away, makes the questioner look silly, and then smiles at the end. It got so bad, in fact, that Fox News cut away from the event before it was over. Democratic operatives around Washington watching it had pretty much the same reaction: "Where the hell has this guy been?" One source said GOP aides probably wished they'd spoken to John McCain "about what happened to him in the presidential debates" before they broadcast the event. "It's quite a show," a White House official said, apparently going for the same deadpan tone the president was...
... By the time Obama was done, and had stayed about 30 minutes past when he was scheduled to leave, Republican leadership was ready to get him out of the room. One GOP lawmaker asked for one more question, and as Obama started to say he was out of time, Pence jumped in, too: "He's gone way over." And with that, Obama took his booklet of GOP policy proposals and left the room -- in much better political shape, possibly, than he was when he walked in...
Booman:
Obama performed as well as any British prime minister during Question Time. The same cannot be said for the Republicans who, by and large, tried to use dishonest arguments and demonstrably inaccurate statistics only to have Obama tell them to get serious and stop trying to score cheap political points. I can honestly say that if as many Americans watched today's Q & A with the Republicans as watched the State of the Union, our political problems would be over. If we had Question Time, we'd have a much easier time winning over public opinion and sustaining support for progressive policies.
The Republicans certainly will not want to repeat this extremely painful beat-down.
Drun:
Obama is adressing the GOP retreat in Baltimore right now, and it's being televised live. It's remarkable that Republicans agreed to this. The guy at the mike always has an advantage in these kinds of forums, and in any case Obama is better than most at this kind of thing. For the most part, he's running rings around them. I don't know if this will have any long-term effect, but it's good for Obama and, regardless, a good show. Presidents should do this kind of thing more often.
Sullivan:
But here's the key thing: Obama is best at this. He is best at defusing conflict; he is superb at engaging civilly with his opponents. It's part of his legacy - I remember how many conservatives respected him at the Harvard Law Review. But he needs to do more of this, even though he may get nothing in return. Why? Because unless the tone changes, unless the pure obstructionism and left-right ding-dong cycle stops, we are on a fast track to catastrophe.
That was the core message of Obama in the election. It was one of my core reasons for backing him over Clinton - because he has the capacity to reach out this way. I remain depressed at the prospects for a breakthrough, but this was good politics and good policy. More, please. Do this every month. Maybe over the long haul, the poison of the past has to be worked through with Obama as therapist in chief.
The Guardian:
Obama eats Republicans' lunch
"When the Republicans invited President Obama to address their congressional House delegation in Baltimore today, they had no idea how badly it would turn out for them.
Presumably the Republicans thought they'd get a high-profile chance to grill the president on live television. But instead, Obama – following on from his state of the union address on Wednesday night – turned the tables by highlighting the Republicans who opposed his policies and refused to bend, yet were prepared to "turn up and cut ribbons" when their constituents reaped the rewards.
Obama also displayed a rare grasp of policy and legislation, wrong-footing his questioners to their face with some stern rebuttal and in some instances quoting their own positions back to them to highlight the contradictions. He mocked the GOP for presenting healthcare reforms as a "Bolshevik plot" – and got a laugh, even from the Republican audience – and suggested that their approach was counterproductive:
I think we can confidently predict this is the last time the Republicans invite the president to a similar format. Indeed, because the hall the Republicans are holding their event seemed to have just a single TV camera, Obama literally took the spotlight away. Republican questioners showed up as shadowy figures, and when caucus leader Mike Pence kicked off the Republican questions at first he couldn't be heard at all.
At the end, shaking hands with the president, Pence's face looked as if he'd sucked a lemon for an hour – and in a way he had.
A sign of how compelling the footage was: the US cable networks, always so trigger-happy and ready to move on if an event is looking boring, stuck with the live feed, although Fox did cut away first for analysis.
The net effect is that Obama looked serious, reasonable and intelligent. The Republicans got to sound like whiners, complaining about various pet peeves and chewing over their old laundry list of tax cuts and opposition".
John Cole:
For some reason, the GOP allowed the cameras to roll at their retreat during a question time session with President Obama, and he spent the next hour and a half depantsing them. Pretty funny stuff:
If Mike Pence really is regarded as one of the deep thinkers for the GOP, I’m beginning to understand why they refused to admit Terri Schiavo was brain-dead.
Time
President Obama just spoke before the House Republican caucus and then took questions from members - live. It was amazing television - watchable, interesting, feisty and even a little dramatic. I was reminded of the campaign when, in a single speech in Philadelphia, Obama neutralized the Jeremiah Wright issue that could have sunk his candidacy. The environment and subject matter are obviously completely different now, but Obama proved again that he performs best when he's up against the wall. Today, at the caucus meeting, he went right after Republicans on their turf and, in my opinion, owned them.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/30/831961/-OBAMA-EATS-REPUBLICANS-LUNCH!-Reviews,-bonus,-poll,-photos

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Those Messed Up Democrats!!

Why is it that Democrats always tend to turn stupid once they get into political office? President Obama is no exception to this rule, as he seems to have forgotten what he was placed into office for.

www.commondreams.org
Published on Thursday, January 21, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Massachusetts and the Populist Imperative
by Robert Weissman

It takes a special skill for a Democrat to lose a federal election in Massachusetts.
But whatever the failings of the candidacy and campaign of Martha Coakley, the Democratic senate candidate in Massachusetts, the Democrats' loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat held for almost half a century by Edward Kennedy, following the party's November loss of the New Jersey gubernatorial race, suggests the need to focus more on the broader context, and less on individual shortcomings.
The Democratic Party has squandered the enormous opportunity bequeathed to it by the election of 2008.
The party gained overwhelming control of both the legislature and executive in 2008. Yet party leaders somehow failed to recognize the political moment.
We live in populist times.
Wall Street has crashed the economy. According to the official figures -- which under-report unemployment -- one in six people in the country are out of work or unable to find full-time work.
People know who's to blame for the country's deep recession, and they want them held accountable.
And they want to see aggressive policies to put people back to work.
But we've seen neither populist politics nor policies from the Democrats.
Although President Obama on occasion has had harsh words for Wall Street, in general the administration has sought to blunt the public's anger against the banksters.
It supported and has continued the Bush administration's bailout plan, a kind of unconditional love for Wall Street. Sure, you could make the case the banks had to be saved in order to rescue the economy; but there is no defense for bailing out the richest of the rich with no strings attached.
The administration has put forward a financial regulatory plan with some very useful components. But it has refused to embrace the bold populist policies we need -- breaking up the banks, taxing financial speculation -- to rein in Wall Street. It has also failed to defend the good positions it has advocated with sufficient vigor and high-level involvement.
The gentle treatment of Wall Street from the outset of the administration has framed subsequent political developments.
To its credit, the administration pushed through a desperately needed economic stimulus plan. But in significant part because the size of the stimulus plan was similar to the amount spent on the Wall Street bailout, and because the administration had embraced both, the stimulus and bailout -- though totally distinct -- became entangled in people's minds.
Next came health care. The Democratic Congressional leadership developed a complicated and obtuse health care plan. There was the occasional bluster about how the insurance industry was seeking to undermine the plan, but in fact the insurance and pharmaceutical industries embraced the idea, and will profit enormously from it. Rather than identifying and campaigning against the corporate obstacles to providing affordable access to care for all, the White House cut deals with them.
Meanwhile, while the stimulus and Federal Reserve interventions prevented the recession from turning to depression, the unemployment and foreclosure situations grew dire. No post-stimulus jobs initiatives appeared until the end of 2009. And the Congress and White House failed to do anything consequential to keep people in their homes.
Along the way, populism did find a partial outlet: in the confused and contradictory tea party movement.
Going forward, who grabs the populist reins will significantly determine the 2010 election results.
The populist issue of the day is Wall Street's exorbitant bonus payments. Wall Street remains in business only because it has benefited, and continues to benefit, from trillions of dollars in public supports. The billions that Wall Street is now preparing to pay itself in bonuses come, in a very real sense, out of the pockets of We, The People.
Neither we nor our elected officials need to stand by and watch this happen. We can take our money back by imposing a windfall bonus tax, as Representative Dennis Kucinich has proposed.
You can click here to sign a Public Citizen petition supporting a tax on Wall Street's bonuses.
One clear lesson from the last year is that the people cannot count on political leaders to read the tea leaves and go populist -- even if it is in elected officials' narrow self interest. They have to demand it.

Robert Weissman is the president of Public Citizen.

© Copyrighted 1997-2009
www.commondreams.org

Saturday, January 16, 2010

George Bush Senior's Deal With The Devil

This article comes by way of Dailykos (dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/16/825780/-A-deal-with-the-devil:-George-Bush-the-Elder">.

A deal with the devil: George Bush the Elder
by Al Fondy Sat Jan 16, 2010
The concept of a deal with the devil arises in literature from the story of Dr Faustus, by Christopher Marlowe. This story in itself is intended as a commentary on modern life, "modern" being the Commerical Revolution of the 17th Century. The reason for the appeal is that to some extent, every successful person can look to certain unsavory decisions that allowed his own rise to power and fame--it is part of the human condition. But because of his highly public position, George H.W. Bush is especially noteworthy for his bad decisions that gave all the fame and power that this world can provide, yet ruined the "House of Bush" forever.
Earnest Hemingway said, "The world breaks everyone, and afterward, some are strong in the broken places." It is so true of George Bush the Elder. We first saw Bush as a young Congressman running for the US Senate in Texas. He lost to Lloyd Benson. He undoubtedly learned of some skullduggery in his next three jobs as Ambassador to China, Republican National Committee Chair, and CIA Director, but to all outward appearances, he tried to maintain his honesty. As a young thinker he was a strong supporter of ZPG, the rational movement to try to solve the world's population problems--and attendant troubles--through birth control.
The Faust theme was first noticed in 1980. Having previously referred to Ronald Reagan's tax plan as "Voodoo" economics, he gave up his intellectual honesty and started supporting the Voodoo. He renounced Zero Population Growth, and later appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court on the hope of getting additional votes from anti-abortion supporters. His treasonous activity in undercutting the Carter administration with the Iranian Mullahs during the election did much to cause the electorate to support the Republicans. After the election, the payoff was lots of arms and munitions to Iran.
Knowing of his own guilt, in 1988 he decided the only way to win was to hire Roger Ailes to do the dirtiest campaign yet seen in American politics. All of this apparent "dealing with the devil," however, seemed to pay off with earthly success.
In his later years, he deliberately kept his mouth shut about the known inadequacies of his son, and through fund raising prowess, foisted him onto the Republican Party and then onto the country. Thus, the Faustian bargain first made in the 1980s involved continual decisions leading to further decline and fall, not only of the house of Bush, but also the country.

Thursday, December 31, 2009

2010:New Year....

...is at hand and I think that this new year will be a very good one for most of you who have been trying to do something with your lives. You know,getting a better job,moving to a better location for you and your family. Maybe you are wishing for better health as I am. Whatever your goal (s) for 2010 are, I hope that you'll remember that in order to achieve them you will have to remain focused on them continually. Don't give up this year!Go out and get your share of this life!
Remember that while you are out partying and drinking tonight that others will be doing the same thing also. Don't drive from one place to the other after drinking. Let someone else do it for you. I want you to be here for 2010!
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!!

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Republicans Have Lowest Ratings In Decade...

... and hopefully that is because the citizens of the United States have figured out that voting GOP is voting against their own best interest.
This comes from CNN's plitical blog, but, blogger being what it is, will not post the damned link!

Thirty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, with 54 percent viewing the GOP negatively.
According to the poll, 53 percent have a positive opinion of the Democratic Party, with 41 percent holding an unfavorable view. The survey indicates that favorable ratings for the Democrats have dropped 5 points since February, with the Republican number slipping 3 points.
"The Republican party may still be battling the legacy left to them by George W. Bush," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "They have also spent a lot of time in 2009 working against Democratic proposals. That hasn't left them a lot of time so far this year to present a positive, post-Bush message. Of course, there is still plenty of time for them to do so before the 2010 midterms."
Nearly seven in ten people questioned say they disapprove of how Congress is handling its job, with 29 percent saying they approve. That's a drop of 6 points in the approval since April.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Late Night Political Jokes: Tuesday Edition

It has been some time since i've posted my " Friday Funnies" listing of the best political jokes coming from those late-night talk show hosts, so here is a shortened version for all of you on this fine Tuesday.

David Letterman:
"Congress has been agonizing over health care for months now. Squabbling, fighting, the town hall meetings going crazy. Meanwhile, while they're arguing about health care, we're stuck in two wars that were rubber-stamped in about 10 minutes. What? How does that make any sense when you think about it?"

"People are always saying to me, 'Well, Dave, are you worried?' No, I'm not worried about health care, and I'll tell you why. Because I'm with CBS. ... They have a tremendous health care plan. And here's what it is. Simply, when I die, I get to appear on a 'CSI' show as a corpse."

Bill Maher:

"And then there's the people who come to the town hall meetings about health care and think that Obama is going to do the same thing that Hitler did. I mean, what can't you tell these people that they won't believe? I could start a rumor right now. I could say, you know what? Under Obama's health care plan, when you bring your child to a pediatrician, from now on, when he's done, instead of giving him a balloon, he's going to give the kid a condom. Stupid is a preexisting condition, yes."

"And apparently, it's now no longer enough to be screaming as they've been doing at the town hall meetings. They're now bringing guns. I would say these people are armed to the teeth, but they have no teeth."

"And they're also bringing guns to events with the president of the United States. Did you see these people with the assault rifles? There was a guy -- and it was a black guy -- holding a big assault rifle, which is terrible news for white people. I mean, first we lose our dominance over music, then sports, then golf, then the presidency. Now, black people are taking over the gun-toting redneck industry."

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bldailyfeed3.htm

Have a great day!!

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Latest Polling From Rasmussen

As of Tuesday, August 17, 31% of our country strongly approves of the way that President Obama is working as our President. At the same time, 46% strongly dislike the way that Obama is handling things. We knew that the numbers would be going down in time, but this is lousy timing as Obama attempts to get his Healthcare plan going. The Prez needs all of the support that he can muster!
In other polling stats, 42% of voters now expect that their taxes will be going up during the Obama years, while only 6% of voters expect a tax cut. I do hope that those 6 percent aren't to shocked when their taxes do go up. Common sense will tell you that taxes will have to go up in order to finance our debt and the programs which will come into being under this administration. Remember this though, Bush was responsible for many of the cutbacks which will have to be re-instated once again by President Obama.
The final numbers on Obama's approval/disapproval? 49% of voters say that they overall approve of Obama's job performance, while 50% disapprove. Well hell! You can't please everybody, can you?
SOURCE:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Saturday, August 15, 2009

National Health Care

As the health care debate rages on up in DC., a few companies are giving the rest of us their two cents worth. Of course, these companies are not in favor of any real health care reform, so their ideas are not in line with the reforms that the Obama camp is proposing. No big surprise there.
shellac from http://www.dailykos.com has an open letter to one of those companies, Whole Foods.

My letter to the Nashville Whole Foods management
by shellac
Fri Aug 14, 2009 I am a Nashville area surgeon and a loyal
customer of the Nashville Whole Foods ever since it first opened. This is true
no longer. I was stunned and deeply disappointed to read Mr. Mackey's right-wing
propaganda piece
in the WSJ. He has his right to speak his point of view. I have the right to take my money elsewhere.
This is the letter I wrote in the feedback page at my local Whole Foods store's website.I am a Vanderbilt physician and a loyal customer of Whole Foods for years now. It is with some degree of remorse that I write this letter, but I feel I have no choice.Your CEO Mr. Mackey's ill-informed article does tremendous harm to the cause of health care reform. His solutions, e.g. high deductible plans, are simply ridiculous. These things are part of the problem, not the solution. As the country spirals further into debt from health insurance costs, lining the pockets of health insurance company CEOs along the way, and America falls further and further behind other developed nations in all leading health indicators, Mr. Mackey has the audacity to point to Medicare as the problem. Of course his solutions are silly--they are simply right-wing talking points.
Hypocrites like him are the same people who would not bat an eyelash at sending troops to Iraq, causing the deaths of many Iraqis and Americans, and then footing the massive bill. Yet they balk at the idea of paying for health care reform, something that has the ability to save millions of lives. I truly do not understand this.
Mr. Mackey has the right to speak his point of view. We customers similarly have a right to support those businesses whose political support will not be detrimental to society. I realize that the employees in the Nashville store may not agree with Mr. Mackey, but I would be in violation of my Hippocratic Oath and my duties as a physician if I continued to support Whole Foods. For those employees who may suffer as innocent bystanders, I am truly sorry.Good luck.
I truly do not understand what is going through this cretin CEO's mind when he penned this op-ed. Does he not know that Americans are dying for lack of proper health care? Or does he not care?
Whatever. I will never step foot in that store again.

Saturday, August 08, 2009

Is Fascism Coming To America?

It is just as sure as you are sitting somewhere and reading this. Fascism has been on the take in the United States for some time now, and we are just beginning to see its ugly head rear up. Hang on folks! Things could get ugly. Actually, they will be getting ugly. So, what can you do about it?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/8/763673/-Is-The-US-On-The-Brink-of-Fascism[and-What-To-Do-About-it]

Is The US On The Brink of Fascism ? [and What To Do About it]
by Troutfishing
Sat Aug 08, 2009
Is The US On The Brink of Fascism ?, asks Sara Robinson, of Campaign For America's Future, in a new analytic treatment of our current drift into what Robinson sees as a pre-fascist America on the brink of the abyss.Is it alarmism ? Consider that across the nation, corporate-funded agitators have converged en-masse to shut down townhall meetings on health care. Or that such agitation has escalated to the point that some rightwing protestors have brought weapons to the townhall meeting, incited riots, and assaulted and threatened Democratic Party legislators. Are they brownshirts yet ?
Maybe not, suggests Robinson, but they're in training for the role - honing tactics that they soon may try to use on us. And, corporate media is egging on and even funding this militant, rancid antidemocratic populism, stoking it with debunked conspiracy theories and ridiculously inflammatory, hyperbolic, irresponsible, even eliminationalist, rhetoric.
If we're on the brink, if Sara Robinson is correct, what can we do ? Should we passively accept doom, go gently into that dark night ?Of course not. First, we should read Robinson's piece. Forewarned is forearmed.And above all we need to take things seriously - we need to move beyond mockery, because the would-be brownshirt legions afflicting and trying to shut down the current health care debate don't care much whether we mock them or not. They've got a job to do: shutting down the democratic process. We've seen it before. Remember the faux "riot" that shut down the ballot recount in Miami after the 2000 election ?As Robinson writes,It's so easy right now to look at the melee on the right and discount it as pure political theater of the most absurdly ridiculous kind. It's a freaking puppet show. These people can't be serious. Sure, they're angry -- but they're also a minority, out of power and reduced to throwing tantrums. Grown-ups need to worry about them about as much as you'd worry about a furious five-year-old threatening to hold her breath until she turned blue.
Unfortunately, all the noise and bluster actually obscures the danger. These people are as serious as a lynch mob, and have already taken the first steps toward becoming one. And they're going to walk taller and louder and prouder now that their bumbling efforts at civil disobedience are being committed with the full sanction and support of the country's most powerful people, who are cynically using them in a last-ditch effort to save their own places of profit and prestige.We've arrived. We are nowparked on the exact spot where our best experts tell us full-blown fascism is born. Every day that the conservatives in Congress, the right-wing talking heads, and their noisy minions are allowed to hold up our ability to govern the country is another day we're slowly creeping across the final line beyond which, history tells us,no country has ever been able to return. How do we pull back? That's my next post.
We're not just on the road to fascism, Sara Robinson warns; we've arrived at the destination, have taken the final turn into the parking lot, and are looking for a space. Robinson's analysis relies heavily on the work of scholar Robert Paxton, who has done leading work on the mechanics of emerging fascism:
In tracking the mileage on this trip to perdition, many of us relied on the work of historian Robert Paxton, who is probably the world's pre-eminent scholar on the subject of how countries turn fascist. In a 1998 paper published in The Journal of Modern History, Paxton argued that the best way to recognize emerging fascist movements isn't by their rhetoric, their politics, or their aesthetics. Rather, he said, mature democracies turn fascist by a recognizable process, a set of five stages that may be the most important family resemblance that links all the whole motley collection of 20th Century fascisms together.
Sara Robinson suggested she'd offer some solutions to the problem, in her next installment. Here are some of my preliminary thoughts:
We all have a responsibility to reach out to friends and loved ones, especially if they don't have health care - to help them understand the gravity of what's going on this summer; antidemocratic goons are disrupting, with threats of violence in some cases, the debate over solutions to America's health care dilemma.
The thugs and provocateurs disrupting townhall meetings are disturbing the peace. Local police departments must be encouraged to do their jobs, shamed into it if need be.
The Glenn Beck / Fox boycott may be the most important weapon immediately at our disposal. Details of that boycott effort, with action items, are laid out quite well currently on this Daily Kos recommended list post. Readers can promote that boycott to friends and family, especially those with inadequate and absurdly expensive health care, and those with no health care at all.
Talking points ? - Simple: Fox News, and Glenn Beck, are working to prevent health care solutions that could improve your health care and even your health. Is the current status quo OK ? If not, why wouldn't the government do better than the health care companies ? The government runs Medicare, and it isn't perfect but administrative overhead is only about 2%, dramatically lower than for private companies. And the federal government runs the military. Is that 'socialism' ? - it isn't perfect but private military contractors are worse. Look at Blackwater ( cue Jeremy Scahill ).
Those are immediate approaches we each can take to push back incipient American fascism, which has loomed over American Democracy before. In the 1930's Sinclair Lewis saw the threat and wrote "It Can't Happen Here". The threat was averted - narrowly, perhaps more so than, many realize. But, it was averted. The price ofdemocracy is eternal vigilance.
The larger problem we face is one of corporate America run amok. There are no easy solutions. US Supreme Court rulings have backed the concept that corporations, which are deathless legal constructs, have rights similar to those of mortal, flesh and blood humans. That's absurd. Corporations exist by virtue of public charters, and those can be terminated should corporations fail to serve the public good or ven, as is now the case, work aginst the public good. It will be hard to push back accumulated, misguided legal precedent concerning corporations (hard, not impossible) but there's another, parapolitical, approach which could accomplish the desired end; beyond the Fox / Glenn Beck boycott there's dire need to promote, as widely as possible, the
following :
Corporations should NOT have the legal right to broadcast demonstrable falsehoods and debunked conspiracy theories over the public airwaves.
Corporations should NOT have the legal right to finance agitators who wilfully and and violently disrupt public democratic debates and discussions, such as over health care.
Corporations that seek to disrupt and thwart the democratic process must be stripped of their corporate charters.
We, The People, will work tirelessly until the aforementioned principles become the law of the land.Has the Fox / Beck Show begun to have an effect ? Well then, imagine the power of a populist hue and cry that corporations which abuse their corporate charters should cease to exist.
In the end, we don't want to kill off abusive corporations. That's a last resort.
We just want them to behave.
Related Stories: "C
Street" and The Military
(on interwining of "C Street House" Politicians,
right wing evangelicals, and the US military.)
Can
100,000 Anti-Obama New World Order Conspiracy Videos Be Wrong ?
(over 90,000
anti-Obama, "New World Order" conspiracy theory videos on YouTube... and
growing.
Daily Kos: The
RW's thinly coded call for assassination. Call it what it is,
TERRORISM

The
Tide is Turning: NBC Evening News Exposes Teabagger

Update:
Thank You Rachel Maddow & Frank Schaeffer!

Friday, August 07, 2009

GOP Teabaggers In Tampa...

...and they were so infantile.

http://dailykos.com/
Opponents shouted "Read the bill!" and held up signs as U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor attempted to address the crowd Thursday. There were reports of shoving and one man had his shirt ripped as a volunteer attempted to close a meeting room door. No one was arrested.
The Tampa chapter of the activist 9-12 Project says it encouraged members to show up and ask questions. The group was developed by Fox News Channel commentator Glenn Beck. The St. Petersburg Times reported the teabaggers not only said they were Beck disciples, but that the GOP had urged them to protest:Instead, hundreds of vocal critics turned out, many of them saying they had been spurred on through the Tampa 912 activist group promoted by conservative radio and television personality Glenn Beck. Others had received e-mails from the Hillsborough Republican Party that urged people to speak out against the plan and offered talking points.
So this is what the modern conservative movement has been reduced to: encouraging infantile behavior from teabaggers, practically begging them to drown out open discussion about health care reform.
What a bunch of pathetic cry-baby losers

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Obama's Health Plan and ERISA...

...is not a very good mix for those of you who may be enrolled in an employer sponsered health plan. It would seem that the Obama administration is in the process of flat out trying to do away with ERISA altogether. This is not good for you.

The reality is that the House health bill, which the Administration praised to the rafters, will force drastic changes in almost all insurance coverage, including the employer plans that currently work best. About 177 million people—or 62% of those under age 65—get insurance today through their jobs, and while rising costs are a problem, according to every survey most employees are happy with the coverage. A major reason for this relative success is a 1974
federal law known by the acronym Erisa, or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Erisa allows employers that self-insure—that is, those large enough to build their own risk pools and pay benefits directly—to offer uniform plans across state lines. This lets thousands of businesses avoid, for the most part, the costly federal and state regulations on covered treatments, pricing, rate setting and so on. It also gives them flexibility to design insurance to recruit and retain workers in a competitive labor market. Roughly 75% of employer-based coverage is governed by Erisa’s “freedom of purchase” rules.



Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Iran's Past Democracy...

...and that would be the one which was alive in Iran back in the day before the United States took it away from the Iranian people, as Chris Hedges from truthdig.com points out. My links are still not working correctly so please bear with me.
Published on Monday, June 22, 2009 by TruthDig.com
Iran Had a Democracy Before We Took It Away
by Chris Hedges

Iranians do not need or want us to teach them about liberty and representative government. They have long embodied this struggle. It is we who need to be taught. It was Washington that orchestrated the 1953 coup to topple Iran’s democratically elected government, the first in the Middle East, and install the compliant shah in power. It was Washington that forced Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, a man who cared as much for his country as he did for the rule of law and democracy, to spend the rest of his life under house arrest. We gave to the Iranian people the corrupt regime of the shah and his savage secret police and the primitive clerics that rose out of the swamp of the dictator’s Iran. Iranians know they once had a democracy until we took it away.

The fundamental problem in the Middle East is not a degenerate and corrupt Islam. The fundamental problem is a degenerate and corrupt Christendom. We have not brought freedom and democracy and enlightenment to the Muslim world. We have brought the opposite. We have used the iron fist of the American military to implant our oil companies in Iraq, occupy Afghanistan and ensure that the region is submissive and cowed. We have supported a government in Israel that has carried out egregious war crimes in Lebanon and Gaza and is daily stealing ever greater portions of Palestinian land. We have established a network of military bases, some the size of small cities, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, and we have secured basing rights in the Gulf states of Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. We have expanded our military operations to Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Egypt, Algeria and Yemen. And no one naively believes, except perhaps us, that we have any intention of leaving.

We are the biggest problem in the Middle East. We have through our cruelty and violence created and legitimized the Mahmoud Ahmadinejads and the Osama bin Ladens. The longer we lurch around the region dropping iron fragmentation bombs and seizing Muslim land the more these monsters, reflections of our own distorted image, will proliferate. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote that “the most significant moral characteristic of a nation is its hypocrisy.” But our hypocrisy no longer fools anyone but ourselves. It will ensure our imperial and economic collapse.

The history of modern Iran is the history of a people battling tyranny. These tyrants were almost always propped up and funded by foreign powers. This suppression and distortion of legitimate democratic movements over the decades resulted in the 1979 revolution that brought the Iranian clerics to power, unleashing another tragic cycle of Iranian resistance.

“The central story of Iran over the last 200 years has been national humiliation at the hands of foreign powers who have subjugated and looted the country,” Stephen Kinzer, the author of “All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror,” told me. “For a long time the perpetrators were the British and Russians. Beginning in 1953, the United States began taking over that role. In that year, the American and British secret services overthrew an elected government, wiped away Iranian democracy, and set the country on the path to dictatorship.”

“Then, in the 1980s, the U.S. sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, providing him with military equipment and intelligence that helped make it possible for his army to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians,” Kinzer said. “Given this history, the moral credibility of the U.S. to pose as a promoter of democracy in Iran is close to nil.

Especially ludicrous is the sight of people in Washington calling for intervention on behalf of democracy in Iran when just last year they were calling for the bombing of Iran. If they had had their way then, many of the brave protesters on the streets of Tehran today—the ones they hold up as heroes of democracy—would be dead now.”

Washington has never recovered from the loss of Iran—something our intelligence services never saw coming. The overthrow of the shah, the humiliation of the embassy hostages, the laborious piecing together of tiny shreds of paper from classified embassy documents to expose America’s venal role in thwarting democratic movements in Iran and the region, allowed the outside world to see the dark heart of the American empire. Washington has demonized Iran ever since, painting it as an irrational and barbaric country filled with primitive, religious zealots. But Iranians, as these street protests illustrate, have proved in recent years far more courageous in the defense of democracy than most Americans.

Where were we when our election was stolen from us in 2000 by Republican operatives and a Supreme Court that overturned all legal precedent to anoint George W. Bush president? Did tens of thousands of us fill the squares of our major cities and denounce the fraud? Did we mobilize day after day to restore transparency and accountability to our election process? Did we fight back with the same courage and tenacity as the citizens of Iran? Did Al Gore defy the power elite and, as opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi has done, demand a recount at the risk of being killed?

President Obama retreated in his Cairo speech into our spectacular moral nihilism, suggesting that our crimes matched the crimes of Iran, that there is, in his words, "a tumultuous history between us." He went on: "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians." It all, he seemed to say, balances out.

I am no friend of the Iranian regime, which helped create and arm Hezbollah, is certainly meddling in Iraq, has persecuted human rights activists, gays, women and religious and ethnic minorities, embraces racism and intolerance and uses its power to deny popular will. But I do not remember Iran orchestrating a coup in the United States to replace an elected government with a brutal dictator who for decades persecuted, assassinated and imprisoned democracy activists. I do not remember Iran arming and funding a neighboring state to wage war against our country. Iran never shot down one of our passenger jets as did the USS Vincennes-caustically nicknamed Robocruiser by the crews of other American vessels-when in June 1988 it fired missiles at an Airbus filled with Iranian civilians, killing everyone on board. Iran is not sponsoring terrorism within the United States, as our intelligence services currently do in Iran. The attacks on Iranian soil include suicide bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, sabotage and "targeted assassinations" of government officials, scientists and other Iranian leaders. What would we do if the situation was reversed? How would we react if Iran carried out these policies against us?

We are, and have long been, the primary engine for radicalism in the Middle East. The greatest favor we can do for democracy activists in Iran, as well as in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf and the dictatorships that dot North Africa, is withdraw our troops from the region and begin to speak to Iranians and the rest of the Muslim world in the civilized language of diplomacy, respect and mutual interests. The longer we cling to the doomed doctrine of permanent war the more we give credibility to the extremists who need, indeed yearn for, an enemy that speaks in their crude slogans of nationalist cant and violence. The louder the Israelis and their idiot allies in Washington call for the bombing of Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions, the happier are the bankrupt clerics who are ordering the beating and murder of demonstrators. We may laugh when crowds supporting Ahmadinejad call us "the Great Satan," but there is a very palpable reality that has informed the terrible algebra of their hatred.

Our intoxication with our military prowess blinds us to all possibilities of hope and mutual cooperation. It was Mohammed Khatami, the president of Iran from 1997 to 2005-perhaps the only honorable Middle East leader of our time-whose refusal to countenance violence by his own supporters led to the demise of his lofty "civil society" at the hands of more ruthless, less scrupulous opponents. It was Khatami who proclaimed that "the death of even one Jew is a crime." And we sputtered back to this great and civilized man the primitive slogans of all deformed militarists. We were captive, as all bigots are, to our demons, and could not hear any sound but our own shouting. It is time to banish these demons. It is time to stand not with the helmeted goons who beat protesters, not with those in the Pentagon who make endless wars, but with the unarmed demonstrators in Iran who daily show us what we must become.

The fight of the Iranian people is our fight. And, perhaps for the first time, we can match our actions to our ideals. We have no right under post-Nuremberg laws to occupy Iraq or Afghanistan. These occupations are defined by these statutes as criminal "wars of aggression." They are war crimes. We have no right to use force, including the state-sponsored terrorism we unleash on Iran, to turn the Middle East into a private gas station for our large oil companies. We have no right to empower Israel's continuing occupation of Palestine, a flagrant violation of international law. The resistance you see in Iran will not end until Iranians, and all those burdened with repression in the Middle East, free themselves from the tyranny that comes from within and without. Let us, for once, be on the side of those who share our democratic ideals.

© 2009 TruthDig.com
Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com. Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of many books, including: War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, What Every Person Should Know About War, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. His most recent book, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, will be out in July, but is available for pre-order.

Copyrighted 1997-2009
www.commondreams.org

Friday, June 19, 2009

Obama And The Federal Reserve

Published on Friday, June 19, 2009 by The Nation
Don't Cede More Economic Authority to Unaccountable Fed
by John Nichols

The reviews are in on Barack Obama's plan to address the crisis of Wall Street speculation and casino capitalism that has dramatically increased the gap between working Americans and the rich, created pressure for the deindustrialization of the United States and depression of wages and income for workers and farmers and created a nasty banking crisis.

Though even Obama acknowledges that this is the big one –- the issue that as much as anything led Americans to elect him last fall –- his "financial overhaul plan" did not merit above-the-fold coverage on the front page of The New York Times, the country's "newspaper of record." Two stories from Tehran and one on a poll about health care reform held the top spots. The overhaul merited only a feature suggesting –- correctly -- that there was "only a hint of Roosevelt" in Obama's plan.

In other words, for the great mass of Americans there will be no new "New Deal." To be sure, there's some good stuff here: creation of a new agency to help protect consumers of "financial products" and some stronger transparency requirements, a few more rules regarding banks and mortgage-backed securities. "But," as Times writer Joe Nocera notes, "it's what the plan doesn't do that is most notable." Nocera focuses, appropriately enough, on the failure of the administration to do much about the problem –- for taxpayers and for democracy –- of banks that are "too big to fail."

But the real concern ought not be focused on what this seemingly tepid plan fails to do.

The real concern is what it does.

The plan dramatically increases the authority and reach of the Federal Reserve, an already too powerful and unaccountable institution that will -- to the delight of the administration's "Fed men": Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and administration economic adviser Lawrence Summers -- become what the Wall Street Journal says will be "the nation's most powerful financial overseer."

"The proposal, if passed into law, would represent one of the biggest changes ever in the Fed's role," explains Journal writer Sudeep Reddy. "The central bank would win power to monitor risks across the financial system, and sweeping authority to examine any firm that could threaten financial stability, even if the Fed wouldn't normally supervise the institution. The nation's biggest and most interconnected firms would be subject to heightened oversight by the central bank."

In announcing the plan, President Obama claimed "that lines of responsibility and accountability are clear" with regard to the new authority being placed in the Fed's hands.

That is a ridiculous statement.

The Fed is famously unaccountable and resistant to transparency. Even Geithner acknowledged in his Thursday morning session with the Senate Banking Committee that there is a need to look at reforming the Fed's lax governance structure.

But don't expect Geithner of others in the administration to take a lead when it comes to fixing the Fed, an agency that zealously guards –- for logical reasons, as its track record is one of frequent missteps and failures on an epic scale. As Senate Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd said after reviewing the central bank's significant flaws, "There's not a lot of confidence in the Fed at this point, and I'm stating the obvious."

What should be obvious to everyone is that Congress needs to get a grip on the Fed –- which is structured in a manner so that it faces little or no congressional oversight -- before it allows Obama's proposal to advance.

So says Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the dissident Democrat who responded to Obama's plan by declaring that: "Before Congress gives the Fed any new authority, we must thoroughly examine the Fed's response to our current economic crisis."

Noted Kucinich:

Since August 2007 the Fed has intervened in the economy in an extraordinary way, as a result ballooning their balance sheet from $847 billion to more than $2 trillion. Yet, we still don't know what the Fed has done or who got the money. That is why I introduced the bipartisan HR 2424, which would grant the GAO the authority to audit the Fed's response to our nation's economic crisis, a response that has dwarfed the $700 billion TARP program by more than 2 to 1.
Before we grant the Fed any new authority, we must demand greater transparency from the Fed; an earnest and open audit of the Federal Reserve's response to the economic crisis would be a significant step in the right direction. We can't continue to let the Fed operate within a black box.

Kucinich has proposed HR 2424, a piece of legislation that would amend United States Code "to authorize reviews by the Comptroller General of the United States of any credit facility established by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any Federal reserve bank during the current financial crisis, and for other purposes."

Several progressive Democrats and old-right Republicans, including Texas Congressman Ron Paul, have cosponsored Kucinich's measure. Additionally, Paul has proposed H.R. 1207, which would amend the bill "to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes."

A majority of House members –- 234, so far, ranging from the most progressive Democrats to the most conservative Republicans -- have signed on as cosponsors of this necessary legislation.

This is one of those issues that makes sense to any honest representative, no matter what the party or what the ideology. Our elected and reasonably accountable federal officials cannot cede more control over the U.S. economy to the unelected and unaccountable Fed without auditing, reviewing and reforming how the Federal Reserve System operates.

© 2009 The Nation
John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. A co-founder of the media reform organization Free Press, Nichols is is co-author with Robert W. McChesney of Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy - from The New Press. Nichols' latest book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism.

© Copyrighted 1997-2009
www.commondreams.org