"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up."

His words.

What a pathetic little dance, yet it will suffice for many.

He is a genius of sorts, makes Bill Clinton look like a piker.

"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up."

His words.


This is going to take about a month or two. Change but stay the same. Nobody is above the law but they are. Same old shit, new wrapper.

The problem is that nothing is ever going to be the same again... so, call that thin gruel a fillet all that they want to. It won't work. Gotta have some calories to go with this exercise.

The Obama diet program is old before it starts. I'll take bets. For all the pillars and the "DEEP voice" and the photo ops, he's got to do "something".

No more assets in the First United States Bank of Saved up Horeseshit...

http://electronic.idilis.ro/uploaded_images/romanian_piggy_bank-734727.jpg

Obama is a supreme asshole. He's laden with haemorrhoids and constantly leaking a runny fecal slurry. He's the kind of asshole nobody likes, even though we all have an asshole.

And yet, he has apologists.

Obama is a textbook case of how to build your brand (http://pic2009.inauguralcollectibles.com/category/SHEP.html?source=20090113_OFA). I wonder how many people who really can't afford it are buying this crap.

How can you adhere to the rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, while making sure that doesn't result in releasing people?

How can evidence be tainted, yet true? How can we know that people are dangerous, or guilty of anything, without trials?

The man may be playing a role now, but he is a constitutional lawyer underneath and he knows darn well none of that makes any sense. He's very accomplished at saying what he thinks everyone wants to hear (no matter how much the statements contradict one another), so his actions are going to continue to speak louder than his words. His lack of comment re Israel's massacre of Palestinians speaks volumes to me.

I don't think that we, as socialists, could ask for better. This dude is doing for the Dems what what bush did for the Repubs.

The duplicity and arrogance of these men, coupled with everything that is going on is serving to clarify things. It's getting hard to not figure out which side one is on. And I expect that it will become even more painfully clear as things progress.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/images/stories/114/ObamaKoolAid.jpg

http://www.blackagendareport.com/images/stories/114/ObamaKoolAid.jpg


As usual, chlamor's way with images tells all we need to know.



How can you adhere to the rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, while making sure that doesn't result in releasing people?

How can evidence be tainted, yet true? How can we know that people are dangerous, or guilty of anything, without trials?

Mike, as a lawyer who is about 95% retired from practice, I can tell you that our system of "justice" is irreparably damaged, tilted permanently in favor of corporate-run America. Any hope of a socialist revolution will be contingent upon a complete overhaul of our justice system.

By the way, the reason I'm 95% retired is because the system is so tilted. It's not wealth; it's not a trust fund. It's disgust with a system that totally fucks everyone of modest or no means whenever those people have a legitimate legal claim against a corporate or large business entity, or against a governmental entity, or against a wealthy individual. Our system is owned by corporate america, just like our federal and state governments.



The man may be playing a role now, but he is a constitutional lawyer underneath and he knows darn well none of that makes any sense. He's very accomplished at saying what he thinks everyone wants to hear (no matter how much the statements contradict one another), so his actions are going to continue to speak louder than his words. His lack of comment re Israel's massacre of Palestinians speaks volumes to me.

He's not a constitutional lawyer. He's a politician. He doesn't practice law. He never did, really. Please do not call him something like "constitutional lawyer" -- he's nothing of the sort. He's a charlatan. The red text of your above quote describes him well; the label "constitutional lawyer" does not. I'm a better constitutional lawyer than Barack Obama, I can say that without flinching or laughing or feeling like a storyteller or rank liar. And I'm not a constitutional lawyer.



I don't think that we, as socialists, could ask for better. This dude is doing for the Dems what what bush did for the Repubs.

The duplicity and arrogance of these men, coupled with everything that is going on is serving to clarify things. It's getting hard to not figure out which side one is on. And I expect that it will become even more painfully clear as things pregress.

I agree completely, only I think it's going to take a long time for the Obamanauts to begin to see the truth. They're gulled completely; they're in the blush phase of new love.

He's not a constitutional lawyer. He's a politician. He doesn't practice law. He never did, really. Please do not call him something like "constitutional lawyer" -- he's nothing of the sort. He's a charlatan. The red text of your above quote describes him well; the label "constitutional lawyer" does not. I'm a better constitutional lawyer than Barack Obama, I can say that without flinching or laughing or feeling like a storyteller or rank liar. And I'm not a constitutional lawyer.

He did practice some sort of law for awhile - about 4 years as an associate at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard in Chicago is what I read. He also taught Constitutional law at Chicago. I don't mean to point to him as some sort of expert, because clearly he's not Kathleen Sullivan, but he is well-enough educated to know exactly what he's doing. That's all I was saying.

Obama is accomplishing something that Bush never could. He is legitimatizing right wing ideas with liberals and "progressives."

We can see why the Warren invitation was so destructive. Giving a platform and recognition to Warren has opened the flood gates.

First to go was the anti-DLC position. For weeks Obama promoters claimed he was anti-DLC. The same people now say "how could you have been so stupid? He never claimed to be anything but a centrist."

Then it was the war. How many times did people say that the main difference, the main reason to vote for Obama over Clinton was the war. That is gone now. "Did you read his book? His position was always clear. I don't know what you silly people were thinking."

Then it was GLBTQ folks. The vitriol and hatred here that started with the Warren invitation has shown that the only difference between many progressives and right wingers is that progressives have cover - they can say "don't get me wrong I support gay rights" and then feel free to make whatever remarks they want and spread any ideas at all and not be challenged on them. "Hey, he is the president of ALL Americans."

Today, torture and illegal detention have been legitimatized, and we have people spreading ambiguity and confusion about those subjects. "Oh no no no we support the Constitution and habeas corpus, it is just that those people are too dangerous to release. And just because we can't prove they are guilty does not mean they are innocent." When those same arguments were being used by the right wingers, everyone here rejected them But people have switched their position 180 degrees now that the argument is coming from Obama. Someone actually said in response to me today "what? Are you crazy? Releasing those people would cost Obama a lot of votes." There it is.

We can also see the destructive results of the hero worship for Obama. People defending Obama are not expressing ideas, are not engaging in debate and discussion, they are at war. Anything they can use they will use, anything they can get away with they will do. They won't actually defend their "points" - before anyone has had much of a chance to respond, they are on to the next improbable and inflammatory line of attack. They cannot make their points using logic and reason, so they have launched a frantic effort to undermine, discredit, and intimidate their opponents - a massive attack on the messengers rather than on the message.

It is pretty amazing to see so many old tried and true right wing smears being routinely used and thrown around.

I'll sure be Happy when the inauguration is done, at least we won't have to hear "he's not even president yet!". Then it will be, "He's only been president x months", and so on, ad infinitum. That shit's wearing thin already, clarity is coming. That place is gonna be a flat out fascist-light echo chamber, Democratic Reich.

He did practice some sort of law for awhile - about 4 years as an associate at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard in Chicago is what I read. He also taught Constitutional law at Chicago.

Over 20 years ago he spent 4 years as an oar-puller in a big, politically powerful law firm. Still doesn't make him a practicing lawyer, even less a con law scholar.

I have known con law professors who held teaching positions and tenure, and yet weren't constitutional lawyers.

A constitutional lawyer works with the constitution regularly -- but not necessarily every day -- as a practicing lawyer, not as a law professor. Law professors are pretty far removed from law practice. Good ones can make fine appellate lawyers, but I've seen no evidence that Obama was such a lawyer 20 years ago. Instead I've seen mythical statements about his brilliance, which means nothing to me.


I don't mean to point to him as some sort of expert, because clearly he's not Kathleen Sullivan, but he is well-enough educated to know exactly what he's doing. That's all I was saying.

I agree completely that he knows what he's doing. That point alone shows he isn't a constitutional lawyer or professor any more, and shows he's a charlatan, a politician. A constitutional lawyer would have prosecuted impeachment as a US Senator, would not have let politics stand in the way. On the record before us all, I'd say Dennis Kucinich is a better constitutional law scholar than Barack Obama -- and I don't even admire Kucinich, not one bit.

Maybe I'm beating a dead horse here, but I think it necessary to be clear on what Obama is.

I don't think anybody on this site is confused about Obama and his intentions.

The only soft spot I have for Obama comes from remembering hearing the folks in the old neighborhood say to me "hey give the brother a chance. Every time a brother gets near power, there are always a million excuses to tear him down."

does obama even think of himself as a "brother"? he referred to himself as a mutt during one of his press conferences.

I don't think anybody on this site is confused about Obama and his intentions.


Not so much about anyone on here but you may be surprised who is harboring what illusions about Obama. Some of the confusion centers around the Obama "movement" and what it represents. Of course, that was before the present denouement after the election. And once he's sworn in it will be something else entirely.

I don't think anybody on this site is confused about Obama and his intentions.


The fact that you might even consider calling him a "constitutional lawyer" shows otherwise.

I mean no offense by that. I mean only to be clear, which should not be received as intent to offend.

And I agree with what Kid just posted.



The only soft spot I have for Obama comes from remembering hearing the folks in the old neighborhood say to me "hey give the brother a chance. Every time a brother gets near power, there are always a million excuses to tear him down."

I have some empathy for that perspective, Mike. But isn't a smarter response to such folks to ask them to give Cynthia McKinney a chance, instead of Barack Obama?

Or to ask them whether we should give Colin Powell, Michael Powell and Condi Rice yet another set of chances to make policy decisions and suggestions which further tear down the poorer Black folks of America?

I don't think anybody on this site is confused about Obama and his intentions.


The fact that you might even consider calling him a "constitutional lawyer" shows otherwise.

I mean no offense by that. I mean only to be clear, which should not be received as intent to offend.

And I agree with what Kid just posted.


What does being a constitutional lawyer possibly have to do with it? He could perfectly well be a constitutional scholar of the highest order and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. If you're just contending he's a phony as far as bourgeoisie politicians go, that seems a rather mild critique.

does obama even think of himself as a "brother"? he referred to himself as a mutt during one of his press conferences.


He is a brother when he tries to get a cab.

He made the decision to live in and be part of the AA community.

Whites love the "bi-racial" thing. They ignore the fact that because of centuries of rape by slave owners, all AA are "bi-racial."

I have some empathy for that perspective, Mike. But isn't a smarter response to such folks to ask them to give Cynthia McKinney a chance, instead of Barack Obama?

Yikes. Such folks are no different than white folks, and subject to the same "practicality" and "electability" arguments.


Or to ask them whether we should give Colin Powell, Michael Powell and Condi Rice yet another set of chances to make policy decisions and suggestions which further tear down the poorer Black folks of America?

Of course it is not merely a matter of race. It is whites who were oblivious to this much more so than Blacks. Whites fell all over themselves to express support for Obama to prove how non-racist they are.

I don't think anybody on this site is confused about Obama and his intentions.


The fact that you might even consider calling him a "constitutional lawyer" shows otherwise.

OK, since you're a lawyer and I'm not I must obviously bow to your interpretation. Whatever.

whatever you may think of obama & his qualifications & sincerity, he is nevertheless a steward of the US empire, and under his stewardship US imperialism will still be the #1 source of misery and suffering in the world. current tactics of the "war on terror" involve escalation in afghanistan by increasing troop numbers there, propping up the local warlords, bombing wedding receptions, etc. all people opposed to US imperialism should unite against such an escalation, even if that means only trying to turn public opinion against it, or at least dividing public opinion against itself — undermining confidence in chance of success, and/or undermining belief in the righteousness of the war.

what else can we do? i'm asking for suggestions, here.

i wish i could find a photoshop of this http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/6767/obamasupermanrm0.jpg with bizarro in superman's stead. maybe a little dialogue bubble near obama's head saying "me love middle class so much me put it out of misery"

The vitriol and hatred here that started with the Warren invitation

Sorry to pick out this one tiny thing, but nothing started with the Warren invitation. Obama's position with respect to queer folks has always been "separate IS equal, now get to the back of the bus and shut up". The Warren invitation was just refusing to give us the transfer ticket we paid for.

The vitriol and hatred here that started with the Warren invitation

Sorry to pick out this one tiny thing, but nothing started with the Warren invitation. Obama's position with respect to queer folks has always been "separate IS equal, now get to the back of the bus and shut up". The Warren invitation was just refusing to give us the transfer ticket we paid for.


Give me a break erinaceous, the gay debate divides far more along class lines than sexual orientation lines, especially as it pertains to "gay marriage"

PS There is a thread on DU that's been running for days now, I've been following it most of the way. Mike has chimed in on it so far. Huge number of recs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4814721

PS There is a thread on DU that's been running for days now, I've been following it most of the way. Mike has chimed in on it so far. Huge number of recs
lots of talk of CORPORATISM over there (a little on that thread, a lot on that site).

corporatism. god, that has to be one of the most annoying new buzzwords in the liberal lexicon. you can just picture the writer spluttering & spitting & mashing his fingers on the keyboard... corporatists! fatcats! greedhounds! bankers!

it's like everybody wants to go back to some magical robinsonade setting, pedestaling the entrepreneur... they love capitalism, they just hate the bourgeois.

PS There is a thread on DU that's been running for days now, I've been following it most of the way. Mike has chimed in on it so far. Huge number of recs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4814721



I am having a great time there. Shooting fish in a barrel.

Sorry to pick out this one tiny thing, but nothing started with the Warren invitation. Obama's position with respect to queer folks has always been "separate IS equal, now get to the back of the bus and shut up". The Warren invitation was just refusing to give us the transfer ticket we paid for.


I copied and pasted that post, so the "here" doesn't apply.

I was talking about it opening the floodgates for gay-bashing over there, which it definitely did.

You are right about Obama's position.

Give me a break erinaceous, the gay debate divides far more along class lines than sexual orientation lines, especially as it pertains to "gay marriage"


Not so much now. The upscale straight progressives were all "for gay marriage" before the Warren invitation. Now they are singing a different tune.

PS There is a thread on DU that's been running for days now, I've been following it most of the way. Mike has chimed in on it so far. Huge number of recs
lots of talk of CORPORATISM over there (a little on that thread, a lot on that site).

corporatism. god, that has to be one of the most annoying new buzzwords in the liberal lexicon. you can just picture the writer spluttering & spitting & mashing his fingers on the keyboard... corporatists! fatcats! greedhounds! bankers!

it's like everybody wants to go back to some magical robinsonade setting, pedestaling the entrepreneur... they love capitalism, they just hate the bourgeois.


Hah and Double-Hah... Exactly right. And what would the "middle-class" think? Love 'em when "we" are invited to dinner - hate it when "we" are on the menu. If only they would stop bein' so greedy and leave a little somethin' behind. Those corporatists are nothin' like those responsible capitalists.

http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/horses-eat-people-demotivational-poster.jpg

What does being a constitutional lawyer possibly have to do with it? He could perfectly well be a constitutional scholar of the highest order and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. If you're just contending he's a phony as far as bourgeoisie politicians go, that seems a rather mild critique.

I think you misunderstood me, Kid. I didn't raise the Q of his legal skills. TBF did. And I was just clarifying that he's not a constitutional lawyer, no matter what he claims or his supporters claim.

Accuracy is important to me, but perhaps not to others. As I see it, if Obama's skills are being discussed, they should be discussed honestly and seriously.

I see you as being most concerned with his bourgeoisie perspective. I wasn't commenting on that when I was talking about his lawyer background, but if you'd like me to talk on that level I can. His work has been entirely in service of the business class, not the average person who works for a living and has little control over his/her own social or financial destiny.


OK, since you're a lawyer and I'm not I must obviously bow to your interpretation. Whatever.

I said I was just being clear and not meaning to offend. I'm sorry you don't believe me on that point.

Give me a break erinaceous, the gay debate divides far more along class lines than sexual orientation lines, especially as it pertains to "gay marriage"


My only point was that Obama has NEVER embraced equality for queers. What are you getting your panties in a bunch over?

Give me a break erinaceous, the gay debate divides far more along class lines than sexual orientation lines, especially as it pertains to "gay marriage"


My only point was that Obama has NEVER embraced equality for queers. What are you getting your panties in a bunch over?


Because that "separate IS equal" line of yours was liberal bullshit

Because that "separate IS equal" line of yours was liberal bullshit


Is that because I dare to equate the status of sexual minorities with racial minorities? Or because you proclaim it so?

OK, since you're a lawyer and I'm not I must obviously bow to your interpretation. Whatever.

I said I was just being clear and not meaning to offend. I'm sorry you don't believe me on that point.


Forgive me if I don't do backflips when you choose to "clarify". People interpret things differently, and I'm not inclined to give your interpretation more weight simply because you throw out a line about being a lawyer in every other post you write.

Forgive me if I don't do backflips when you choose to "clarify". People interpret things differently, and I'm not inclined to give your interpretation more weight simply because you throw out a line about being a lawyer in every other post you write.


My apologies for acknowledging the profound effect it had on my life.

Becoming and practicing as a lawyer, I mean. It's strange that I should be apologizing for talking about what things have influenced my views.

Sheesh. I'm afraid I don't know what I've done to insult you. Apparently you're more than willing to keep tossing barbs at me. If that's what you must do, then please at least be funny and creative about it.

Is that because I dare to equate the status of sexual minorities with racial minorities?
is that what you're doing? that's an awful thing to do.

is that what you're doing? that's an awful thing to do.


Yes, it is awful of me to point out that queers don't have equal rights. How could I have done such a thing?

is that what you're doing? that's an awful thing to do.


Yes, it is awful of me to point out that queers don't have equal rights. How could I have done such a thing?


Other than Sulu not being able to throw a big wedding gala -- a tragedy I'm sure -- what you are referring to?

Yes, it is awful of me to point out that queers don't have equal rights. How could I have done such a thing?

it's just kind of a spurious comparison, you know? you're not saying anything so DARING as "gay people don't enjoy equal rights," — which is true. they don't. what it seems you're suggesting is that black people enjoy a greater degree of equality with white people than gay people do with straight people.

Yes, it is awful of me to point out that queers don't have equal rights. How could I have done such a thing?

it's just kind of a spurious comparison, you know? you're not saying anything so DARING as "gay people don't enjoy equal rights," — which is true. they don't. what it seems you're suggesting is that black people enjoy a greater degree of equality with white people than gay people do with straight people.


That is one angle, but the other is worse IMO: the implication is that gay people do not enjoy economic parity and this must be considered a priority concern. The problem is it turns out it is only middle class gays who claim "suffering" and only they really stand to benefit; meanwhile the whole front of "activism" is revealed as merely a "progressive" canard. What all of this conveniently overlooks -- and the obtuseness boggles the mind -- is that economic parity for a few doesn't mean shit. If you disagree with that, you should take another look at the name of this site.

Gay Marriage and Civil Rights are not even in the same fucking universe. Slavery in America is this countrys wound that has yet to be cauterized. Unlike the gay rhetoric, that is not hyperbole.

Workers are losing their jobs, being evicted, wages and benefits are tanking, savings and pensions are gone or disappearing fast, social services in the shitter..either we're all in this together or we're not.

Further there is real and deadly discrimination of gays that needs attention and action but instead of that, all we hear is bitching about Prop 8 and scapegoating minority voters coupled with incendiary claims about "Separate and unequal"

Forgive me if I don't do backflips when you choose to "clarify". People interpret things differently, and I'm not inclined to give your interpretation more weight simply because you throw out a line about being a lawyer in every other post you write.


My apologies for acknowledging the profound effect it had on my life.

Becoming and practicing as a lawyer, I mean. It's strange that I should be apologizing for talking about what things have influenced my views.

Sheesh. I'm afraid I don't know what I've done to insult you. Apparently you're more than willing to keep tossing barbs at me. If that's what you must do, then please at least be funny and creative about it.


The insults began when you decided to go off on exactly what a constitutional lawyer is because you are oh so educated and brilliant. I'm not surprised that I'm not funny and creative enough for you. I'm also quite sure my house isn't big enough, my schools aren't good enough, I don't wear the right clothes to be in your presence...

it's just kind of a spurious comparison, you know? you're not saying anything so DARING as "gay people don't enjoy equal rights," — which is true. they don't. what it seems you're suggesting is that black people enjoy a greater degree of equality with white people than gay people do with straight people.


I am suggesting no such thing. But I will state directly that gay people do not possess the same equality under the law as blacks. Of course that's not enough for parity, but I'd rather have that than not.

Workers are losing their jobs, being evicted, wages and benefits are tanking, savings and pensions are gone or disappearing fast, social services in the shitter..either we're all in this together or we're not.


Exactly. So why are you so busy engaging in one-downsmanship and trying to make the case that queers haven't suffered as much as people of color?

I am suggesting no such thing.

why invoke jim crow, then? i don't know, it seems to me that's the idea behind phrases like "separate IS equal," that gay marriage rights is sort of a continuation, or an extension i guess, of the civil rights movement.

Workers are losing their jobs, being evicted, wages and benefits are tanking, savings and pensions are gone or disappearing fast, social services in the shitter..either we're all in this together or we're not.


Exactly. So why are you so busy engaging in one-downsmanship and trying to make the case that queers haven't suffered as much as people of color?


"We're all in this together" means we don't derail the entire movement over semantics and dumbass identity politics. Contort it to your hearts content for all I care, but you oughta ask exactly what the "progress" in "progressive" entails.

Uh.....if I may be so bold as to point out....

Gay people are also people of color, and are poor people, and are working class people.

Persecution of gay people is one of the ways that the ruling class oppresses all of us.

I understand that gay rights as a cause was dominated by upscale gentrified liberals. But Obama put an end to that. Now that gay rights is no longer a fashionable cause, the bashing by progressives and liberals of gay people has taken off. The people engaging in it are the same people that do all of the red-baiting and free market promotion and shilling for the ruling class.

So I am with erinaceous on this one.

We are united and stand together because we share a common enemy. Any other analysis is politically reactionary.

"We're all in this together" means we don't derail the entire movement over semantics and dumbass identity politics. Contort it to your hearts content for all I care, but you oughta ask exactly what the "progress" in "progressive" entails.


Right. So straight people stand with gay people the same way SEIU stands with the UAW.

Who is introducing "dumbass identity politics" here?

The same people attacking the working class, and attacking people of color are the ones attacking gay people, with the same arguments and for the same purpose and the same practical political effect.

It should never be about the victims, but rather about the oppressor.

Uh.....if I may be so bold as to point out....

Gay people are also people of color, and are poor people, and are working class people.

Persecution of gay people is one of the ways that the ruling class oppresses all of us.

I understand that gay rights as a cause was dominated by upscale gentrified liberals. But Obama put an end to that. Now that gay rights is no longer a fashionable cause, the bashing by progressives and liberals of gay people has taken off. The people engaging in it are the same people that do all of the red-baiting and free market promotion and shilling for the ruling class.

So I am with erinaceous on this one.

We are united and stand together because we share a common enemy. Any other analysis is politically reactionary.




Mike, you're flaking big time here. You're taking the slimmest of evidence, an apparent shift of opinion of Democratic Underground which is a shift that is neither representative or consensus let alone across-the-board, and using it to make Obama into the Magic Man everyone claims he is. Its like you're playing the game in reverse: you ask what the libs think and then take the *opposite* position

You're honestly saying that because Obama took the same position that he's taken in the past, the same position that he's always taken AFAIK -- because of that, everything has changed 180 degrees in the last two weeks??

Don't think so

PS the entire liberal perspective on homosexuality is reactionary IMO, and it is more pervasive than we think. While they take great umbrage at the suggestion that there might be a "serial killer" gene they're backed into the corner of arguing there is a "gay gene" although sometimes they try to disguise this fact.

If we accept the gay gene premise, then *being* gay superceded everything else, and can't help but be identity politics. If we don't, then its hardly correct to talk about "gays" at all..

"Being" black is a social construct and so is "being" gay

PS the entire liberal perspective on homosexuality is reactionary IMO, and it is more pervasive than we think. While they take great umbrage at the suggestion that there might be a "serial killer" gene they're backed into the corner of arguing there is a "gay gene" although sometimes they try to disguise this fact.

If we accept the gay gene premise, then *being* gay superceded everything else, and can't help but be identity politics. If we don't, then its hardly correct to talk about "gays" at all..

"Being" black is a social construct and so is "being" gay


The embrace of the "gay gene" theory is an attempt (albeit an incredibly misguided one) on the part of SOME queer folks to deflect persecution and bigotry by saying "see, we can't help it". It's a bad argument. For one thing, even if there is a "gay gene" it sure as hell isn't going to operate as straightforwardly and inevitably as the gene for skin color. For another, and more importantly -- having a characteristic be genetically determined never stopped anyone from killing you for having it.

But the issue here is that you can never refer to any class of people without by definition engaging in "identity politics". So why is "identity politics" off the table for serious discussion?

The insults began when you decided to go off on exactly what a constitutional lawyer is because you are oh so educated and brilliant. I'm not surprised that I'm not funny and creative enough for you. I'm also quite sure my house isn't big enough, my schools aren't good enough, I don't wear the right clothes to be in your presence...


Nice one.

Just remember, you read into my statement all sorts of things I didn't intend. If that's what keeps you happy, then please continue. Just don't be sure you're being honest or accurate.

You have painted a sweet, fey picture of me. I regret to inform you that you aren't accurate on any aspect of it, but you'll likely ignore that feature of reality in favor of your fantasy, which helps you in some indiscernible, undefined way.

As to your bitterness toward me being a lawyer, I didn't realize that becoming a lawyer meant instant sub-humanism. Please offer your unique interpretation of this turn of events, so that we all may learn from your ability to discern human from sub-human, based on the subject's mere fact of having been a lawyer. It ought to be interesting.

I would remind you that if you actually do want to see socialism succeed in America, you're going to have to persuade a lot of people who aren't even close to where I am, ideologically and intellectually speaking. If you can't even be a decent human to someone who has rejected capitalism and embraced socialism, how are you going to help in the revolution?

Angry snipes on a discussion forum, is that your formula for success?

I am suggesting no such thing. But I will state directly that gay people do not possess the same equality under the law as blacks. Of course that's not enough for parity, but I'd rather have that than not.


What is the evidence to support this claim, that homosexuals have fewer rights under the law than Blacks? Which rights are denied to homosexuals as homosexuals, but granted to Blacks as Blacks?

Mike, you're flaking big time here. You're taking the slimmest of evidence, an apparent shift of opinion of Democratic Underground which is a shift that is neither representative or consensus let alone across-the-board, and using it to make Obama into the Magic Man everyone claims he is. Its like you're playing the game in reverse: you ask what the libs think and then take the *opposite* position

You're honestly saying that because Obama took the same position that he's taken in the past, the same position that he's always taken AFAIK -- because of that, everything has changed 180 degrees in the last two weeks??

Of course. Any group of people in the working class can quickly become radicalized.


"Being" black is a social construct and so is "being" gay

Of course. Who is denying that?

What is the evidence to support this claim, that homosexuals have fewer rights under the law than Blacks? Which rights are denied to homosexuals as homosexuals, but granted to Blacks as Blacks?


Simple logic. If there were no people of color who were gay, then it would be different. Comparing white gay people to Black people is the only way to come up with the idea that Black people have fewer rights under the law than gays.

What is the evidence to support this claim, that homosexuals have fewer rights under the law than Blacks? Which rights are denied to homosexuals as homosexuals, but granted to Blacks as Blacks?


It is illegal to discriminate in housing, public accommodation, employment, etc. on the basis of race. I would never for a second dispute that it nonetheless happens all the time. In all but a very few communities, gays can be denied employment, housing, and yes (gasp!) the ability to marry based on their gayness.

What is the evidence to support this claim, that homosexuals have fewer rights under the law than Blacks? Which rights are denied to homosexuals as homosexuals, but granted to Blacks as Blacks?


It is illegal to discriminate in housing, public accommodation, employment, etc. on the basis of race. I would never for a second dispute that it nonetheless happens all the time. In all but a very few communities, gays can be denied employment, housing, and yes (gasp!) the ability to marry based on their gayness.

That's not proof. You're telling me gross generalities. My observation where I live is that Black folks get the roughest treatment of any class, followed by Native Americans. Gays and Lesbians have plenty of rights where I live. It's even bizarre to suggest otherwise.

So how do we reconcile what you're convinced is true, with what I observe?

And how does someone deny housing based on "gayness"? How does that happen?

Last, the question of marriage is a religious question. Please don't mix things. Whether gays may have civil unions? Or whether gays may "marry" in a given church? If you want to enforce "marriage" rights, you're going to have to entangle the government and religion, a mixture which rarely works well.

To me "gay rights" is a "liberal" construct, employed mainly by Obamanauts and Donkeyphiles. "Gay marriage" is even more pathetically ridiculous. Why would a homosexual person want to have the right to marry in a church where the church doesn't approve? What does that achieve? A smarter person would tell the church to fuck off, and to go live with his/her partner regardless.

It just sounds like the siren of the WAAAAAAAAHmbulance to me.

What is the evidence to support this claim, that homosexuals have fewer rights under the law than Blacks? Which rights are denied to homosexuals as homosexuals, but granted to Blacks as Blacks?


Simple logic. If there were no people of color who were gay, then it would be different. Comparing white gay people to Black people is the only way to come up with the idea that Black people have fewer rights under the law than gays.


I guess I don't follow the logic, Mike. I see significant differences, the primary of which is that there is still no scientific consensus that homosexuality is biologically innate, and not a learned environmental behavior, whereas you cannot choose to be Black or not Black -- you just are. The second difference is that you can't spot a gay or lesbian, but you can spot Black skin on a person.

Those two points make it very hard to equate the "rights" of Blacks and homosexuals, if we're talking about equal protection under the US Constitution. But I've written essays about the Constitution being fundamentally flawed, so if we are to criticize "Equal Protection" under the Constitution, I'll probably join the criticism.

That's not proof. You're telling me gross generalities. My observation where I live is that Black folks get the roughest treatment of any class, followed by Native Americans. Gays and Lesbians have plenty of rights where I live. It's even bizarre to suggest otherwise.

So how do we reconcile what you're convinced is true, with what I observe?

And how does someone deny housing based on "gayness"? How does that happen?

Last, the question of marriage is a religious question. Please don't mix things. Whether gays may have civil unions? Or whether gays may "marry" in a given church? If you want to enforce "marriage" rights, you're going to have to entangle the government and religion, a mixture which rarely works well.

To me "gay rights" is a "liberal" construct, employed mainly by Obamanauts and Donkeyphiles. "Gay marriage" is even more pathetically ridiculous. Why would a homosexual person want to have the right to marry in a church where the church doesn't approve? What does that achieve? A smarter person would tell the church to fuck off, and to go live with his/her partner regardless.

It just sounds like the siren of the WAAAAAAAAHmbulance to me.


I am telling you gross truths. I am in no way disputing that blacks get treated worse than anyone else. I'm not playing the "who has it worst" game and setting persecuted classes against each other, which is where I see your arguments heading. What I am talking about is what the LAW says about how it's ok to treat people. I have already stipulated that the law frequently doesn't count for much.

But it is nonetheless true that if two women show up to rent an apartment and they are denied that rental because the landlord doesn't like lezzies, they have no legal basis (in most places) to sue his ass and win judgment against him. If a black couple shows up to rent the same apartment and the landlord denies their application because he doesn't like blacks, there is a basis for a legal claim because it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of color. That landlord could be forced to pay damages and could also be forced to let the black couple rent the apartment.

As for marriage -- I am confusing nothing. Marriage need not have any basis in religion, and is expressly the province of government. A ceremony performed in a church without a license obtained from the government is not a legal marriage. You may find it whiney when queer folks demand this right from their government, and knock yourself out losing sleep over that. Or perhaps you're still too busy thinking about how the Lovings whined their way to the Supreme Court over the same issue.

erinaceous,

I see you have joined TBF in the group of people who read ill will into my posts. That's nice. You seem to think I dislike gays and lesbians, simply because I have a view which says that it's easier to reject those who reject you, than to try to force them to accept you. If I were a gay man, I wouldn't make my whole identity about being gay, and wouldn't seek to make every human interaction a referendum on my gayness. That's just smart socializing, in my view. I don't need to explain what I do in my free time -- not to anyone. If I were an Ohio farmboy who fucked sheep, I wouldn't mention that in a job app, or in an apartment application. Why would it be their business?

Marriage is a religious construct; civil union is the non-religious side of things. Ask any church leader and you'll hear this over and over again... if the leader knows his/her theology on marraige and his/her governmental civics on civil unions.

By the way -- your summaries of my views, they're amusing in their straw-man nature... but wrong, dead wrong. If you want to know where I stand on miscegenation, or Loving v Virginia, ask me. Don't fabricate a stance that you assign to me, while in reality the stance is not mine.

That's just lame. It's intentional divisiveness, even though you claim to want to avoid that. Interesting.

Everyone comes to discussion forums for a reason. Some come here to vent steam. I'll consider your steam partly vented. If you have more to vent, feel free to create and destroy more straw men that you've labelled as effigies for me.

I see you have joined TBF in the group of people who read ill will into my posts.

When you refer to the quest for equality as whining, you are the one injecting ill will, in plain print. When you speak of homosexuality and sheep-fucking in the same sentence you show your true colors. You are being disingenuous in your claim that I'm somehow reading into your posts what you haven't intended.

Perhaps marriage should be defined. I tend to agree with m pyre that marriage is a religious institution and no business of the state. However, the property relationships and decision making powers which marriage invoke certainly are the state's business. Thus, civil unions for all who wish those legal protections for their relationship, marriage for those who want that. That removes the stigma of the civil union as a second class status, tho' some religious folks might not care for it as that would remove all legal aspects from the marriage ceremony.

As has been noted, it has been the well off of the gay and lesbian community who have led the charge on the marriage issue, those who have the most property. Coincidence?

Perhaps marriage should be defined. I tend to agree with m pyre that marriage is a religious institution and no business of the state. However, the property relationships and decision making powers which marriage invoke certainly are the state's business. Thus, civil unions for all who wish those legal protections for their relationship, marriage for those who want that. That removes the stigma of the civil union as a second class status, tho' some religious folks might not care for it as that would remove all legal aspects from the marriage ceremony.

As has been noted, it has been the well off of the gay and lesbian community who have led the charge on the marriage issue, those who have the most property. Coincidence?


I agree that the government has no business in the marriage business.  Marriage ought to be the province of religion.  I was stating that it is not.  Not as long as a relationship is legally recognized only when the government issues a piece of paper to the people involved.

I personally would dispense with the government having anything to do with people's personal relationships, except to enforce any breeches of contract.  I tend to think that the contract should even require periodic renewal, but that's another matter.  Why shouldn't individuals be able to enter into "relationship contracts" with any consenting adult(s) of his/her choice?  Why should the government have any say in that?

So yes, the government should stay the hell out of it and the churches should do whatever they want.

As to the upper class gays being the ones pushing the marriage issue, I can't deny that, although I have no direct evidence either way.  It wouldn't surprise me and I won't argue the point.  But to suppose that poorer gays wouldn't benefit from legal marriage is to suppose incorrectly.  Inheritance, adoption, survivor benefits, employer-provided health benefits, social security, etc. -- these are all economic tangibles that poor queers would benefit from directly as surely as better off queers would benefit from the ability to file income taxes as "married filing jointly."

Of course. Any group of people in the working class can quickly become radicalized.

My mistake Mike. From the context of what (I thought) you said, I believed you were saying that DU had fallen inline with Obama on the issue but you are saying the opposite I think. I will go back and try to clarify for myself where I went wrong.

Of course we need to stand with any real movements defending people who are gay, but part and parcel of that movement would be recognizing itself as a broader movement of the working class

The insults began when you decided to go off on exactly what a constitutional lawyer is because you are oh so educated and brilliant. I'm not surprised that I'm not funny and creative enough for you. I'm also quite sure my house isn't big enough, my schools aren't good enough, I don't wear the right clothes to be in your presence...


Nice one.

Just remember, you read into my statement all sorts of things I didn't intend. If that's what keeps you happy, then please continue. Just don't be sure you're being honest or accurate.

You have painted a sweet, fey picture of me. I regret to inform you that you aren't accurate on any aspect of it, but you'll likely ignore that feature of reality in favor of your fantasy, which helps you in some indiscernible, undefined way.

As to your bitterness toward me being a lawyer, I didn't realize that becoming a lawyer meant instant sub-humanism. Please offer your unique interpretation of this turn of events, so that we all may learn from your ability to discern human from sub-human, based on the subject's mere fact of having been a lawyer. It ought to be interesting.

I would remind you that if you actually do want to see socialism succeed in America, you're going to have to persuade a lot of people who aren't even close to where I am, ideologically and intellectually speaking. If you can't even be a decent human to someone who has rejected capitalism and embraced socialism, how are you going to help in the revolution?

Angry snipes on a discussion forum, is that your formula for success?


Nah, I actually liked one lawyer enough to marry him. Top of his class from a top school. Clerked on the federal circuit. More intelligence in one little finger than people who go on for pages with their grandiose pontifications and snipes. I married him for many reasons - but a key one is that he doesn't care for intellectual snobs any more than any other kind. And he likes dogs. That was key.

Perhaps marriage should be defined. I tend to agree with m pyre that marriage is a religious institution and no business of the state. However, the property relationships and decision making powers which marriage invoke certainly are the state's business. Thus, civil unions for all who wish those legal protections for their relationship, marriage for those who want that. That removes the stigma of the civil union as a second class status, tho' some religious folks might not care for it as that would remove all legal aspects from the marriage ceremony.

As has been noted, it has been the well off of the gay and lesbian community who have led the charge on the marriage issue, those who have the most property. Coincidence?


I agree that the government has no business in the marriage business. Marriage ought to be the province of religion. I was stating that it is not. Not as long as a relationship is legally recognized only when the government issues a piece of paper to the people involved.

I personally would dispense with the government having anything to do with people's personal relationships, except to enforce any breeches of contract. I tend to think that the contract should even require periodic renewal, but that's another matter. Why shouldn't individuals be able to enter into "relationship contracts" with any consenting adult(s) of his/her choice? Why should the government have any say in that?

So yes, the government should stay the hell out of it and the churches should do whatever they want.

As to the upper class gays being the ones pushing the marriage issue, I can't deny that, although I have no direct evidence either way. It wouldn't surprise me and I won't argue the point. But to suppose that poorer gays wouldn't benefit from legal marriage is to suppose incorrectly. Inheritance, adoption, survivor benefits, employer-provided health benefits, social security, etc. -- these are all economic tangibles that poor queers would benefit from directly as surely as better off queers would benefit from the ability to file income taxes as "married filing jointly."


'Breaches of contract' is what I was talking about, that and any other economic considerations along with medical decisions, etc. For that some kind of arbitrator is needed as custom has (been) broken down. Otherwise yes, fuck the state, the sooner we are shut of it the better.

To be sure, a level playing field would benefit all. I was just underlining that it all comes back to property.

'Breaches of contract' is what I was talking about,

I said 'breeches' and I meant 'pants', goddamit. Either that or I just fucked up the spelling.

I see you have joined TBF in the group of people who read ill will into my posts.

When you refer to the quest for equality as whining, you are the one injecting ill will, in plain print. When you speak of homosexuality and sheep-fucking in the same sentence you show your true colors. You are being disingenuous in your claim that I'm somehow reading into your posts what you haven't intended.


You're wrong, and just working on anger -- anger based on an erroneous assumption, or series of them.

But apparently accuracy and honesty, and getting to know the other person... well they're irrelevant to you. So you come here to find enemies, and now you've made me your enemy. Well done. Remember, the way to getting a socialist revolution is to create enemies, then denigrate them based upon what you assume wrongly about them.

Nice work.

Here's a hint for future discussions. If you want to know what I think about homosexuality -- ANY aspect of it -- just ask me a pointed question on the issue.

If you want to know what I think about ANYTHING -- just ask a specific question.

Of course, this suggestion eliminates your tactic of straw-man-creation and subsequent destruction. So I doubt you'll use it. But please give it some thought, will you?

Nah, I actually liked one lawyer enough to marry him. Top of his class from a top school. Clerked on the federal circuit. More intelligence in one little finger than people who go on for pages with their grandiose pontifications and snipes. I married him for many reasons - but a key one is that he doesn't care for intellectual snobs any more than any other kind. And he likes dogs. That was key.

My condolences for your marriage to a sub-human.

What do you use as a detector of intellectual snobbery? I'd be interested in hearing more about that one.

People would not clamor for the word were it not apparently utterly impossible for there to come into existence a civil union that enjoys full faith and credit protections while delivering everything on the GAO's list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm).

But given that current law - the liberal capitulation that is the despicable Defense of Marriage Act - renders such a possibility a non-starter, what are fags left to ask for? Nothing but marriage.

And as long as some of the 45-odd percent of the American people who actually believe in a 10,000 year old, creationist Earth enjoy seats on the SCOTUS and in the POTUS, homos are one minority that is quite simply fucked.

It is indeed a Plessy thing.

And worse than the original, is it one caused by the political miscalculations of the too self-interested boujie activist victims. Anyone who says otherwise can go fuck themselves - and I say that without having read but a very cursory bit of what is apparently a long argument here., neither side of which impresses me much more than liberal/conservative political arguments.

I have an ex-boyfriend with whom I remain friendly. He has an 11 year relationship that is coming to an end now. They were unionized (heh!) in Vermont.

Ironically, Vermont once had a very progressive divorce law relative to its neighboring states (maybe still does, I'm not curious enough to bother looking). But this historically progressive law necessitated the institution of a residency requirement because out-of-state people were coming in droves to get divorces.

Now, with the civil union having been created, Vermont has in one very clean liberal capitulation shown the hollow uselessness of "progressivism." They gave equal divorce rights to the queers. Not putting in place a front end residency requirement (because that woulda been discriminatory, dontcha know...) fucked those people who came to the great bastion of progressivism to celebrate what would be nothing but a peace of paper even less meaningful than mere dictum once they have gotten back home from "affirming their equal rights." What sort of bullshit is that, really? How can any rational person on either side of this rather silly argument call what Vermont has done a step forward?

All this state by state shit is really no gain at all. In fact it is for some a rather significant loss as things turn out, finding themselves in a legal purgatory from which one cannot easily ascend. And all of this while also creating no positive federal gains but instead a very significant negative one, the aforementioned DOMA/Plessy.

And so of course, that's why I think this is very much a terrifically bougie "issue" and one that has backfired terribly. It sickens me that this is the cause celebre for gays when gay children kill themselves at such high rates and when school bullying, employment and housing discrimination and all such as that remain virtually untouched.

An appeal for equal rights in toto for gays would have been much more politic, making marriage a less inflammatory sideshow instead of the lynch pin for the reactionary legal lynch mob. But then, that ain't how boujies think...consequently, they've gone a long way towards delaying their ultimate emancipation and strengthening the forces arrayed against them by glomming on to the the "issue" that inspires the most visceral reactionary response from the American Taliban.

Of course my lawyer-ex bf doesn't see eye to eye with me on this. But then I've already shown my self to be too far out for the current gay identity politics. Frankly, I don't really accept the essentialist identity of being gay as anything other than an unfortunate outcome of bourgeois society. Fucking without all those crinkly labels in the way can be much better, IMO.

Party on y'all. Maybe you can all make up now so you can gang up on me ;)

That's not proof. You're telling me gross generalities. My observation where I live is that Black folks get the roughest treatment of any class, followed by Native Americans. Gays and Lesbians have plenty of rights where I live. It's even bizarre to suggest otherwise.


You are switching back and forth. You said "by law" but now you are talking who gets the roughest treatment.

Again - what about gay people who happen to be Black? Easier or harder than for Black people who are not gay?

What is bizarre is to suggest that gays are a separate and discrete group of people from Blacks.

That's not proof. You're telling me gross generalities. My observation where I live is that Black folks get the roughest treatment of any class, followed by Native Americans. Gays and Lesbians have plenty of rights where I live. It's even bizarre to suggest otherwise.


You are switching back and forth. You said "by law" but now you are talking who gets the roughest treatment.

Again - what about gay people who happen to be Black? Easier or harder than for Black people who are not gay?

What is bizarre is to suggest that gays are a separate and discrete group of people from Blacks.


There are some significant differences though. In absorbing the chains of the historical oppressors, the black community has created a situation where the specter of double discrimination looms for the gay black man in a very close-to-home way. Thus the so-called downlow culture (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0D61E3FF930A3575BC0A9659C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=print) and consequent increased rates of HIV transmission to unknowing wives, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

I ain't as social, particularly in gay circles, as I once was. But I'd be very surprised if even a plurality of black men who fuck other men even give a tiny little shit about the issue of gay marriage. It is my experience that they have a much different gestalt than the typical couples one sees hand in hand at these controversial ceremonies; alas theirs being much more appealing to me while also much less accessible.

I guess I don't follow the logic, Mike. I see significant differences, the primary of which is that there is still no scientific consensus that homosexuality is biologically innate, and not a learned environmental behavior, whereas you cannot choose to be Black or not Black -- you just are. The second difference is that you can't spot a gay or lesbian, but you can spot Black skin on a person.

It is not true that Black people "just are" Black. That is on our imagination. It is not true that gay people have any more choice than Black people do.

Spotting Black skin on another person is something we have been taught and trained to do. It is an illusion.

"Spotting" is just what we do. Why is that? Whom does that serve?

It doesn't matter if gay is biologically innate or not. It does not even matter if a person actually "is gay." People have been murdered because other people thought they "were gay."

It is completely irrelevant whether or not one chooses to be gay. No one chooses to be assaulted because someone else thinks they "are gay," and then feels something hateful and threatening about "gay" and attacks a person.

Can't you guys see that if hatred toward gays goes unchecked that it will eventually lead to persecution of people because of mannerisms, inclinations, habits? You have a same sex roommate and you are now under suspicion and subjected to persecution. It won't matter that you "aren't gay."

This not about the victims, it is about the perpetrators.

Gay is in the imagination of the perpetrator, just as race is in people's imaginations. It doesn't actually exist otherwise. People "see" race as a function of oppression, not the other way around. They see things that are not there. Race doesn't exist. Any superficial physical characteristics that we associate with "Black" then "means" something to us. A person can be 90% from white ancestry, and still be "seen" as Black. We selectively only see the characteristics that we associate with Black, and there is no way to separate that selective perception from the history of oppression, and that then becomes a class issue.

First came slavery, then came racism. Too many people think it is the other way around, and that in itself promotes racism and divides and conquers the working class.

We don't analyze and criticize poor people in order to solve poverty.

We don't analyze and criticize people of color in order to solve racism.

There could be no gays at all, and the gay hatred would still happen, under some other name. It is not about the gays. It is about the hatred, fueled and fanned to divide the working class. "Gay" is an excuse, just as race is.

I guess I don't follow the logic, Mike. I see significant differences, the primary of which is that there is still no scientific consensus that homosexuality is biologically innate, and not a learned environmental behavior, whereas you cannot choose to be Black or not Black -- you just are. The second difference is that you can't spot a gay or lesbian, but you can spot Black skin on a person.

It is not true that Black people "just are" Black. That is on our imagination.

http://www.papuatrekking.cz/uploads/images/fotky/Papua_new_tribe_Idjadje%20(3).JPG

These "black" folk are not of African ancestry. Does that mean they are not "Black?"

It seems to me that those fans of identity politics who get caught up with one another arguing the relative sufferings of these groups slide from the supremely slippery social constructionist they start on back to - in the case of "But look at that black skin" - an even more reactionary essentialism.

One really should not need to point out to thinking people that this represents a hardening of opinion that can only be the mark of a move in the exactly wrong direction.

Some fodder:


Making sense of such disjunctions relies on notions such as false consciousness — the systematic mystification of the experience of the oppressed by the perspective of the dominant. Thus despite the disagreements of many defenders of identity political claims with Marxism and other radical political models, they share the view that individuals' perceptions of their own interests may be systematically distorted and must be somehow freed of their misperceptions by group-based transformation.

Concern about this aspect of identity politics has crystallized around the transparency of experience to the oppressed, and the univocality of its interpretation. Experience is never, critics argue, simply epistemically available prior to interpretation (Scott 1992); rather it requires a theoretical framework — implicit or explicit — to give it meaning. Moreover, if experience is the origin of politics, then some critics worry that what Kruks (2001) calls “an epistemology of provenance” will become the norm: on this view, political perspectives gain legitimacy by virtue of their articulation by subjects of particular experiences. This, critics charge, closes off the possibility of critique of these perspectives by those who don't share the experience, which in turn inhibits political dialogue and coalition-building.

From these understandings of subjectivity, it is easy to see how critics of identity politics, and even some cautious supporters, have feared that it is prone to essentialism. This expression is another philosophical term of abuse, intended to capture a multitude of sins. In its original contexts in metaphysics, the term implies the belief that an object has a certain quality by virtue of which it is what it is; for Locke, famously, the essence of a triangle is that it is a three-sided shape. In the contemporary humanities the term is used more loosely to imply, most commonly, an illegitimate generalization about identity (Heyes 2000). In the case of identity politics, two claims stand out as plausibly “essentialist:” the first is the understanding of the subject that characterizes a single axis of identity as discrete and taking priority in representing the self--as if being Asian-American, for example, were entirely separable from being a woman. To the extent that identity politics urges mobilization around a single axis, it will put pressure on participants to identify that axis as their defining feature, when in fact they may well understand themselves as integrated selves who cannot be represented so selectively or even reductively (Spelman 1988). The second form of essentialism is closely related to the first: generalizations made about particular social groups in the context of identity politics may come to have a disciplinary function within the group, not just describing but also dictating the self-understanding that its members should have. Thus, the supposedly liberatory new identity may inhibit autonomy, as Anthony Appiah puts it, replacing “one kind of tyranny with another” (Appiah in Gutmann ed. 1994, 163). Just as dominant groups in the culture at large insist that the marginalized integrate by assimilating to dominant norms, so within some practices of identity politics dominant sub-groups may, in theory and practice, impose their vision of the group's identity onto all its members. For example, in his films Black Is, Black Ain't and Tongues Untied Marlon Riggs eloquently portrays the exclusion of Black women and gay Black men from heterosexist and masculinist understandings of African-American identity politics.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/

Making sense of such disjunctions relies on notions such as false consciousness — the systematic mystification of the experience of the oppressed by the perspective of the dominant. Thus despite the disagreements of many defenders of identity political claims with Marxism and other radical political models, they share the view that individuals' perceptions of their own interests may be systematically distorted and must be somehow freed of their misperceptions by group-based transformation.

Concern about this aspect of identity politics has crystallized around the transparency of experience to the oppressed, and the univocality of its interpretation. Experience is never, critics argue, simply epistemically available prior to interpretation (Scott 1992); rather it requires a theoretical framework — implicit or explicit — to give it meaning. Moreover, if experience is the origin of politics, then some critics worry that what Kruks (2001) calls “an epistemology of provenance” will become the norm: on this view, political perspectives gain legitimacy by virtue of their articulation by subjects of particular experiences. This, critics charge, closes off the possibility of critique of these perspectives by those who don't share the experience, which in turn inhibits political dialogue and coalition-building.

From these understandings of subjectivity, it is easy to see how critics of identity politics, and even some cautious supporters, have feared that it is prone to essentialism. This expression is another philosophical term of abuse, intended to capture a multitude of sins. In its original contexts in metaphysics, the term implies the belief that an object has a certain quality by virtue of which it is what it is; for Locke, famously, the essence of a triangle is that it is a three-sided shape. In the contemporary humanities the term is used more loosely to imply, most commonly, an illegitimate generalization about identity (Heyes 2000). In the case of identity politics, two claims stand out as plausibly “essentialist:” the first is the understanding of the subject that characterizes a single axis of identity as discrete and taking priority in representing the self--as if being Asian-American, for example, were entirely separable from being a woman. To the extent that identity politics urges mobilization around a single axis, it will put pressure on participants to identify that axis as their defining feature, when in fact they may well understand themselves as integrated selves who cannot be represented so selectively or even reductively (Spelman 1988). The second form of essentialism is closely related to the first: generalizations made about particular social groups in the context of identity politics may come to have a disciplinary function within the group, not just describing but also dictating the self-understanding that its members should have. Thus, the supposedly liberatory new identity may inhibit autonomy, as Anthony Appiah puts it, replacing “one kind of tyranny with another” (Appiah in Gutmann ed. 1994, 163). Just as dominant groups in the culture at large insist that the marginalized integrate by assimilating to dominant norms, so within some practices of identity politics dominant sub-groups may, in theory and practice, impose their vision of the group's identity onto all its members. For example, in his films Black Is, Black Ain't and Tongues Untied Marlon Riggs eloquently portrays the exclusion of Black women and gay Black men from heterosexist and masculinist understandings of African-American identity politics.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/

Making sense of such disjunctions...

What's fucked is that we are apparently google soulmates, even quoting very nearly the exact same passage of that paper.

Making sense of such disjunctions...

What's fucked is that we are apparently google soulmates, even quoting very nearly the exact same passage of that paper.




I copied your quote actually, and I assumed you were using it as some kind of parody. If it actually means something, you'll have to fill me in :)

I copied your quote actually, and I assumed you were using it as some kind of parody. If it actually means something, you'll have to fill me in :)


Why not just say so. If you want to discuss a thoroughly boujie argument as folks here seem to be doing about fags and blacks, then it should be described in boujie terms.

There is nothing Marxist about it.

And so of course, that's why I think this is very much a terrifically bougie "issue" and one that has backfired terribly. It sickens me that this is the cause celebre for gays when gay children kill themselves at such high rates and when school bullying, employment and housing discrimination and all such as that remain virtually untouched.

An appeal for equal rights in toto for gays would have been much more politic, making marriage a less inflammatory sideshow instead of the lynch pin for the reactionary legal lynch mob. But then, that ain't how boujies think...consequently, they've gone a long way towards delaying their ultimate emancipation and strengthening the forces arrayed against them by glomming on to the the "issue" that inspires the most visceral reactionary response from the American Taliban.


Just to clarify -- although I have made reference to gay marriage, I in no way ever meant to imply that it is the most important issue for gays. I agree wholeheartedly that there are bigger fish to fry.

But entertain these two possibilities, if you will. 1.) "Gay marriage" was a plant of an issue -- thrust into the limelight by the right-wing precisely BECAUSE of the visceral reactionary response it would elicit, thereby reducing any warm fuzzy empathy we may have garnered by the murder of Matthew Shepard and Fred Phelps' despicable response. 2.) Gay marriage is important as a SYMBOL. Full marriage equality mean an acceptance of our humanity in a way that few other things would.

Discuss.

Nah, I actually liked one lawyer enough to marry him. Top of his class from a top school. Clerked on the federal circuit. More intelligence in one little finger than people who go on for pages with their grandiose pontifications and snipes. I married him for many reasons - but a key one is that he doesn't care for intellectual snobs any more than any other kind. And he likes dogs. That was key.

My condolences for your marriage to a sub-human.

What do you use as a detector of intellectual snobbery? I'd be interested in hearing more about that one.


You want to hear from a simpleton like me? I'm still trying to figure out if "ill will" is a synonym for "arrogance". I'm going to ask someone smart when I get the chance.

I copied your quote actually, and I assumed you were using it as some kind of parody. If it actually means something, you'll have to fill me in :)


Why not just say so. If you want to discuss a thoroughly boujie argument as folks here seem to be doing about fags and blacks, then it should be described in boujie terms.

There is nothing Marxist about it.


I did say so, see the title of my last post..

EDIT: and I really didn't/don't want to discuss, I touched off this whole episode by suggesting we can it

I'm pretty sure the squid is the one who introduced the racial aspect to it

No man, I wasn't hatin' on the squid, I was just saying you were the one who took the conversation in that direction. I don't agree with the Pinkster thats it an exclusively bourgeoisie argument.

The entire history of America revolves around slavery and race, and its hard to get more "Marxist" than that.

EDIT: evidentally VS deleted his post, but it was a picture of a whaling boat harpooing a giant squid

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/8863/389pxalectongiantsquid1ki6.png

Hey folks c'mon. Lots of work ahead, and we have a long way to go. It is way to soon to dig in and lob turds over the embankment.

Great stuff on this thread - read what Rusty had to say a little ways back. Good stuff there.

No shortcuts, no easy ways out. Killing all the lawyers won't get it, nor will being a legal expert. No one's identity or integrity is threatened. We are free here. We fought hard to get here.

Plenty of pissing matches all over the Internet. We can be free of all that. Focus, discipline - light of foot, think - don't react.

A couple of people here have a blunt and direct style. So be it. If you need nicey nice, talk to me, I can do that one. If you need to get to know a person better, make the effort yourself, don't get all defensive and offended.

Remember what anax said -

Purpose:
Write some shit...
Drag in more people...
Get them to write some shit...
Stop whining....

http://socialistindependent.org/board/index.php?topic=50.0

I know this one in some depth (the link above). You handle it by surviving their bull shit torture, maintaining your will, and working like hell to over come it. None of the Gitmo prisoners have this option.

First, the people there who might have hostile intentions are now so totally trashed as human beings, their only threat is that posed by the rage their condition produces when viewed upon their release. They've been destroyed, completely.

Second, if they were a threat, the why have they not been charged. The Military Tribunals, so important we had to lose habeas corpus, were the ultimate stacked deck. All they had to do was charge those who have not been charged and they were guaranteed a victory. This is the two ton elephant in the living room.

Who do they think that they're kidding?

How stupid do "they" think that we are? They have not charged people whom they could have ordered convicted through the tribunals. They have damn little, if any, evidence against them. Isn't evidence a part of the studies at University of Chicago Law School. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OTHERWISE THEY'D BE TRIED.

While I'm in a celebratory mood on the publication of the above linked article, let me say one more thing:

It DOES NOT MATTER what Obama says about letting bygones be bygones vis a vis prosecuting the criminal behavior of the Bush administration. NOT ONE BIT

Why is that? Because he's not the attorney general, he's not supposed to tell him or even hint at what the A.G. is supposed to do in terms of prosecuting any set of law breakers. If he'd said, we need to let bygones be bygones for embezzlers, what would people say? He's trying to influence prosecutions, what utter bull shit. But say it about the authors of 1.2 million deaths in Iraq alone and he's tagged as a "healer." But that term is must part of the Matrix logic of the corporate media shills who invent history on the fly to comport with their instructions from "The Money Party."

The public doesn't buy this nonsense. The poll on the new bailout iis "telling" - 60-35% or close to that disapprove. That more than disapproved in the rigged polls at the time of the original bailout That's an indicator of support. The flunkies in Congress were bullied by Obama to give him these funds but his bullying was not in line with what the people want.

Reap that wind baby, so that whirlwind. That's a fact.

1.) "Gay marriage" was a plant of an issue -- thrust into the limelight by the right-wing precisely BECAUSE of the visceral reactionary response it would elicit, thereby reducing any warm fuzzy empathy we may have garnered by the murder of Matthew Shepard and Fred Phelps' despicable response.

I think all of the liberal issues follow that pattern.

The right wing is money. Money is the right wing. All liberal organizations measure their success by money. At some point, they are going hat in hand to the money folks and begging. The success of their begging determines the success of their organizations and careers. To successfully compete for that money, they must please those with the money. They do this by allowing the right wing to define them, their causes, and their goals. Those causes and goals are all defined in such a way that they are certain to fail in their avowed purpose, while still sounding plausible and reasonable enough to continue to attract support and allegiance form the liberal community.

I stumbled onto a classic example of this a couple of years ago. There is a successful liberal organization in Michigan, with much support from the liberal community, dedicated to "saving family farms. " They are funded lavishly by a couple of the big foundations. I requested, and received their documentation - the actual statement of purpose and their grant requests. That was a blatant broadside against small family farmers, blaming them for the "lack of diversity" and the unavailability of local produce, and the bad diets of the American people, and global warming and on and on.

Their mission was actually to be propagandizing against family farmers. WTF? Of course they say "no we are not against family farmers, we just think they need to change." I say to them, but you never talk to any farmers. They say well yes, we are having trouble getting them involved and out to our events. (Again it is their fault, the farmers.) I say, why would a farmer come to an event that is all about bashing farmers? And why aren't you going to them?

I don't get invited back after that.

Follow the money. All of the big financial interests in ag - ADM, Cargil etc. - fund the foundation, and the foundations fund the organizations that are "saving family farms."

All of the liberal organizations are that way - they are simultaneously embracing two contradictory agendas - diametrically opposed agendas usually. There is one agenda to fool their followers (and themselves often) and another one to please their funding sources.

As a result, the thinking of most liberals is really screwed up.


2.) Gay marriage is important as a SYMBOL. Full marriage equality mean an acceptance of our humanity in a way that few other things would.

Seems that way to me.

No man, I wasn't hatin' on the squid, I was just saying you were the one who took the conversation in that direction. I don't agree with the Pinkster thats it an exclusively bourgeoisie argument.

The entire history of America revolves around slavery and race, and its hard to get more "Marxist" than that.

i don't see what's bourgeois about trying to determine which contradictions in US society are more or less antagonistic than others... that is, which contradictions are resolvable w/in US-style capitalism & which ones aren't. it's super-duper-important to figure out who your potential allies are, isn't it? is it wise to try to be all things to all people, save Mr Moneybags & his big mouthpiece, the volvo-driving, fromage-eating latte liberals?

pinko, you are right that it's not useful at all to consider each of these things (being gay, or black, or both, etc) in isolation. kid, you are wrong that i was the one who brought up race, actually it was erinaceous who said obama's line on queers was "separate IS equal now get to the back of the bus" or something to that effect. i guess my mistake was not knowing when to drop the issue. sorry dudes.

..


my bad on that

Like you, I'm glad I had a hand in bringing this up :)

Food first.

Fuck identity politics.

Food first.

Fuck identity politics.


I was going to let things stand here, but it's just not that simple. Would you be saying "fuck identity politics" if we were talking about racism?

re: food - i made a perfect eggs benedict this morning. like, flawless.

this has nothing to do with anything, i'm just very pleased with myself right now.

Identity first. Then people will be fed.

Capitalism is about ripping people off. People are weakened and dispersed and silenced so they can more easily be ripped off. Denying people self-determination, by breaking up their cultural and social foundation, and denying and destroying their perceptions and reality is the first step. The old reality, people's control over their own self-identification and their own perceptions and reality, must be destroyed to make room for the new reality - miserable existence as a slum-dwelling wage slave.

I have been working hard to connect the gay rights struggle and the anti-poverty struggle with the general struggle of the working class.

Do you guys really think that rusty, erin or I are pushing some gentrified upscale liberal identity politics bullshit here?

Do you guys really think that rusty, erin or I are pushing some gentrified upscale liberal identity politics bullshit here?

Don't know because I stopped reading this thread for the most part, don't care because I don't think it matters much anyway. My original complaint was that the language erinaceous was couching her critique in seemed lifted straight from Democratic Underground, and I felt it wasn't a productive way to "frame" things.

I'm not questioning anyone's ideology or anything like that

Food first.

Fuck identity politics.


I was going to let things stand here, but it's just not that simple. Would you be saying "fuck identity politics" if we were talking about racism?


Racism has little to do with identity politics and all to do with class and capitalism and economic power.

You have touched, unwittingly, upon what may be the primary reason why folks have such a difficult time in discussing racism in any meaningful way and why it can't be addressed in any meaningful way based on such hollow discussions.

The PTB wish it to be this way and frame and circumscribe the discussion in just this manner. That alone should inform your thinking.

Food first.

Food first.

Fuck identity politics.


I was going to let things stand here, but it's just not that simple. Would you be saying "fuck identity politics" if we were talking about racism?


Racism has little to do with identity politics and all to do with class and capitalism and economic power.

You have touched, unwittingly, upon what may be the primary reason why folks have such a difficult time in discussing racism in any meaningful way and why it can't be addressed in any meaningful way based on such hollow discussions.

The PTB wish it to be this way and frame and circumscribe the discussion in just this manner. That alone should inform your thinking.

Food first.


Back this 100%

Identity first. Then people will be fed.


Nonsense.

That is in fact a cornerstone of liberal ideology. It is complete rubbish.

Land.

"Indigenous cultures cannot fit into the logic of capitalism. They do not want to sell the land where they live and work, the rivers where they fish and drink, their knowledge of medicinal plants, their lives. They are not for sale."

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

-Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Identity first. Then people will be fed.


Nonsense.

That is in fact a cornerstone of liberal ideology. It is complete rubbish.

Land.

"Indigenous cultures cannot fit into the logic of capitalism. They do not want to sell the land where they live and work, the rivers where they fish and drink, their knowledge of medicinal plants, their lives. They are not for sale."

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

-Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy






Of course. Just because the liberals hijacked the word identity doesn't mean we can't use it. People's social existence is their identity - who they are.

Mebbe I don't know what you guys mean by "identity politics." Never did quite understand the idea and never found it very useful. Mostly I have heard right wingers use it.

Identity first. Then people will be fed.


Nonsense.

That is in fact a cornerstone of liberal ideology. It is complete rubbish.

Land.

"Indigenous cultures cannot fit into the logic of capitalism. They do not want to sell the land where they live and work, the rivers where they fish and drink, their knowledge of medicinal plants, their lives. They are not for sale."

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

-Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy






Hey Chalms,

I was thinking it was time to let this one slide for a while and talk about the Manifesto. If we do that, we'll get back around to this in a little while with, hopefully, a little more perspective

Because the rest of what Mike wrote there is nonsense as well, if "capitalism is about ripping people off" then fraud, charlatanism and swindle take center stage. And that is another pillar of vulgar liberalism to be sure.

Hey Chalms,

I was thinking it was time to let this one slide for a while and talk about the Manifesto. If we do that, we'll get back around to this in a little while with, hopefully, a little more perspective

Because the rest of what Mike wrote there is nonsense as well, if "capitalism is about ripping people off" then fraud, charlatanism and swindle take center stage. And that is another pillar of vulgar liberalism to be sure.


I think "gay" is a way people are being terrorized and persecuted, one of many ways.

Yeah, the liberals were all over gay rights and had turned it into one of their causes, but they dumped all that in a big hurry in order to defend Obama over the Warren crap.

I think we should be alert for opportunities to pull people into class awareness and build solidarity.

Hey kid - capitalism is not about exploiting and extracting wealth from people? What is wrong with calling that "ripping people off?"

Why can't I tie that in with the smashing up of people's cultural and social moorings, and the dividing of the working class with the spreading of fears and hatred over the gay issue?

Wow, this is one convoluted thread. If people are starving I'm not sure they care about who or what they are except for ravenous, hence I vote for Food first

...and the divide and conquer stratagem seems to be alive and well here...how do we resolve this bullshit. We all know that the ptb fuck all and everybody including their own when they can, lets deal with them first, get our food, housing, and other needs met; everything else is important and in order to survive we're going to have to get along somehow, but first we gotta take care of the starving, cold, and exhausted...Food first...

Sorry I got off track guys, I guess Obama brings out the best in us all huh? Speaking of feeding people, I'd love to see the $150M he's spending on inauguration go to feeding some people who need it rather than the fat cats who will be there celebrating that night:

Obama's inauguration set to be the most expensive in US history (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/barack-obama-inauguration-cost)

President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m (£102m). This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993.

Part of the spending includes emergency funding announced by the White House on Tuesday to help with the soaring costs. Most of this new federal funding will be to deal with the huge influx of people, estimated 1.5 million to 2 million.

A White House statement said that President Bush "declared an emergency exists in the District of Columbia".

If there is snow, the costs will grow higher. The long-term forecast suggests there is a chance of snow on Sunday and again on the day of inauguration, on Tuesday.

Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies, told the New York Daily News, which estimated the cost at $160m: "We're always very budget conscious. But we're sending a message to the entire world about our peaceful transition of power, and you don't want it to look like a schlock affair. It needs to be appropriate to the magnitude of events that it is."

(more at link if you can stomach it)

If people are starving I'm not sure they care about who or what they are except for ravenous, hence I vote for Food first.


People? What species is that? Are these pets were are talking about?

How are people going to be fed if we don't identify with the working class, if we don't build class consciousness? "Food first" is what leads to, and what reflects liberal politics. Let's set up soup kitchens, then so "they" can get their food, because that is all "they" care about, yes?

Modern Americans have no culture, have no community, have no identity. Our culture, our community, our identity was the first one to be destroyed. That is why we can see ourselves as outside of the picture, as some sort of neutral disengaged observers of life.

We are not dispersed, isolated and powerless because we don't have food. But many are without food because we are dispersed, isolated and powerless.

You want food? Do the bidding of the ruling class and they will toss you enough crumbs to keep your stomach from growling. Set up a soup kitchen if you are worried about those who can't or won't do the bidding of the ruling class.

But if we want people to stand up on their two feet, join together in solidarity and fight back, then our identity as members of the ruling class is essential. To get to that we can't just say "oh that identity stuff is a bunch of liberal crap." It isn't that easy.

The problem is not that there is not food, the problem is that the ruling class controls all of the resources. And the reason for that is because we don't know who the hell we are.

How are people going to be fed if we don't identify with the working class, if we don't build class consciousness? "Food first" is what leads to, and what reflects liberal politics. Let's set up soup kitchens, then so "they" can get their food, because that is all "they" care about, yes?


Tell it to Fred Hampton. He and his comrades fed thousands daily.

It is about changing conditions.

Conditions change and then minds do.

You have it just backwards in the comment above, daddio.


It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

The Murder of Fred Hampton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn0PiDvVXDY)


Let me just say: Peace to you, if you're willing to fight for it. - Fred Hampton

http://www.fatamerican.tv/t-shirt-page/450x-political-t-shirts/fred-hampton.gif

Liberation struggles are not all equal. But it is not always the issue (food v. identity, for example) that makes one a priority. Often it is the characteristics of a struggle that define it. It seems to me that we should be able to determine the possible effectiveness of campaigns to contribute to the eventual liberation of working class people, regardless of the issue.

For the past several years I've witnessed (on various forums) the on-line debate between self-identified Leftists about the meaning of reforming the status quo. Some seek to describe a radical (in the sense of pre-revolutionary) program as one that departs from a strategy of reforming the present political system. Others find reform to be the best that can be accomplished in a pre-revolutionary period.

As many people before me have pointed out, no true Leftist would abandon struggles for higher wages, health care, affordable housing, an end to imperialist military adventures or struggles for gender, sexual or racial equality. To do so would be callous and void of any sense of solidarity. The organization and message of these kind of reform struggles is, however, where a radical program can begin to be truly political. And politics is all about power. No matter what the struggle, we can make some decisions about what attributes a radical campaign or strategy might have:

1) It is organized democratically, with leadership coming from those most oppressed or exploited. The Trade Union movement in the US not an example of such an organization. It has tried to mirror the corporate organizational form. The leadership is provided by paid staff, who may have good intentions, but ultimately decision making is done at higher bureaucratic levels. Some locals are spread, geographically, over hundreds of miles, with locals comprised of tens of thousands of members. The goal has often become the signing of a contract that increases membership at the expense of any demand for increased power or encouragement of participation in decision making for those already organized.

2) While it seeks winnable reforms is some area(s) of the status quo, it openly declares that ultimately a universal solution is impossible under current economic or political institutions. For example, a campaign to mandate a living wage for all workers in a city or state might be winnable, but near equal income for all citizens is clearly not going to happen under capitalism.

3) It leads to further class solidarity and struggle. A campaign directed at the abolition of the racial profiling of immigrants by a local law enforcement agency might target local government as the institution that can bring about the reform. Many times the initial impulse of Immigration Rights activists is to lobby policy makers on behalf of working class immigrants. Even if successful, reform comes with little or no increase in mass participation or commitment. Alternatively, if the campaign is led by immigrants organizing and building alliances with labor, church and community groups to successfully change public policy, the victory is accompanied by an organization ready to move on to the next task.

This list of attributes is not meant to be inclusive, and this post doesn't mention Identity Politics. I, personally, don't know any working class based organizations working for GLBTQ rights. If they exist and have the characteristics described above, they should be supported. In any case, an authentic cry for justice and equality shouldn't be discouraged.

Hey Rusty,

Of course what you write is true, but it is possible to be too doctrinaire about it, which seems to be the case here. For starters, social existence entails a good bit more than just "conditions" as we're invoking them here.

It seems to me that you are disagreeing with Mike over phrase-ology. Yes, Mike is apparently trying to slightly re-define terms like "identity" but we can deal

I don't really see what is wrong with this quote or how it deviates from Marx's dictum. In fact I think its one of Mike's best and clearest posts because of its conciseness:


How are people going to be fed if we don't identify with the working class, if we don't build class consciousness? "Food first" is what leads to, and what reflects liberal politics. Let's set up soup kitchens, then so "they" can get their food, because that is all "they" care about, yes?

Modern Americans have no culture, have no community, have no identity. Our culture, our community, our identity was the first one to be destroyed. That is why we can see ourselves as outside of the picture, as some sort of neutral disengaged observers of life.

We are not dispersed, isolated and powerless because we don't have food. But many are without food because we are dispersed, isolated and powerless.

You want food? Do the bidding of the ruling class and they will toss you enough crumbs to keep your stomach from growling. Set up a soup kitchen if you are worried about those who can't or won't do the bidding of the ruling class.

But if we want people to stand up on their two feet, join together in solidarity and fight back, then our identity as members of the ruling class is essential. To get to that we can't just say "oh that identity stuff is a bunch of liberal crap." It isn't that easy.

The problem is not that there is not food, the problem is that the ruling class controls all of the resources. And the reason for that is because we don't know who the hell we are.

Marx was not encourgaging do-gooderism.

Hey Rusty,

Of course what you write is true, but it is possible to be too doctrinaire about it, which seems to be the case here. For starters, social existence entails a good bit more than just "conditions" as we're invoking them here.

It seems to me that you are disagreeing with Mike over phrase-ology. Yes, Mike is apparently trying to slightly re-define terms like "identity" but we can deal

I don't really see what is wrong with this quote or how it deviates from Marx's dictum. In fact I think its one of Mike's best and clearest posts because of its conciseness:


How are people going to be fed if we don't identify with the working class, if we don't build class consciousness? "Food first" is what leads to, and what reflects liberal politics. Let's set up soup kitchens, then so "they" can get their food, because that is all "they" care about, yes?

Modern Americans have no culture, have no community, have no identity. Our culture, our community, our identity was the first one to be destroyed. That is why we can see ourselves as outside of the picture, as some sort of neutral disengaged observers of life.

We are not dispersed, isolated and powerless because we don't have food. But many are without food because we are dispersed, isolated and powerless.

You want food? Do the bidding of the ruling class and they will toss you enough crumbs to keep your stomach from growling. Set up a soup kitchen if you are worried about those who can't or won't do the bidding of the ruling class.

But if we want people to stand up on their two feet, join together in solidarity and fight back, then our identity as members of the ruling class is essential. To get to that we can't just say "oh that identity stuff is a bunch of liberal crap." It isn't that easy.

The problem is not that there is not food, the problem is that the ruling class controls all of the resources. And the reason for that is because we don't know who the hell we are.

Marx was not encourgaging do-gooderism.


I basically agree with Mike's stand, but just from a practical, and not a do-gooderism stand (like that word), ya can't think or even know who you are if you are worried about survival. People as pets?? hardly, but when you get down to basic survival, all skins are off...and we are going to be getting there too soon, I think... And of course, before this happens, and to make it a little less horrible than I fear, perhaps, we have to "know who the hell we are" and feed those now who are beyond the point of knowing, or maybe caring, who the fuck they are because their bodily needs have taken over everything else... and as we take care of them tell remind them who they are...is there a "hierarchy" here, to borrow a term from another thread? Identity over body? body over identity?

Kind of like the joke about the different parts of the body fighting over which is more important, in the end the asshole won, because when it went on strike nothing else could work...

It seems to me that you are disagreeing with Mike over phrase-ology. Yes, Mike is apparently trying to slightly re-define terms like "identity" but we can deal

Marx was not encourgaging do-gooderism.


Almost completely, yes, it is about words.

Have you ever watched that video I linked, The murder of Fred Hampton?

Feed 'em and teach 'em.

It's what the Panthers did.

It's what the churches have always done and still do.

Liberal feeders don't do any teaching because they have nothing to teach.

Simple, really.

Tell it to Fred Hampton. He and his comrades fed thousands daily.

It is about changing conditions.

Conditions change and then minds do.

You have it just backwards in the comment above, daddio.


"I freed a thousand slaves; I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves." - Harriet Tubman

I basically agree with Mike's stand, but just from a practical, and not a do-gooderism stand (like that word), ya can't think or even know who you are if you are worried about survival.


I disagree. In bourgeoisie thinking, a nice meal is the prerequisite to pursuing the refined things in life and contemplating one's belly button lint. The assumption is that survival involves those nasty brute instincts - you know, that which our inferiors are obsessed with - and that those are to be gotten out of the way.

Perhaps one needs to be close to the edge to know that this is when the question arises the most insistently - who am I?

http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/iamaman/Photos/jones01.jpg

Almost completely, yes, it is about words.

Have you ever watched that video I linked, The murder of Fred Hampton?

Feed 'em and teach 'em.

It's what the Panthers did.

It's what the churches have always done and still do.

Liberal feeders don't do any teaching because they have nothing to teach.

Simple, really.


Sure. That's true. Write a thesis about that. You will earn a good grade.

But we are skipping over something. You have to first know who and what you are, and that is where we here are stalled.

We are steeped in and trained for our place the most useless and disconnected uprooted bland empty bourgeoisie middle class ever possible.

We argue over what we will teach them. Ha! Who are we?

Why do liberals have nothing to teach them? Because liberals don't know who they are. That isn't changed by merely superimposing a doctrine over that, and then thinking you have something to teach people.

People in the gentrified American middle class always want to erase and eliminate identities, and replace them with one identity - opinions differ as to what that one identity should look like. Nothing new there.

So the arguments liberals have are about how that one American middle class identity should be defined and what shape it should take. Can we assimilate Italians into the WASP identity? Can we work gays in some how? That is how liberal identity politics works. To break down and assimilate identities.

For starters, social existence entails a good bit more than just "conditions" as we're invoking them here.


"Man does not live by bread alone." Now, I am sure that will be dismissed. But think about it.

Rusty is talking elsewhere about the Stalin era. Think about all the people there who kept working tirelessly toward the socialist ideal in spite of terrible deprivation and hunger. What kept them going?

It seems to me that you are disagreeing with Mike over phrase-ology. Yes, Mike is apparently trying to slightly re-define terms like "identity" but we can deal

Marx was not encourgaging do-gooderism.


Almost completely, yes, it is about words.

Have you ever watched that video I linked, The murder of Fred Hampton?

Feed 'em and teach 'em.

It's what the Panthers did.

It's what the churches have always done and still do.

Liberal feeders don't do any teaching because they have nothing to teach.

Simple, really.


For the purposes of this conversation though, the paint-by-numbers approach is only good for allowing us to raise every little picayune objection to what someone says.

What do the Churches teach? What do we have to teach for that matter?

I'm not entirely sure what's "correct" or "incorrect" but Ivory Tower edicts don't help much..IMO

I basically agree with Mike's stand, but just from a practical, and not a do-gooderism stand (like that word), ya can't think or even know who you are if you are worried about survival.


I disagree. In bourgeoisie thinking, a nice meal is the prerequisite to pursuing the refined things in life and contemplating one's belly button lint. The assumption is that survival involves those nasty brute instincts - you know, that which our inferiors are obsessed with - and that those are to be gotten out of the way.

Perhaps one needs to be close to the edge to know that this is when the question arises the most insistently - who am I?

http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/iamaman/Photos/jones01.jpg


been there.

Hey guys, in all our bickering lets not overlook a really great post by curt_b above

I don't think we get to write prescriptions like this, or need to


1) It is organized democratically, with leadership coming from those most oppressed or exploited.

but everything else is dead on

been there


Yes.

OK, Mary. Sure, hungry, scared, broke - that gets your attention and can become a 24 hour struggle, yes? And you wonder, how can I do anything under this burden. And then the wolf gets beaten back from the door, and of course that is a very good thing.

But isn't there a little more to it? Did you not come out of that with some clarity about who you are, what your purpose was, what really mattered?

Many good points curt_b.



Liberation struggles are not all equal. But it is not always the issue (food v. identity, for example) that makes one a priority. Often it is the characteristics of a struggle that define it. It seems to me that we should be able to determine the possible effectiveness of campaigns to contribute to the eventual liberation of working class people, regardless of the issue.

That is what I saw recently with the Warren discussion - the possible effectiveness of that campaign to contribute to the eventual liberation of working class people.


It has tried to mirror the corporate organizational form. The leadership is provided by paid staff, who may have good intentions, but ultimately decision making is done at higher bureaucratic levels.

I think this gets overlooked. A certain organizational form has become so pervasive, that people can no longer even imagine any alternative. All of the liberal organizations and Unions are now organized along a corporate top-down model, using sales and marketing approaches.


Many times the initial impulse of Immigration Rights activists is to lobby policy makers on behalf of working class immigrants. Even if successful, reform comes with little or no increase in mass participation or commitment. Alternatively, if the campaign is led by immigrants organizing and building alliances with labor, church and community groups to successfully change public policy, the victory is accompanied by an organization ready to move on to the next task.

I just amazed me to see the largest political march in the history of Los Angeles - did you see the photos of that sea of people? - while simultaneously hearing liberals lamenting "what oh what will it EVER take to get the sheeple to wake up and take to the streets?"


In any case, an authentic cry for justice and equality shouldn't be discouraged.

Exactly.

been there


Yes.

OK, Mary. Sure, hungry, scared, broke - that gets your attention and can become a 24 hour struggle, yes? And you wonder, how can I do anything under this burden. And then the wolf gets beaten back from the door, and of course that is a very good thing.

But isn't there a little more to it? Did you not come out of that with some clarity about who you are, what your purpose was, what really mattered?




Of course, but food was primary...

You find a person in a desert, her tongue is swollen, she has on a uniform with a local union logo, and a pink triangle pinback button; she's brown skinned, do you first talk to her about all these things she could be identified with, or do you give her water?

Let me quote you:


People are suffering. Now. That is objective reality.
<snip>

Our humanitarian and compassionate and perfectly legitimate and human responses to the suffering of others is not the problem. It is the suffering itself that is the problem.

Out of context? maybe, (pretty handy to have, :) )but my phrases taken out of context give the impression that I don't understand and don't agree with your stance, which I do with some reservations...

"Feed em and Teach em" the black panthers would do. You can't learn on an empty stomach, I see that every day...I do understand what you are trying to do, 99% behind what you say...

You find a person in a desert, her tongue is swollen, she has on a uniform with a local union logo, and a pink triangle pinback button; she's brown skinned, do you first talk to her about all these things she could be identified with, or do you give her water?


Of course. Not disputing that.

Then you talk to the person and you find out that they were thrown out there in the desert because of the brown skin, the pink triangle and the union logo. You gonna tell her those "identities" don't matter?

LGBT liberation: An essential working-class struggle
Published Jun 24, 2006 8:58 AM
Leslie Feinberg

Leslie Feinberg
WW photo: G. Dunkel

The following talk was given by WW Managing Editor Leslie Feinberg at the May 13-14 “Preparing for the Rebirth of the Global Struggle for Socialism” conference in New York.

Same-sex love, sex-change and gender variations are found in the ruling class and middle class, as well as the working class. So how is lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) oppression a working-class question?

It’s true that wealthy white lesbians or gay men face bigotry—and rich women face sexism—although certainly not to the same degree as a homeless trans youth of color, or a single white woman trying to feed kids on a low-paying job.

But the difference between these two major economic classes in society is that the ruling class can’t profoundly transform capitalism to create economic and social justice. Historically, their class unconsciously came into being to develop the tools of production on a mighty scale, which in turn created the modern working class.

Today the working class is the only economic force in society that has the power to revolutionize society. That’s because workers and oppressed peoples do the work of the world everyday on a huge, collective scale, setting in motion the vast productive apparatus built by our class.

So it is in the class interests of working and oppressed peoples to take over collective ownership of the productive apparatus and plan production to meet the needs of all.

But divide-and-conquer ideology diverts the working class from realizing that the historic moment has ripened to unite to take power. Understanding that solidarity is in the class interests of all who are exploited and oppressed is the key to revolutionary struggle.

That’s why we as communists see the struggle against lesbian, gay, bi and trans oppression as an essential component of the working-class struggle.

Fighting all forms of oppression defends lives. And it also helps build unity in the struggle by revealing to the entire working class the social and economic inequalities that are built into the capitalist system.

Fighting LGBT oppres sion is an ideological, social and economic battle.

When LGBT workers are denied same-sex benefits for their partners, they are being paid less than their co-workers, which drives down wages and benefits for all workers. The LGBT-led struggle for domestic partner benefits has helped win gains for unmarried heterosexual workers, as well.

LGBT workers have to cobble together an economic support system without the benefits bestowed on heterosexual families. That’s why we support the right to same-sex marriage. We are not advocates for or against marriage—we say the state does not have the right to discriminate.

We also maintain that people shouldn’t have to couple and marry in order to have health care or other benefits. And we press demands faced by the most oppressed of the LGBT movement—against national oppression, police and prison brutality, gay-bashing, denial to health care access.

We fight the Pentagon brass when they wage war around the world and we fight them when they wage war on their own troops—whether that’s brutality towards LGBT soldiers or sexual violence against women GIs. But we wage this struggle to reveal the character of the military in order to counter-recruit!

Ironically, the pretexts for the widening imperialist war drive have shifted towards “humanitarian interventions”—including sending the Pentagon to “save” women and gays, from Afghanistan to Iran. Arti cles about the plight of gay Afghans and Iraqis began appearing in the U.S. shortly before both imperialist invasions.

We don’t know the whole story.

However, without any idealizing, the Taliban campaign in Afghanistan may have begun as a struggle against a form of forced sex by feudal militia commanders.

In Iraq, the death penalty may have been extended to include homosexuality and rape in an effort to close ranks with Islamic forces as imperialist invasion grew imminent. But today, under imperialist occupation, U.S. media are silent about Iraqis who are perceived to be homosexual currently being targeted in a terror campaign of assassinations.

For the last year, reports that the Iran ian government is carrying out state executions against “gays” have traveled the Internet.

The first and most widely touted report, that two gay youth were hanged by the government for consensual sex, turned out to be a mistranslation of the charge of same-sex rape. A widely circulated article alleging police abuse of a female-to-male transsexual in Iran never mentioned that the government there extends more rights to transsexuals than any other on the planet.

It’s also not thoughtful, sensitive or precise to automatically assume or impose a universal identity of “gay” on people in oppressed countries.

Even in the U.S., there are widespread expressions of same-sex affection, love and sexuality outside of the distinct self-identifications of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and transsexual.

And self-identities and concepts in Greenwich Village or Castro St. may be very different in a Black community in Newark or a Gujarat community in Jersey City or among homeless Mexican youth living in parks in San Diego.

That’s true internationally, as well. Many indigenous forms of sexuality, gender and organization of the sexes in cultures millennia-old still survive—while not untouched by thousands of years of patriarchal class societies and hundreds of years of colonial and imperialist economic, cultural and military domination. This understanding deepens realization of the complexities of human social and self-expression.

Sensitivity is critical to building true internationalist solidarity and anti-imperialist consciousness.

We are not apologists for oppression anywhere. But we will not join the chorus of imperialist demonization of countries fighting for sovereignty and self-determination. U.S. finance capital seeks to conquer, not to liberate.

Historically, British, Spanish and Portuguese and U.S. colonialism brought “anti-sodomy” laws to Asia, Africa and the Americas.

And today, in their drive for re-colonization, the CIA and Pentagon have incorporated sadistic anti-gay and anti-trans humiliation, rape and other forms of violence into their science of torture.

The propaganda by the spin doctors of finance capital that military invasion and occupation are for “liberation” of gays and women demonstrates the need to develop more LGBT and women’s leadership and participation, particularly by the most oppressed, in the anti-war movement.

Our Party has made important contributions to the historical and theoretical understanding of the roots of lesbian, gay, bi and trans oppression in class society—and has been in the streets in the struggle.

As historical materialists, we have seen the evidence that human beings are not hardwired to be bigoted. Ancient pre-class societies on every continent respected greater spectra of sexuality, gender and sexes.

It was the rise of class divisions that led to laws and enforcement to regulate sexuality, degrade the social status of women, violently punish transsexuality and intersexuality, and brutally enforce norms for female and male dress and behavior. Why? To try to break up communal kinship networks, overall social organization and belief systems.

That was in the class interests of the new ruling elite. The development of the patriarchal, heterosexual family was in their class interests too.

But though it was designed to pass on wealth through male heirs, today the male-dominated heterosexual family is an oppressive in

stitution foisted on the entire working class, as well as an economic unit for survival under capitalism.

In the last century, the left-wing of the revolutionary movement—those most successful in breaking with the oppressive ideology of millennia of class rule—has fought against state repression of homosexuality and the oppression of women.

The early revolutions that struggled to build socialism under terrible economic isolation and military pressure were not able to eradicate the social damage of centuries of class rule overnight. A revolution is a process, not a single act.

Replacing the male-dominated family as an economic unit required lifting the financial burden of survival from families, allowing individuals to live and love without economic dependence.

But technological underdevelopment, imperialist embargo and hostile military encirclement made it hard for early revolutions, struggling to build a socialist economy in isolation, to achieve that goal. However, from the early Soviet Union to East Germany to Cuba, important gains have been made.

Ultimately, as socialist revolutions develop, particularly within the imperialist countries with more technological resources, world cooperation can harness the vast worldwide apparatus of production to meet the needs and wants of all working people.

Socialism creates the material impetus for cooperation. And socialism can utilize the massive tools of mass education to raise consciousness to eradicate racism, sexism and other vestiges of bigotry and reaction.

That is what it will take to set love free from repression and fear, guilt and shame.

But today, we have got to fight against all forms of oppression in order to defend lives and to cement the kind of unity necessary to wage the class struggle, and win it.

So if you’re looking for a revolutionary party that takes the struggle against sex and gender oppression seriously, you’ve found it!
Articles copyright 1995-2009 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php

"Feed em and Teach em" the black panthers would do. You can't learn on an empty stomach, I see that every day...


We keep talking about the students. What about the teachers? That is where the problem is.

Learn what exactly? We can't teach people how to expand their sense of identity into an identification with the working class in a political struggle when we have not successfully negotiated that ourselves. And we can't do that when we do not know who we are. Being the feeder or the teacher is too often a way to avoid and skip over that step.

Speaking of Obama...

Here's your bandwagon.

http://socialistindependent.org/images/flyer.jpg

We can't teach people how to expand their sense of identity into an identification with the working class in a political struggle when we have not successfully negotiated that ourselves. And we can't do that when we do not know who we are. Being the feeder or the teacher is too often a way to avoid and skip over that step.


And we certainly can't do it while denying them the identity they have, or even worse -- deny that they are oppressed because of an identity someone else has imposed on them.

And we certainly can't do it while denying them the identity they have, or even worse -- deny that they are oppressed because of an identity someone else has imposed on them.


Yes.

Chlamor got me to thinking about this back over a year ago. There is a bias - we look at people in the Amazon basin, and see how they are being driven from the land and herded into slums. What we don't see is how we ourselves have been victimized the same way. We have surrendered our culture, our community, our identities - we do not know who we are. That leads us to discount and dismiss the identities of others, and to fail at finding common cause and building solidarity.

One of the great successes of the Soviet Union, and one that Americans are completely oblivious to and cannot understand when it is explained to them, was the preservation, protection, and support for minority people and traditional culture. The nomadic orchardists of Kazakhstan, the Rom people, the traditional artists and musicians, the Ukrainian bandura players, the Moldavian tsimbali players, the dancers, the traditional dress all under protection, within a general context of working class solidarity and modernization.

As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed, what started happening? Those cultural identities were under assault and smashed.

I worked with one of the top balalaika players when he came here as a refugee. Here, his "identity" quickly became a janitor at a Pizza Hut. The music business here was too brutal, too unforgiving, and he couldn't handle it. Hell, I can't handle it and got battered into submission. I was playing the music from our tribe, the music passed down from East Anglia and the Scots-Irish, and the treatment was exactly the same as the treatment the balalaika player got. we don't know ourselves, so we cannot know or understand others. Not knowing others, we cannot talk to them and we cannot build political solidarity.

We have tried to talk about this before, without much success. Who are we? What is our tribe, what is our culture, what is our community? Are we bland homogenized nothings? A-cultural? No. We are ignorant of our own identity to the degree to which we have been assimilated and conquered, and we inadvertently contribute to that ongoing process. I have tried to talk about the Scots-Irish tribe, and how that dominates American culture, and how other ethnic groups have been assimilated into that, but that devolves into an idiotic argument about whether or not Andrew Jackson was a good guy, or whether or not rednecks are assholes, and throw in some gratuitous bashing of religion and aren't we all radicals now?

We have an identity, but we are blind to it so it influences everything we think without our awareness that this is happening. We see the dominant culture here as no culture - as neutral, benign, standard, non-ethnic, the norm, the blank slate, the white sheet of paper - and think that it is others who have culture, identity, communities, traditions.

But for those reading this who are NOT straight WASP males, you know the pressure to assimilate. You have an identity, you have an ethnicity, you have a race, you have a community, you have a culture - aren't you quaint? But hey don't get me wrong, some of my best friends...

Play your cards right and you can become a token, a pet for the WASPs, and they love their pets - they are so interested in "all kinds of music" for example - it is just the sort of superior beings they are - and quite tolerant and fascinated with ethnic foods and all of that interesting stuff. B'wana in the fucking jungle studying the interesting people there and "their culture," teaching them, and feeding them and just learning so much about the way they live. Aren't we fucking special?

But those from that dominant culture DO have an identity. It is a power play to pretend that they don't, it is cultural imperialism. You are vulnerable because of your identity - they are not. It is not that they claim their identity is superior - no, they do not have an identity! Try to argue against that. They are not-gay, not-female, not ethnic, not fucking anything, they would have you believe. They have no vulnerability. Oh, they are sympathetic to your vulnerability, they will say.

We think if we toss away those identities, that then we have a nice blank slate upon which to write the revolution. Bullshit. All identities get tossed away except one - the identity as a member of the dominant culture - white, Scots-Irish, male, WASP. That identity cannot be eradicated, because we are supposed to believe that it doesn't exist!

LGBT liberation: An essential working-class struggle
Published Jun 24, 2006 8:58 AM
Leslie Feinberg

Leslie Feinberg
WW photo: G. Dunkel

The following talk was given by WW Managing Editor Leslie Feinberg at the May 13-14 “Preparing for the Rebirth of the Global Struggle for Socialism” conference in New York.

Same-sex love, sex-change and gender variations are found in the ruling class and middle class, as well as the working class. So how is lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) oppression a working-class question?

It’s true that wealthy white lesbians or gay men face bigotry—and rich women face sexism—although certainly not to the same degree as a homeless trans youth of color, or a single white woman trying to feed kids on a low-paying job.

But the difference between these two major economic classes in society is that the ruling class can’t profoundly transform capitalism to create economic and social justice. Historically, their class unconsciously came into being to develop the tools of production on a mighty scale, which in turn created the modern working class.

Today the working class is the only economic force in society that has the power to revolutionize society. That’s because workers and oppressed peoples do the work of the world everyday on a huge, collective scale, setting in motion the vast productive apparatus built by our class.

So it is in the class interests of working and oppressed peoples to take over collective ownership of the productive apparatus and plan production to meet the needs of all.

But divide-and-conquer ideology diverts the working class from realizing that the historic moment has ripened to unite to take power. Understanding that solidarity is in the class interests of all who are exploited and oppressed is the key to revolutionary struggle.

That’s why we as communists see the struggle against lesbian, gay, bi and trans oppression as an essential component of the working-class struggle.

Fighting all forms of oppression defends lives. And it also helps build unity in the struggle by revealing to the entire working class the social and economic inequalities that are built into the capitalist system.

Fighting LGBT oppres sion is an ideological, social and economic battle.

When LGBT workers are denied same-sex benefits for their partners, they are being paid less than their co-workers, which drives down wages and benefits for all workers. The LGBT-led struggle for domestic partner benefits has helped win gains for unmarried heterosexual workers, as well.

LGBT workers have to cobble together an economic support system without the benefits bestowed on heterosexual families. That’s why we support the right to same-sex marriage. We are not advocates for or against marriage—we say the state does not have the right to discriminate.

We also maintain that people shouldn’t have to couple and marry in order to have health care or other benefits. And we press demands faced by the most oppressed of the LGBT movement—against national oppression, police and prison brutality, gay-bashing, denial to health care access.

We fight the Pentagon brass when they wage war around the world and we fight them when they wage war on their own troops—whether that’s brutality towards LGBT soldiers or sexual violence against women GIs. But we wage this struggle to reveal the character of the military in order to counter-recruit!

Ironically, the pretexts for the widening imperialist war drive have shifted towards “humanitarian interventions”—including sending the Pentagon to “save” women and gays, from Afghanistan to Iran. Arti cles about the plight of gay Afghans and Iraqis began appearing in the U.S. shortly before both imperialist invasions.

We don’t know the whole story.

However, without any idealizing, the Taliban campaign in Afghanistan may have begun as a struggle against a form of forced sex by feudal militia commanders.

In Iraq, the death penalty may have been extended to include homosexuality and rape in an effort to close ranks with Islamic forces as imperialist invasion grew imminent. But today, under imperialist occupation, U.S. media are silent about Iraqis who are perceived to be homosexual currently being targeted in a terror campaign of assassinations.

For the last year, reports that the Iran ian government is carrying out state executions against “gays” have traveled the Internet.

The first and most widely touted report, that two gay youth were hanged by the government for consensual sex, turned out to be a mistranslation of the charge of same-sex rape. A widely circulated article alleging police abuse of a female-to-male transsexual in Iran never mentioned that the government there extends more rights to transsexuals than any other on the planet.

It’s also not thoughtful, sensitive or precise to automatically assume or impose a universal identity of “gay” on people in oppressed countries.

Even in the U.S., there are widespread expressions of same-sex affection, love and sexuality outside of the distinct self-identifications of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and transsexual.

And self-identities and concepts in Greenwich Village or Castro St. may be very different in a Black community in Newark or a Gujarat community in Jersey City or among homeless Mexican youth living in parks in San Diego.

That’s true internationally, as well. Many indigenous forms of sexuality, gender and organization of the sexes in cultures millennia-old still survive—while not untouched by thousands of years of patriarchal class societies and hundreds of years of colonial and imperialist economic, cultural and military domination. This understanding deepens realization of the complexities of human social and self-expression.

Sensitivity is critical to building true internationalist solidarity and anti-imperialist consciousness.

We are not apologists for oppression anywhere. But we will not join the chorus of imperialist demonization of countries fighting for sovereignty and self-determination. U.S. finance capital seeks to conquer, not to liberate.

Historically, British, Spanish and Portuguese and U.S. colonialism brought “anti-sodomy” laws to Asia, Africa and the Americas.

And today, in their drive for re-colonization, the CIA and Pentagon have incorporated sadistic anti-gay and anti-trans humiliation, rape and other forms of violence into their science of torture.

The propaganda by the spin doctors of finance capital that military invasion and occupation are for “liberation” of gays and women demonstrates the need to develop more LGBT and women’s leadership and participation, particularly by the most oppressed, in the anti-war movement.

Our Party has made important contributions to the historical and theoretical understanding of the roots of lesbian, gay, bi and trans oppression in class society—and has been in the streets in the struggle.

As historical materialists, we have seen the evidence that human beings are not hardwired to be bigoted. Ancient pre-class societies on every continent respected greater spectra of sexuality, gender and sexes.

It was the rise of class divisions that led to laws and enforcement to regulate sexuality, degrade the social status of women, violently punish transsexuality and intersexuality, and brutally enforce norms for female and male dress and behavior. Why? To try to break up communal kinship networks, overall social organization and belief systems.

That was in the class interests of the new ruling elite. The development of the patriarchal, heterosexual family was in their class interests too.

But though it was designed to pass

on wealth through male heirs, today the male-dominated heterosexual family is an oppressive institution foisted on the entire working class, as well as an economic unit for survival under capitalism.

In the last century, the left-wing of the revolutionary movement—those most successful in breaking with the oppressive ideology of millennia of class rule—has fought against state repression of homosexuality and the oppression of women.

The early revolutions that struggled to build socialism under terrible economic isolation and military pressure were not able to eradicate the social damage of centuries of class rule overnight. A revolution is a process, not a single act.

Replacing the male-dominated family as an economic unit required lifting the financial burden of survival from families, allowing individuals to live and love without economic dependence.

But technological underdevelopment, imperialist embargo and hostile military encirclement made it hard for early revolutions, struggling to build a socialist economy in isolation, to achieve that goal. However, from the early Soviet Union to East Germany to Cuba, important gains have been made.

Ultimately, as socialist revolutions develop, particularly within the imperialist countries with more technological resources, world cooperation can harness the vast worldwide apparatus of production to meet the needs and wants of all working people.

Socialism creates the material impetus for cooperation. And socialism can utilize the massive tools of mass education to raise consciousness to eradicate racism, sexism and other vestiges of bigotry and reaction.

That is what it will take to set love free from repression and fear, guilt and shame.

But today, we have got to fight against all forms of oppression in order to defend lives and to cement the kind of unity necessary to wage the class struggle, and win it.

So if you’re looking for a revolutionary party that takes the struggle against sex and gender oppression seriously, you’ve found it!
Articles copyright 1995-2009 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php


Worth a repeat, erin, great find...

You find a person in a desert, her tongue is swollen, she has on a uniform with a local union logo, and a pink triangle pinback button; she's brown skinned, do you first talk to her about all these things she could be identified with, or do you give her water?


Of course. Not disputing that.

Then you talk to the person and you find out that they were thrown out there in the desert because of the brown skin, the pink triangle and the union logo. You gonna tell her those "identities" don't matter?



Of course not, and your part of the story was coming up next, thanks for that, but the water was first...they can't tell their story without it...

Of course not, and your part of the story was coming up next, thanks for that, but the water was first...they can't tell their story without it...


I keep thinking about the stories Charlotte Delbo wrote. People were living on a cup of soup a day, if that, worked 16 hours a day in mid-winter, whipped and beaten day after day, week after week, and survived. But the one thing that was certain to kill a prisoner was to take them from the general population and put them in solitary for the night. They were always dead by morning. People can survive a lack of bread, but a lack of community and the identity one gets from being part of a community and a culture is fatal.

So lets see where this puts us, The Irish, mostly Catholics, as most know, were purposefully starved in their own land by the British oppressors. Cromwell had tried to subdue them, no dancing above the knees, no wearing green, no practicing of their religion; it was the potato famine, at a time when the British were making money from food exports from Ireland, that nearly, nearly destroyed their identity...Americas gaIn? the immigrants here were oppressed again, Catholicism scorned, brogues mocked, "Irish need not apply", and they were put in competition with other groups, divisions begin to form greater oppressions. This is half my ancestry...my identity?? shame faced American...

Excerpt:


The Famine Strikes

There had been a serious crop failure affecting parts of the country in 1865, but those affected managed to survive on whatever scraps of food and potatoes they could salvage, along with relief measures brought in by Peel's Tory Government. Peel's government had also introduced public works schemes which were unpopular because they were inefficiently and often corruptly administered by local officials and also because they took workers away from the farms. This experience, hard though it was to live through for those involved, was nothing compared to what lay ahead.

Things were looking good in the summer of 1846. There had been a small outbreak of the disease in early June in some parts of County Cork, but it had been contained and had done little damage. Then it returned. In late July farmers awoke to find the air filled with a vile, overwhelming stench so putrid and unbearable that it filled them with alarm. When they opened their doors that morning their alarm turned to fear: the stalks of their potato plants were discoloured and the leaves were brown-spotted and withering. The stalks broke off in their hands when they tried to pull up the potatoes, so in desperation they tried to dig them up with their bare hands. The potatoes had to be saved at all costs - their lives, their families' lives, the entire community's lives, depended upon it. But all their hands unearthed was a blackened, slimy, inedible pulp. And this time the disease was not restricted to Cork; every corner of the land was affected. The potato famine had arrived - and hell came riding on its back!

"Political Economy"

Man's inhumanity to man,
Makes countless thousands mourn.

Burns.

Yes, hell came riding on its back: the hell of dying by inches with unrelenting pangs of hunger gnawing and clawing at your insides, your starving body eating its own muscle and brain tissue until your emaciated, lice-ridden body gives up the fight and disease or starvation finally kills you.

Starvation was not the only fate visited upon the long-suffering Irish rural community: there were also the horrific diseases that came with the famine, diseases such as typhus and cholera to which, with their weakened immune systems, they became easy prey; there were the cynical evictions, when sick and starving families had there homes demolished and then were kicked off their rich landlord's estate; and there was the Hobson's choice of death or emigration, resulting in families, friends and whole communities being forever split asunder.

All of these horrors, and more, could have been avoided or greatly reduced if the British Government had met its responsibilities; instead, by its action and inaction, this government, this abhorrent, abominable group of parasitical oligarchs, was instrumental in inflicting most of the suffering on those tragic victims of the famine, or, to be accurate, victims of so-called "Political Economy".

So what was Political Economy? It was a loose conglomeration of nonsensical ideas, along with Providentialism and Moralism, which shaped the political ideology of the day. It's most famous proponent was Thomas Malthus ( 1766-1834) who claimed that food production could never keep up with population growth and therefore population growth would have to be curtailed either by prudence or natural disaster - he considered birth-control to be wicked but on the other hand famines could be very helpful. He also believed charity to the poor to be a dangerous thing, something that had to be kept strictly under control. Unfortunately for the Irish, the influential Charles Edward Trevelyan, permanent head of the treasury, along with many other leading political figures of those days, was very much in favour of such ideas. To strip Political Economy of all its hypocritical arguments all it meant was ‘Let the rich get richer and let the poor go to hell!' In other words, like its repugnant political descendant, Thatcherism, it was nothing more than unfettered, dog-eat-dog capitalism.

There is no doubt that the British Government had the political and moral responsibility to resolve the problems caused by the famine. The Act of Union which came into effect on January 1, 1801, puts the political as well as the moral argument beyond doubt. But this act, following an Irish uprising in 1798, was achieved with bribery and false promises, and was no more than a pact between the landed gentry of both countries to watch each other's backs and keep the peasantry in their place. The ferment of revolutionary republicanism that was manifest in Ireland and Europe was contagious; the English ruling classes, alarmed at the thought of this unrest affecting the English peasantry and working-class, deemed it wise to close ranks with their Anglo-Irish counterparts.

http://www.socialist.net/ireland%E2%80%99s-holocaust-the-irish-potato-famine-1845-50.htm

Yep.

And what is all that anti-religion crap people spout? A lot of it is anti-Catholicism; Catholicism as an ethnicity and an identity and a community. And where is that coming from? Same old Protestant rugged individualism bullshit, despite people telling us that it comes from Marx.

heh.

Fixed your quotes Mary, but I see you are editing too.

Its a long article, but I feel compelled to add this last part:

"Had Socialist principles been applied to Ireland in those days not one person need have died of hunger, and not one cent of charity need have been subscribed to leave a smirch upon the Irish name. At the lowest computation 1,225,000 died of absolute hunger; all of these were sacrificed on the altar of capitalist thought."
Conclusion

The Irish are the great survivors among Europe's nations. They have endured centuries of oppression, persecution, occupation and attempted extermination: The Vikings, the Anglo-Normans; the attempt by the Tudors to crush them, the attempt by Cromwell to exterminate them; the defeat of their rebellions and the horrendous ordeal of the famine. All these things they have overcome and today they are a thriving nation with a prosperous economy.

Yet there is one thing they have not overcome: they have not overcome the warping of history by establishment propagandists. There is a towering monument in Dublin to Daniel O'Connell, there is even a street named after him. He is revered as the greatest of all Irishmen. But what, in reality, did ‘The Great Dan' achieve? Irish emancipation? The vast majority of Ireland's poor were no more able to vote after ‘emancipation' than they were before. And his avowed belief that you could not be Irish if you were not Catholic played a huge part in the religious antagonism that divided the Irish working-class. O'Connell was a charismatic politician, a born leader and a tireless worker for Irish nationalism. But he was not the ‘man of the people' that he is reputed to be. If he had achieved his dream of repealing the Act of Union the Irish poor would have remained just as poor, they would still have been oppressed by landlordism. In reality he was a champion of the Irish landlords, the gentry, the men of property, as indeed was his son, John O'Connell, who did much to slander and undermine the Young Irelanders.

William Smith O'Brien, descendant of the legendary king Brian Boru, was a leading figure in the Young Ireland movement and is also a revered figure in Irish History. But he too was a landlord and respecter of private property who, well-intentioned though he may have been, could not put the needs of the starving Irish people above all else and was ultimately ineffective in helping their cause.

The true heroes of the famine years were Fintan Lalor and John Mitchell, and the greatest ever champion of the Irish people was undoubtedly James Connolly. But there are no towering monuments dedicated to them. It is to the writings of these brave and selfless men today's Irish working-class should turn if they wish to be guided in bettering their lot, and it is to them that this article is dedicated.

The numbers quoted do not include the huge numbers that emigrated, and may be quite low, did the Irish denounce their identity for food??

Had Socialist principles been applied to Ireland in those days not one person need have died of hunger, and not one cent of charity need have been subscribed to leave a smirch upon the Irish name.

What is this "Had socialist principles been applied.."? Sounds like a school marmish lecture to me.


All of these horrors, and more, could have been avoided or greatly reduced if the British Government had met its responsibilities;

Gimme a break, that whole essay is crap. The "food first" mantra only goes so far, Mary.

Had Socialist principles been applied to Ireland in those days not one person need have died of hunger, and not one cent of charity need have been subscribed to leave a smirch upon the Irish name.

What is this "Had socialist principles been applied.."? Sounds like a school marmish lecture to me.


All of these horrors, and more, could have been avoided or greatly reduced if the British Government had met its responsibilities;

Gimme a break, that whole essay is crap. The "food first" mantra only goes so far, Mary.


On the fly, thought it would go with the discussion, actually I put in the second part for the numbers and the comment on Catholicism being devisive, which was bullshit for Ireland, except for Ulster county, nearly everyone was Catholic...I liked the first part I posted, I'm playing devil's advocate here kid, it brings out points...Really researched far too quickly, but the first two articles I read were crappier...

"I ventured ...to ascertain the condition of the inhabitants, and altho' a man not easily moved, I confess myself unmanned by the intensity and extent of the suffering I witnessed, more especially among the women and little children, crowds of whom were to be seen scattered over the turnip fields like a flock of famishing crows, devouring the raw turnips, mothers half naked, shivering in the snow and sleet, uttering exclamations of despair while their children were screaming with hunger. I am a match for anything else I may meet with here, but this I cannot stand."
Captain Wynne, Inspecting Officer of the Board of Works, West Clare District, in a letter to Trevelyan, Christmas Eve 1846.


"In the first (hovel), six famished and ghastly skeletons, to all appearances dead, were huddled in a corner on some filthy straw....I approached with horror, and found by a low moaning they were alive - they were in fever, four children, a woman and what had once been a man......in another house, the dispensary doctor found seven wretches lying....under the same cloak. One had been dead many hours, but the others were unable to move either themselves or the corpse......a mother, herself in a fever, was seen to drag out the corpse of her child, perfectly naked, and leave it half covered with stones.......The same morning the police opened a house .....which was observed shut for many days, and two frozen corpses were found, lying upon the mud floor, half devoured by rats."
Letter to The Times, from Nicholas Cummins, a Cork magistrate, published Christmas Eve 1846.

Had the principle of national self determination been applied to Ireland in those days not one person need have died of hunger, and not one cent of charity need have been subscribed to leave a smirch upon the Irish name.
fixed

Had the principle of national self determination been applied to Ireland in those days not one person need have died of hunger, and not one cent of charity need have been subscribed to leave a smirch upon the Irish name.
fixed


I wouldn't even try fixing that quote, its more pious than Kurt Warner, which is saying something. I'm pretty sure he actually said "When no one else believed in me, God did"

Amaranth, for example, was the Aztecs' primary source of nutrition at the height of their empire. However the Spanish banned the plant after their arrival in 1521 because it played such an important role in Aztec culture and ceremony, which the Catholic Spanish considered 'pagan'. By replanting Amaranth, Indigenous Mexicans are reclaiming their cultural heritage.

"For Indigenous Peoples, food production is not simply a means for material survival, but forms the basis of social cohesion, cultural practice, ritual offering and spiritual ceremony."

Tell me now what the world looks like as we attain all of these tremendous victories of personal identity liberty. Explain to me how that changes power structures.

Civil rights are also of only minimal value if we are not involved in addressing root causes and can in fact serve to disguise the grand theft of people's very real economic leverage as we saw during the Civil Rights Movement where land loss of the American Negro accelerated at record rates. We probably don't need to go into what has been occurring in the prison-industrial complex during these times which furthers the point.

For colonizers around the world, colonization represents an opportunity for upward social mobility.

Got assimilation?

Amaranth, for example, was the Aztecs' primary source of nutrition at the height of their empire. However the Spanish banned the plant after their arrival in 1521 because it played such an important role in Aztec culture and ceremony, which the Catholic Spanish considered 'pagan'. By replanting Amaranth, Indigenous Mexicans are reclaiming their cultural heritage.

"For Indigenous Peoples, food production is not simply a means for material survival, but forms the basis of social cohesion, cultural practice, ritual offering and spiritual ceremony."

Tell me now what the world looks like as we attain all of these tremendous victories of personal identity liberty. Explain to me how that changes power structures.

Civil rights are also of only minimal value if we are not involved in addressing root causes and can in fact serve to disguise the grand theft of people's very real economic leverage as we saw during the Civil Rights Movement where land loss of the American Negro accelerated at record rates. We probably don't need to go into what has been occurring in the prison-industrial complex during these times which furthers the point.

For colonizers around the world, colonization represents an opportunity for upward social mobility.

Got assimilation?


Exactly right... assimilados.

Explain to me again how Obama's election is a "blow against racism" rather than an obvious expression of it. Explain how "acceptance" for the black bourgeoisie buys anything for the black masses. Explain how ANY slogan of the past 50 years trumps the first slogan of Reconstruction: "40 Acres and a Mule!"


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/24/98412743_96efb17f27.jpg?v=0
Female Israeli Paratroopers

Amaranth, for example, was the Aztecs' primary source of nutrition at the height of their empire. However the Spanish banned the plant after their arrival in 1521 because it played such an important role in Aztec culture and ceremony, which the Catholic Spanish considered 'pagan'. By replanting Amaranth, Indigenous Mexicans are reclaiming their cultural heritage.

Tell me now what the world looks like as we attain all of these tremendous victories of personal identity liberty. Explain to me how that changes power structures.


Tell me how the replanting of Amaranth is not part of the cultural identity of Indigenous Mexicans.

what is all that anti-religion crap people spout?


The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

Amaranth, for example, was the Aztecs' primary source of nutrition at the height of their empire.


Exactly right... assimilados.

Explain to me again how Obama's election is a "blow against racism" rather than an obvious expression of it. Explain how "acceptance" for the black bourgeoisie buys anything for the black masses. Explain how ANY slogan of the past 50 years trumps the first slogan of Reconstruction: "40 Acres and a Mule!"


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/24/98412743_96efb17f27.jpg?v=0
Female Israeli Paratroopers


Amazing the productivity of that plant. My badly deprived inaugural garden last season produced this in amazing quantity even as the great bulk of the rest was a waste - (two minute shower boy with a shut-off valve had quite a drought going - conservation and all that). An incredible salad and grain producer...

Anax, WTF are U doing here? I -KNOW- ura bigshot trying to wash the asshole funk off your hands from shaking the Great New Asshole's hand (well, mebbe 2morrow).

HopenChange my diaper...

Hey Kid,
I think that democracy=self-determination and in this period we need tens of thousands of leaders. In my experience, leadership comes from having a meaningful voice in developing strategies and tactics for justice.

I agree, we don't get to prescribe the form of rebellion. But, if we are involved in mass organizing (as I am) we need working class leaders. So what I am advocating is organizational forms that allow (rather encourage) everyone to speak and influence events.

On second thought, I would probably rephrase: "with leadership coming from those most oppressed or exploited" . It was probably an over reaction. A better statement would be: with leadership coming from those oppressed or exploited.

Here it comes....


WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama pledged Thursday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare "bargain" with the American people, saying that the nation's long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.

http://tennessean.com/article/20090116/NEWS0206/901160369

Fuckers gonna burn his capital up on the primo rw wet dream, nice.

Here it comes....


WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama pledged Thursday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare "bargain" with the American people, saying that the nation's long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.

http://tennessean.com/article/20090116/NEWS0206/901160369

Fuckers gonna burn his capital up on the primo rw wet dream, nice.


From article:
Job creation is a key

Obama said that creating jobs and maintaining national security will be his top priorities, and added that his efforts as president should be measured by whether the nation can overcome predicted job losses in the months ahead.

"I don't have a crystal ball," Obama said after being asked when the economy might begin to recover. "Nobody can tell." But, he added, "even with the stuff that we are doing, I think we can still anticipate that 2009 is going to be very tough."

The president-elect offered support for legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize, but said there may be other ways to achieve the same goal without angering businesses. And while many Democrats on Capitol Hill are eager to see a quick vote on that bill, he indicated no desire to rush into the contentious issue.

http://www.otherwhere.org/temp/keep_talking.jpg

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/jd/2009/jd090117.gif

Hey Kid,
I think that democracy=self-determination and in this period we need tens of thousands of leaders. In my experience, leadership comes from having a meaningful voice in developing strategies and tactics for justice.

I agree, we don't get to prescribe the form of rebellion. But, if we are involved in mass organizing (as I am) we need working class leaders. So what I am advocating is organizational forms that allow (rather encourage) everyone to speak and influence events.

On second thought, I would probably rephrase: "with leadership coming from those most oppressed or exploited" . It was probably an over reaction. A better statement would be: with leadership coming from those oppressed or exploited.


Yeah, I felt what you meant and totally agree: right now we should just be organizing and fuck all the over-theoretical rubrics and prescriptions

Hey guys, I am still looking for and sorting through various numbers and metrics, but it looks to me like it is primarily working class jobs that are going away, due to "overcapacity" or whatever the euphemisms du jour are

It stikes a cautionary note, because if we are expecting the middle class (of which DU is a subset for example) to suddenly "see the light", we might be kidding ourselves. Thus far, their employment doesn't seem to be hit as hard, and the big bosses are still raking in millions, backlash agaisnt extravagant corporate compensation notwithstanding (and really that sentiment is only directed against CEOs while the rest of the executive brood continue to clean up undeterred)

Hey guys, I am still looking for and sorting through various numbers and metrics, but it looks to me like it is primarily working class jobs that are going away, due to "overcapacity" or whatever the euphemisms du jour are

It stikes a cautionary note, because if we are expecting the middle class (of which DU is a subset for example) to suddenly "see the light", we might be kidding ourselves. Thus far, their employment doesn't seem to be hit as hard, and the big bosses are still raking in millions, backlash agaisnt extravagant corporate compensation notwithstanding (and really that sentiment is only directed against CEOs while the rest of the executive brood continue to clean up undeterred)


To be sure, it'll be the retail grunts who get hit hard in the near term. And your right, a good portion will still demand reform, tweaking and expect all to be hunky dory. It reminds me of this book on the War of the Roses I've been reading, complaints of both the commons and the nobility never accused the king wrong-doing, rather it was 'evil advisors' and other suckfish who were blamed for all calumny. It was not yet time for the English Revolution, but they didn't have a bunch of low bred agitators around either, yet.

For the record...



REMARKS OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
Inaugural Address
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Washington, D.C.

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by

these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet ."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Synopsis: Bend over.

Hey guys, I am still looking for and sorting through various numbers and metrics, but it looks to me like it is primarily working class jobs that are going away, due to "overcapacity" or whatever the euphemisms du jour are

It stikes a cautionary note, because if we are expecting the middle class (of which DU is a subset for example) to suddenly "see the light", we might be kidding ourselves. Thus far, their employment doesn't seem to be hit as hard, and the big bosses are still raking in millions, backlash agaisnt extravagant corporate compensation notwithstanding (and really that sentiment is only directed against CEOs while the rest of the executive brood continue to clean up undeterred)


To be sure, it'll be the retail grunts who get hit hard in the near term. And your right, a good portion will still demand reform, tweaking and expect all to be hunky dory. It reminds me of this book on the War of the Roses I've been reading, complaints of both the commons and the nobility never accused the king wrong-doing, rather it was 'evil advisors' and other suckfish who were blamed for all calumny. It was not yet time for the English Revolution, but they didn't have a bunch of low bred agitators around either, yet.


The last time I looked at the U6, it was precisely retail and "service" that were taking a beating. Relatively speaking, manufacturing has been hit but it is relatively smaller now and had been in a mini-recession of its own for a while. What I see is big hits at the ole middle-class job fair with financial services leading the pack. It is uneven though. The only oddity at DU is that there are a disproportionate number of computer workers and even more Government employee/NGO types. They are feelin' it though, and will feel a hell of a lot more. Microsoft just layed off for the first time ever.

Hey guys, I am still looking for and sorting through various numbers and metrics, but it looks to me like it is primarily working class jobs that are going away, due to "overcapacity" or whatever the euphemisms du jour are

It stikes a cautionary note, because if we are expecting the middle class (of which DU is a subset for example) to suddenly "see the light", we might be kidding ourselves. Thus far, their employment doesn't seem to be hit as hard, and the big bosses are still raking in millions, backlash agaisnt extravagant corporate compensation notwithstanding (and really that sentiment is only directed against CEOs while the rest of the executive brood continue to clean up undeterred)


It is only 10% of the population. It is a war of ideas, not numbers.

For the record...



REMARKS OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
Inaugural Address
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Washington, D.C.

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility

and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet ."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Synopsis: Bend over.


A few notes on "How to celebrate your oppression through a Presidential invocation."

Great discussions on Lincoln's bible, was it his, which version of the bible is it yada, yada, yada.

Anyone who naysays this moment is a beyond the pale cynic who only wants to harsh the buzz of the American moment.

What color is Michele's dress? Mustard?

So much comity between the aisles.

Joe Biden chatting away. Does that even need to be discussed? Twitter, twitter, twitter.

Everyone's here but the star of the show, Barack H. Obama.

Baritone voice: "Ladies and Gentlemen."

Heraldic trumpets in the background.

"My country tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty...and so on..."

Great stuff coming soon to the American political theatre.

Warmed over American Exceptionalism.

Whitewashing of history.

Veiled threats to those who don't get on board.

America as 'can-do' Nation and pretty darn specia,l in fact the mostest specialist ever, in God's eyes.

Hey guys, I am still looking for and sorting through various numbers and metrics, but it looks to me like it is primarily working class jobs that are going away, due to "overcapacity" or whatever the euphemisms du jour are

It stikes a cautionary note, because if we are expecting the middle class (of which DU is a subset for example) to suddenly "see the light", we might be kidding ourselves. Thus far, their employment doesn't seem to be hit as hard, and the big bosses are still raking in millions, backlash agaisnt extravagant corporate compensation notwithstanding (and really that sentiment is only directed against CEOs while the rest of the executive brood continue to clean up undeterred)


It is only 10% of the population. It is a war of ideas, not numbers.


With the main idea of the oppressor being "take their shit and enslave them, give enough wankers a position to validate the project and marginalize or slaughter those who aren't on board."

I'm pretty sure you could write a simple computer program to create an Obama speech.

The challenges before us are great. The obstacles we face are daunting. We must stand determined. The road ahead is long and hard.

But together we will rise to a New Day. Through the strength of our principles and courage of our convictions..blah blah blah

Industrial strength pablum is what it is..gotta be a vat of it in some factory in New Jersey or something..takes a lot more than Maalox to choke this shit down

I'm pretty sure you could write a simple computer program to create an Obama speech.

The challenges before us are great. The obstacles we face are daunting. We must stand determined. The road ahead is long and hard.

But together we will rise to a New Day. Through the strength of our principles and courage of our convictions..blah blah blah

Industrial strength pablum is what it is..gotta be a vat of it in some factory in New Jersey or something..takes a lot more than Maalox to choke this shit down


You forgot the most important term: "Sacrifice"...

We must sacrifice. We must sacrifice together. America needs sacrifice. YOU must sacrifice.

I'm pretty sure you could write a simple computer program to create an Obama speech.

The challenges before us are great. The obstacles we face are daunting. We must stand determined. The road ahead is long and hard.

But together we will rise to a New Day. Through the strength of our principles and courage of our convictions..blah blah blah

Industrial strength pablum is what it is..gotta be a vat of it in some factory in New Jersey or something..takes a lot more than Maalox to choke this shit down


You forgot the most important term: "Sacrifice"...

We must sacrifice. We must sacrifice together. America needs sacrifice. YOU must sacrifice.



Hah, I guess I just asssumed he meant ritual and blood sacrifices, with himself as the High Priest..

I'm pretty sure you could write a simple computer program to create an Obama speech.

The challenges before us are great. The obstacles we face are daunting. We must stand determined. The road ahead is long and hard.

But together we will rise to a New Day. Through the strength of our principles and courage of our convictions..blah blah blah

Industrial strength pablum is what it is..gotta be a vat of it in some factory in New Jersey or something..takes a lot more than Maalox to choke this shit down


And always a big prop to The Market. Ultimately that is what the pandering hypocrite genuflects to.

A few notes on "How to celebrate your oppression through a Presidential invocation."

Great discussions on Lincoln's bible, was it his, which version of the bible is it yada, yada, yada.

Anyone who naysays this moment is a beyond the pale cynic who only wants to harsh the buzz of the American moment.

What color is Michele's dress? Mustard?

So much comity between the aisles.

Joe Biden chatting away. Does that even need to be discussed? Twitter, twitter, twitter.

Everyone's here but the star of the show, Barack H. Obama.

Baritone voice: "Ladies and Gentlemen."

Heraldic trumpets in the background.

"My country tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty...and so on..."

Great stuff coming soon to the American political theatre.

Warmed over American Exceptionalism.

Whitewashing of history.

Veiled threats to those who don't get on board.

America as 'can-do' Nation and pretty darn special,l in fact the mostest specialist ever, in God's eyes.


Glad to see that I wasn't the only one who was asleep. I remember this shit. Nonsensical slogans, hubris, arrogance, and the same old crap... Shit, it was all that Reagan offensive, globalization, Nike corporate slogans, and post-modernism that had me confused... NGOs? Globalization? Pakistani capitalists? WTF?

This shit is much more familiar. Ich bin ein Berliner - I am a donut. Right back to my comfort zone... and here I thought I had been left behind.

Go to sleep, my little ones. Forget Selma... and Montgomery... and Vietnam... and Laos... and Cambodia... and Indonesia... and Timor... and the Congo... and Somalia... and Iran... and Iraq... and Right-to-Work... and de-industrialization... and Great Depression II... and torture... and genocide. It was all a bad dream - never happened.

Meanwhile hundreds in panelled offices are wondering, "will it work?"

"Will it work?" Of course it will work. It already has worked. The question is for how long. A week? A month? A year?

Anyway, I caught myself whistling while I watched. This is it, huh? This is all they got?

This ain't shit...

Who dat knockin' on my door

University of California $1,123,898
Goldman Sachs $955,223
Microsoft Corp $791,342
Google Inc $782,964
Harvard University $779,460
JPMorgan Chase & Co $642,958
Citigroup Inc $633,418
Sidley Austin LLP $565,788
Stanford University $558,184
Time Warner $542,651
National Amusements Inc $536,235
Wilmerhale Llp $522,792
Skadden, Arps et al $505,074
UBS AG $505,017
Columbia University $502,866
IBM Corp $489,842
Morgan Stanley $483,523
US Government $477,506
University of Chicago $456,209
Latham & Watkins $454,599

I'm pretty sure you could write a simple computer program to create an Obama speech.

The challenges before us are great. The obstacles we face are daunting. We must stand determined. The road ahead is long and hard.

But together we will rise to a New Day. Through the strength of our principles and courage of our convictions..blah blah blah

Industrial strength pablum is what it is..gotta be a vat of it in some factory in New Jersey or something..takes a lot more than Maalox to choke this shit down


You forgot the most important term: "Sacrifice"...

We must sacrifice. We must sacrifice together. America needs sacrifice. YOU must sacrifice.



Yep, thats what woulda made me scream if I hadn't been in a public school library (my inner self was screaming SACRIFICE!! are you listening kids???)...Oh the librarian had a huge party...cake, fake champagne, hats leis, noisemakers even...she asked me, "Aren't you excited?" I had to say no...(I was looking for a student actually...)

I'm pretty sure you could write a simple computer program to create an Obama speech.

The challenges before us are great. The obstacles we face are daunting. We must stand determined. The road ahead is long and hard.

But together we will rise to a New Day. Through the strength of our principles and courage of our convictions..blah blah blah



What do you expect from a guy who based his campaign on a cartoon theme song... "Can we build it? Yes we can!!!"

Happy Hour: Breaking the Spell of Power

Yesterday, Arthur Silber pointed us to a most learned Theban with an observation apt for inauguration day:


You're living in a world of make-believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats. -- Homer Simpson, Ph.D., M.D., Psy.D., D.O., D.S.W., Ed.D., D.C.M., D.Min., J.D., D.C.H., from his seminal work, Meditations on the Transmigrational Nature of Perambulating Observances (sometimes referred to more informally as, Don't Bullshit a Bullshitter.)

And pat as you please, this morning Britons (and assorted exiles and expats) picked up their Guardians to find this splashed under banner headlines on the front page:


Today a magic spell will be performed. A man who 12 weeks ago was a mere political candidate will be transformed with the incantation of a few words, before a vast crowd and a television audience in the hundreds of millions if not billions, into the head of state, even the embodiment, of the most powerful nation on earth.

This was written by an honest-to-god adult person, the ever-savvy, hardnosed international journalist Jonathan Freedman. Would it be a stretch to say that it is precisely this kind of thinking -- the awed and tingly verklemptitude toward those who have clawed and gnawed their way into the bowels of power -- that has led us into so many murderous disasters and criminal actions down through the many, many years?

What would happen if we simply treated all of these greasy pole climbers as ordinary human beings -- "poor, bare, forked animals" like the rest of us -- instead of turning them into fantasy figures imbued with embodiment and magic and goodness? The only extraordinary thing about them -- their craving for dominion over others -- is the very thing that should most repulse us, and make us wary, not draw us to them with awe, loyalty and affection. In all else, they share our common imperfections. Why then not judge them by what they actually do -- not by what they embody, not by how wiggly it makes us feel to surrender our minds and wills and judgments to a fantasy -- and hold them accountable for their actions in the real world?

Or to put it more in the academic language of Professors Simpson and Silber: since we're all bullshitters, why do we buy their bullshit?

II.
That said, I am not unmindful of the symbolic significance of Obama's ascension, especially for African-Americans. (Of course, there is another kind of symbolism at work here: the fact that a black man was finally allowed to be president only after the country has essentially been burned down, looted and left in ruins.) On this topic, I have little to add to what I said when he won the Democratic nomination:


The symbolic significance of Obama Barack's nomination victory is not insubstantial. In a land where, not so long ago, having the slightest drop of "Negro blood" in your genetic inheritance was enough to bar you -- legally and formally -- from many jobs, educational opportunities, places of residence, medical care, full participation in society, etc. (and where these obstacles still persist, in practice if not in law, for many people), it is striking to see a man whose father was not only black but also a "full-blooded African" (cue the psychosexual "Mandingo" anxieties of generations of trembly white folk) on the doorstep of the White House. At the very least -- until the novelty wears off (and novelty wears off very, very quickly in America)-- if Obama wins the presidency, there will be some aesthetic relief in seeing a different kind of face on the tee-vee mouthing various pieties, refusing to take any options off the table, etc., in place of the long procession of pasty white males of Northern European descent.

As for the substantial significance of Obama's nomination win, there is none. The only thing that really matters is what the human being named Barack Obama will do with power (if he gets it), and not his skin color. Or to put it another way: What difference did Colin Powell's status as a non-white person in the highest cabinet office make when the question of aggressive war was on the line? None. He was later replaced not only by another non-white person, but by a non-white female, Condi Rice. What difference did Rice's ethnicity and gender make to her collusion with the Bush faction's brutal policies of aggressive war, torture, rendition, state terror, etc.? None.

The salient point of this truly degrading campaign has always been: what will the winner do in office?

Now we will find out -- although by his appoinments and his pronouncements, Obama has already given us a pretty good idea of what he will do: more of the same, with minor mitigations around the edges, and better PR. For example, what was one of his last acts before assuming the presidency? Heaping effusive praise on one of the primary enablers of the massive war crime in Iraq, which has led to the slaughter of more than one million innocent people, the dispossession of four million people, and a lifetime of anguish, suffering and sorrow for many millions more. Here's what he said about Colin Powell, at a gala dinner to honor the old war criminal:


“It’s easy to slip into superlatives when you talk about Colin Powell,” Mr. Obama said, going on to speak of Mr. Powell’s “quiet, remarkably consistent loyalty to a set of principles: truth, loyalty and determination.”


This, for a man who knowingly and deliberately peddled warmongering lies before the entire world in "proving" the WMD case against Iraq at the UN. His "principles," his "loyalty to truth." If Obama begins his presidency with this kind of egregious bullshit, honoring an accomplice to mass murder (who, incidentally, began his long career as a fixer by trying to help cover up the mass murder at My Lai), then God only knows what fresh hell awaits in the years to come.

III.
"But c'mon, give the guy a chance! He's just getting started!"

That is certainly a common refrain. And as it happens, we've also addressed that point here as well, in a follow-up to the nomination piece noted above. I'd like to quote a good bit of that follow-up, because I think it bears repeating on this auspicious occasion. From "Like Trees Walking": Obama and the Vision Thing [see original for links]:


Last week, I wrote a piece on Barack Obama's victory in the race for the Democratic nomination: "Degrees of Significance." This has elicited a comment from a long-time reader whose views I respect; I'd like to respond at some length, because I think he brings up an important issue. ...Here is the comment:

Chris...if you write off Obama before he's even achieved the presidency, you might as well pack it in. Because then it's all just pissing in the wind, isn't it? There's no hope of change, there's no hope of America becoming better, there's no hope of anything changing and we're all on the slippery slope to extinction. After struggling in the mire of corruption for so long you've lost (understandably) perspective. Take a short break, go somewhere nice and quiet, don't read newspapers, the internet or watch TV. Then have another look.

I'm not "writing Obama off" -- whatever that means. I'm just looking at what he is actually saying, his actual positions, and what he has actually done -- and not done -- in the U.S. Senate. In the previous post, I noted a long list of actions -- both substantive and symbolic -- that Obama could have already taken from his position of national power, then I concluded: &quo

t;But he did not do so; he is not doing so now; and there is no reason to believe that he will do so in the future, despite the eloquent lip service he occasionally pays to one or two of these points."

Of course, I can't predict the future. Anything is possible, and perhaps Obama will astound us all with a new American revolution that will restore the Republic and dismantle the vast military empire America has built over many decades. Perhaps he will declare an end to the "War on Terror" -- the use of massive, nation-breaking military force, state terror, torture, rendition, secret prisons, concentration camps, and Constitution-stripping tyranny -- to deal with isolated groups of extremists that pose no existential threat to the United States. Perhaps he will establish a "Truth Commission" to investigate and prosecute the many high crimes of the Bush Administration. Perhaps he will change his position on Iraq, and call for a genuine withdrawal of all American forces there. Perhaps he will change his bellicose position on Iran, which he enunciated so forcefully to AIPAC recently. Perhaps he will forthrightly condemn the American-backed "regime change" invasion of Somalia, which has created the worst humanitarian disaster in the world (outside of Asia's recent natural disasters). Perhaps instead of stoking fears about the non-existent "Social Security crisis" -- and attending to the many Wall Street bankers and elitist lobbyists on his team -- he will call for the repeal of the draconian Bankruptcy Bill, he will shift billions of dollars from the Pentagon to the rebuilding of New Orleans and the restoration of the thousands upon thousands of refugees to their homes. Perhaps he will do all these things, and more -- even though he has not given the slightest indication whatsoever that this is what he would do in office.

Rather, in many cases, the opposite is true. He says he will do "everything, and I mean everything" to stop Iran from getting a single nuclear bomb like the thousands in the American arsenal and the hundreds in Israel's arsenal. He will take "no options" off the table in this feverish quest, including, one can only assume, the Hillary-like "obliteration" of Iran and its 70 million people. He has pledged to enlarge the American military machine, already gorged to monstrous, unmanageable size by blood and corruption. This in turn will guarantee the continued militarization of the American economy and our foreign policy, geared toward the continual fomenting of "war and rumors of war" to justify the all-devouring machine. He pledges to continue the "War on Terror," but to do it "better, smarter," and perhaps even expanding it into Pakistan. He pledges to leave behind an unspecified number of American troops in Iraq "and the region" -- forces that will continue to launch attacks in that broken land, sowing more hatred, more blowback for America.

These are simply facts, drawn from Obama's own speeches and position papers. What sort of "perspective" should we take toward these facts? Should we squint real hard and pretend they're not there?

....The commenter also gives voice to a sentiment that seems to be widely held out there: namely, that if we harsh the buzz about Obama, then "there's no hope of change, there's no hope of America becoming better, there's no hope of anything changing and we're all on the slippery slope to extinction."

I confess that I don't quite understand this. There is always hope of America becoming better, there is always hope for positive change. But that hope does not reside -- and has never resided -- in a single politician, or party, or faction. It resides in every individual citizen: in what they think and believe, in what they will accept and countenance, in what they will not stand for, in what they will work for. Hope resides in the amount of knowledge and truth and insight that we can all produce and disseminate and act upon. And hope depends on our ability -- and our willingness -- to confront reality as it is, to deal with our leaders and would-be leaders as they are, not as we wish them to be. For how can you change anything if you cannot see it clearly?

http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1685-happy-hour-breaking-the-spell-of-power.html#comments

Interesting phenomenon - that giddy excitement. Different in kind from anything I have seen before.

Interesting phenomenon - that giddy excitement. Different in kind from anything I have seen before.


I find it sorta hard to take. Earlier today I was reading threads at Moon of Alabama and some poster said she was eager to celebrate Obama. I responded tersely that I spit on her celebration. I get so tired of those Pleasantville Progressives... so fuggin' tired.

Interesting phenomenon - that giddy excitement. Different in kind from anything I have seen before.


It's easy...

We're not finished... we're not fucked. Just a few magic incantations and a repeat of the old sacred words and we're back.

Feels good, don't it?

("USA", "USA", "USA")
.

Happy Hour: Breaking the Spell of Power

Yesterday, Arthur Silber pointed us to a most learned Theban with an observation apt for inauguration day:


"Theban"?

Ya mean like this guy?

http://www.geocities.com/statuart/greek_hoplite_original_figure.jpg

anaxarchos, how common is it for hegemonic powers (e.g., USA! USA! USA!) to gracefully accept their own decline?

anaxarchos, how common is it for hegemonic powers (e.g., USA! USA! USA!) to gracefully accept their own decline?


Dunno... It's a good question and my answer is kinda soggy. It depends on the circumstances, I suppose. Certainly, World War 1 and World War 2 are one answer. On the other hand, the Brits went down with the longest and wimpiest decline that I can think of, as did the colonial powers in general after World War 2. Yes, they fought holding actions which were significant but seemed unwilling to fully bet the home country. The French came the closest in Algeria.

I can think of many examples of both... the flame out and the agonizingly slow decline by a thousand cuts. The Russkis thought about this a lot, though they were probably a mite optimistic about the impending "death of capitalism". I think if the circumstances allow for even a "long-shot", they will tend to take it. If it means betting the farm when there is much to loose, I think they retreat. Of course, there is no "they" at this level so that the question of which faction rules at the moment and the state of home country politics matters a lot.

I've wondered myself whether my last statement above is superficial. There is a danger in it of a perpetual argument for a "temporary suspension" of the "class struggle" because the "crazy" ruling class is "trying to blow up the world".

anaxarchos, how common is it for hegemonic powers (e.g., USA! USA! USA!) to gracefully accept their own decline?


Dunno... It's a good question and my answer is kinda soggy. It depends on the circumstances, I suppose. Certainly, World War 1 and World War 2 are one answer. On the other hand, the Brits went down with the longest and wimpiest decline that I can think of, as did the colonial powers in general after World War 2. Yes, they fought holding actions which were significant but seemed unwilling to fully bet the home country. The French came the closest in Algeria.

I can think of many examples of both... the flame out and the agonizingly slow decline by a thousand cuts. The Russkis thought about this a lot, though they were probably a mite optimistic about the impending "death of capitalism". I think if the circumstances allow for even a "long-shot", they will tend to take it. If it means betting the farm when there is much to loose, I think they retreat. Of course, there is no "they" at this level so that the question of which faction rules at the moment and the state of home country politics matters a lot.

I've wondered myself whether my last statement above is superficial. There is a danger in it of a perpetual argument for a "temporary suspension" of the "class struggle" because the "crazy ruling class is "trying to blow up the world".




I was just about to reply and quote Chamberlain that we have "Peace in our time"..said in 1939 I think..

But I wouldn't call any of it "graceful"

Happy Hour: Breaking the Spell of Power

Yesterday, Arthur Silber pointed us to a most learned Theban with an observation apt for inauguration day:


"Theban"?

Ya mean like this guy?



I gotta stop cracking jokes that are this obscure... sorry.

From Wikipedia:


For a discussion of the many mythical kings of Thebes and their individual feats, see Theban kings in Greek mythology.
The stories of Thebes are mainly tragic tales of death, confusion, war, murder, complete frenzy, and other tragic endings. The record of the earliest days of Thebes was preserved among the Greeks in an abundant mass of legends which rival the myths of Troy in their wide ramification and the influence which they exerted upon the literature of the classical age. Five main cycles of story may be distinguished:

1.The foundation of the citadel Cadmeia by Cadmus, and the growth of the Spartoi or "Sown Men" (probably an aetiological myth designed to explain the origin of the Theban nobility which bore that name in historical times);
2.The building of a "seven-gated" wall by Amphion, and the cognate stories of Zethus, Antiope and Dirce;
3.The tale of Laius, whose misdeeds culminated in the tragedy of Oedipus and the wars of the "Seven Against Thebes," the Epigoni, and the downfall of his house; Laius' pederastic rape of Chrysippus was held by some ancients to have been the first instance of homosexuality among mortals, and may have provided an etiology for the practice of pedagogic pederasty for which Thebes was famous. See Theban pederasty and Pederasty in ancient Greece for detailed discussion and background.
4.The advent of Dionysus; and
5.The exploits of Heracles.

It is better than my initial reaction that you were punning Theban and thievin'..pretty sure Joe Stalin woulda had you shot for that one..but don't worry we'd still rehabilitate him ;)

PS planting the dragon's teeth is one of the coolest parts of Greek myth IMO

http://www.blackagendareport.com/images/stories/121/super-o.jpg

Obama, King and Kennedy: Empire and the “End” of Racism
Wednesday, 21 January 2009

An interview with Juan Santos

In claiming that Blacks had “already come 90 percent of the way” to equality, candidate Barack Obama employed “strategy and tactics that served white racism and served to deeply harm peoples of color by erasing our conditions of life from the imagination of the majority.” Obama’s promises of fundamental change are empty. “Change won’t come from within the system because the wealthy profit from the mass impoverishment of peoples of color here and around the world – wherever their money can penetrate to get the cheapest labor for the most work.”The only thing the system can do for us “is collapse, go away, and get out of our lives.”


Juan Santos is a member of the Aztlan Mexica Nation Harmony Keepers/American Indian Movement, and author of the essays Barack Obama and the “End” of Racism, and Obama's Denial: The Fear of a Black Messiah. Andrea Luchetta interviewed him for a feature piece on Obama’s inauguration for the Italian daily Il Manifesto. The following is the full text of that interview.

“King spoke Truth to Power, while Obama spoke Lies to get in Power. One might say that other than that, and other than the fact that King stood up to end Black people’s suffering while Obama stood silent in the face of it, they’re just alike.”

Luchetta: I‘ve interviewed Ms. Makeeba Lloyd, of the "Harlem4Obama Committee." According to her, racism is nowadays a minor problem. The main conflict, for her, is of a class nature, rather than racial in nature. The social dividing line, she says, is now between the rich and the poor, not between the white and the black. What do you think of this position?

Santos: This is nonsense, Lloyd’s claim is in line with Barack Obama’s utterly false claim that peoples of color are “90% of the way to equality” with whites in the US.

Ms. Lloyd is wrong. The poverty line is a race line. Race determines who is poor and who is not. Roughly a quarter of black and brown people in the US live in poverty, while less than 1/10th of Euro-Americans live in poverty. A black person in the US is 3 times more likely to be poor than a white person. That’s 90% of the way to “equality”?

No. The very best thing I can say about the idea that peoples of color are approaching equality with whites in the US is that it is an example of extremely bad math, or of people promoting an illusion in hopes that it will come true.

Black unemployment in the US is currently at 11.1% - almost double the average for white people, whose rate of unemployment is 5.9%. Among the general population - by which I mean those outside of the reservation system that imprisons Native Americans on the remnants of their lands. Blacks have the highest rate of unemployment in the US, followed by Latinos, at 8.8%. Among Black youth unemployment reaches a stunning 32.3 %. From 1976 through today, a new study shows, Latino unemployment rates typically exceeded that of the white population by some 65%. The absolute rate of unemployment for Native Americans on the reservations is, however, roughly SEVENTY PER CENT.

50% of Native American reservation homes have no phones and 1/5 of the homes lack complete kitchen facilities.

It might be interesting to show these figures to Ms. Lloyd to see if, reading them, she is still willing to claim a distinction between a race divide and a class divide in the US.

But economics is by no means the only measure of equality. Race also determines who is imprisoned and who is not

Black people in the US are 8.5 times more likely than whites to be imprisoned. On any given day 1 in 9 young Black men are in prison. Latinos are 4 times more likely to go to prison than white people.

68% of all U.S. prisoners are people of color, although Black, Latinos and officially recognized Native Americans together make up slightly less than 25% of the overall population of the U.S.

The US has the highest rate of imprisonment in the world. It is a system of mass imprisonment aimed at the control of people of color, who, the elites fear, have the potential to violently and politically rebel again as they did in the 1960s. People in other parts of the world simply cannot begin to imagine the conditions that exist here; the US holds 25% of the world’s prisoners – a Gulag comprised mostly of prisoners from the minority populations of African and Native American descent – Blacks and Latinos.

This is no “minor problem,” contrary to what Ms. Lloyd suggests. It is a form of mass social control of potentially dissident and rebellious populations based on race and class status. Ms. Lloyd has missed the point entirely. It’s not a matter of race versus class – race and class are in many ways one thing here in the US.

Usually that kind of system is called a caste system. Despite a few exceptions, like Obama himself, that’s exactly what exists in the US: a caste system.

What the white ruling class did here was this: following the mass rebellions and the burning of major US cities in the 1960s, the white ruling class decided on a strategy of divide and conquer. They created a Black middle class almost overnight, largely using government employment to do so, while at the same time they found another way to deal with the millions of people of color who could not fit into the system; mass imprisonment. These developments are 2 sides of the same coin. Ms. Lloyd’s failure to see this is why she can make the kind of mistakes of analysis she’s making. See this link.

Luchetta: You wrote that the price for Obama's election was silence about the racial question. Yet, don't you think, as many participants to the "Great Harlem Debate" have suggested, that his silence was rather tactical?

Santos: Yes it was tactical, but the question is this; what strategy did the tactic serve?

And, Who did that strategy serve? And, Who did that strategy harm?

As someone put it, “Hope is not a strategy.” Hope is nothing but a slogan.

And here’s another question. If, as Obama claimed, Blacks in the US are “90%” of the way to equality with whites, then why was the tactic of silence necessary in the first place?

If this claim were the truth and not a lie, anyone could talk openly about race and discrimination, openly celebrate the reality that there is only 1/10th of the way left to go, and put forward plans to quickly eliminate the remaining 10% of the problem. If this were true, such a campaign would draw millions upon millions forward as volunteers, people who would be thankful with all of their hearts, joyful to be part of the push to bring racism in this former Apartheid state to its complete end.

If racism were 90% eradicated in the US, if Blacks and other peoples of color were 90% of the way to equality, there would be absolutely no reason or need for silence.

If 9 out of 10 former racists were no longer racists, the tiny number which remained would already be isolated and powerless. There would be no need for a tactic of silence about racial oppression, because the racists who remained would be so small a group that they could not change the outcome of an election – not against a population that was 90% anti-racist or non-racist. But Obama’s claim was a conscious lie, as I demonstrated in answer 1. There I dealt with the quantifiable measures – the facts of social inequality which disprove Obama’s claim. The verifiable, statistical facts disprove Obama’s claim, and they are widely available for anyone to see who cares.

Obama’s silence showed one thing- that he knew his claim about equality was

false, that he knew that to dare to talk openly about race and oppression would alienate the millions of white center-right voters whose support he needed to win the election.

So, Obama’s strategy was to give those voters what they wanted to hear, and to give them silence on what they didn’t want to hear. The tactic he used to give them what they wanted to hear was to offer the lie about “90% equality.” This erased any need on the part of his white audience, the white electorate, to deal honestly with the actual conditions of people of color here in the US. They could believe the lie of racial progress, and never have to think about the millions in poverty and the millions more in prison. That worked just fine for Obama.

Instead of blaming the system and white racism for the conditions of Black people, he could blame Black youth for a lack of “personal responsibility” – that’s exactly the tactic of white racists, and it looks like that is what Obama means by creating “unity” between peoples of color and white people – to unite with white racists in their tactic of blaming the victim of racism for the impacts of racism. That’s the same kind of logic wife beaters use to justify their brutality.

In effect, Obama filled the silence about the actual conditions of peoples of color with the lie about an “equality” that clearly does not exist, and with a tactic of blaming the victim. So, looking back, it wasn’t really silence at all. It wasn’t wrong to say that this silence was the price of Obamas’ election, but more basically, the price of his election was a price now being paid by Gazans, and by the hungry, incarcerated and unemployed people of color in the US.

A lie filled the silence and took the place of the truths that demanded to be spoken and dealt with. Obama’s strategy and tactics served white racism and served to deeply harm peoples of color by erasing our conditions of life from the imagination of the majority here.

Claiming that Gazans have “almost achieved equality” with Israelis would not make it so, and remaining silent about the rain of bombs will not make them stop exploding. Obama has remained silent about the literal bombs in Gaza, and he has remained silent about the explosively unjust social conditions for people here. In both cases, the bombs keep falling, people keep going hungry, and here, the US Gulag continues to devour the lives of millions of imprisoned people of color. Along with the wealthy Anglo ruling elite, that’s who his strategy served, and that’s who his strategy harmed.

Yes, Obama’s Black supporters you interviewed in Harlem were correct.

The silence was, in fact, a tactic.

Luchetta: Why don't you seem to believe in the possibility of a change coming from within the institutional framework? What is then the possible alternative?

Santos: Change won’t come from within the system because the wealthy profit from the mass impoverishment of peoples of color here and around the world – wherever their money can penetrate to get the cheapest labor for the most work. Having a color- based caste who you can discriminate against increases the rate of profit. They also profit at the expense of the Earth; they profit from the Earth’s destruction – actually, and in practice, they profit at the expense of all life. They’re not going to give that up because someone votes for them to give it up. They have police and military power at their disposal, and the bullet always trumps the ballot.

Racism rewards the powerful. They have no reason to stop racism unless its continuance results in a level of resistance that endangers the system of profit itself. To put it in plain words, the system rewards the rich for hurting people. So, from their emotionally deadened standpoint, and given their control of the bullet, why should anything change?

For me, the most important example of an alternative is the EZLN; the Zapatistas and the Mayan people of Chiapas in Mexico are a shining example. They have found a striking balance between autonomy and resistance, and between self determination and the nurturing of their culture and the Earth. The Mayan people have a profound sense of the meaning and potentials of our times. I’m an indigenist and associated with the American Indian Movement.

I’m also enamored of Evo Morales and his MAS party in Bolivia, and I have an intellectual and moral admiration for Hugo Chavez, for his willingness to confront the US and Israel, and to unite other oppressed nations in a bloc of opposition to imperial hegemony, but not for his personal style of management or emotional tone.

And at this juncture in history anyone with a heart has to admire Hamas; I do, even though I don’t view them as a viable alternative… but, then, I don’t have to; it’s not my place to make that determination. I’m not Palestinian.

But, finally, the all-but undeniable reality is that the Empire cultures like the US and the European powers are quickly heading toward “the trash bin of history.” Their systems are completely irrational, and tend to eat themselves – and the Earth – and us – alive. They have no future.

Increasingly, it seems, the writing is on the wall, and in the hearts of people around the world. I think the alternative is to begin to build a new way and a new culture, establishing autonomy and independence and sustainability for ourselves as communities, even as these Empires collapse as flat as the two skyscrapers in New York a few years ago. One good collapse deserves another, I always say.

Luchetta: You seem quite skeptical toward Obama's rhetoric. What is the "Change" that Harlem's people would really need? Which actions would be needed to tackle the racial question?

Santos: Well, we’ve seen plenty of “change” since the 1960s. But what people forget right now is the common folk wisdom that “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

Really, the only thing the system can do for us is collapse, go away, and get out of our lives. I’m a big fan of the American Indian Movement slogan that says, “U.S. out of North America!”

Really, the system can’t do anything to change the caste system that it’s founded on and that it relies on for its continued profit and its continued existence. As far as tackling the race question goes, they can never tackle it from our perspective and for our good. Just like in the 60s and 70s, they can only tackle the race problem – their race problem, not ours.

We are their race problem, and I’ve never been one to ask bullies to tackle me. It’s not a sound or productive strategy.

Luchetta: Don't you think that, if compared with the situation of the Civil Rights Movement era, a lot of progress has been made on the racial question?

Santos: Again, the old folk saying; “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

My answer? Sure, if you count a new Black middle class, on one hand, combined with the mass incarceration of peoples of color on the other, and a day to day war in our neighborhoods called the “War on Drugs” - which is really a “War on Us” - if you want to count that as “progress” …then yes, there’s been “progress.” But anyone who actually believes that that is “progress” is lying to themselves.

At the systemic level, there’s been no qualitative, fundamental “change” at all, really. But at the cultural level, yes, there’s been change, and that change - with all of its dramatic difference and all of its dramatic limits, is what Barack Obama represents at his best - as a cultural symbol, not as a champion of the People.

But, yes there has been a limited but very welcome change in people’s attitudes, ethics and their emotional and cultural open-ness. That much has changed. The system, though, hasn’t changed at all.

Luchetta: Why, in your opinion, is Barack Obama often compared wi

th JFK?

Santos: It’s a kind of obvious comparison in terms of their charisma, their intelligence, and their ages. But, it’s not just their personalities or spirits. January 2009 is very much like the period of JFK’s reign. Then - looking back on it now, it’s plain to see that there were two major trajectories the world could take – toward Nuclear Holocaust or toward a Cultural Renaissance. As it turned out, the cultural Renaissance, an effort toward Cultural Revolution, was the path taken from the bottom-up.

The Ecological Holocaust we face today is very similar in it’s meaning to Nuclear Holocaust, and, according to Michael Oritz Hill, the author of a book called Dreaming the End of the World – which is focused on people’s dreams about Nuclear Holocaust and Ecological Holocaust, there are even deep correspondences and similarities between the symbols in these kinds of dreams. By the same token, the feeling is thick in the air today, at least here in California, that another cultural Renaissance is being primed: a Green Renaissance – no, not a “green economic stimulus” – something more profound, and from the bottom up is coming; that’s how it feels now. I’m sure that if you were in San Francisco or Greenwich Village in the early 60’s, it felt pretty similar.

In the early 60s, Kennedy embodied both potentials, for renewal and destruction. Obama is like that, too – a mix of contradictory elements and psychological, cultural and political trends embodied in a single, charismatic leader. Neither of them brought any focus whatsoever on paths to liberation.

Kennedy was an imperialist and a Cold Warrior. Obama is the 21st century equivalent of Kennedy – a smart Hawk whose basic commitment is to the existence and furtherance of capitalist imperialism.

As a fine essay in Revolution points out, Kennedy sent the young and hopeful he’d inspired to die and carry out imperial genocide in Viet Nam.

Obama will do the same in Afghanistan, and, perhaps, Iran.

Beyond that, moving out of the Bush era is not unlike moving out of the 50’s and the McCarthy era here, out of a time of a deep gray repression into open air and sunlight. Just getting finished with the Bush years is enough to give people “hope.” Obama just stepped up and rode that wave; he didn’t inspire it; he was just the one to ride it –he was a “fit.” There are lots of little correspondences; John McCain, Obama’s rival, was almost as stiff and bad on television as Richard Nixon, Kennedy’s rival.

History and Time run in circles and spirals and cycles, not in straight lines. Things come back around. The world is a complete circle. In fact, the Aztec (Mexica) name for the world was Cem Anahautl – “Complete Circle.”

Luchetta: Why did most black people vote for Obama? And why did the US choose a black president just now?

Santos: Because he’s Black. Because Black people are routinely and systematically excluded from full participation and any kind of empowerment in US society. Because they dared to “hope” he might actually turn out to be one of their own, to actually turn the tide for them, despite the political evidence to the contrary. It was largely a symbolic vote, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t truly important at the level of culture.

In fact, symbols are, in many ways, the substance of culture. Look, the guy’s smart, charismatic, and his game is really complex. There is no way that it would be right to “blame” most black people for not seeing through the complex political game, and there is no way that one could fail to love Black people when you take even a second to see it through their eyes; to so many the election of Barack Obama looked exactly like the fulfillment of the Dream - Martin Luther King’s Dream. In one way, in terms of what it said about the changing culture, it had an element of truth, at least in part. At the level of the system, it has no truth at all.

Nor is it the case that Obama represents anything like the values King held to his heart – quite the opposite. King spoke Truth to Power, while Obama spoke Lies to get in Power.

One might say that other than that, and other than the fact that King stood up to end Black people’s suffering while Obama stood silent in the face of it, they’re just alike.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=985&Itemid=1

I find it sorta hard to take.


thats the understatement of the thread...to keep from knocking heads and screaming is "sorta hard" to resist!

I find it sorta hard to take.


thats the understatement of the thread...to keep from knocking heads and screaming is "sorta hard" to resist!


Like a person rubbernecking accidents on the other side of a highway, I keep going back to Moon of Alabama and Lenin's Tomb, finding more eedjits who side with Obama while pretending they're on the Left. It's really not much different from Democratic Underground.

How is someone supposed to retain any form of personal integrity in the face of so many intellectually corrupt assholes?!

Lenin's Tomb is pure liberal guilt for people who don't quite have the stones to be Social Dems for real, but are capable of talking, scratch that typing, a good game


How is someone supposed to retain any form of personal integrity in the face of so many intellectually corrupt assholes?!

Let a few arrogant fools beat you down? Psshh

lenin's tomb is SWP territory. trotskyites go there when they want to get trolled or feel like they need someone to talk to.

Kid,

Yep, that's Lenin's Tomb all right. Great description. This morning Seymour himself posted a comment to me saying that if I kept using the monniker "MI5" to describe the British Obamanauts on the discussion threads, I would lose my welcome there. Just the mention of MI5 has him cowering. What a spineless dolt.

He does write some decent criticism re Israel v Gaza, but I'd admit that's like shooting fish in a barrel. I mean, who doesn't see the atrocity as inhumane and barbaric? (yeah, I know... true Zionists, and a bunch of deluded Israel supporters)

Not saying I've given up, not at all. Just saying it's taxing dealing with so much fraudulence and delusion. I was venting frustration. I'm not giving up.

+++++++++++

vampire squid -- SWP being Socialist Workers Party?

yeah. http://www.swp.org.uk/

i don't have as huge a problem with lenin's tomb as kid does. honestly, it's one of the better leftish blogs out there. as long as you don't cave to your inner-masochist & read the comments it's more than tolerable imo

yeah. http://www.swp.org.uk/

i don't have as huge a problem with lenin's tomb as kid does. honestly, it's one of the better leftish blogs out there. as long as you don't cave to your inner-masochist & read the comments it's more than tolerable imo


For sure I like Seymour's essays more than the comments that follow. I mean, there's a bunch of Brits who are applauding Obama in the comments. They also praised Naomi Klein -- including Seymour himself. They don't even see that Naomi Klein is 100% capitalist yuppie. They think her books are helpful.

his readership is terrible, i agree. most of them should just grow a pair, embrace social-democracy & quit cloaking their craven opportunism in radical rhetoric. it only confuses people.

i haven't read anything by naomi klein since 'no logo' (disappointing), but from what i gather about the Shock Doctrine this lady thinks milton friedman & his disciples invented colonialism?

his readership is terrible, i agree. most of them should just grow a pair, embrace social-democracy & quit cloaking their craven opportunism in radical rhetoric. it only confuses people.

i haven't read anything by naomi klein since 'no logo' (disappointing), but from what i gather about the Shock Doctrine this lady thinks milton friedman & his disciples invented colonialism?


Its worse than that -- she thinks she and hubby invented anti-colonialism. Ie without pristine white faces like her own out front there'd be no "resistance". As though a bunch of yuppie white people are leading the "good fight"

The problem with Lenin's Tomb articles is that Seymour Lenin knows everything..one day Seymour will find out that its an expensive habit to always be right..the price might be his soul

And my opinion is not because I think Seymour is a twat personally either

I haven't read any of Naomi Klein's books, I've only read excerpts along with interviews of her. My take on her is that she senses people's discomfort with rank materialist consumerism, and is an opportunist who tries to find a way to criticize that consumerism by pointing at how tacky it is. This perspective lets people think they're "revolutionary" in their view, while still being capitalists at heart who are not the least bit troubled by consumerism as long as it's not "tacky".

Further, she's a Canadian who endorsed Obama -- how exactly does that square with her books No Logo and Shock Doctrine? Obama is a triumph of Madison Avenue "marketing" (thus refuting her theme in No Logo) and a tool of pirate capitalism (thus refuting her theme in Shock Doctrine).

So she's a liar... but a clever, slippery one. Much like Obama.

Oh I'm so crushed! Richard Seymour has banned me from commenting at Lenin's Tomb!

President Obama Delivers Remarks to State Department Employees


CQ Transcriptions
Thursday, January 22, 2009; 4:03 PM

JANUARY 22, 2009

SPEAKERS: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

FORMER SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL, D-MAINE, SPECIAL ENVOY FOR THE MIDDLE EAST

FORMER AMBASSADOR RICHARD HOLBROOKE


<*> CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you very much. And welcome to the State Department. Please be seated.

We are delighted to be joined this afternoon by President Obama and Vice President Biden for this very important announcement, but it is also absolutely a delight to have the president and the vice president here with us today. It is an indication of the president's commitment to a foreign policy that protects our national security and advances our interests and is in keeping with our values.

So we, Mr. President, take great heart from the confidence that you have placed in us.

Today, we start the hard work to restore our standing and enable our country to meet the vexing new challenges of the 21st century, but also to seize the opportunities that await us. The president is committed to making diplomacy and development the partners in our foreign policy, along with defense.

And we must be smarter about how we exercise our power, but, as I said this morning, upon entering the building, the heart of smart power are smart people.

And, Mr. President, we have them in abundance here in the State Department, USAID, and our related agencies.

Today, you will see an example of the kind of robust diplomacy that the president intends to pursue and that I'm honored to help him fulfill. Nowhere is there a need for a vigorous diplomatic approach more apparent than in the two regions that epitomize the nuance and complexity of our interconnected world.

CLINTON: Many of you in this building, many of your Foreign Service and Civil Service and foreign national colleagues have been engaged on behalf of issues related to the Middle East and to Afghanistan and Pakistan for years, sometimes, as we know, at great peril and personal sacrifice.

That work has been invaluable, and it will continue to be the underpinning of everything our government does to achieve peace and stability in these regions.

At the same time, we know that anything short of relentless diplomatic efforts will fail to produce a lasting, sustainable peace in either place. That is why the president and I have decided to name a special envoy for Middle East peace and a special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Given the magnitude of the issues confronting us, we will bolster the excellent work that is done daily here, as well as in our embassies and outposts around the world, and particularly in these two regions, by an intensive push undertaken through the efforts of these two seasoned diplomats.

Mr. President, by coming here to the State Department and through your announcement today of these two positions, you are through word and deed sending a loud and clear signal that diplomacy is a top priority of your presidency and that our nation is once again capable of demonstrating global leadership in pursuit of progress and peace.

We are honored to have you join us on only the second day in office. We are grateful to you for highlighting these urgent issues and the collaboration needed to address two of the biggest foreign policy challenges of our time.

I know that everyone here at State and in our various embassies, and consulates, and other outposts throughout the world look forward to working closely with these two exceptional public servants as we strive to protect and advance America's interests and find a path to peace and greater harmony in these vital areas of the world.

I am pleased now to introduce someone who is no stranger to this department, who has been a friend and partner as a senator, as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and now as our vice president. There are few people who have been so devoted to promoting diplomacy and development as our guest, Vice President Joe Biden.

(APPLAUSE) BIDEN: Thank you very much. Thank you.

Madam Secretary, let me begin by saying congratulations. It was a bright day for the whole department and the Foreign Service when you walked through that door. And so congratulations to you.

Mr. President, your choice of our colleague, Senator Clinton, is absolutely the right person, in my view, at the right moment in American history.

We've come here today to the State Department to send a very clear message, a clear message at home as well as abroad that we are going to reinvigorate America's commitment to diplomacy. This effort will be led by Secretary Clinton.

I believe -- and as I know you do, Mr. President, because you chose her -- that she has the knowledge, the skill, the experience, as well as that sort of intangible commodity of having personal relationships with many of these world leaders, which makes her uniquely -- in my view, uniquely qualified to put diplomacy back in the forefront of America's foreign policy.

For too long, we've put the bulk of the burden, in my view, on our military. That's a view not only shared by me, but by your secretary of defense, as well. And our military is absolutely, to state the obvious, absolutely necessary, but not sufficient, not sufficient to secure the interest of this great nation.

In a moment, Mr. President, you're going to announce two new powerful weapons in our -- I guess the secretary is going to announce -- two very powerful weapons in our diplomatic arsenal. They've faced and helped resolve equally challenging issues as the ones they face today in -- throughout their careers, from the Balkans to Northern Ireland.

Both -- both are outstanding public servants. And both are very, with all full disclosure, Mr. President, very old and close friends.

Mr. President, if you'll permit me, I'd like to thank them.

BIDEN: I'd like to thank them for their willingness to come back into government to take on two of the most vexing international dilemmas that we face and requires their -- their incredible capacity.

And so I compliment the secretary on her recommendations and your choices. And I look forward to -- with following you, Mr. President -- to reinvigorate diplomacy in the world. It is the key, ultimately, to our security. I thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: The president and I feel very grateful for the willingness of both of these extraordinary Americans to serve. And it is also fitting to thank their families. Both Mrs. Mitchell and Heather is here, and Kati, Richard Holbrooke's wife, is here, along with other family members.

These are very difficult assignments. They are disruptive of settled and successful lives. And we thank them for taking on these responsibilities.

It's my great honor to introduce the man who the president and I have asked to be the special envoy for Middle East peace. He will lead our efforts to reinvigorate the process for achieving peace between Israel and its neighbors.

He will help us to develop an integrated strategy that defends the security of Israel, works to bring an end to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict that will result in two states, living side by side in peace and security, and to achieve further agreements to promote peace and security between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Senator Mitchell will also work to support the objectives that the president and I believe are critical and pressing in Gaza, to develop a program for humanitarian aid and eventual reconstr

uction, working with the Palestinian Authority and Israel on behalf of those objectives.

It is a great personal pleasure to introduce George Mitchell, a man who is well known inside this department and across Washington and America, who has been willing to accept this important assignment.

(APPLAUSE)

MITCHELL: Thank you. Mr. President, Madam Secretary, I'm grateful to you for your kind words and for the confidence that you show in me and in Ambassador Holbrooke.

It's a great honor for me to be able to serve our country again, and especially to do so with my friend and distinguished colleague, Richard Holbrooke.

I don't underestimate the difficulty of this assignment. The situation in the Middle East is volatile, complex and dangerous. But the president and the secretary of state have made it clear that danger and difficulty cannot cause the United States to turn away.

To the contrary, they recognize and have said that peace and stability in the Middle East are in our national interest. They are, of course, also in the interest of Israelis and Palestinians, of others in the region and people throughout the world.

The secretary mentioned Northern Ireland. There, recently longtime enemies came together to form a power-sharing government to bring to an end the ancient conflict known as the Troubles. This was almost 800 years after Britain began its domination of Ireland, 86 years after the petition of Ireland, 38 years after the British army formally began its most recent mission in Ireland, 11 years after the peace talks began, and 9 years after a peace agreement was signed.

In the negotiations which led to that agreement, we had 700 days of failure and one day of success.

MITCHELL: For most of the time, progress was nonexistent or very slow. So I understand the feelings of those who may be discouraged about the Middle East.

As an aside, just recently, I spoke in Jerusalem, and I mentioned the 800 years. And afterward, an elderly gentleman came up to me, and he said, "Did you say 800 years?" I said, "Yes, 800." He repeated the number again. I repeated it again. He said, "Ah, such a recent argument. No wonder you settled it."

(LAUGHTER)

But 800 years may be recent, but from my experience there, I formed the conviction that there is no such thing as a conflict that can't be ended. Conflicts are created, conducted and sustained by human beings; they can be ended by human beings.

I saw it happen in Northern Ireland, although admittedly it took a very long time. I believe deeply that with committed, persevering and patient diplomacy, it can happen in the Middle East.

There are, of course, many, many reasons to be skeptical about the prospect for success. The conflict has gone on for so long and has had such destructive effects that many have come to regard it as unchangeable and inevitable, but the president and the secretary of state don't believe that.

They believe, as I do, that the pursuit of peace is so important that it demands our maximum effort, no matter the difficulties, no matter the setbacks. The key is the mutual commitment of the parties and the active participation of the United States government, led by the president and the secretary of state, with the support and assistance of the many other governments and institutions who want to help.

The secretary of state just talked about our long-term objective, and the president himself has said that his administration, and I quote, "will make a sustained push, working with Israelis and Palestinians, to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security."

This effort must be determined, persevering and patient. It must be backed up by political capital, economic resources, and focused attention at the highest levels of our government. And it must be firmly rooted in a shared vision of a peaceful future by the people who live in the region.

At the direction of the president and the secretary of state, and in pursuit of the president's policies, I pledge my full effort in the search for peace and stability in the Middle East.

Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Thank you very much, Senator Mitchell.

I next have the great personal pleasure of introducing the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ambassador Holbrooke will coordinate across the entire government an effort to achieve United States' strategic goals in the region.

This effort will be closely coordinated, not only within the State Department and, of course, with USAID, but also with the Defense Department and under the coordination of the National Security Council.

It has become clear that dealing with the situation in Afghanistan requires an integrated strategy that works with both Afghanistan and Pakistan as a whole, as well as engaging NATO and other key friends, allies, and those around the world who are interested in supporting these efforts.

It is such a great decision on the part of the ambassador to respond to the call that the president and I sent out, asking that he again enter public service and take on this very challenging assignment. And we are grateful that he has.

Ambassador Holbrooke?

(APPLAUSE)

HOLBROOKE: Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Madam Secretary, Senator Special Envoy Mitchell, I thank you so much.

It's an extraordinarily moving thing for me to return to this building again, having entered it so many years ago as a junior Foreign Service officer.

As somebody whose career was determined in that initial decade of my life in the Foreign Service, I want to tell you, Mr. President, that I know that the Foreign Service and the Civil Service and the Foreign Service officers serving around the world will appreciate and remember the fact that you chose to come to the department on your second day to demonstrate what you have with this fantastic team.

And if I may, on behalf of all Foreign Service officers, active and retired, I want to thank you so much.

(APPLAUSE)

I'm also honored by the presence of two good and close friends, Vice President Biden and, of course, my boss, immediate boss, Secretary Clinton, and to share the podium with a colleague from the Irish days and many Senate events, Senator George Mitchell.

I thank you for your confidence in offering me this daunting assignment, and all I can do is pledge my best to undertake it. I see -- thinking of my early years in the Foreign Service, I see my former roommate in Saigon, John Negroponte, here. We remember those days well. And I hope we will produce a better outcome this time.

(LAUGHTER)

I also have to thank Kati, my two sons, David and Anthony, and my stepdaughter, my beloved stepdaughter, Lizzie (ph), and her fiance, David, especially for coming down here today. And I hope that I'll be able to see you sometime in the next few years.

(LAUGHTER)

Mr. President, Madam Secretary, Mr. Vice President, you've asked me to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan, two very distinct countries with extraordinarily different histories, and yet intertwined by geography, ethnicity, and the current drama.

This is a very difficult assignment, as we all know. Nobody can say the war in Afghanistan has gone well, and yet, as we speak here today, American men and women and their coalition partners are fighting a very difficult struggle against a ruthless and determined enemy without any scruples at all, an enemy that is willing to behead women who dare to teach in a school to young girls, an enemy that has done some of the most odious things on Earth.

And across the border lurks the greater enemy still, the people who committed the atrocities of September 11, 2001.

We know what our long-term objective is. I hope I will be able to fill out the mandate which Secretary Clinton has mentioned to help coordinate a clearly chaotic foreign assistance program, which must be pulled together, to work closely with General Petraeus, CENTCOM, Admiral Mullen, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General McKiernan and the command in Afghanistan, to create a more coherent program.

If our resources are mobilized and coordinated and pulled together, we can quadruple, quintuple, multiply by tenfold the effectiveness of our efforts there.

In Pakistan, the situation is infinitely complex, and I don't think I would advance our goals if I tried to discuss it today. I wish to get out to the region and report back to the secretary, the vice president, and the president.

But I will say that, in putting Afghanistan and Pakistan together under one envoy, we should underscore that we fully respect the fact that Pakistan has its own history, its own traditions, and it is far more than the turbulent, dangerous tribal areas on its western border.

And we will respect that, as we seek to follow suggestions that have been made by all three of the men and women standing behind me in the last few years on having a more comprehensive policy.

So I thank you again for your confidence in me. I look forward to working for you, with you closely, and following a joint effort to do better than we have in the past.

Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well, we are not only honored and delighted, but challenged by the president coming here on the second day. This puts the pressure on everybody.

And yet, Mr. President, we feel up to that challenge. We want to do our very best work in furtherance of your goals.

You set a high standard in your inaugural address as to what we are aiming toward, and I pledge to you, on behalf of the thousands and thousands of dedicated public servants who serve you on behalf of diplomacy and development, that we will give you our very best efforts. It is an honor to be working to fulfill the goals that you have set for our country.

Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Please, everybody. Thank you. Be seated. Thank you so much.

It is my privilege to come here and to pay tribute to all of you, the talented men and women of the State Department. I've given you an early gift, Hillary Clinton.

(APPLAUSE)

You -- in her, you will have a secretary of state who has my full confidence. And I want to thank Chairman Kerry and the Senate for acting swiftly to confirm her, because we have no time to lose.

My appearance today, as has been noted, underscores my commitment to the importance of diplomacy and renewing American leadership. And it gives me an opportunity to thank you for the services that you perform every single day.

Sometimes I think the American public doesn't fully understand the sacrifices that you and your families make, the dedication that is involved in you carrying on your tasks day in, day out.

And I know I speak for Joe Biden, as well as everybody else on this stage, when we tell you that we are proud of you. You are carrying on a vital task in the safety and security of the American people.

And part of what we want to do is to make sure that everybody understands that the State Department is going to be absolutely critical to our success in the years to come, and you individually are going to be critical to our success in the years to come. And we want to send a signal to all kinds of young people who may be thinking about the Foreign Service that they are going to be critical in terms of projecting not just America's power, but also America's values and America's ideals.

The inheritance of our young century demands a new era of American leadership. We must recognize that America's strength comes not just from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from our enduring values. And for the sake of our national security and the common aspirations of people around the globe, this era has to begin now.

This morning, I signed three executive orders. First, I can say without exception or equivocation that the United States will not torture.

(APPLAUSE)

Second, we will close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and determine how to deal with those who have been held there.

And, third, we will immediately undertake a comprehensive review to determine how to hold and try terrorism suspects to best protect our nation and the rule of law.

The world needs to understand that America will be unyielding in its defense of its security and relentless in its pursuit of those who would carry out terrorism or threaten the United States. And that's why, in this twilight struggle, we need a durable framework.

The orders that I signed today should send an unmistakable signal that our actions in defense of liberty will be just as our cause and that we, the people, will uphold our fundamental values as vigilantly as we protect our security. Once again, America's moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership.

We are confronted by extraordinary, complex and interconnected global challenges: the war on terror, sectarian division, and the spread of deadly technology. We did not ask for the burden that history has asked us to bear, but Americans will bear it. We must bear it.

Progress will not come quickly or easily, nor can we promise to right every single wrong around the world. But we can pledge to use all elements of American power to protect our people and to promote our interests and ideals, starting with principled, focused and sustained American diplomacy.

To carry forward that effort, we are going to be calling on your hard work and perseverance in the months and years to come. Given the urgency and complexity of the challenges we face and to convey our seriousness of purpose, Secretary Clinton and I are also calling upon the two distinguished Americans standing with us today.

It will be the policy of my administration to actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as Israel and its Arab neighbors. To help us pursue these goals, Secretary Clinton and I have asked George Mitchell to serve as special envoy for Middle East peace.

George is renowned in this country and around the world for his negotiating skill. He brings international stature and a lifetime of service. His years in the Senate were marked by strong leadership and bipartisan achievement. His efforts on behalf of peace in Northern Ireland were indispensable in reconciling a painful and protracted conflict.

Time and again, in public service and private life, he has acted with skill and acted with integrity. He will be fully empowered at the negotiating table, and he will sustain our focus on the goal of peace.

No one doubts the difficulty of the road ahead, and George outlined some of those difficulties. The tragic violence in Gaza and southern Israel offers a sobering reminder of the challenges at hand and the setbacks that will inevitably come.

It must also instill in us, though, a sense of urgency, as history shows us that strong and sustained American engagement can bridge divides and build the capacity that supports progress. And that is why we will be sending George to the region as soon as possible to help the parties ensure that the cease-fire that has been achieved is made durable and sustainable.

Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats.

For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Is

raeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror.

To be a genuine party to peace, the quartet has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements.

Going forward, the outline for a durable cease-fire is clear: Hamas must end its rocket fire; Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza; the United States and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot rearm.

Yesterday I spoke to President Mubarak and expressed my appreciation for the important role that Egypt played in achieving a cease-fire. And we look forward to Egypt's continued leadership and partnership in laying a foundation for a broader peace through a commitment to end smuggling from within its borders.

Now, just as the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis is intolerable, so, too, is a future without hope for the Palestinians.

OBAMA: I was deeply concerned by the loss of Palestinian and Israeli life in recent days and by the substantial suffering and humanitarian needs in Gaza. Our hearts go out to Palestinian civilians who are in need of immediate food, clean water, and basic medical care, and who've faced suffocating poverty for far too long.

Now we must extend a hand of opportunity to those who seek peace. As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime, with the international and Palestinian Authority participating.

Relief efforts must be able to reach innocent Palestinians who depend on them. The United States will fully support an international donor's conference to seek short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term reconstruction for the Palestinian economy. This assistance will be provided to and guided by the Palestinian Authority.

Lasting peace requires more than a long cease-fire, and that's why I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security.

Senator Mitchell will carry forward this commitment, as well as the effort to help Israel reach a broader peace with the Arab world that recognizes its rightful place in the community of nations.

I should add that the Arab peace initiative contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative's promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all.

Jordan's constructive role in training Palestinian security forces and nurturing its relations with Israel provide a model for these efforts. And going forward, we must make it clear to all countries in the region that external support for terrorist organizations must stop.

Another urgent threat to global security is the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism. There, as in the Middle East, we must understand that we cannot deal with our problems in isolation.

There is no answer in Afghanistan that does not confront the Al Qaida and Taliban bases along the border, and there will be no lasting peace unless we expand spheres of opportunity for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is truly an international challenge of the highest order.

That's why Secretary Clinton and I are naming Ambassador Richard Holbrooke to be special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ambassador Holbrooke is one of the most talented diplomats of his generation. Over several decades, he's served on different continents and as an outstanding ambassador to the United Nations.

He has strengthened ties with our allies, tackled the toughest negotiations, and helped deliver a hard-earned peace as an architect of the Dayton Accords. He will help lead our effort to forge and implement a strategic and sustainable approach to this critical region.

The American people and the international community must understand that the situation is perilous and progress will take time. Violence is up dramatically in Afghanistan. A deadly insurgency has taken deep root. The opium trade is far and away the largest in the world.

The Afghan government has been unable to deliver basic services. Al Qaeda and the Taliban strike from bases embedded in rugged tribal terrain along the Pakistani border. And while we have yet to see another attack on our soil since 9/11, Al Qaida terrorists remain at large and remain plotting.

Going forward, we must set clear priorities in pursuit of achievable goals that contribute to our collective security. My administration is committed to refocusing attention and resources on Afghanistan and Pakistan and to spending those resources wisely. That's why we are pursuing a careful review of our policy.

We will seek stronger partnerships with the governments of the region, sustain cooperation with our NATO allies, deeper engagement with the Afghan and Pakistani people, and a comprehensive strategy to combat terror and extremism.

We will provide the strategic guidance to meet our objectives, and we pledge to support the extraordinary Americans serving in Afghanistan, both military and civilian, with the resources that they need.

These appointments add to a team that will work with energy and purpose to meet the challenges of our time and to define a future of expanding security and opportunity.

Difficult days lie ahead. As we ask more of ourselves, we will seek new partnerships and ask more of our friends and more of people around the globe, because security in the 21st century is shared.

But let there be no doubt about America's commitment to lead. We can no longer afford drift, and we can no longer afford delay, nor can we cede ground to those who seek destruction. A new era of American leadership is at hand, and the hard work has just begun. You are going to be at the front lines of engaging in that important work.

And I'm absolutely confident that, with the leadership of Secretary Clinton, with wonderful envoys like Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, with the dedicated team that is before me today, that we are going to be able to accomplish our objectives, keep America safe, and bring better days not just to our own country, but all around the world.

Thank you very much, everybody.


(APPLAUSE)

END

Source: CQ Transcriptions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012202550.html

http://koti.welho.com/kjussil1/imgcache/obama.jpg

Selling Virtue



Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. has already parlayed Obama's inaugural speech, laden as it was with references to "responsibility," into a Web site film. I found Obama's speech as irksome as any corporate homily because he, too, can't bring himself to specifics when talking about a "new era of responsibility."

Like some Madison Avenue pitchman, there Obama was on the steps of the Capitol, yapping platitudes about "duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly." Did he hint at the particulars? If this president thing doesn't work out, he and his speechwriting team should consider advertising.

Obama said, "The time has come to set aside childish things." Or was it Liberty Mutual? Which childish things does he want us to set aside? It will take a SWAT team to remove the rubber duck of my youth from my premises. What childish things of yours does Obama want you to set aside?

http://www.slate.com/id/2209615/

Social Security, any hope for health care, 'peace in our time' ....I'm sure the list can get pretty long.

the US is a paper tiger

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3307/200818papertigercp7.jpg

WTF?

Obama gives his big speech today about the economy and the recovery plan, and the whole thing is about alternative energy, and "reducing our dependence on foreign oil."

Didn't Nixon already give that speech?

What is going on? Is this to funnel money into Wall Street through the back door, giving "investment incentives" to the energy industry?

We are in a dire emergency, he says, jobs being lost all over the place, and the answer? Help the energy companies build wind farms and shit.

At least Nixon didn't think that "reducing our dependence on foreign oil" was an economic recovery plan. I can still hear Nixon's voice in my head - "reducing our dependence on foreign oil."

T. Boone Pickens (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1696) likes the wind farms. He also has a lot of money. (see: Chlamor's post re "who's dat knockin"). Now we'll be losing several bird species as well.

President Obama's $825 billion economic-stimulus package needs a lot less PWA and a lot more CWA.

The PWA was the Public Works Administration, led by Harold Ickes Sr. The CWA was the Civil Works Administration, led by Harry Hopkins. Both were New Deal agencies created in 1933 to get Americans quickly back to work at a time when unemployment reached 25 percent, its highest point in U.S. history. The PWA failed. The CWA succeeded.

The strategy behind Obama's stimulus bill resembles that of the PWA. Like the stimulus, the PWA tackled unemployment indirectly by spending money largely through private contractors. That handicap—worsened by Ickes' cautious-to-a-fault management style—resulted in only $110 million of the program's authorized $3.3 billion getting spent during the program's crucial first year. Frustrated by Ickes' poky pace, Roosevelt yielded to the pleas of his relief administrator, Harry Hopkins, to help get unemployed workers through the coming winter by putting them directly onto the federal payroll. Roosevelt had been reluctant to create a federal work program for fear of alienating organized labor. Hopkins overcame that worry by pointing out that Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor, had in 1898 proposed essentially the same idea. Roosevelt diverted not quite one-third of Ickes' PWA budget to Hopkins' CWA with the goal of putting to work 4 million people. As a percentage of the population, that would be the equivalent of putting 10 million people to work today. In his first weekly radio address, Obama pledged that the stimulus package would "save or create 3 to 4 million jobs over the next few years." (His budget director estimates that 75 percent of the money will be spent within 18 months.) Hopkins got there within two months.

http://www.slate.com/id/2209781/

When a liberal schmuck like Timothy Noah is making the same point as Anaxarchos about the inadequacy of the proposed jobs program it makes it pretty clear that Obama knows what he's doing, and it ain't what he says it is.

http://www.myobamabar.com/v/vspfiles/photos/SUN-2.jpg

Make It a Mini-Bama Holiday!

Gift this great collectible to a friend or loved one, what a great gift! This pack contains every one of the eight Mini-Bama bars, with all their aromas and now-famous slogans. The Mini-Bama Bar Collection comes in a beautifully wrapped box - absolutely gift ready. Have them sent to you or sent directly to the lucky person receiving your gift.

Contains all eight Mini-Bama Bars:

Blue State Bluebonnet - Yes He Can - Even in Texas!
Sea to Shining Cedar - Run a Clean Campaign!
Global Lemongrass Grape - Lemongrass Roots Support!
Honey Oat Hope - The Audacity of Honey Oat Hope Soap!
Prickly Pear Progress - Cleans Lipstick off a Pig!
Sensible Sunflower - Let Democracy Shine!
Pine Tar Prosperity - Prosperity For The People!
Great American Sassafras - United We Scrub!

http://www.myobamabar.com/v/vspfiles/photos/GFT20-2.jpg

Using "gift" as a verb sets my teeth on edge.

I just shake my head, really don't know what to say.

What's next?

Never did respond to some things here. Kid distracted me lol.



You seem to think I dislike gays and lesbians, simply because I have a view which says that it's easier to reject those who reject you, than to try to force them to accept you.

Personally liking or disliking is irrelevant. I am not even sure what that means.

"I don't care of a person likes me, so long as they do not have the power to harm me."

Politics is about wealth and power. Only liberalism talks about what people personally like or dislike and then calls that politics.


If I were a gay man, I wouldn't make my whole identity about being gay, and wouldn't seek to make every human interaction a referendum on my gayness. That's just smart socializing, in my view. I don't need to explain what I do in my free time -- not to anyone. If I were an Ohio farmboy who fucked sheep, I wouldn't mention that in a job app, or in an apartment application. Why would it be their business?

Sure you would. As it is your whole identity is about that. Were that not the case, you would not look on and speak about GLBTQ folks as though they were another species.

In any case, whether you did or you didn't wouldn't matter. Do you think the Nazis cared whether or not Jews were into identity politics?

The "sheep" reference is just bizarre. Bigotry against gays has nothing to do with people's sex lives. Nothing to do with the victims at all.

http://thehill.com/images/stories/weyants/2008/November/cartoonsmall110608.jpg

Ouch

http://www.scritchandscratch.com/img/scratch/080312_obamakoolaid.jpg

This is some creepy shit here.

A sickly sweet 17 NPR minutes that you should not miss in the way you shouldn't miss out on the free lobotomies. Come to think of it the Obamatrons...


'Yes Pecan': Companies Tap Obamamania For Ads

Listen Now [17 min 21 sec] add to playlist

Talk of the Nation, January 27, 2009 · Companies such as Ben & Jerry's and Pepsi are applying the rhetoric of hope and change to their own products. Also, President Obama's image is appearing on everything from Chia pets to bars of soap. How do you feel about the use of the president's image and message for marketing?

Guests:

Tamara Keith, reporter for NPR member station KQED in San Francisco, Calif.

Salah Boukadoum, co-founder of MyObamaBar.com, which markets the "Audacity of Soap."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99911106

Get your ObamaLobotomy today citizen.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/images/stories/122/under%20the%20bus.jpg

This is some creepy shit here.

A sickly sweet 17 NPR minutes that you should not miss in the way you shouldn't miss out on the free lobotomies. Come to think of it the Obamatrons...


'Yes Pecan': Companies Tap Obamamania For Ads

Listen Now [17 min 21 sec] add to playlist

Talk of the Nation, January 27, 2009 · Companies such as Ben & Jerry's and Pepsi are applying the rhetoric of hope and change to their own products. Also, President Obama's image is appearing on everything from Chia pets to bars of soap. How do you feel about the use of the president's image and message for marketing?

Guests:

Tamara Keith, reporter for NPR member station KQED in San Francisco, Calif.

Salah Boukadoum, co-founder of MyObamaBar.com, which markets the "Audacity of Soap."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99911106


Tell me that the biggest difference between McCain and Obama isn't that Obama has sold $200 mil worth of crap so far

Hey, any chance for the links to these images, Chlamor? Especially the soap and the under the bus?? thanks.

http://www.liberalrapture.com/uploaded_images/Fraud-Obama-6-735308.jpg

The Obama Spectacle: History, Hypocrisy, and Empire
Keeping it Real
By Larry Pinkney

The so-called democracy of the powerful U.S. elite continues to live up to its legacy of hypocrisy and deceit.

Now that the spectacle of the Barack Obama coronation as the “American” Empire’s first African-American emperor has run its course, and many, many millions of dollars have been spent on self-adulation by the power elite of this nation, the huddled masses will necessarily be compelled to return to a system of no universal, single-payer health care, increasing joblessness, insatiable corporate / military greed, homelessness, de facto racial disparity & discord, police brutality, a burgeoning U.S. prison population, and endless U.S. wars abroad. For yet again, this nation will have done what it all too often does: perverted its promise, including the dream of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., into a hypocritical nightmare of gigantic and historic proportions.

For the majority of Black, Brown, White, Red, and Yellow peoples, the “dream” to which the late Langston Hughes referred [in the poem A Dream Deferred] has not only been “deferred,” it has been obscenely and grotesquely disfigured and distorted into something almost beyond recognition. Barack Obama’s presidency is not a step forward nor is it a step towards the fulfillment of the struggles by Nat Turner, John Brown, Harriet Tubman, Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and so very many others. Rather, he is the slick pro-apartheid Zionist antithesis and perversion of the fulfillment of these struggles.

Barack Obama has already begun to repeatedly and shamelessly call upon the people of this nation to make “sacrifices,” as if the everyday people of this country have not already made enormous, heart rendering sacrifices. How about having Obama’s elite corporate backers in Lockheed, Goldman Saks, and the insurance and banking industries make some meaningful, ongoing, and painful sacrifices?! How about reversing the government’s criminal financial bail out of the big corporations [which government bail-out Obama enthusiastically supported], and passing those billions upon billions of dollars back directly to the everyday people of this nation - no strings attached?! How about immediately stopping all U.S. wars of aggression, and bringing our men and women in uniform home right NOW - no strings attached?! So many of these men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of so-called U.S. “national security,” which false “security” has meant their being the perpetual working-class cannon fodder for Halliburton and other avaricious corporate components of the U.S. “military / industrial complex.”

Barack Obama, though the first African-American “presidential” figurehead of the U.S. Empire, is actually the last best hope of continuing U.S. international hegemony under the fake cloak of democracy and justice at home and abroad. Therein is Obama’s appeal to the political and economic ruling elites. He is a conscious, willing, and potent tool of the power elite, and should be understood and dealt with as such. He is neither a progressive, nor a leftist or socialist. He is a cynical opportunist and a shrewd politician, who cloaks his double-speak in glitzy so-called “progressive” sounding rhetoric. He is arguably the most dangerous U.S. politician, to the actual economic and political well being of everyday people of all colors, thus far in this 21st Century.

A reader of The Black Commentator recently reminded me of what is undoubtedly the most important, defining, and yet perhaps the least known speech of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is the speech that Dr. King delivered on April 4, 1967 at the Riverside church in New York City, precisely one year before he was shot down in Memphis, Tennessee, under the auspices of the U.S. Government. The speech is titled, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence. Every discerning person who peruses this speech will quickly realize what a perversion, of the struggle for justice at home and abroad, the pro-apartheid Zionist Barack Obama really is. We can and must do so much better.

The installment of Barack Obama as U.S. president has not ushered in a “post racial” era in this nation. To the contrary, it has ushered in a heightened economic, political, and yes racial hypocrisy, which the masses of Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow peoples will ultimately not ignore.

The paraphrased adage, often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, that: “You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time” is absolutely correct. And even though the U.S. corporate media (including CNN and PBS) is unabashedly complicit in their de facto mission to “fool the people,” the legitimate needs and aspirations of the people can be contained for only so long; Obama or no Obama.

To the people of this nation of all colors and ethnicities who are losing your jobs, your homes, and your families…to those with no health insurance… to those who cannot afford to send your children to college…and to those languishing in prisons… this writer says: Place not your faith in the rhetoric of politicians or the false promises of such cynical opportunists. Place your faith in yourselves and each other, in your / our ability to discern the difference between rhetoric vs. reality, and in our determination to find and create ways of organizing and coming together to bring about real systemic change dedicated to everyday people and not the corporate blood suckers of the peoples of this nation and world.

To the long-time freedom fighters, including Assata Shakur, Reverend Edward Pinkney (no relation), Leonard Peltier, the SF 8, and so many others who have held on and struggled for collective justice for so long, and to all political prisoners everywhere, this writer says: Please keep holding on, for the time is approaching when your struggles will

be rewarded and that proverbial “day of reckoning” is hastening hither, sooner than some may realize.

To Cynthia McKinney, Rosa Clemente, and Cindy Sheehan: Thank you for your ongoing and brave examples of what it means to be truly for-real and in service to the people and not the blood sucking corporate / military / prison apparatus.

To the young people of this nation and world be you Black, Brown, Red, White, or Yellow: This writer understands your legitimate rage and your desire for a better world. You have every right to want a just and humane world. YOU are humanity’s present and future. YOU are why so many of us have struggled and died so that we might live through you. YOU must carry this struggle on.

To the peoples of Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, and elsewhere: Know that the peoples of the U.S. do not hate you and that those of us who are socially and politically conscious stand with you in your just quests to live free and strong, unfettered and unhindered by U.S. hegemony.

History does not repeat itself. People repeat history.

Let us commit and re-commit ourselves to the struggle for systemic change in this nation, and not be duped by this latest dose of U.S. hypocrisy in the person of Barack Obama.

Onward...

http://blackcommentator.com/308/308_kir_obama_spectacle_printer_friendly.html

Hey, any chance for the links to these images, Chlamor? Especially the soap and the under the bus?? thanks.


Sure.

Here's the one to the soap, which is quite real though it seems satirical. Oh wait a minute...

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:licPIFFzurAJ:www.myobamabar.com/+obama+soap&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Had to use the cache link to the soap thingie as it wasn't loading. Perhaps due to orders overworking the site and I'm not kidding. It was featured on NPR yesterday during "Talk of the Nation." Pretty gruesome stuff. I think the ObamaLobotomy was waiting for a Venture Capital firm. Oh wait again...

The bus image can be found here:

Freedom Rider: Black America Surrenders

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=994&Itemid=1

The MLK-Obama image was found in the sig line of some Obamatron over at DU if I remember correctly. It's all become rather surreal and remindful of Stepford or The Twilight Zone.

What's that Anax said about when ya can't tell satire from the real thing?

http://skreened.com/product-image/w160h210f3z101/klagkvocgfdlcfunowjc/venus-laughing-designs-obama-inspired-batmobama-and-robiden.png

http://www.supertouchart.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/englishtwo.jpg

http://www.jewcy.com/files/images/hitler_obama_0.preview.jpg

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Dizzy_Double.jpg

http://www.jillstanek.com/obama%20fetus.jpg

http://blog.yoc2008.com/chainchange/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/obama_air_force_ones.jpg

Sure as hell inspires artists to some weird shit, must be that 'empty vessel' thing...

Hey, any chance for the links to these images, Chlamor? Especially the soap and the under the bus?? thanks.


Sure.

Here's the one to the soap, which is quite real though it seems satirical. Oh wait a minute...

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:licPIFFzurAJ:www.myobamabar.com/+obama+soap&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Had to use the cache link to the soap thingie as it wasn't loading. Perhaps due to orders overworking the site and I'm not kidding. It was featured on NPR yesterday during "Talk of the Nation." Pretty gruesome stuff. I think the ObamaLobotomy was waiting for a Venture Capital firm. Oh wait again...

The bus image can be found here:

Freedom Rider: Black America Surrenders

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=994&Itemid=1

The MLK-Obama image was found in the sig line of some Obamatron over at DU if I remember correctly. It's all become rather surreal and remindful of Stepford or The Twilight Zone.


Thanks so much Chlamor!! I was reminded I can right click for images, but I'm on a mac notebook so have to dig out my mouse that right clicks (if you saw my office...), I'll do that though, you come up with too many great ones. I have an indie journalist friend who is perhaps more vehement about the Obamanation than you, He'll be quite happy to get these!! on edit, see that the bus one is on BAR, I was on their mailing list, but seem to have been taken off, have to get back on...thanks for the reminder...

The "sheep" reference is just bizarre. Bigotry against gays has nothing to do with people's sex lives. Nothing to do with the victims at all.


Thanks for bringing this back around, Mike. These are important points, and self-identity doesn't have anything to do with the label that someone else can slap on you and persecute you for.

Before you click (http://02cd63a.netsolstores.com/) guess how much?

http://m1.2mdn.net/viewad/2179367/Inaug-banner336x850.gif

Before you click (http://02cd63a.netsolstores.com/) guess how much?

http://m1.2mdn.net/viewad/2179367/Inaug-banner336x850.gif


Does it include one of the gold bricks Obama shits?

That's going to cost you extra, kid.

Geithner enlists lobbyist as top aide
By JEANNE CUMMINGS | 1/27/09 4:01 PM EST


Newly installed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner issued new rules Tuesday restricting contacts with lobbyists – and then hired one to be his top aide.

Mark Patterson, a former advocate for Goldman Sachs, will serve as chief of staff to Geithner as the Treasury Department revamps the Wall Street bailout program that sent an infusion of cash to his former employer.

Patterson’s appointment marks the second time in President Barack Obama’s first week in office that the administration has had to explain how it’s complying with its own ethics rules as it hires a bevy of Washington insiders for administration jobs.

Last week, the White House announced the president had waived the ethics rules to clear the way for the nomination of William Lynn, a former Raytheon lobbyist, to be deputy defense secretary.

“This is exactly the kind of thing that makes the American public suspicious of politicians. You say one thing and do another,” said Melanie Sloan, founder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

<snip>

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18047.html

Once Again, JUST THE FACTS, BARwrongonobama
written by Lou , January 30, 2009

F****k the imponderables, answer the straightforward question, enough of this "what if" s**t. We've been dealing with this "what if" s**t from you coons long enough:
a) Gaza: "he isn't the President yet,"
b) TARP: The Democrats "demand oversight." "He isn't the President yet."
c) WOT: Campaign: "We should have the courage to engage "our enemies" vs. Post-Election: Bush/Gates continuity, escalating of war in Afghanistan;
d) Katrina: Still no justice, is Obama going to destroy the solid, brick public housing stocks? And no discussion of the white folks he murdered Black folks trying to get to higher ground in Algiers,
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090105 ("Katrina's Hidden Race Wars");

It's been over a year and none of you clowns have yet to articulate how and why the Democratic Party, despite election gains in 06, despite Bush's unpopularity, despite Bush's criminality, never did ONE GODDAMN THING TO PUT THESE THUGS IN CHECK!! And then we get insulted with this "bi-partisanship B.S.!" Some much for that crap because the f***kn Repugs gone get theirs, why can't the Democrat's "get ours?" How could somebody look at the Democratic Party's uselessness, their fecklessness and betrayal and expect "change" from them? Just as we see with them now taking single-pay or universal health off the table. Why? Damn near 100K have lost their jobs in the past 2 weeks alone, and the 1st Qtr #s for retail haven't been posted yet, nor have the auto industries kicked their layoffs into high gear. Where the f***k are these people going to get medical treatment? ER rooms? Federally chartered health clinics already busting at the seams?? Wait until some of you sit your asses in an ER room with appendicitis and wonder why the intake takes 3 hours??

It's going to be a long, hot summer when you Negroes and "White Liberals" find out you've been snuckered, AGAIN, but as Arthur Silber says, "It doesn't hurt that bad and only for four years."

Karl, despite my (D) in econ and you being mathematically challenged, these Negroes just might be shocked into jumping on some new math s**t when the City and State start's cutting back, they just might want to add a commercial kitchen and bunk beds to these mansions and monuments they erect to their Pimp Pastors.

JUST THE FACTS, BARwrongonobama (and your ilk) for the last time!! Enough of your nebulous B.S., stop acting like Obama trying to dazzle us with prettified words we ain't that stupid. "Solipsisms" refers to extreme egocentrism, that in fact encapsulates Obama and the wanna be prima donnas like Baraka and you that support him. This Negro Baraka, who has clearly assimilated the status quo, has the nerve to call himself "a revolutionary political activist" on his website. My Ass! Bout as "revolutionary" as Rev. Lowery is an "activist."

Found here in discussion section:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=993&Itemid=1

http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/productimage-picture-bloodthirsty-warmonger-sh-258.gif

http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/Imperialist-Obama-SH.gif

http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/In-america-anyone-can-become-SH_.gif

http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/productimage-picture-on-to-sudan-sh-652.gif

http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/Same-shit-diff-piles.gif

With the Obama team onside, rule by the fast-money men is set to continue. The near-trillion quick hand-out of citizen debt to the bankers with no conditions has remained a non-issue. Even the shift from buying Wall Street assets to direct capital infusion has raised no questions. Obama’s subsequent appointments of his economic and financial directors follow in line. Those now in charge of the U.S. money-printing machine (alias the world’s reserve currency) and of the financially hollowed-out system that was once the U.S. economy have not really changed. Even the education cabinet post has been filled by what his Bush predecessor says is “a kindred spirit”. He (Arne Duncan) has enthusiastically implemented the Bush school program in Chicago - testing children instead of teaching them, firing lots of teachers, pressuring test-failures out of school, and degrading public education with corporate-quiz mechanisms in place of sound learning method.

The Number One Issue: Who Now Runs The Economy and Finance

Obama’s new U.S. Treasury Secretary is Tim Geithner, a former chief deputy of his Democrat predecessors at Treasury - Robert Rubin (who presided in the first Clinton government and later Citigroup over the “new financial instruments” that have subsequently wrecked the U.S. and world economy), and Larry Summers (who as Secretary of the Treasury in 1999 tore down barriers between commercial and investment banks in the deregulation frenzy that set up the Wall Street crash). Geithner originally came from Kissinger and Associates - “a bipartisan man” - before moving on from deputy at Treasury to head of the New York Federal Bank Reserve. His main qualifying distinction - not mentioned in press releases - has been as chair of a central committee of the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), a body of chief-executive international bankers which has been the unseen point-man of neoliberalism over the last 25 years. The BIS first cut its teeth on collecting debt reparations from Germany which seeded the Nazi Party - for which the BIS later also stored stolen gold. In between these assignments, Geithner served the then-collapsing IMF as director of Policy Development and Review.

In short, Geithner is an international money-man following in the tracks of what has preceded him. Behind all the hoopla of “Change We Need” and “The People’s President” lies the same monetocracy. Geithner assisted in the massive bank giveaway and its sequel of another further 25 billion plus 300-billion credit to Citigroup, a Rockefeller bank led by Rubin. Neither he nor Summers, the new economic czar, lent anything but support when the flood of public money into the Wall Street hole more than doubled before Christmas from the original $700 billion to $1.5 trillion with no more conditions than before.

The biggest heist ever from the public treasury, some might say an extortionate swindle, has been backed by the threat of “give it over, or Americans won’t get credit”. No-one appears to notice the fraudulent pretext on which it is based. Who needs credit from the private banks when the public and government already back them for any credit they have got? Why pour public money into private-bank hands to lend money they do not have and are not lending when they get it?

<snip>

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12120

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b313/rbod/BO_Poster_4.jpg

Bush, Obama, and the 'Freedom Agenda'
January 31, 2009 By Anthony Fenton
Source: FPIF

The incoming Obama administration inherits a foreign policy establishment that has undergone a radical transformation over the last eight years. Two linked developments, the Bush administration's "freedom agenda" and the resurgence of counterinsurgency doctrine, will cast a long shadow over the Obama White House, State Department, and Pentagon.

An emerging counterinsurgency culture, reflected in such interagency-oriented manuals as the recently released U.S. Government Counterinsurgency Guide, is permeating all government agencies that have a foreign policy orientation. President-elect Obama already sent a clear signal about his attitude toward this counter-insurgency culture by asking Defense Secretary Gates and, more recently, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, Michael Vickers, to stay on at the Pentagon. Likewise, the Obama-Biden counterterrorism factsheet explicitly links the need to "prepare the military to meet 21st century threats" to the perceived need to create "a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the...new counterinsurgency manual."

In a speech delivered last October to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Vickers indicated that there was little reason to anticipate a slowing in the rapid resurgence of covert, special warfare methods under the incoming administration. He disclosed that the number of U.S. Special Forces, referred to as a "decisive strategic instrument," will increase from the current level of 15,000 to 64,000 by "early in the next decade." These soldiers operate in 60 countries around the world.

The Bush administration brought the United States firmly into the counterinsurgency (COIN) era. The question is not whether Obama will carry on this commitment to counterinsurgency. The question is how Obama will go about adapting the Bush approach.

Democracy Promotion

Although only formally institutionalized under George W. Bush, democracy promotion has had broad bipartisan support as a distinct foreign policy objective since the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and a number of counterpart organizations in the early 1980s under President Reagan. Significantly, one of the key initial strategic functions of democracy promoters was to carry out overtly some of the foreign policy objectives that were once the domain of covert agencies such as the CIA.

The interaction of the overt and the covert under Obama will largely be determined by an increasing theoretical convergence between counterinsurgency and democracy promotion. One key example of this was the extensive edited collection from the Council for Emerging National Security Affairs (CENSA), Countering Insurgency and Promoting Democracy, released in 2007. On the back cover, COIN guru and CENSA member John A. Nagl, a contributor to the U.S. Army's counterinsurgency doctrine, FM 3-24, and also a member of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a key source of Obama's cabinet-in-waiting, calls counterinsurgency and democracy promotion "the most important policy topic of our time."

The Bush administration more than doubled the democracy promotion budget — from $650 million in 2001 to a requested $1.72 billion in 2009 — largely owing to the counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was also a formal institutionalization of the "freedom agenda" as a key pillar of U.S. foreign policy. This institutionalization came about with the signing into law of the ADVANCE Democracy Act and Bush's National Presidential Security Directive (NSPD) 58 entitled "Institutionalizing the Freedom Agenda."

ADVANCE Democracy Act

First introduced in 2005, the ADVANCE Democracy Act (ADA) was later revised, passed in both houses with bipartisan support and, albeit with little attention, signed into law on August 3, 2007. Its supporters have trumpeted the legislation as "a fundamental component of American foreign policy."

The initial ADA bill of 2005 was loosely based on a 2003 book by former ambassador, presidential speechwriter, and long-time democracy promoter Mark Palmer, Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World's Last Dictators by 2025. Palmer and some colleagues from the Hudson Institute wrote the original bill itself. Palmer was also instrumental in the creation of the NED and wrote President Reagan's 1982 speech to the British parliament, "Promoting Peace and Democracy," during which the president pledged to create new institutions that would help lead a "global campaign for democracy."

New directives in the ADA called for "an enhanced role for United States diplomats" in promoting democracy, reinvigorated support for the Community of Democracies (first created under President Clinton), broader cooperation with other democracy-promoting countries, and financial support for the United Nations Democracy Fund, first proposed by Bush in 2004.

Additionally, U.S. ambassadors are tasked with developing annual democracy promotion strategies, and the secretary of State is mandated to create and assign democracy liaison officers to various U.S. missions abroad, including to U.S. "combatant commands."

When introduced in 2005, the original ADA was dubbed by Moroccan journalist Mustapha Khalfi as the "most important bill to come out of Congress on democracy promotion since the 1983 initiative to establish the National Endowment for Democracy." But the mainstream media all but ignored the ADA after it was signed into law in 2007. One prominent commentator on democracy promotion, James Traub, erroneously wrote that the ADA "never became law" in his 2008 book, The Freedom Agenda. Likewise, when assessing the presidential candidates' position on democracy promotion in April 2008, the Council on Foreign Relations stated that "the bill never passed." The ADA's obscurity likely resulted from its burial within H.R. 1, the "Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007." The original bill, according to the congressional website, is listed as never having become law.

The ADA encountered some resistance from the State Department. According to Mark Palmer, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice felt that the ADA was "too invasive of her turf." After tough negotiations, the State Department "finally...reconciled themselves" to the ADA, and eventually it became law. The State Department also "cherry-picked" certain aspects of the bill and implemented them in the meantime.

One such cherry-pick was Rice's creation of the Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion (ACDP), of which Palmer and a number of other democracy promotion luminaries were members. In the last meeting of the ACDP on October 8, 2008, Rice said she was "very proud of the ADVANCE Democracy Act."
NPSD 58

According to a partial declassification on October 9, 2008, President Bush signed NSPD 58: Institutionalizing the Freedom Agenda, on July 17, 2008. This national presidential security directive "codifies the policies and practices for promoting freedom put in place by this Administration." NSPD 58 is intended "to serve as a blueprint for future Administrations to promote democracy and freedom systematically."

By making democracy promotion, in the words of Secretary Rice, a "national security imperative," the "ultimate goal" of NSPD 58 is an ambitious one: "ending tyranny in the world."

As with many presidential directives, the full text of NSPD 58 has not been disclosed. Responding to a FOIA request

by FPIF, the White House's Office of Administration, Executive Office of the President elected not to release it, stating that the NSPD is "not subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act."
Obama and Democracy Promotion

The Obama-Biden policy platform is clearly committed to democracy promotion. Implicitly linking democracy promotion to counterinsurgency efforts, one platform statement called for the increased integration of "civilian and military capacities to promote global development and democracy." It also calls for the creation of the position of "Deputy National Security Advisor empowered to develop integrated strategies to build capable, democratic states and ensure policy coherence in the application of development and democracy programs as key elements of U.S. power."

Obama also stated he will "significantly increase funding for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and other nongovernmental organizations." In a similar vein, in its "legacy booklet," the outgoing Bush administration has touted its increase of NED funding by 150% since 2001.

Although Obama didn't cast a vote when the Senate passed the ADA in 2007, he likely supported it. According to Palmer Obama's former advisor, Samantha Power, "wanted Obama to be one of the co-sponsors of the [ADA] and they had agreed basically to co-sponsor it." In the end, Obama did not sponsor it, but Palmer expressed that this didn't have "anything to do with the substance of the Act."

Reached by telephone and citing the close proximity of the inauguration, a spokesperson from President-elect Obama's transition team declined to comment on the likely implications of the ADA and NSPD 58 on his incoming administration. Likewise, key members of Obama's democracy transition team democracy sub-group, Gayle Smith, Michael McFaul, and Jeremy Weinstein, did not respond to interview requests via email.

Many democracy commentators have lamented that Bush's repeated conflation of democracy promotion with the Iraq War has given the long-time foreign policy priority a bad name. As Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote, "under George W. Bush, democracy promotion has been widely discredited through its close association with the Iraq War." Accordingly, Obama has pledged to rebrand democracy promotion so that it "cannot become a casualty of the Iraq War." Seeking "durable bipartisan support" for his democracy policies while avoiding "mere rhetoric," Obama's team has said they will foster "concrete outcomes that will advance democracy."

What exactly the incoming administration means by "concrete outcomes" remains unclear. The U.S. democracy promotion apparatus has historically been criticized for double standards and nefarious meddling in the internal affairs of unfriendly regimes. As Barbara Conroy has written, NED and its affiliates "often work against American interests and meddle needlessly in the affairs of other countries, undermining the democratic movements [they were] designed to assist." Sometimes the United States has supported genuine democrats while also supporting authoritarian allies, and sometimes the U.S. has undermined popularly elected democracies while seeking to install or prop up less democratic regimes that are friendlier to U.S. interests.

One thing is clear: The Bush administration's institutionalization of the "freedom agenda" as a core pillar of U.S. foreign policy, combined with Obama's apparent commitment to democracy promotion and the new counterinsurgency paradigm suggests that, despite appearances that may emerge to the contrary, we are likely to see more continuity than change in U.S. foreign policy.


Anthony Fenton is an independent researcher and journalist based near Vancouver, B.C., Canada. He is currently completing a book on Canada-U.S. foreign policy integration and transformation, and can be reached at: fentona (at) shaw (dot) ca.

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/20417

Obama to create faith-based office


By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – 35 mins ago

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks before signing the $32.8 billion expansion of Reuters – U.S. President Barack Obama speaks before signing the $32.8 billion expansion of the State Children's …

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Thursday he will establish a White House office of faith-based initiatives that will show no favoritism to any religious group and adhere to the strict separation of church and state.

Addressing the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama spoke of how faith has often been a divisive tool, responsible for war and prejudice. But, he said, "there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being," and all religions teach people to love and care for one another. That is the common ground underlying his faith-based office, he said.

In personal terms, he talked about the role of faith in his life, from his Muslim-born father and a mother skeptical of organized religion to his own embrace of Christianity as a young man.

"In a world that grows smaller by the day, perhaps we can begin to crowd out the destructive forces of zealotry and make room for the healing power of understanding," Obama told the gathering of lawmakers, dignitaries and world leaders. "This is my hope. This is my prayer."

Dogged throughout the presidential campaign by rumors that he was a Muslim, Obama described his background in a household that wasn't religious.

"I had a father who was born a Muslim but became an atheist, grandparents who were non-practicing Methodists and Baptists, and a mother who was skeptical of organized religion, even as she was the kindest, most spiritual person I've ever known. She was the one who taught me as a child to love, and to understand, and to do unto others as I would want done," he said.

Obama planned to sign an executive order later in the day creating the White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. It would expand and refocus the faith-based office founded by former President George W. Bush.

Obama said the organization will not favor any one religious group over another, will work with communities and will act "without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state."

The president will also appoint Joshua DuBois, a 26-year-old Pentecostal minister who headed religious outreach for Obama's Senate office and later his campaign, to lead the partnerships office and name 25 religious and secular leaders to a new advisory board.

During his presidential campaign, Obama said he wanted to expand White House faith-based efforts begun under Bush. But while he endorsed Bush's initiative to give religious groups more access to federal funding, he also promised to make some changes to the office.

Obama's advisers want to be certain tax dollars sent to the faith-based social service groups are used for secular purposes, such as feeding the hungry or housing the homeless, and not for religious evangelism. The administration doesn't want to be perceived as managing the groups yet does want transparency and accountability.

Obama pledged during the campaign to allow taxpayer-funded religious institutions to hire and fire based on religion — but only for the activities run on private funding.

One question is whether the faith-based office will issue grants under the Bush rules while the hiring policy is worked out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rel_obama_faith_based

There really is some sort of pathology to this guy... What a tool. He seems to want to raise the suck-up to an entirely new level. Maybe he's "religious" and maybe he ain't but by this point, it ain't credible as a "personal strategy". Maybe he's trying to achieve a monopoly on the ruling class political party (the GOP has gone funky) or maybe it is just the instinctive suck-up beyond all reason. The result, though, is that the whole "experience" is comin' across as paper thin. Nobody knows jack about what they are doin' or why.

Instead of "shock capitalism", this has become a primer on true schlock capitalism - "Republicanism with a (silly) human face". I'm startin' to take bets on how fast this whole thing deflates.

"...he should have added, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce."

http://www.blueherald.com/uploads/Batocchio/RW_Cartoons/2008/3_30_08/_Ram_3_21_08_Obama_Wright.jpg

Yeah, it used to be that Congress gave George Bush everything he wants with interest payments, now the new rule seems to be Obama playing kissy face and begging Republicans for approval.

Maybe in four years the Dem line'll be -- "sure the whole country is out of work but our problem is that guy was spineless..we need a fresh face in the White House..like HILARY!"

If proof of George Bush's fuck-ups was getting a black man elected, Obama may top him in four years by getting Herbert Hoover elected in the middle of the Depression (think Romney or some corporate clone like that)

Hey does anybody know why Etta James doesn't like Obama? Her comments on CNN had everybody in the room laughing..

Change (In Rhetoric) We Can Believe In

By William Blum

February 04, 2009 -- - The Obama administration will not produce any significantly worthwhile change in US foreign policy; little done in this area will reduce the level of misery that the American Empire regularly brings down upon humanity. And to the extent that Barack Obama is willing to clearly reveal what he believes about anything controversial, he appears to believe in the empire.

The Obamania bubble should already have begun to lose some air with the multiple US bombings of Pakistan within the first few days following the inauguration. The Pentagon briefed the White House of its plans, and the White House had no objection. So bombs away — Barack Obama's first war crime. The dozens of victims were, of course, all bad people, including all the women and children. As with all these bombings, we'll never know the names of all the victims — It's doubtful that even Pakistan knows — or what crimes they had committed to deserve the death penalty. Some poor Pakistani probably earned a nice fee for telling the authorities that so-and-so bad guy lived in that house over there; too bad for all the others who happened to live with the bad guy, assuming of course that the bad guy himself actually lived in that house over there.

The new White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, declined to answer questions about the first airstrikes, saying "I'm not going to get into these matters."1 Where have we heard that before?

After many of these bombings in recent years, a spokesperson for the United States or NATO has solemnly declared: “We regret the loss of life.” These are the same words used by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) on a number of occasions, but their actions were typically called “terrorist”.

I wish I could be an Obamaniac. I envy their enthusiasm. Here, in the form of an open letter to President Obama, are some of the "changes we can believe in" in foreign policy that would have to occur to win over the non-believers like me.
Iran

Just leave them alone. There is no "Iranian problem". They are a threat to no one. Iran hasn't invaded any other country in centuries. No, President Ahmadinejad did not threaten Israel with any violence. Stop patrolling the waters surrounding Iran with American warships. Stop halting Iranian ships to check for arms shipments to Hamas. (That's generally regarded as an act of war.) Stop using Iranian dissident groups to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran. Stop kidnaping Iranian diplomats. Stop the continual spying and recruiting within Iran. And yet, with all that, you can still bring yourself to say: "If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us."2

Iran has as much right to arm Hamas as the US has to arm Israel. And there is no international law that says that the United States, the UK, Russia, China, Israel, France, Pakistan, and India are entitled to nuclear weapons, but Iran is not. Iran has every reason to feel threatened. Will you continue to provide nuclear technology to India, which has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while threatening Iran, an NPT signatory, with sanctions and warfare?
Russia

Stop surrounding the country with new NATO members. Stop looking to instigate new "color" revolutions in former Soviet republics and satellites. Stop arming and supporting Georgia in its attempts to block the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhasia, the breakaway regions on the border of Russia. And stop the placement of anti-missile systems in Russia's neighbors, the Czech Republic and Poland, on the absurd grounds that it's to ward off an Iranian missile attack. It was Czechoslovakia and Poland that the Germans also used to defend their imperialist ambitions — The two countries were being invaded on the grounds that Germans there were being maltreated. The world was told.

"The U.S. government made a big mistake from the breakup of the Soviet Union," said former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev last year. "At that time the Russian people were really euphoric about America and the U.S. was really number one in the minds of many Russians." But, he added, the United States moved aggressively to expand NATO and appeared gleeful at Russia's weakness.3
Cuba

Making it easier to travel there and send remittances is very nice (if, as expected, you do that), but these things are dwarfed by the need to end the US embargo. In 1999, Cuba filed a suit against the United States for $181.1 billion in compensation for economic losses and loss of life during the almost forty years of this aggression. The suit held Washington responsible for the death of 3,478 Cubans and the wounding and disabling of 2,099 others. We can now add ten more years to all three figures. The negative, often crippling, effects of the embargo extend into every aspect of Cuban life.

In addition to closing Guantanamo prison, the adjacent US military base established in 1903 by American military force should be closed and the land returned to Cuba.

The Cuban Five, held prisoner in the United States for over 10 years, guilty only of trying to prevent American-based terrorism against Cuba, should be released. Actually there were 10 Cubans arrested; five knew that they could expect no justice in an American court and pled guilty to get shorter sentences.4
Iraq

Freeing the Iraqi people to death ... Nothing short of a complete withdrawal of all US forces, military and contracted, and the closure of all US military bases and detention and torture centers, can promise a genuine end to US involvement and the beginning of meaningful Iraqi sovereignty. To begin immediately. Anything less is just politics and imperialism as usual. In six years of war, the Iraqi people have lost everything of value in their lives. As the Washington Post reported in 2007: "It is a common refrain among war-weary Iraqis that things were better before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003."5 The good news is that the Iraqi people have 5,000 years experience in crafting a society to live in. They should be given the opportunity.
Saudi Arabia

Demand before the world that this government enter the 21st century (or at least the 20th), or the United States has to stop pretending that it gives a damn about human rights, women, homosexuals, religious liberty, and civil liberties. The Bush family had long-standing financial ties to members of the Saudi ruling class. What will be your explanation if you maintain the status quo?
Haiti

Reinstate the exiled Jean Bertrand Aristide to the presidency, which he lost when the United States overthrew him in 2004. To seek forgiveness for our sins, give the people of Haiti lots and lots of money and assistance.
Colombia

Stop giving major military support to a government that for years has been intimately tied to death squads, torture, and drug trafficking; in no other country in the world have so many progressive candidates for public office, unionists, and human-rights activists been murdered. Are you concerned that this is the closest ally the United States has in all of Latin America?
Venezuela

Hugo Chavez may talk too much but he's no threat except to the capitalist system of Venezuela and, by inspiration, elsewhere in Latin America. He has every good historical reason to bad-mouth American foreign policy, including Washington's role in the coup that overthrew him in 2002. If you can't understand why Chavez is not in love with what the United States does all over the world, I can give you a long reading list.

Put an end to support for Chavez's opposition by the Agency for International Development, the National Endowment for Democrac

y, and other US government agencies. US diplomats should not be meeting with Venezuelans plotting coups against Chavez, nor should they be interfering in elections.

Send Luis Posada from Florida to Venezuela, which has asked for his extradition for his masterminding the bombing of a Cuban airline in 1976, taking 73 lives. Extradite the man, or try him in the US, or stop talking about the war on terrorism.

And please try not to repeat the nonsense about Venezuela being a dictatorship. It's a freer society than the United States. It has, for example, a genuine opposition daily media, non-existent in the United States. If you doubt that, try naming a single American daily newspaper or TV network that was unequivocally against the US invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Grenada, and Vietnam. Or even against two of them? How about one? Is there a single one that supports Hamas and/or Hezbollah? A few weeks ago, the New York Times published a story concerning a possible Israeli attack upon Iran, and stated: "Several details of the covert effort have been omitted from this account, at the request of senior United States intelligence and administration officials, to avoid harming continuing operations."6

Alas, Mr. President, among other disparaging remarks, you've already accused Chavez of being "a force that has interrupted progress in the region."7 This is a statement so contrary to the facts, even to plain common sense, so hypocritical given Washington's history in Latin America, that I despair of you ever freeing yourself from the ideological shackles that have bound every American president of the past century. It may as well be inscribed in their oath of office — that a president must be antagonistic toward any country that has expressly rejected Washington as the world's savior. You made this remark in an interview with Univision, Venezuela's leading, implacable media critic of the Chavez government. What regional progress could you be referring to, the police state of Colombia?
Bolivia

Stop American diplomats, Peace Corps volunteers, Fulbright scholars, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, from spying and fomenting subversion inside Bolivia. As the first black president of the United States, you could try to cultivate empathy toward, and from, the first indigenous president of Bolivia. Congratulate Bolivian president Evo Morales on winning a decisive victory on a recent referendum to approve a new constitution which enshrines the rights of the indigenous people and, for the first time, institutes separation of church and state.
Afghanistan

Perhaps the most miserable people on the planet, with no hope in sight as long as the world's powers continue to bomb, invade, overthrow, occupy, and slaughter in their land. The US Army is planning on throwing 30,000 more young American bodies into the killing fields and is currently building eight new major bases in southern Afghanistan. Is that not insane? If it makes sense to you I suggest that you start the practice of the president accompanying the military people when they inform American parents that their child has died in a place called Afghanistan.

If you pull out from this nightmare, you could also stop bombing Pakistan. Leave even if it results in the awful Taliban returning to power. They at least offer security to the country's wretched, and indications are that the current Taliban are not all fundamentalists.

But first, close Bagram prison and other detention camps, which are worse than Guantanamo.

And stop pretending that the United States gives a damn about the Afghan people and not oil and gas pipelines which can bypass Russia and Iran. The US has been endeavoring to fill the power vacuum in Central Asia created by the Soviet Union’s dissolution in order to assert Washington's domination over a region containing the second largest proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world. Is Afghanistan going to be your Iraq?
Israel

The most difficult task for you, but the one that would earn for you the most points. To declare that Israel is no longer the 51st state of the union would bring down upon your head the wrath of the most powerful lobby in the world and its many wealthy followers, as well as the Christian-fundamentalist Right and much of the media. But if you really want to see peace between Israel and Palestine you must cut off all military aid to Israel, in any form: hardware, software, personnel, money. And stop telling Hamas it has to recognize Israel and renounce violence until you tell Israel that it has to recognize Hamas and renounce violence.
North Korea

Bush called the country part of "the axis of evil", and Kim Jong Il a "pygmy" and "a spoiled child at a dinner table."8 But you might try to understand where Kim Jong Il is coming from. He sees that UN agencies went into Iraq and disarmed it, and then the United States invaded. The logical conclusion is not to disarm, but to go nuclear.
Central America

Stop interfering in the elections of Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, year after year. The Cold War has ended. And though you can't undo the horror perpetrated by the United States in the region in the 1980s, you can at least be kind to the immigrants in the US who came here trying to escape the long-term consequences of that terrible decade.
Vietnam

In your inauguration speech you spoke proudly of those "who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom ... For us, they fought and died, in places like ... Khe Sanh." So it is your studied and sincere opinion that the 58,000 American sevicemembers who died in Vietnam, while helping to kill over a million Vietnamese, gave their life for our prosperity and freedom? Would you care to defend that proposition without resort to any platitudes?

You might also consider this: In all the years since the Vietnam War ended, the three million Vietnamese suffering from diseases and deformities caused by US sprayings of the deadly chemical "Agent Orange" have received from the United States no medical attention, no environmental remediation, no compensation, and no official apology.
Kosovo

Stop supporting the most gangster government in the world, which has specialized in kidnaping, removing human body parts for sale, heavy trafficking in drugs, trafficking in women, various acts of terrorism, and ethnic cleansing of Serbs. This government would not be in power if the Bush administration had not seen them as America's natural allies. Do you share that view? UN Resolution 1244, adopted in 1999, reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to which Serbia is now the recognized successor state, and established that Kosovo was to remain part of Serbia. Why do we have a huge and permanent military base in that tiny self-declared country?
NATO

From protecting Europe against a [mythical] Soviet invasion to becoming an occupation army in Afghanistan. Put an end to this historical anachronism, what Russian leader Vladimir called "the stinking corpse of the cold war."9. You can accomplish this simply by leaving the organization. Without the United States and its never-ending military actions and officially-designated enemies, the organization would not even have the pretense of a purpose, which is all it has left. Members have had to be bullied, threatened and bribed to send armed forces to Afghanistan.
School of the Americas

Latin American countries almost never engage in war with each other, or any other countries. So for what kind of warfare are its military officers being trained by the United States? To suppress their own people. Close this school (the name has now been changed to protect the guilty) at Ft. Benning, Georgia that the United States has used to prepare two generations of

Latin American military officers for careers in overthrowing progressive governments, death squads, torture, holding down dissent, and other charming activities. The British are fond of saying that the Empire was won on the playing fields of Eton. Americans can say that the road to Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Bagram began in the classrooms of the School of the Americas.
Torture

Your executive orders concerning this matter of utmost importance are great to see, but they still leave something to be desired. They state that the new standards ostensibly putting an end to torture apply to any "armed conflict". But what if your administration chooses to view future counterterrorism and other operations as not part of an "armed conflict"? And no mention is made of "rendition" — kidnaping a man off the street, throwing him in a car, throwing a hood over his head, stripping off his clothes, placing him in a diaper, shackling him from every angle, and flying him to a foreign torture dungeon. Why can't you just say that this and all other American use of proxy torturers is banned? Forever.

It's not enough to say that you're against torture or that the United States "does not torture" or "will not torture". George W. Bush said the same on a regular basis. To show that you're not George W. Bush you need to investigate those responsible for the use of torture, even if this means prosecuting a small army of Bush administration war criminals.

You aren't off to a good start by appointing former CIA official John O. Brennan as your top adviser on counterterrorism. Brennan has called "rendition" a "vital tool" and praised the CIA's interrogation techniques for providing "lifesaving" intelligence.10 Whatever were you thinking, Barack?
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi

Free this Libyan man from his prison in Scotland, where he is serving a life sentence after being framed by the United States for the bombing of PanAm flight 103 in December 1988, which took the lives of 270 people over Scotland. Iran was actually behind the bombing — as revenge for the US shooting down an Iranian passenger plane in July, killing 290 — not Libya, which the US accused for political reasons.11 Nations do not behave any more cynical than that. Megrahi lies in prison now dying of cancer, but still the US and the UK will not free him. It would be too embarrassing to admit to 20 years of shameless lying.

Mr. President, there's a lot more to be undone in our foreign policy if you wish to be taken seriously as a moral leader like Martin Luther King, Jr.: banning the use of depleted uranium, cluster bombs, and other dreadful weapons; joining the International Criminal Court instead of trying to sabotage it; making a number of other long-overdue apologies in addition to the one mentioned re Vietnam; and much more. You've got your work cut out for you if you really want to bring some happiness to this sad old world, make America credible and beloved again, stop creating armies of anti-American terrorists, and win over people like me.

And do you realize that you can eliminate all state and federal budget deficits in the United States, provide free health care and free university education to every American, pay for an unending array of worthwhile social and cultural programs, all just by ending our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not starting any new ones, and closing down the Pentagon's 700+ military bases? Think of it as the peace dividend Americans were promised when the Cold War would end some day, but never received. How about you delivering it, Mr. President? It's not too late.

But you are committed to the empire; and the empire is committed to war. Too bad.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21907.htm

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is the latest big-name endorsement for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, lending his gravitas in the financial world to a presidential candidate whose biggest hurdle is to convince voters he is experienced enough to be president.

“After 30 years in government, serving under five Presidents of both parties and chairing two non-partisan commissions on the Public Service, I have been reluctant to engage in political campaigns. The time has come to overcome that reluctance,” Mr. Volcker said in a statement today. “However, it is not the current turmoil in markets or the economic uncertainties that have impelled my decision. Rather, it is the breadth and depth of challenges that face our nation at home and abroad. Those challenges demand a new leadership and a fresh approach.”

He concluded: “It is only Barack Obama, in his person, in his ideas, in his ability to understand and to articulate both our needs and our hopes that provide the potential for strong and fresh leadership. That leadership must begin here in America but it can also restore needed confidence in our vision, our strength, and our purposes right around the world.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/01/31/volcker-i-endorse-obama/

Heard his speech last night. The Obama lovers are just gushing about it. "Oh I am so inspired! He is on fire!" and on and on. So I thought I would have a look and watched the video of the speech. He is really boring. There is just nothing there that I can see to be inspired about. But people are, so I am thinking about that today and I think I understand it. I will post a rant about it soon.

It is not as though I am all that fussy. Edwards says a few mild things about the haves versus the have-nots, and I was all over it, using it as a lever and smashing up the gentrified liberals. So long as there was a legitimate candidate talking vaguely about class, even a little bit, that was useful and I used it. So if Obama said anything even slightly left wing, I would grab onto it and use it. But there is nothing, and I mean nothing, there.

There is something really disturbing about what he was saying and how he was saying it, as well. The facial expressions and body language and voice inflections are not right there. There is an aloofness and an arrogance and a disconnection. Yet it must be those things that are resonating with the liberals.

I heard the Postmaster General on the radio yesterday, being interviewed and answering callers, and he was talking about the Postal Service as though it were a private enterprise - market share, return on investment, profitability, rationalizing labor costs, etc. I thought whoa, WTF, why is no one questioning the assumptions and premises here? If the Postal Service is going to be run as though it were a private enterprise, we may as well just close it down and stop pretending that it is a government agency that serves the people.

Someone called in and asked why they didn't just raise the rates on junk mail. Smugly and condescendingly he says "if we raise the rates on commercial bulk mail, we will no longer be competitive, those customers will go elsewhere, there will be less revenue, and we will have to make further cutbacks in service to the average person. You don't want that, do you?" The caller is then flummoxed, and says "well I guess I understand that." WTF - times a thousand.

When I heard Obama, I realized that he has the same mentality. He is talking about the government and the presidency as though he were the new CEO of a corporation.

Heard his speech last night. The Obama lovers are just gushing about it. "Oh I am so inspired! He is on fire!" and on and on. So I thought I would have a look and watched the video of the speech. He is really boring. There is just nothing there that I can see to be inspired about. But people are, so I am thinking about that today and I think I understand it. I will post a rant about it soon.

Yeah, some friends and I feel the same way. One comment was "if he wasn't black he'd be the boringest person on earth". Don't know if I'd go that far (ahem Al Gore, John Kerry) but I sure as hell don't get it. Which is a personal failing I guess, since other people assure me I'm an idiot on the matter

Heard his speech last night. The Obama lovers are just gushing about it. "Oh I am so inspired! He is on fire!" and on and on. So I thought I would have a look and watched the video of the speech. He is really boring. There is just nothing there that I can see to be inspired about. But people are, so I am thinking about that today and I think I understand it. I will post a rant about it soon.

Yeah, some friends and I feel the same way. One comment was "if he wasn't black he'd be the boringest person on earth". Don't know if I'd go that far (ahem Al Gore, John Kerry) but I sure as hell don't get it. Which is a personal failing I guess, since other people assure me I'm an idiot on the matter


He is their man on the white horse, the only one the youngsters have ever known. His triumph is theirs, they live their lives vicariously through him and have no politics whatsoever. Many will become fascists before it is over.

He's apparently the black JFK, and has returned Camelot to Washington. I'm not quite old enough to remember any of that so I'll have to defer to others on that.

t Won't Save the Economy; It May Make the Crisis Worse
Obama's New Bank Giveaway

By MICHAEL HUDSON

First, here’s the silhouette of the giveaway, as outlined Thursday in the New York Times:

“Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said Wednesday the administration is working on a comprehensive plan to “repair the financial system.” … bank stocks surged on hopes the government was moving toward creating a “bad bank” to purge toxic assets from balance sheets that are rapidly deteriorating as the economy worsens… administration officials believe that trillions of dollars more may be needed to buy the majority of bad assets from banks. …

“The concept of a bad bank has gained momentum in the financial industry as the economy deteriorates, slashing the value of risky assets on banks’ books and increasing the need for banks to hold capital against those losses. Shares in Citigroup and Bank of America, which both recently received a second taxpayer lifeline, surged 19 percent and 14 percent respectively as the stock market rose on optimism that the administration would relieve banks of money-losing assets.”

“Geithner Says Plan for Banks Is in the Works”, By Stephen Labaton and Edmund L. Andrews, The New York Times, January 29, 2009.

After (1) threatening for eight years that the prospect of a trillion-dollar deficit spread over a generation or so is sufficient reason to stiff Social Security recipients and abolish debts to the nation’s retirees, and (2) after the Bush administration provided $8 trillion over the past three months in cash-for-trash swaps of good Treasury bonds for Wall Street junk derivatives, the Obama Administration is now speaking of (3) some $2 to $4 trillion more to be given in just the next week or so.

Not a single Republican Congressman went along, just as Rep. Boehmer refused to support the Bush bailout on that fatal Friday when Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama debated each other over marginal issues not touching on the giveaway, which both candidates passionately supported. The Party of Wealth sees the political handwriting on the wall, for which the Party of Labor seems happy to take all responsibility. This probably is the only place where I’d like to see “bipartisanship.” Watch the campaign contributions flow for an index of how well this will pay off for the Democrats!

How many families would like a “give-back” on every bad investment they’ve ever made? It’s like a parent coming to a child who has just broken a toy, saying “That’s all right. We’ll just go out and buy you a new one.” This from the apostles of “responsibility” for poverty, for mortgage debtors owing more than they can afford to pay, for people who get sick and can’t afford medical care, and for states and cities now left high and dry by the fiscal wipe-out that the Bush-Obama “cleanup” has foisted onto the economy. No do-over for anyone but the hundred or so billionaires who have just been endowed with enough free money to become America’s ruling elite for the rest of the 21st century.

After spending a lifetime denouncing socialism as inherently unfair, Wall Street is now doing a hideous parody – as if “socialism for the rich” were not an oxymoron in the first place. Certainly the banks are not being “nationalized.” Giving away the largest sum of spendable securities in history without direct managerial power that goes with ownership is not “nationalization.” Ask Lenin.

Now that the details of the new, larger but definitely not improved bank giveaway of between $2 and $4 trillion more have been leaked out in time for Wall Street’s Davos attendees to celebrate, we may ask whether, financially speaking, the Obama Administration should best be thought of as Bush-3 – or indeed, whether it is still on a pro-creditor trend that may better be traced as Clinton-5, or perhaps even Reagan-8. Since 1980 the financial sector has made a sustained money grab at the expense of labor and “taxpayers.” More accurately, it has been a debt grab, on the opposite side of the balance sheet from assets.

Backed by Larry Summers, Boris Yeltsin’s Harvard Boys transferred trillions of dollars of Russian mineral wealth and public enterprises into the hands of kleptocrats. That was an asset transfer, pure and simple. In 1997, to be sure, the IMF gave Russia a loan that immediately disappeared into the kleptocrats’ bank accounts, to be paid out of subsequent oil-export proceeds. But assets were the name of the game. Today’s U.S. giveaway has a new twist. The analogy is the “watered stocks” and bonds of yesteryear that railroad magnates and Wall Street emperors of finance gave themselves and their political mouthpieces, simply adding the interest coupons and dividends onto the prices charged the public as if they were real “costs.” Today’s version – “watered Treasury bonds” – are being created on the public sector’s balance sheet. “Taxpayers” must pay bear the interest charges – leaving less for the infrastructure investment that Mr. Obama suggests we may need.

The Bush-Obama bailout bore “small print” stipulations that have already given Wall Street a decade’s tax-free status by letting it count its financial losses against its tax liability. So not only has there been a great fiscal giveaway, there has been a tax shift off finance onto labor and industry. States and localities already have begun to announce plans to sell off roads and airports, land and other public assets to the financial sector in order to finance their looming budget deficits (which localities are not allowed to run under present legislation). No federal funding has been granted to finance the cities as their tax receipts plunge. There has been a token amount to relieve some low-income families saddled with junk mortgages. But this does not involve actually giving them a spendable money “bonus.” Their role is simply to be trotted out like widows and orphans used to be, as justification to bail out banks for their bad gambles on currency, interest rates and bond derivative gambles. Insolvent debtors are merely passive vehicles to get a book-credit of mortgage relief that the government will turn over in their name to their bankers to make these institutions whole.

Whole, and then some! Chris Matthews just reported his statistic of the day (January 29): $18.4 billion in Wall Street bonuses, paid for out of the government giveaway.

This is called “saving the economy.” That is as much an oxymoron as “socializing the losses.” Socializing the losses would mean wiping the mortgages and other bank loans of debtors off the books. These giveaways are to keep the debts on the books, but for the government to buy them and make the creditors whole – while a quarter of real estate has fallen into Negative Equity as its debts are not being bailed out but kept on the books. The economy’s “toxic waste” remains. But a matching volume of new waste is being created and given to a few hundred families. No wonder the stock market soared by 200 points on Wednesday, led by bank stocks!

In the seemingly frenetic ten days since Obama took office, it is beginning to look as if his good political decisions regarding Guantanamo, Iraq, employee rights to sue for employer wrongdoing, are sugar coating for the giveaway to Wall Street, a quid pro quo to avert opposition from his Democratic Party constituency. At least this seems to be their effect. To accuse Obama of a giveaway would seem at first glance to contradict the basic thrust of his actions – or would be if one did not take into account his appointments of Larry Summers at the White House and the conspicuous leadership role in the bailout played by Barney Frank in the House and Chuck Schumer in the Senate.

There is a simple way to think about what has happened – and why it won’t help the economy, but will hurt it. Suppose the new $4 trillion “bad ban

k” works. The government shell will give away Treasury bonds for bad bank loans and derivatives gambles, without the government “marking to market.” (So much for the pretense that giving Wall Street credit is “free market” policy. But the alternative to free markets does not turn out to be “socialism” at all, even if “socialism for the rich.” There are worse words for it, which I won’t use here.)

The real question is what the Wall Street elite will do with the money. From Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank through Larry Summers, the Obama administration hopes that the banks will lend it out to Americans. Borrowers are to take on yet more debt – enough to start re-inflating house prices and making homes yet more unaffordable, requiring buyers to take on yet larger mortgages. Larger mortgages at rising prices are supposed to help the banks rebuild their balance sheets – to earn enough to compensate for their gambling losses.

But this neglects the fact that today’s looming depression is caused by debt deflation. Families, businesses and government having to spend more wage income, profits and tax revenues on debt service instead of buying goods and services. So why is the solution to this debt overhead held to be yet MORE debt? Is there not something crazy here?

The government’s solution, placed in its hands by the financial lobbyists, is to bail out the bankers and Wall Street while leaving the “real” economy even more highly indebted. All this talk about “more credit” being needed, all this begging of banks to lend more money and then extract yet more interest and amortization from the economy, is leading it even deeper into the debt hole. It is not helping families repay their debts. And indeed, homeowners whose mortgages already exceed the market price of their property are not going to be able to borrow more.

It would take only $1 trillion or so – or simply to let “the market” work its magic in the context of renewed debtor-oriented bankruptcy laws – to cure the debt problem. But that obviously is not what the government aims to solve at all. It simply wants to make creditors whole – creditors who are, after all, the largest political campaign contributors and lobbyists these days.

The most important thing to understand about the present economic crisis is that it was not necessary technologically, politically or fiscally. Government at the state, local and federal levels are strapped for funds – but only because the natural source of taxation, land rent and monopoly rent and the user fees from public enterprise have been financialized. That is, whereas property taxes used to finance about three-quarters of state and local budgets back in 1930, today they supply only about a sixth. The shrinkage has not been passed on to homeowners and renters or commercial users. Prices for homes and office buildings are set by the marketplace. The rise in market price has been pledged to bankers as mortgage interest. The financial sector thus has replaced government as recipient of the economic surplus – leaving the public sector starved of cash.

The financial sector also has replaced the government as economic planner. This role has followed from its monopoly in credit creation, which turns out to be the key to resource allocation.

Bank credit is created freely. Governments could do the same. Indeed, this is what the U.S. Treasury did during America’s Civil War, when it issued greenback credit.

If today’s looming economic depression is a manmade (that is, lobbyist-financed) phenomenon, then what policy is needed as a remedy?

http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson01302009.html

Text [& subtext]
The Inaugural Address: the Digested Read
By C. G. ESTABROOK

My fellow citizens:

We are in the midst of crisis. Our nation is at war [against an Axis...oops] against a Network of Violence and Hatred.

America's decline can be arrested, [just so long as we can scare hell out of the American people] because the challenges we face are real. [Really, they are.]

We need unity of purpose [to get rid of naysayers]. No more worn-out dogmas [like "no aggressive war"] that for far too long have strangled our politics. [Some are actually trying to stop the Mideast War.]

But we have a noble idea: [spread Freedom...oops] that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness [as we define it].

[One Nation, one People, and one President] are greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction. We must begin again the work of remaking America [in the image and likeness of the Best People.]

We'll create new jobs and lay a new foundation for growth [by paying rich people first]. The stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. [This has been called elsewhere "Gleichschaltung."]

The Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine [but we'll draw some parallels], drafted a charter to assure the rule of law [and of course their undisturbed possession of their wealth].

The justness of our cause [is so obvious it can't even be discussed]...

We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people [as split as that infinitive]. and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan, [as mixed as that metaphor].

With old friends [Israel] and former foes [Russia], we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, [of course we don't admit Israel has any nukes] and roll back the specter of a warming planet [because you know how dangerous those rolling specters are.]

We will not apologize for our way of life [even though it's fucking nuts], nor will we waver in its defense. [You do remember the Bush Doctrine, Ms. Palin?]

And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you [i.e., no one induces terror or slaughters innocents like us.]

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. [Look how we respected those thousands of dead and wounded Gazans.]

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West [How could they do THAT?!]:

Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. [Pay no attention to Gaza, or a million dead in Iraq; but don't plan any Afghan wedding parties.]

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent [Hey, what happened to the shoe-thrower?], know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist [and cross your palm with a little something from Gen. Petraeus].

As we consider the road that unfolds before us [actually, I'm having trouble re-folding the Road Map], we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains [in spite of what the people who live there might think].

They have something to tell us today ["Bring us home!"], just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. ["That's an ill phrase, a vile phrase...."]

We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty [exactly whose liberty are they guarding in the Mideast? ExxonMobil's?], but because they embody the spirit of service; [of course, if they don't, we'll force them to enlist because there are no jobs...]

[Several paragraphs of absolute bilge and balderdash here, ending with a demand for] a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world [which will be enforced in reverse order].

This is the price and the promise of citizenship. This is the source of our confidence -- the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny. [And you're hearing it from The One.]

This is ... why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath. ["Luo, I am your FAAATHER...."]

When the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: "the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it." ["I can feel your Paine."]

With eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of Freedom and delivered it safely to future generations. [Freedom Lives! or is that Frodo? or Fredo?...]

The Digested Read, Digested:

We're going to keep killing people, and that's OK.

http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook01272009.html

Obama Stimulus Speech: "Time For Action Is Now"

TRANSCRIPT:

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STAFF

U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, D.C.
February 5, 2009
12:12 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much. Well, it is a thrill to be here. Thank you, Secretary Chu, for bringing your experience and expertise to this new role. And thanks to all of you who have done so much on behalf of the country each and every day here at the department. You know, your mission is so important, and it's only going to grow as we transform the ways we produce energy and use energy for the sake of our environment, for the sake of our security, and for the sake of our economy.

As we are meeting, in the halls of Congress just down the street from here, there's a debate going on about the plan I've proposed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.

This isn't some abstract debate. Last week, we learned that many of America's largest corporations are planning to lay off tens of thousands of workers. Today we learned that last week, the number of new unemployment claims jumped to 626,000. Tomorrow, we're expecting another dismal jobs report on top of the 2.6 million jobs that we lost last year. We've lost half a million jobs each month for the last two months.

Now, I believe that legislation of such magnitude as has been proposed deserves the scrutiny that it has received over the last month. I think that's a good thing. That's the way democracy is supposed to work. But these numbers that we're seeing are sending an unmistakable message -- and so are the American people. The time for talk is over. The time for action is now, because we know that if we do not act, a bad situation will become dramatically worse. Crisis could turn into catastrophe for families and businesses across the country.

And I refuse to let that happen. We can't delay and we can't go back to the same worn-out ideas that led us here in the first place. In the last few days, we've seen proposals arise from some in Congress that you may not have read but you'd be very familiar with because you've been hearing them for the last 10 years, maybe longer. They're rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve all our problems; that government doesn't have a role to play; that half-measures and tinkering are somehow enough; that we can afford to ignore our most fundamental economic challenges -- the crushing cost of health care, the inadequate state of so many of our schools, our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

So let me be clear: Those ideas have been tested, and they have failed. They've taken us from surpluses to an annual deficit of over a trillion dollars, and they've brought our economy to a halt. And that's precisely what the election we just had was all about. The American people have rendered their judgment. And now is the time to move forward, not back. Now is the time for action.

Just as past generations of Americans have done in trying times, we can and we must turn this moment of challenge into one of opportunity. The plan I've proposed has at its core a simple idea: Let's put Americans to work doing the work that America needs to be done.

This plan will save or create over 3 million jobs -- almost all of them in the private sector.

This plan will put people to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, our dangerous -- dangerously deficient dams and levees.

This plan will put people to work modernizing our health care system, not only saving us billions of dollars, but countless lives.

This plan will put people to work renovating more than 10,000 schools, giving millions of children the chance to learn in 21st century classrooms, libraries and labs -- and to all the scientists in the room today, you know what that means for America's future.

This plan will provide sensible tax relief for the struggling middle class, unemployment insurance and continuing health care coverage for those who've lost their jobs, and it will help prevent our states and local communities from laying off firefighters and teachers and police.

And finally, this plan will begin to end the tyranny of oil in our time.

After decades of dragging our feet, this plan will finally spark the creation of a clean energy industry that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next few years, manufacturing wind turbines and solar cells, for example -- millions more after that. These jobs and these investments will double our capacity to generate renewable energy over the next few years.

We'll fund a better, smarter electricity grid and train workers to build it -- a grid that will help us ship wind and solar power from one end of this country to another. Think about it. The grid that powers the tools of modern life -- computers, appliances, even BlackBerrys -- (laughter) -- looks largely the same as it did half a century ago. Just these first steps towards modernizing the way we distribute electricity could reduce consumption by 2 to 4 percent.

We'll also lead a revolution in energy efficiency, modernizing more than 75 percent of federal buildings and improving the efficiency of more than 2 million American homes. This will not only create jobs, it will cut the federal energy bill by a third and save taxpayers $2 billion each year and save Americans billions of dollars more on their utility bills.

In fact, as part of this effort, today I've signed a presidential memorandum requesting that the Department of Energy set new efficiency standards for common household appliances. This will save consumers money, this will spur innovation, and this will conserve tremendous amounts of energy. We'll save through these simple steps over the next 30 years the amount of energy produced over a two-year period by all the coal-fired power plants in America.

And through investments in our mass transit system to boost capacity, in our roads to reduce congestion, and in technologies that will accelerate the development of innovations like plug-in hybrid vehicles, we'll be making a significant down payment on a cleaner and more energy independent future.

Now, I read the other day that critics of this plan ridiculed our notion that we should use part of the money to modernize the entire fleet of federal vehicles to take advantage of state of the art fuel efficiency. This is what they call pork. You know the truth. It will not only save the government significant money over time, it will not only create manufacturing jobs for folks who are making these cars, it will set a standard for private industry to match. And so when you hear these attacks deriding something of such obvious importance as this, you have to ask yourself -- are these folks serious? Is it any wonder that we haven't had a real energy policy in this country?

For the last few years, I've talked about these issues with Americans from one end of this country to another. And Washington may not be ready to get serious about energy independence, but I am. And so are you. And so are the American people.

Inaction is not an option that is acceptable to me and it's certainly not acceptable to the American people -- not on energy, not on the economy, not at this critical moment.

So I am calling on all the members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate -- to rise to this moment. No plan is perfect. There have been constructive changes made to this one over the last several weeks. I would love to see additional improvements today. But the scale and the scope of this plan is the right one. Our approach to energy is the right one. It's what America needs ri

ght now, and we need to move forward today. We can't keep on having the same old arguments over and over again that lead us to the exact same spot -- where we are wasting previous energy, we're not creating jobs, we're failing to compete in the global economy, and we end up bickering at a time when the economy urgently needs action.

I thank all of you for being here, and I'm eager to work with Secretary Chu and all of you as we stand up to meet the challenges of this new century. That's what the American people are looking for. That's what I expect out of Congress. That's what I believe we can deliver to our children and our grandchildren in their future.

Thank you so much, everybody. I appreciate it. Thank you. (Applause.)
~

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15159

The Politics Of Bollocks

By John Pilger

February 06, 2009 "Information Clearinghouse" --- Growing up in an Antipodean society proud of its rich variety of expletives, I never heard the word bollocks. It was only on arrival in England that I understood its majesterial power. All classes used it. Judges grunted it; an editor of the Daily Mirror used it as noun, adjective and verb. Certainly, the resonance of a double vowel saw off its closest American contender. It had authority.

A high official with the Gilbertian title of Lord West of Spithead used it to great effect on 27 January. The former admiral, who is security adviser to Gordon Brown, was referring to Tony Blair's famous assertion that invading countries and killing innocent people did not increase the threat of terrorism at home.

"That was clearly bollocks," said his lordship, who warned of the perceived "linkage between the US, Israel and the UK" in the horrors inflicted on Gaza and the effect on the recruitment of terrorists in Britain. In other words, he was stating the obvious: that state terrorism begets individual or group terrorism at source. Just as Blair was the prime mover of the London bombings of 7 July 2005, so Brown, having pursued the same cynical crusades in Muslim countries and having armed and disported himself before the criminal regime in Tel Aviv, will share responsibility for related atrocities at home.

There is a lot of bollocks about at the moment.

The BBC's explanation for banning an appeal on behalf of the stricken people of Gaza is a vivid example. Mark Thompson, the director general, cited the BBC's legal requirement to be "impartial... because Gaza is a major ongoing news story in which humanitarian issues... are both at the heart of the story and contentious."

In a letter to Thompson, David Bracewell, illuminated the deceit behind this. He pointed to previous BBC appeals for the Disasters Emergency Committee that were not only made in the midst of "an ongoing news story" in which humanitarian issues were "contentious", but demonstrated how the BBC took sides. In 1999, at the height of the illegal Nato bombing of Serbia and Kosovo, the TV presenter Jill Dando made an appeal on behalf of Kosovar refugees. The BBC web page for that appeal was linked to numerous articles meant to support the gravity of the humanitarian issue. These included quotations from Blair himself, such as "This will be a daily pounding until [Slobodan Milosevic] comes into line with the terms that Nato has laid down." There was no significant balance of view from the Yugoslav side, and not a single mention that the flight of Kosovar refugees began only after Nato had started bombing. Similarly, in an appeal for the victims of the civil war in the Congo, the BBC favoured the regime of Joseph Kabila without referring to the Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and other reports accusing his forces of atrocities. In contrast, the rebel leader Nkunda was "accused of committing atrocities" and was ordained the BBC's bad guy. Kabila, who represented western interests, was clearly the good guy – just like Nato in the Balkans and Israel in the Middle East.

While Mark Thompson and his satraps richly deserve the Lord West of Spithead Bollocks Blue Ribbon, that honour goes to the cheer squad of President Barack Obama, whose cult-like obeisance goes on and on.

On 23 January, the Guardian's front page declared, "Obama shuts network of CIA 'ghost prisons' ". The "wholesale deconstruction [sic] of George Bush's war on terror", said the report, had been ordered by the new president who would be "shutting down the CIA's secret prison network, banning torture and rendition...".

The bollocks quotient on this was so high that it read like the press release it was, citing "officials briefing reporters at the White House yesterday". Obama's orders, according to a group of 16 retired generals and admirals who attended a presidential signing ceremony, "would restore America's moral standing in the world". What moral standing? It never ceases to astonish that experienced reporters can transmit PR stunts like this, bearing in mind the moving belt of lies from the same source under only nominally different management.

Far from "deconstructing [sic] the war on terror", Obama is clearly pursuing it with the same vigour, ideological backing and deception as the previous administration. George W. Bush's first war, in Afghanistan, and last war, in Pakistan, are now Obama's wars – with thousands more US troops to be deployed, more bombing and more slaughter of civilians. On 22 January, the day he described Afghanistan and Pakistan as "the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism", 22 Afghan civilians died beneath Obama's bombs in a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds and which, by all accounts, had not laid eyes on the Taliban. Women and children were among the dead, which is normal.

Far from "shutting down the CIA's secret prison network", Obama's executive orders actually give the CIA authority to carry out renditions, abductions and transfers of prisoners in secret without the threat of legal obstruction. As the Los Angeles Times disclosed, "current and former intelligence officials said the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role." A semantic sleight of hand is that "long term prisons" are changed to "short term prisons"; and while Americans are now banned from directly torturing people, foreigners working for the US are not. This means that America's numerous "covert actions" will operate as they did under previous presidents, with proxy regimes, such as Augusto Pinochet's in Chile, doing the dirtiest work.

Bush's open support for torture, and Donald Rumsfeld's extraordinary personal overseeing of certain torture techniques, upset many in America's "secret army" of subversive military and intelligence operators as it exposed how the system worked. Obama's nominee for director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, has said the Army Field Manual may include new forms of "harsh interrogation", which will be kept secret.

Obama has chosen not to stop any of this. Neither do his ballyhooed executive orders put an end to Bush's assault on constitutional and international law. He has retained Bush's "right" to imprison anyone, without trial or charges. No "ghost prisoners" are being released or are due to be tried before a civilian court. His nominee for attorney-general, Eric Holder, has endorsed an extension of Bush's totalitarian USA Patriot Act, which allows federal agents to demand Americans' library and bookshop records. The man of "change", is changing little. That ought to be front page news from Washington.

The Lord West of Spithead Bollocks Prize (Runner-up) is shared. On 28 January, a national Greenpeace advertisement opposing a third runway at London's Heathrow airport summed up the almost willful naivety that has obstructed informed analysis of the Obama administration. "Fortunately," declared Greenpeace beneath a God-like picture of Obama, "the White House has a new occupant, and he has asked us all to roll back the spectre of a warming planet." This was followed by Obama's rhetorical flourish about "putting off unpleasant decisions". In fact, Obama has made no commitment to curtail the America's infamous responsibility for the causes of global warming. As with Bush and most modern era presidents, it is oil, not stemming carbon emissions, that informs the new admi

nistration. Obama's national security adviser, General Jim Jones, a former Nato supreme commander, made his name planning US military control over the exploitation of oil and gas reserves from the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea to the Gulf of Guinea in Africa.

Sharing the Bollocks Runner-up Prize is the Observer, which on 25 January published a major news report headlined, "How Obama set the tone for a new US revolution". This was reminiscent of the Observer almost a dozen years ago when liberalism's other great white hope, Tony Blair, came to power. "Goodbye Xenophobia" was the Observer's post-election front page in 1997 and "The Foreign Office says Hello World, remember us". The government, said the breathless text, would push for "new worldwide rules on human rights and the environment" and implement "tough new limits" on arms sales. The opposite happened. Last year, Britain was the biggest arms dealer in the world; currently it is second only to the United States.

In the Blair mould, the Obama White House "sprang into action" with its "radical plans". The new president's first phone call was to that Palestinian quisling, the unelected and deeply unpopular Mohammed Abbas. There was a "hot pace" and a "new era", in which a notorious name from an ancien regime, Richard Holbrooke, was dispatched to Pakistan. In 1978, Holbrooke betrayed a promise to normalise relations with the Vietnamese on the eve of a vicious embargo that ruined the lives of countless Vietnamese children. Under Obama, the "sense of a new era abroad", declared the Observer, "was reinforced by the confirmation of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state". Clinton has threatened to "entirely obliterate Iran" on behalf of Israel.

What the childish fawning over Obama obscures is the dark power assembled under cover of America's first "post-racial president". Apart from the US, the world's most dangerous state is demonstrably Israel, having recently killed and maimed some 4,000 people in Gaza with impunity. On 10 February, a bellicose Israeli electorate is likely to put Binyamin Netanyahu into power. Netanyahu is a fanatic's fanatic who has made clear his intention of attacking Iran. In the Wall Street Journal on 24 January, he described Iran as the "terrorist mother base" and justified the murder of civilians in Gaza because "Israel cannot accept an Iranian terror base (Gaza) next to its major cities". On 31 January, unaware he was being filmed, Israel's ambassador in Australia described the massacres in Gaza as a "pre-introduction" - dress rehearsal - for an attack on Iran.

For Netanyahu, the reassuring news is that Obama's administration is the most Zionist in living memory – a truth that has struggled to be told from beneath the soggy layers of Obama-love. Not a single member of Obama's team demurred from Obama's support for Israel's barbaric actions in Gaza. Obama himself likened the safety of his two young daughters with that of Israeli children while making not a single reference to the thousands of Palestinian children killed with American weapons - a violation of both international and US law. He did, however, demand that the people of Gaza be denied "smuggled" small arms with which to defend themselves against the world's fourth largest military power. And he paid tribute to the Arab dictatorships, such as Egypt, which are bribed by the US Treasury to help the US and Israel enforce policies described by the United Nations Rapporteur, Richard Falk, a Jew, as "genocidal".

It is time the Obama lovers grew up. It is time those paid to keep the record straight gave us the opportunity to debate informatively. In the 21st century, people power remains a huge and exciting and largely untapped force for change, but it is nothing without truth. "In the time of universal deceit," wrote George Orwell, "telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21912.htm

It is time the Obama lovers grew up. It is time those paid to keep the record straight gave us the opportunity to debate informatively. In the 21st century, people power remains a huge and exciting and largely untapped force for change, but it is nothing without truth. "In the time of universal deceit," wrote George Orwell, "telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

This is a keeper...

http://www.amiright.com/album-covers/images/album-The-Sex-Pistols-Never-Mind-the-Bollocks-Heres-the-Sex-Pistols.jpg

I just can't help myself...God save the queen....

http://www.amiright.com/album-covers/images/album-The-Sex-Pistols-Never-Mind-the-Bollocks-Heres-the-Sex-Pistols.jpg

I just can't help myself...God save the queen....


I was tempted but checked myself..;)

Obama seeks grass-roots support for stimulus


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will face a barrage of questions from ordinary Americans and skeptical reporters on his plans to reinvigorate the economy with a massive stimulus bill and additional billions in bailout money for the financial markets.

Two trips to cities hurting under the economic meltdown and a prime-time news conference are signs that Obama and his advisers are worried about a looming Senate vote on the stimulus bill, which failed to gather meaningful Republican support during rare weekend debate. The question-and-answer sessions will allow Obama to go directly to voters for grass-roots backing of his plans.

Both trips were added to Obama's schedule as difficulties with the legislation on Capitol Hill increased. Originally, aides had insisted his time would be better spent in Washington to shepherd the bill rather than traveling the more traditional presidential route around the country, pressuring lawmakers from his bully pulpit.

The $827 billion Senate version of the plan was expected to pass the Senate on Tuesday. However, it must be reconciled with the House version, which totaled $820 billion in spending and tax cuts. With Senate and House negotiators preparing to deal, Obama is likely to push for a bill on his desk for his signature by mid-month.

"The president's top man on the economy is the president," Larry Summers, the chairman of the White House National Economic Council, said on "Fox News Sunday." Summers added: "He listens to advice from all of us, and he sets his direction."

For his first direct pitch to citizens, Obama scheduled a town hall meeting in Elkhart, Ind. He was to return to Washington for the news conference Monday night. On Tuesday he plans to visit Fort Myers, Fla., an area hit hard by foreclosures.

"Americans across this country are struggling, and they are watching to see if we're equal to the task before us. Let's show them that we are. And let's do whatever it takes to keep the promise of America alive in our time," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

The Elkhart-Goshen region in northern Indiana saw its unemployment rate soar to 15.3 percent in December, up a whopping 10.6 percentage points from December 2007. The region has been bruised by layoffs in the recreational vehicle industry. Hundreds of workers have lost their jobs at RV makers such as Monaco Coach Corp., Keystone RV Co. and Pilgrim International.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the meeting would give the president a chance to hear Americans' concerns about the bill, which was set to have a key vote in the Senate on Monday afternoon.

"I think this is another chance for the president to talk directly to the American people about what he thinks is at stake," Gibbs said. "Watching millions lose their jobs, and having in front of Congress — and hopefully in front of him soon — a plan to save or create millions more jobs and get people back to work, putting money in people's pockets, getting help for state and local governments so they don't have to lay off firefighters or teachers or police officers."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090209/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy

"Our administration is reviewing policy toward Iran, but this much is clear: we will be willing to talk," he said.

"We will be willing to talk to Iran, and to offer a very clear choice: continue down your current course and there will be pressure and isolation; abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism and there will be meaningful incentives."

He proposed a shared fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban with Russia as part of an era of improved relations between Washington and Moscow.

"The last few years have seen a dangerous drift in relations between Russia and the members of our [Nato] alliance," he said. "It's time, to paraphrase President Obama, to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should work together."

But he offered Moscow little at this stage beyond mood music, insisting that the US "will not recognise any nation having a sphere of influence" - a clear reference to Russia's view that the former Soviet Union is its political and diplomatic backyard.

He also said that the US would not recognise the sovereignty of the breakaway pro-Moscow Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where tensions last year took Russia and American ally Georgia briefly to war.

And perhaps most significantly, he indicated that the US would press ahead with plans for a missile defence project based in Poland and the Czech Republic, while adding riders about the cost and effectiveness of the programme. Moscow was enfuriated when the Bush administration announced the scheme, although the Kremlin has taken a more conciliatory approach since Mr Obama entered the White House.

Mr Biden called on America's Nato allies for greater assistance, pointedly asking European states to help the Obama administration to close the Guantanamo Bay camp by accepting some of the remaining detainees.

The vice-president has also been lobbying in behind-door meetings for other Nato states to send more troops or military resources to Afghanistan - a number one priority for the Obama White House. So far, only Britain has indicated a willingness to send extra forces.

"America will do more. That's the good news," he said. "The bad news is that America will ask for more from our partners as well."

Emphasising a change on mood and approach, he told the audience: "I come to Europe on behalf of a new administration, an administration that is determined to set a new tone not only in Washington, but in America's relations around the world. That new tone is rooted in a strong bipartisanship to meet these common challenges. And we recognise that meeting these challenges is not a luxury but an absolute necessity."

Key elements of Mr Biden's speech were aimed at conveying this new tone. "We believe that international alliances and organizations do not diminish America's power," he said. "We believe they help us advance our collective security, economic interests and our values. So we'll engage. We'll listen. We'll consult."

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article21923.htm

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiran12-2009feb12,0,4465766.story


U.S. now sees Iran as pursuing nuclear bomb
In a reversal since a 2007 report, U.S. officials expect the Islamic Republic to reach development milestones this year.


Reporting from Washington -- Little more than a year after U.S. spy agencies concluded that Iran had halted work on a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration has made it clear that it believes there is no question that Tehran is seeking the bomb.

In his news conference this week, President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon" before correcting himself to refer to its "pursuit" of weapons capability.

Obama's nominee to serve as CIA director, Leon E. Panetta, left little doubt about his view last week when he testified on Capitol Hill. "From all the information I've seen," Panetta said, "I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability."

The language reflects the extent to which senior U.S. officials now discount a National Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007 that was instrumental in derailing U.S. and European efforts to pressure Iran to shut down its nuclear program.

As the administration moves toward talks with Iran, Obama appears to be sending a signal that the United States will not be drawn into a debate over Iran's intent.

"When you're talking about negotiations in Iran, it is dangerous to appear weak or naive," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear weapons expert and president of the Ploughshares Fund, an anti-proliferation organization based in Washington.

Cirincione said the unequivocal language also worked to Obama's political advantage. "It guards against criticism from the right that the administration is underestimating Iran," he said.

Iran has long maintained that it aims to generate electricity, not build bombs, with nuclear power. But Western intelligence officials and nuclear experts increasingly view those claims as implausible.

U.S. officials said that although no new evidence had surfaced to undercut the findings of the 2007 estimate, there was growing consensus that it provided a misleading picture and that the country was poised to reach crucial bomb-making milestones this year.

Obama's top intelligence official, Dennis C. Blair, the director of national intelligence, is expected to address mounting concerns over Iran's nuclear program in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee today.

When it was issued, the NIE stunned the international community. It declared that U.S. spy agencies judged "with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."

U.S. intelligence officials later said the conclusion was based on evidence that Iran had stopped secret efforts to design a nuclear warhead around the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Often overlooked in the NIE, officials said, was that Iran had not stopped its work on other crucial fronts, including missile design and uranium enrichment. Many experts contend that these are more difficult than building a bomb.

Iran's advances on enrichment have become a growing source of alarm. Since 2004, the country has gone from operating a few dozen centrifuges -- cylindrical machines used to enrich uranium -- to nearly 6,000, weapons experts agree.

By November, Iran had produced an estimated 1,400 pounds of low-enriched uranium, not nearly enough to fuel a nuclear energy reactor, but perilously close to the quantity needed to make a bomb.

A report issued last month by the Institute for Science and International Security concluded that "Iran is moving steadily toward a breakout capability and is expected to reach that milestone during the first half of 2009." That means it would have enough low-enriched uranium to be able to quickly convert it to weapons-grade material.

Tehran's progress has come despite CIA efforts to sabotage shipments of centrifuge components on their way into Iran and entice the country's nuclear scientists to leave.

Iran still faces considerable hurdles. The country touted its launch of a 60-pound satellite into orbit this month. Experts said Iran's rockets would need to be able to carry more than 2,000 pounds to deliver a first-generation nuclear bomb.

And there are indications that the U.S. and Iran are interested in holding serious diplomatic discussions for the first time in three decades. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said this week that his nation was "ready to hold talks based on mutual respect," and Obama indicated that his administration would look for opportunities "in the coming months."

Hassan Qashqavi, spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, on Wednesday warned the U.S. not to wait for Iranian presidential elections this year, because ultimate authority rests with supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

He also said Iran would be patient.

"Since a new administration came to power in the U.S., we do not want to burn the opportunity of President Obama and give him time to change the reality on the ground," Qashqavi said.

But experts said Iran was now close enough to nuclear weapons capability that it may be less susceptible to international pressure.

"They've made more progress in the last five years than in the previous 10," Cirincione said.

Suspected US missile strike kills 27 in Pakistan


ISLAMABAD – A suspected U.S. missile strike by a drone aircraft flattened a militant hide-out in northwestern Pakistan on Saturday, killing 27 local and foreign insurgents, intelligence officials said.

Several more purported militants were wounded in the attack in South Waziristan, a militant stronghold near the Afghan border where al-Qaida leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri are believed to be hiding.

The new U.S. administration has brushed off Pakistani criticism that the missile strikes fuel religious extremism and boost anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world's only nuclear-armed nation.

Pilotless U.S. aircraft are believed to have launched more than 30 attacks since July, and American officials say al-Qaida's leadership has been decimated. Pakistani officials say the vast majority of the victims are civilians.

Taliban fighters surrounded the compound targeted Saturday in the village of Shrawangai Nazarkhel and carried away the dead and wounded in several vehicles.

Intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, said the victims included about 15 ethnic Uzbek militants and several Afghans. Their seniority was unclear.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090214/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article21988.htm


Americans Want Torture Inquiry, Obama Doesn’t

By Thomas R. Eddlem

Friday, 13 February 2009 "New American Magazine " --- -A Gallup Poll released February 12 revealed that 62 percent of Americans want to investigate or criminally prosecute Bush administration officials who authorized torture in the so-called “war on terror.” But even though President Obama has said numerous times that “nobody's above the law,” on February 10 he used the Bush administration’s “state secrets” gambit to quash a lawsuit attempting to penalize some of those involved in renditioning torture subjects.

That lawsuit sought damages against a private airline used by the CIA to rendition low-value suspects for torture by dictatorial regimes abroad. One of the five plaintiffs, Benyam Muhammed (a British and Ethiopian citizen), alleged he was renditioned to Morocco where torturers made razor cuts on his penis. The lawsuit alleges that San Jose-based Jeppesen DataPlan Inc. should have known that its planes were being used to ferry suspects for torture and is therefore liable for damages.

But because the Obama administration invoked the “state secrets” policy at the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the lawsuit’s likelihood of revealing felony torture on the part of Bush officials is now remote.

“This is not change,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero correctly told the Associated Press. “Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue.”

The Obama policy in San Francisco also drew a rare condemnation of a Democrat from the New York Times editorial page.

The Gallup Poll came just two weeks after it was revealed that the Obama administration’s Justice Department has dispatched several government lawyers to defend Bush-era Justice Department official John Yoo from a lawsuit by torture victim Jose Padilla.

Jordan Paust of the University of Houston Law Center calls giving Justice Department lawyers to alleged international war criminals “an outrage and constitute an embarrassing embrace of international criminal conduct that the international community has demanded must result in absolutely no form of impunity.” Paust says that alleged criminals should bear the costs of their own defense, and notes there is a long historical case for this. At “a 1781 Resolution of the Continental Congress, the Founders expected that 'the author of ... injuries [that are “offenses against the law of nations”] should compensate the damage out of his private fortune.'”

[u][i][b]President Obama’s actions are fast diverging from his public rhetoric.

No shit, Sherlock

Here's the NYT editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/opinion/11wed2.html?_r=2&ref=opinion



The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

February 11, 2009
Editorial
Continuity of the Wrong Kind

The Obama administration failed — miserably — the first test of its commitment to ditching the extravagant legal claims used by the Bush administration to try to impose blanket secrecy on anti-terrorism policies and avoid accountability for serial abuses of the law.

On Monday, a Justice Department lawyer dispatched by the new attorney general, Eric Holder, appeared before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. The case before them involves serious allegations of torture by five victims of President Bush’s extraordinary rendition program. The five were seized and transported to American facilities abroad or to countries known for torturing prisoners.

Incredibly, the federal lawyer advanced the same expansive state-secrets argument that was pressed by Mr. Bush’s lawyers to get a trial court to dismiss the case without any evidence being presented. It was as if last month’s inauguration had never occurred.

Voters have good reason to feel betrayed if they took Mr. Obama seriously on the campaign trail when he criticized the Bush administration’s tactic of stretching the state-secrets privilege to get lawsuits tossed out of court. Even judges on the panel seemed surprised by the administration’s decision to go forward instead of requesting a delay to reconsider the government’s position and, perhaps, file new briefs.

The argument is that the very subject matter of the suit is a state secret so sensitive that it cannot be discussed in court, and it is no more persuasive now than it was when the Bush team pioneered it. For one thing, there is ample public information available about the C.I.A.’s rendition, detention and coercive interrogation programs. The fact that some of the evidence might be legitimately excluded on national security grounds need not preclude the case from being tried, and allowing the judge to make that determination. More fundamentally, the Obama administration should not be invoking state secrets to cover up charges of rendition and torture.

President Obama has taken some important steps to repair Mr. Bush’s damaging legacy — issuing executive orders to prohibit torture, shut secret prisons overseas and direct closure of the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. It would have been good if he and Mr. Holder had shown the same determination in that federal court, rather than defending the indefensible.


Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

what a surprise...
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/14/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4803349.shtml

February 15, 2009

White House Not Challenging Rove's Privilege

The Obama White House is not challenging whether a valid claim of “executive privilege” can keep former presidential advisor Karl Rove from testifying in the matter of the U.S. Attorney firings during the Bush Administration.

In a statement provided to CBS News, White House Counsel Gregory Craig says Pres. Obama is “very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened.”

But at the same time, Craig makes it clear that Mr. Obama is not disputing the claim of privilege.

“He is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency,” Craig says in the statement.

A White House spokesman says the Counsel’s Office is still studying the question of executive privilege.

Rove is under subpoena to testify to the House Judiciary Committee on February 23 about political motivations in the firings of U.S. Attorneys.

During the last days of the Bush presidency, White House Counsel Fred Fielding informed Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, that Mr. Bush was continuing to assert “executive privilege” and directed that Rove not testify or provide documents about the U.S. Attorney firings – even after Pres. Bush left office.

After Barack Obama was inaugurated, Luskin asked the new White House Counsel to advise on “whether there is a valid claim of executive privilege.”

Craig’s carefully worded statement straddles the fence on that point. His statement says Pres. Obama backs the investigation of the U.S. Attorney firings – but doesn’t challenge whether “executive privilege” can be claimed after a President leaves office.

Craig says Pres. Obama “is urging” Rove and the House Judiciary Committee to settle the matter of privilege and testimony on their own.

Did anyone catch the Congress asshole who got up and said -- in so many words no less -- that the Republicans needed to learn from the Taliban? I don't have the link presently but maybe there is some transparency in government afterall..

http://www.blackagendareport.com/images/stories/125/mister_president.jpg

Obama's First Press Conference: Repeating Old Lies, Dodging Old Truths
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
by BAR managing editor Bruce Dixon

So how's that "change" thing working out? Are we getting better, or more of the same, and why? In his first press conference, Obama labeled Iran a destabilizing influence in the Middle East because it allegedly sought nuclear weapons, while ignoring the longstanding Israeli nuclear threat to all its neighbors. And the same day, Obama Justice Department lawyers appeared in court to invoke the same defense against investigation of their secret cross-border kidnapping and torture schemes as Bush --- that these widely known activities were "state secrets". Have we heard any of this before?

"It's time to hold the current president and his actions up to the cold light of day."

In the past few years, newspapers and broadcast media around the world have printed and aired details of a lawless US government policy of kidnapping civilians and flying them abroad for indefinite detention and torture at the hands of client governments or its own military and civilian officials. Called “extraordinary rendition” by the Bush Administration, which inherited it from its Democratic predecessor, this illegal practice has been the subject of a number of books reconstructing the flight plans and naming many of the so-called “black sites” where the illegal jailings and tortures took place. Despite the wealth of publicly available detail on these criminal practices, the Bush administration claimed that to be answerable in court for this illegal conduct would compromise“state secrets,” and found federal judges to agree with this ridiculous claim.

On his first full day in office, President Obama renewed his pledge to close the “black sites” without of course naming them and giving himself a full year to do so, and declared that the US government would observe legal norms from this point onward. So when some of the victims of Bush-era cross-border kidnapping and torture appeared in court Monday, the reasonable expectation was that the new Justice Department would reverse itself and allow their lawsuits for damages to proceed. Instead lawyers for the Obama Justice Department rose to object to the case being heard in federal court on the same grounds that the Bush-Cheney regime had employed --- that revealing the criminal conduct of US military and civilian officials in court, even when this conduct is widely documented and well known, would jeopardize “state secrets.”

But after all the books and articles and news items, there are no remaining “state secrets” of any significance in the process of cross-border kidnapping and torture. Looking backward, all that's left are details like how many times it happened, who was kidnapped and tortured, how many buried still alive or dead, and where those bodies, animated and not, are now, and what dates which orders were given. But the president assures us he is not looking backward, so the unidentified maimed, dead and missing, their torturers and enablers and the names of all but the highest officials involved ---Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld and their immediate deputies in and out of uniform --- will appear on no court records, because Obama's Justice Department, just like the Bush Justice Department, insists that all the details of their well known crimes, down to the identities of the victims, are “state secrets.”

As legal and official falsehoods go, this one is naked and transparent. It provides past, present and future criminals on the civil service payroll the same cloak of immunity they enjoyed in the Bush-Cheney years. And it sets the tone, in many ways, for the new administration.

"President Obama used his very first press conference to label Iran and its alleged quest for nuclear weapons as the pre-eminent threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. "

Later that day, in a similar spirit of telling old lies and avoiding old truths, President Obama used his very first press conference to label Iran and its alleged quest for nuclear weapons as the pre-eminent threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. Helen Thomas, the most senior reporter in the White House press corps, and the only one to stand up to Obama's predecessor, asked point-blank whether any other countries in the Middle East possessed nuclear weapons. It is of course common knowledge that Israel has hundreds of nukes aimed ate very capital in the region from Tripoli to Teheran. No less a member of Obama's cabinet than Robert Gates at his confirmation affirmed that Israel has nukes, but it suited the new president to refuse to answer the question, to ignore Thomas's follow-ups, and to filibuster for four or five minutes in some other direction.

Tens of millions who voted for this president imagined they'd get real change. But the reality is dawning on many that what we're getting is a lot more of the same. We have a president who repeats discredited lies about “rogue regimes” with nuclear weapons,while he ignores Israel, a genuine 21st century apartheid state, which has menaced its neighbors with nuclear weapons for more than thirty years.

Obama volunteered at some point during the press conference, that the moment the true import of his new job sank into him was when he had to sign letters notifying the families of American dead, “our heroes," as he called them. The president made no mention of his decision, on this third day of office, to launch drones and cruise missiles into Pakistan. Those missiles killed 17 people, including several children. The drones were probably launched from Afghanistan, and remotely piloted by stateside military personnel. Those dead, including the children, got no letters of regret from the president, and seemed not to register in the president's public calculus. After all, they were not American heroes.

The election is over. Those unconditional Obama defenders who answer the president's critics with “well what did you want, McCain?” are doing what their president says he won't do. They are living in the past, looking backward instead of forward. It's time to hold the current president and his actions up to the cold light of day, to evaluate his performance in light of his promises and our legitimate expectations for peace and justice. It's time those of us who stand for peace and justice stop protecting the president. We may soon need to be protected from him.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1020&Itemid=1

Shock Absorbers: Progressives Stunned by Obama Non-Surprises
Written by Chris Floyd

There is certainly a great deal of slack-jawed shock going around these days, especially in progressive circles, where pundits, commentators, analysts and kibitzers continually find themselves reeling from yet another "inexplicable" move by the Obama Administration to uphold the core principles of their predecessors: enriching the rich, extending the empire, and enhancing the authoritarian power of a thoroughly militarized state.

For example, Glenn Greenwald and Scott Horton at Harper's (among many others) are deeply shocked by Team Obama's draconian maneuvers to quash a court case based on clear, abundant and credible evidence that American security forces -- and their corporate accomplices -- colluded to inflict horrendous tortures on a gulag captive (whose only "crime," it turns out, was reading a satirical magazine article). While Horton struggles to find some small justification for what he sees as an unwise decision, Greenwald is scathing and detailed in denouncing Obama's action, in which the new president seeks to uphold -- and to seize for himself -- some of the most egregious claims of arbitrary, tyrannical power once advanced by George "Unitary Executive" Bush.

It is good to see these worthy gentlemen -- lawyers both -- give us chapter and verse on this act of evil, yet one still must ask: why all the surprise? From the beginning of his presidential campaign to this very day, Obama has always made it perfectly clear -- as another great unitary executive used to say -- that he has no intention whatsoever of dismantling the unbridled powers of the "imperial presidency." He has also made it clear that he would not prosecute Bush and other top government officials who created and supervised blatantly illegal systems of torture, warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention of kidnapped captives, including U.S. citizens, arbitrarily designated "enemy combatants" by -- who else? -- the unitary executive.

(Bush also had many people arbitrarily murdered; but although he openly bragged about this before Congress, on national television, this is a subject that is never, ever raised, anywhere, in any form, however meekly, in the American media and political establishments. Obviously this is a power which our elites believe a president should have, and use, at his own divine discretion. And now Obama can use it too -- but only for noble, progressive ends, of course. )

Since taking office, the torture question has been raised, meekly, with the new president now and again -- but curiously enough, only in the context of possible prosecutions of lower-ranking interrogators, those on the front line of the Bush-Cheney torture regimen. On this issue, Obama and his mouthpieces have made it clear that they don't believe government operatives should have to "look over their shoulders" while carrying out noble national security work ordered by their superiors. The president doesn't think it would be fruitful to pursue such cases -- even though his own attorney general has declared some of the practices used by Bush-Cheney operatives to be torture under U.S. law. Instead, Obama has adopted the "Nuremberg defense" for the Bush-Cheney torturers (who are, of course, Obama's torturers now): they were only "following orders," and so should not be punished. Strangely enough, this logic has never applied to, say, Nazi concentration camp guards -- even if they are as gorgeous as Kate Winslet. But for America's torturers, Hitlerite excuses are good enough.

Well, all right. Even though none of the Bush-Cheney torturers were forced to carry out these crimes -- all were volunteers, including the CIA agents, none were drafted or impressed into this service, and even those under military command were not obliged to obey criminal orders, and thus all of them should be held fully and legally responsible for their actions -- let us grant this pernicious argument for the moment. Let us say, with Obama, that the low-hanging fruit should be absolved of their crimes. We are still left with what the new administration itself says are clear acts of torture, committed at the order of the leadership of the previous administration. Why then should we not prosecute those who gave the criminal orders? Yet this consideration does not enter into the national "debate" at all. It is beyond the pale, relegated to the same limbo that cloaks other unmentionable matters -- such as Israel's nuclear arsenal, which Obama cravenly declined to comment upon in his recent press conference. The result of this little two-step dance -- forgive the grunts, ignore the bosses -- means that no one will be held responsible for clear acts of war crimes committed at the order of the United States government.


Instead of prosecuting the instigators of these capital crimes, Obama has praised the torturer-in-chief, Bush, for "his service to our country." He has retained the services of many Bush minions, including some who are in charge of the unconstitutional kangaroo court system of "military commissions" for tortured captives held in the American gulag. He has made a great show of "banning torture" -- the same kind of great show that Bush periodically made -- while continuing the practice of "harsh interrogation techniques" countenanced by the Pentagon: a series of layered "techniques" of physical torment and psychological persecution that are themselves a system of torture. And his designated CIA chief, Leon Panetta, has testified, under oath, that he will "not hesitate" to urge Obama to go beyond the Pentagon tortures if necessary, while also retaining the practice of kidnapping people and depositing them in the torture chambers of foreign countries without any charges or legal processes whatsoever.

So again, we ask: what is "shocking" in Obama's intervention to kill a torture case in both an American and a British court? By his own words and deeds, Obama has made clear that not only will he not prosecute his predecessors for their egregious abuse of power, he intends to retain full rights to use those abusive powers himself.

II.
Meanwhile, on the economic front, Robert Scheer is shocked -- shocked! -- to find Obama kowtowing to the robber barons of Wall Street in the latest "bailout" plan. He is shocked that the favorite candidate of Wall Street is now committing trillions of dollars of public money to save Wall Street from its own fraud, crime, greed and stupidity. Yet as Scheer himself rightly notes:

What an insipid anticlimax! Rising to “a challenge more complex than our financial system has ever faced,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner promised on Tuesday to give trillions more to the very folks who profited from that malignant complexity. For all the brave talk about transparency and accountability in the banking bailout, he gave the swindlers who got us into this mess yet another blank check to buy up the “toxic assets” they gleefully created...

The New York Times got it right: “… the plan largely repeats the Bush administration’s approach of deferring to many of the same companies and executives who had peddled risky loans and investments at the heart of the crisis. …” Geithner and White House economic czar Lawrence Summers won out over David Axelrod and other Obama advisers more loyal to the wishes of grass-roots voters; “… as intended by Mr. Geithner, the plan stops short of intruding too significantly into bankers’ affairs even as they come onto the public dole.”

The word dole is usually applied heartlessly to welfare mothers sustained in their dire poverty by meager government handout

s, not to the top bankers now ripping off the taxpayers. But as opposed to welfare mothers, who must survive stringent monitoring, the bankers will be largely self-monitoring. No wonder that welfare rolls, because of onerous eligibility rules, are not rising commensurate to the degree of misery out there. There is no such tough love for bankers.


It is difficult to understand how anyone could expect anything else from a president who put people like Geithner and Summers in charge of economic policy. Yet, incredibly, Scheer writes:

Believe it or not, I fully expected this morning to write a cheerleading column hailing Geithner’s reversal of course. Surely the man who as head of the New York Fed sat idly by while the Wall Street giants he was supposed to be monitoring imploded would have learned the error of his ways. Otherwise why would Obama have appointed him?


Obama appointed him because he expected Geithner to continue the bailout policies of the Bush Administration, of course. Scheer seems to forget that it was Obama himself who was instrumental in getting the first bailout/giveaway bill passed, dramatically coming back to Washington to lobby and cajole reluctant Democrats into backing the Bush boondoggle.

This is not ancient history. It only happened a few months ago. It was on the front page of all the papers; it was even on the tee-vee. I'm sure Robert Scheer heard about it. Yet he is shocked that Obama is now going to continue -- and exacerbate -- the worst of Bush's fat-cat rescue plan, while, as Scheer notes, millions of ordinary people lose their jobs and homes.

Scheer ends on an ominous -- if completely impotent -- note:

If like me you still get those chatty e-mails from the Obama campaign, it is time to remind them that we voted for the caring community organizer from the streets of Chicago and not some hack carrying water for the predators of Wall Street.


Like a previous president from Illinois -- who turned a brief period of youthful rail-splitting into an enduring PR legend while he himself became a prosperous railroad lawyer -- it looks like Obama will feast on his liberal cred as a "caring community organizer" for years to come. But whatever he may have been in those distant callow days of youth, he ran for president quite openly as a "hack carrying water for the predators of Wall Street," as we noted here long ago, following up on the diligent reporting of many others. (Such as Pam Martens, Mike Whitney and Arthur Silber. For examples, see here, here, and here.)

As with the moves to cover up and continue the Bush-Cheney torture system, Obama's multitrillion-dollar giveaway to the rich might be "shocking" in the moral sense; but none of it should come as any surprise.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1699-shock-absorbers-progressives-stunned-by-obama-non-surprises.html

Did anyone catch the Congress asshole who got up and said -- in so many words no less -- that the Republicans needed to learn from the Taliban? I don't have the link presently but maybe there is some transparency in government afterall..


here you go, Kid

http://thinkprogress.org/2
009/02/05/sessions-gop-insurgency/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/05/sessions-gop-insurgency/)

Rep. Pete Sessions: Taliban is ‘a model’ for how GOP can become an ‘insurgency.’»

In an interview with Hotline, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) said the Republican party will have to be come an “insurgency” to counter Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and added that the Taliban can serve as “a model”:

http://sessions-pete.jpg“Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban,” Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. “And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes. And these Taliban — I’m not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that’s not what we’re saying. I’m saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with.” […]

When pressed to clarify, Sessions said he was not comparing the House Republican caucus to the Taliban, the Muslim fundamentalist group. “I simply said one can see that there’s a model out there for insurgency,” Sessions said before being interrupted by an aide.

Sessions made a similar analogy last week at the House Republicans’ retreat, saying that Republicans “need to get over the idea that they’re participating in legislation and ought to start thinking of themselves as ‘an insurgency’ instead.”

It's our movie star! Oh, wait, I meant president... on youtube with an update on how he's spending our money: http://www.recovery.gov

We'll have to check back occasionally and see whether they upgrade those tent cities.

Operation Uptick: Obama Launches Afghan Surge
Written by Chris Floyd

And so it begins: the great Obama "surge" in Afghanistan. Before withdrawing a single soldier from Iraq, Barack Obama is throwing 17,500 more troops into the boiling Afghan cauldron. The deployment is the first installment of what Obama aides affirm could be a much larger escalation down the road: as soon as the vaunted "strategic review" of Afghan policy – led by hawks like Joe Biden, Richard Holbrook and General David "Pre-President" Petraeus – is completed.

Most of the new troops are apparently going to be sent on a fool's errand to eradicate the only means of support of poor Afghans: the opium crop. Previous such efforts by American forces and their allies have produced nothing but more poverty, anger, extremism and support for the insurgency. And whatever the mission, increased troop levels and military action have led invariably to steep rises in civilian casualties – which, in turn, produce more poverty, anger, extremism and support for the insurgency.

In fact, on the very day that Obama was announcing his own personal Terror War surge, the UN released a report that confirmed the already obvious fact that the American-led occupiers of Afghanistan have been lying about the number of civilians they have been killing. The UN report documents the killing of 2,118 Afghan civilians in 2008 – 828 of them killed by the American-led forces. As Jason Ditz notes at Antiwar.com:

While getting exact numbers of deaths in Afghanistan is virtually impossible given the chaotic situation on the ground, particularly in the restive south, the report once again points to the absurdity of last month’s NATO report, which claimed only 973 civilians overall killed and only 97 by international forces.


The NATO number is absurd indeed, especially when one recalls that some 90 civilians, including at least 75 women and children, were killed in a single attack by an American gunship in the village of Azizabad last summer. [For more, see Atrocity in Azizabad: More Child Sacrifices on the Terror War Altar.]

There will of course be much more of this as the troop levels rise, especially more "close air support" for the increased number of ground forces undertaking more and more attacks. Even the witless, plagarizing, credit-card bagman that Obama put one heartbeat away from the presidency, Joe Biden, admits there will be what he calls – in the hideous argot of our bipartisan Beltway bloodletters – an "uptick" in the number of deaths. Naturally, he was referring only to an increase in American casualties; the Afghans who will also die in increasing numbers in the surge don't count, and aren't counted: 97, 150, 300, 828 – who gives a damn?

But while there is an understandable focus on the deployment and operations of regular U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the activities of America's secret armies working in the killing fields there remain virtually unnoticed. One of the few recent mentions is a curious interlude in the New York Times story about the UN report. Buried in the middle of the story is a report of a shocking war crime carried out by what the Times blithely calls U.S. "military units operating outside the normal chain of command." These irregular units, which include the Special Forces, are singled out as key killers of civilians in the UN report, which notes that they "frequently could not be held accountable for their actions."

Rogue forces operating outside any established chain of command, killing civilians and bowing to no outside authority: these are what the U.S. government would ordinarily define as "terrorists." Unless of course, these rogue forces are working for the United States government, either directly or indirectly: a common practice of American foreign policy for many decades.

In Afghanistan, these "Good War" rogues of Uncle Sam are apparently murdering infants, as the NYT somewhat shyly reports. Six paragraphs into the story, with no previous mention in the lede, no buildup, we are suddenly given this harrowing tale:

One day this month, an old man who called himself Syed Mohammed sat on the floor of his mud-brick hut in the eastern Kabul neighborhood of Hotkheil and recounted how most of his son’s family was wiped out in an American-led raid last September.

Mr. Mohammed said he was awakened in the early morning to the sound of gunfire and explosions. Such sounds were not uncommon; Hotkheil is a Pashtun-dominated area, where sympathies for the Taliban run strong.

In a flash, Mr. Mohammed said, several American and Afghan soldiers kicked open the door of his home. The Americans, he said, had beards, an almost certain sign that they belonged to a unit of the Special Forces, which permits uniformed soldiers to grow facial hair.

“Who are you?” Mr. Mohammed recalled asking the intruders.

“Shut up,” came the reply from one of the Afghan soldiers. “We are the government.”

Mr. Mohammed said he was taken to a nearby base, interrogated for several hours and let go as sunrise neared.

When he returned home, Mr. Mohammed said, he went next door to his son’s house, only to find that most of his family had been killed: the son, Nurallah, and his pregnant wife and two of his sons, Abdul Basit, age 1, and Mohammed, 2. Only Mr. Mohammed’s 4-year-old grandson, Zarqawi, survived.

“The soldiers had a right to search our house,” Mr. Mohammed said. “But they didn’t have a right to do this.”

Bullet holes still pockmarked Nurallah’s home more than four months after the attack, and the infant’s cradle still hung from the ceiling.

The day after the attack, a senior Afghan official came to the door and handed Mr. Mohammed $800.

“If you spent some time here, you would see that we are not the kind of people who would get involved with the Taliban,” Mr. Mohammed said. “Anyway, what was the fault of the babies?”


The fault of the babies, Mr. Mohammed, was to be born to people who do not matter, who do not count, who are just so much roadkill beneath the wheels of the great Terror War engine, as it grinds through one country after another: mindless, heedless, omnivorous. The machine has a new driver now, but it is still headed in the same direction.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1704-operation-uptick-obama-launches-afghan-surge.html

Obama’s mortgage plan aims to bolster the banks
By Tom Eley
20 February 2009

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama revealed portions of a plan that aims to stem the collapse of the US housing market. The Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan (HASP) is designed to provide a modicum of relief to homeowners while protecting the interests of the major financial institutions, mortgage lenders and mortgage securities investors who bear primary responsibility for the collapse of the housing market.

The plan will not lower the crippling debt homeowners owe the banks. It offers nothing to the hundreds of thousands of US households already foreclosed upon, and will not affect the vast majority of the approximately 12 million households already “underwater”—those who owe more on their loan than their house’s market value.

The collapse of the US housing market triggered the implosion of the credit bubble built up over previous decades. In 2007, the failure of the American subprime mortgage sector undermined the vastly inflated assets of the US banking system and that of much of Europe, sparking the crisis that spread from the financial industry to the broader US and global economy. Now the world economic crisis is rebounding back upon the American housing sector, accelerating foreclosures and driving down home prices. At least 1 million homes have been foreclosed on since 2006, and predictions on foreclosures for the next four years range between 5.9 million and 8 million.

The housing crisis has already impoverished significant sections of the population. Much of the wealth of working class and middle-class families is based on home ownership. In recent years, workers’ access to consumer credit, college tuition, and even major health procedures has been based on their ability to borrow against what were, until 2006, rising home values. US households have lost as much as $13 trillion in wealth from the housing and stock market crashes.

Details of HASP will be made public on March 4, but according to an outline released by the White House, it will depend on the voluntary participation of lenders, whom Obama hopes to induce into participation through generous incentives. The federal government will give banks thousands of dollars in subsidies in return for interest rate reductions on certain loans, with the aim of bringing monthly payments down to an affordable level. Mortgage lenders will also be paid annual service fees of $1,000 for each altered loan, among other enticements.

A second part of the program pertains to loans financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federally sponsored mortgage giants which together finance the majority of US home loans. This would permit interest rate refinancing for families whose outstanding debt has neared, or slightly exceeded, their home’s value—but not for families whose home value has fallen significantly below the principal they owe on their loan.

The immediate cost of the program will be $275 billion. For the $75 billion to be made available to private lenders, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) will provide $50 billion and Fannie and Freddie the other $25 billion. The Treasury Department will purchase $200 billion in preferred stock from Fannie and Freddie, up from a previously arranged commitment of $100 billion made in September after the two lenders went into federal receivership. The overall size of Fannie’s and Freddie’s loan portfolios will be allowed to expand by $50 billion to $900 billion each, liabilities for which the federal government will presumably be responsible.

Obama introduced the program in Mesa, Arizona, a state particularly hard-hit by the housing crisis. In a speech replete with references to the “the American dream” and the “middle class,” Obama said the aim was to help families “who have played by the rules and acted responsibly.”

Obama offered an assessment of the origins of the housing crisis that found homeowners equally culpable as banks and mortgage companies. According to Obama, “It was brought about by big banks that traded in risky mortgages in return for profits that were literally too good to be true; by lenders who knowingly took advantage of homebuyers; by homebuyers who knowingly borrowed too much from lenders; by speculators who gambled on rising prices; and by leaders in our nation’s capital who failed to act amidst a deepening crisis.”

But while Obama claimed that “banks and lenders must be held accountable for ending the practices that got us into this crisis in the first place,” his program does nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it offers rich new streams of revenue to compensate banks for their failed loans.

Obama signaled once again that the American people would ultimately be made to pay the cost of the housing and credit collapse. “Individuals must take responsibility for their own actions,” he declared. “And all of us must learn to live within our means again.”

While his administration hands out hundreds of billions to the banks, Obama is preparing unprecedented austerity measures for the working class. His reference to “living within our means” implies that for millions of workers, the possibility of owning a home will vanish.

The central obstacle to resolving the housing crisis, like the broader economic crisis, is not the fantasy of workers living beyond their means. Nor is it a technical “market” impediment resolvable by government programs. Standing in the way of a solution to the crisis is a failed socioeconomic system and a financial aristocracy that will brook no infringements on its wealth and prerogatives.

Every previous effort to address the housing crisis, no matter how modest, has been undermined by the resistance of the financial elite. For example, last year’s government-sponsored “Hope for Homeowners” program resulted in the modification, according to some calculations, of a grand total of 25 mortgages.

A number of commentators have expressed concerns over the limited character of HASP. That the plan will do little to help the majority of the 12 million American households who are underwater—a number that could increase to 16 million within a year—may well reduce it to “a rose-colored bit of incrementalism,” according to a New York Times analysis. If even a small proportion of this number chooses to “walk away” rather than continue to lose money to declining home prices, this would “force the administration to come up with a new, much larger housing bailout down the road,” the newspaper commented.

There is nothing in the plan to compel participation of banks, mortgage servicers or mortgage securities investors, other than a pledge by the administration to push for congressional action to allow bankruptcy judges latitude to change payment terms for embattled homeowners. Wall Street is bitterly opposed to such legislation.

In an analysis published February 12, BusinessWeek noted, “One reason foreclosures are so rampant is that banks and their advocates in Washington have delayed, diluted, and obstructed attempts to address the problem.” According to BusinessWeek, financial industry lobbyists “say they will fight to restrict the types of loans the bankruptcy proposal covers and new powers granted to judges… The industry strategy all along has been to buy time and thwart regulation, financial-services lobbyists tell BusinessWeek.”

Trends in refinancing also reveal the intransigence of the financial industry. The Wall Street Journal pointed out that recent efforts to refinance loans have, in more than half of all cases, resulted in higher or unchanged monthly payments. This is so because those most often needing refinancing have already fallen behind on payments. The banks add “past-due amounts—which can include principal, interest, taxes and insurance—driving monthly payments higher.”

As with all of the measu

res proposed in response to the economic crisis, including Obama’s stimulus plan and bank bailout scheme, the premise of his housing program is that nothing be done that touches on the basic interests of the financial elite. It makes no serious analysis of the roots of the housing crisis or the social interests that underlie the collapse, and consists of improvised half-measures.

Even so, the plan he announced on Wednesday is already eliciting protests from hedge funds and other big investors who reject any measures that could further devalue their mortgage-linked assets.

Most of the plan’s details have yet to be revealed, but there are suggestions that participating households will be made to eventually bear the cost of any interest rate modifications. According to the Wall Street Journal, the “plan may require that homeowners eventually pay back the difference between the original payment and the reduced rate. While borrowers would get a lower monthly payment, they would still technically owe a big additional payment at the end of their loan’s term.”

Speaking in Florida last week, Obama indicated that this would be the case. “The borrower is going to have to probably—if they get some assistance—agree to give up some equity once housing prices recover so that both sides are giving a little bit,” he said.

Underscoring the chasm between the design and scope of Obama’s plan and the dimensions of the housing crisis, the Commerce Department released a report hours before his Arizona speech pointing to a more rapid collapse in the housing market than had been previously anticipated. New home construction fell to its lowest level ever in January—declining 16.8 percent from December to an annualized rate of 466,000 homes. Building permits also hit a record low. MarketWatch described the data as “far below the weakest levels of construction in the post-World War II era.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/mort-f20.shtml

Obama’s housing plan and the American ruling class
21 February 2009

US President Barack Obama's Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan (HASP), announced Wednesday, will do little to alleviate the enormous financial pressures on working class families caused by plummeting home prices.

It does not reduce the outstanding debt, or principal, that homeowners owe the banks, which for millions of Americans now surpasses the value of their homes. Even in its modest stated aims—to reduce monthly mortgage loan payments for a portion of embattled homeowners—HASP will in most cases depend on the voluntary participation of private banks. It does nothing for the hundreds of thousands of renters thrown out onto the streets by evictions and foreclosures against their landlords.

While complete details of the plan for loan modifications from private banks will not be released until next month, it is already clear that there will be innumerable hurdles designed to make it very difficult for homeowners to qualify. Anyone who is deemed able to "afford" their present rates will not qualify. If a mortgage company decides that refinancing a loan will cost them more than sending the house into foreclosure, moreover, they will be free to deny refinancing.

The haphazard and ineffectual character of Obama's proposal for the housing crisis, like his stimulus bill, does not arise from mere technical deficiencies. Rather, it is conditioned by the demands of the financial elite that Obama represents, which will brook no limit—no matter how mild—to its power and prerogatives.

Thus, HASP—which the Obama administration crafted in close consultation with the banks—is loaded with measures designed to win the support of financiers and investors. For the financial elite, the bill sets aside the lion's share of a $75 billion appropriation. The banks will not be required to write down the values of vastly overpriced loans, much less relinquish control over the securities built up through the home lending industry.

The proposal on housing, moreover, is part of an overall plan being developed by the Obama administration to funnel trillions of dollars into the hands and accounts of the financial institutions and investors who precipitated the crisis.

The New York Times on Friday ran a front-page analysis of the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, which is set to hand over more than $1 trillion in low-cost loans to major hedge funds and other holders of debt-based securities. Securities investors in the credit card and auto loan markets, among others, will be able to borrow against as much as 95 percent of the face value of their overpriced securities, and would be liable for as little as 5 percent of any losses.

Commenting on the program, the Times noted that the administration would be "effectively subsidizing the profits of big private investment firms in the bond markets." TALF is part of the massive bank bailout proposal outlined by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner earlier this month.

Wall Street's varying reactions to HASP and TALF are revealing. In spite of the fact that HASP, like TALF, is tailored to appease the finance industry, it has been met with hostility from sections of the elite who view the program as a "bailout" for "irresponsible" homeowners. Of course, Wall Street offers no such protestation when it comes to the ongoing bailout of irresponsible and incompetent banking executives and investors to the tune of trillions.

A moment on CNBC, which has since been widely broadcast in the American media, graphically captured the perspective of the financial elite. An animatedly angry correspondent, Rick Santelli, denounced Obama's tepid mortgage reform from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. Speaking on behalf of the traders, Santelli yelled, "We really [don't] want to subsidize the losers' mortgages... and reward people that should carry the water instead of drink the water." Santelli continued, "This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" As he spoke, the traders cheered him on and interjected insults toward those facing foreclosure. America, indeed.

As it has been picked up in the media, the incident has been presented as an example of widespread popular opposition to the aiding homeowners. The ranting of the cable news commentator on a channel that functions as a mouthpiece for Wall Street, was the lead news item on NBC that evening. Santelli himself declared that the stock traders represented a "cross section of America." This places reality on its head. While the media sought to smother or downplay the enormous popular hatred for the bank bailouts, it is seeking to manufacture public opposition to aid for homeowners.

Such comments are part of an attempt to place the blame for the economic crisis on the supposedly profligate American consumer. This sentiment was in fact echoed by Obama himself, who spoke in his inaugural address of the "collective failure to make hard choices."

The crisis in the American housing market in fact represents the intersection of powerful objective processes that have been ripening for more than 30 years.

One has been the long-term erosion in the living standards of the working class. Since the 1970s, social inequality has increased and wages have stagnated, in spite of increased worker productivity. To counteract their declining social position, workers were compelled to seek out individualistic "coping mechanisms." They have labored for more hours at more jobs, wives and mothers have entered the workforce by the millions, and, most important, workers have increasingly relied upon credit to support consumer spending, tuition payments, cars, and even major health procedures.

This latter tendency, the turn toward credit debt, was promoted by American capitalism as a critical component in the financialization of the economy, a process set into motion by the historic decline of American capitalism in the latter half of the twentieth century. In the 1970s, American industry was weakened by powerful rivals in Japan and Germany, relentless downward pressures on the rate of profit, and a combative working class.

Financialization was the bourgeosie's response to these crises. A landmark in this development came in 1981, when Federal Reserve Chief Paul Volcker—currently a top economic advisor to Obama—introduced interest rate "shock therapy" to the economy. By laying waste to basic industry and creating mass unemployment, Volcker aimed to break the resistance of the working class. But the American bourgeoisie had also learned that enormous fortunes could be made through the transfer of social wealth from industry and the working class into various forms of financial speculation, including the manipulation of debt.

These interconnected processes came to a head in the collapse of the US housing market. In order to maintain themselves and their families, workers were compelled to build up ever greater levels of debt. The bubble in the housing market became the final means by which many workers offset declining living standards, leveraging their homes against rapidly rising values in order to make ends meet.

American banks, investors, real estate firms, mortgage companies and politicians relentlessly promoted this through sub-prime and other adjustable rate mortgages. The resulting loans were then sold, bundled, and resold, drawing the entire world financial system atop a profoundly unstable system. The process fueled a massive bubble in home prices.

New layers of billionaires and multi-millionaires were created on the basis of speculation in mortgage securities,

stocks, and various forms of derivatives. The American capitalist class as a whole was enriched beyond comprehension. In the process, a modern aristocracy consolidated its control over every aspect of official political, cultural and economic life.

The immediate cause of the economic crisis was the bursting of the bubble in the housing market, as growing numbers of impoverished workers could no longer afford their home loans. After the collapse of the housing market bubble, the exotic securities instruments built up on the basis of the housing market turned out to be scarcely worth the paper upon which they were printed. This spread through the entire financial system. It soon became clear that the incalculably large quantities of paper value built up in the stock market, the hedge funds, mortgage financing concerns, and the banks, represented claims on precious little of value.

The American financial aristocracy, however, will not politely acknowledge its culpability and allow for the amelioration of the conditions of the working masses the world over. With the breakdown of the mechanisms by which it defrauded the working class of vast social wealth, the capitalist class is ruthlessly utilizing its control over the state to seize for itself new resources at home and abroad.

Barack Obama, who was elected by appealing to a popular rejection of the Bush administration's economic and military policies, is the new political frontman for the financial aristocracy. His mortgage plan aims to lend the appearance of "change," but his overriding concern is the defense of finance capital.

The resolution of the housing crisis, like the larger economic crisis of which it is part and parcel, is not simply a technical matter. It is a class question. The working class must articulate and fight for its own program.

The massive resources accumulated by the ruling class through fraud and swindling must be recovered and placed under the democratic control of the working class. These resources should be deployed to meet pressing social needs, including the basic need for housing. Immediate relief must be provided to homeowners, including a massive reduction in home and other forms of debt owed by working people.

This can only be done on the basis of an independent and revolutionary political movement of the working class fighting for socialist policies, including the nationalization of the banks and large corporations under the democratic control of working people, in opposition to the ruling class, the Democratic and Republican parties, and the capitalist system that they defend.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/pers-f21.shtml

Obama Administratrion and Wall Street Predators Target “Entitlement Reform”
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
by BAR Managing Editor Bruce Dixo

http://www.blackagendareport.com/images/stories/126/i_want_yours.jpg


When the corporate media, Wall Street predators and their favorite politicians talk of "entitlement reform," they are not referring to their bonuses, or tax breaks, golden parachutes or consulting fees. They mean to "reform" your Social Security, your Medicaid, your Medicare, all of which they view as "fiscally irresponsible." When President Obama endorses a bipartisan summit on "fiscal responsibility" it's time to look out.

Obama and Wall Street Predators Target “Entitlement Reform”
by BAR Managing Editor Bruce Dixon

(This article was substantially modified the evening after its original publication.)

"Ominously, President Obama is talking about Medicare and Social Security in their language, as places where sacrifices will have to be made"

Not satisfied with its multi-trillion dollar raids on the US Treasury, predatory bankers and the Wall Street investor class have in sight their next target of opportunity. It's what their bipartisan pundits and politicians call "entitlement reform." It's what the rest of us call Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, and their "reform" is our ruin.

Wall Street is nothing if not bipartisan on this issue. The 2008 election marked a decisive shift in campaign contributions away from Republican presidential candidates and toward Democrats. Obama's economic A-Team is composed of former execs of firms like Goldman-Sachs that benefited most from the housing and dot com bubbles, and faces like those of Paul Volcker and Robert Rubin, who helped create it. But now that thieves have cleaned out the Treasury, they are ready to lecture us on "fiscal responsibility." The bailouts have blown a gaping hole in the federal budget, a hole that has to be made up for somewhere else.

Ominously, President Obama is talking about Medicare and Social Security in their language, as places where sacrifices will have to be made, and budgets will have to be cut for the sake of trimming the nation's multi-trillion dollar deficit. Words, in the worlds of politics and public policy mean everything, especially when they don't mean exactly what they say. Forty years ago public figures who opposed school desgregation wouild define themselves as being "against forced busing." Today's econimic reactionaries, whose aim is the repeal the last remnants of the Great Society and the New Deal, claim to stand for "entitlement reform."

Among the nation's top "entitlement reformers", and therefore leading contenders for the post of Health and Human Services secretary in the Obama administration is Tennessee'sPhil Bredesen, who as governor authored some of the most savage Medicaid cuts anywhere, depriving 170,000 adults and tens of thousands of children of access to medical care, condemning thousands to needless disabilities and early deaths, and their families to unnecessary impoverishment.

Since taking a chainsaw to Medicaid in Tennessee, Harvard alum Phil Bredesen has been hailed as a national model by the bipartisan champions of "entitlement reform." As President Obama's HHS Secretary he will have the power to unilaterally change rules and requirements for patients and providers across the board, and will be the presidential point-man for whatever the administration chooses to call "health care reform."

What kind of guy is Team Obama considering for HHS Secretary? While governor of Tennessee, Bredesen accepted $150,000 from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee to redecorate the governor's mansion. He has since told the Wall Street Journal that the voices of insurance companies and health care providers ought to be more important in the process of crafting a national health care plan than those of ordinary people. Only the willfully blind and foolish can suppose Team Obama are ignorant of Bredesen's record and views, or that they mean nothing because the president makes the policy. The fact that the White House has not ruled out Bredesen, even though late reports indicate that Kansas governor Kathleen Sibelus is also a strong contender, are serious warnings to all who would hear.

In the same vein, the Wall Street Journal reported Feb. 14 that President Obama has given his blessing to a group of congressional Blue Dogs who will convene a bipartisan February 23 "fiscal responsibility summit" that will produce non-amendable and filibuster-proof legislation to "fix" Medicaid, and possibly Social Security.

"The president met with 44 fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats this week and gave a nod to legislation that would set up commissions to deal with long-term deficit strains. The commissions would then present plans to Congress for an up-or-down vote.

"We feel like we've found a partner in the White House," said Rep. Charlie Melancon (D., La.), a Blue Dog co-chairman."

Rolling back Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare have been longstanding goals of America's bipartisan elite investor class, and these goals have always found supporters among "liberal" corporate Democrats. President Clinton too, convened a bipartisan commission headed by Democratic senator Daniel Monyhan to "fix" social security, but the fight to impeach him took all the air out of the room and left him unable, fortuantely, to pursue this agenda. Just as "only Nixon could go to China", only a popular Democrat, the political calculus goes, has a chance of putting through as enormous betrayal to his or her base as completing the repeals of the New Deal and the Great Society.

The Brookings Institution is a Democrat-leaning think tank every bit as loyal to the corporate agenda as the right wing Heritage Foundation, but a resting place for Democratic policymakers temporarily out of government. The definitive "liberal" plan for "fixing" Social Security is a Brookings Institution document from 2003 titled "Saving Social Security: The Diamond-Orzag Plan. The good people at FireDogLake.com have offered the following excerpt therefrom, along with a link to the original.

"Since Painful Choices Must Be Made, a Key Question Is, Which Ones?

"The Social Security deficit can be eliminated only through different combinations of politically painful choices: tax increases and benefit reductions. Unfortunately, too many analysts and politicians have ignored this reality, responding to the painful alternatives by embracing "free lunch" approaches.

"Our plan makes the painful choices that are necessary—selecting a combination of benefit and revenue changes to restore long-term balance. In doing so, it focuses on three areas which contribute to the actuarial imbalance: improvements in life expectancy, increases in earnings inequality, and the burden of the legacy debt from Social Security’s early history.

"Workers who are 55 or older will experience no change in their benefits from those scheduled under current law. For younger workers with average earnings, our proposal involves a gradual reduction in benefits from those scheduled under current law. For example, the reduction in benefits for a 45-year old average earner is less than 1 percent; for a 35-year-old, less than 5 percent; and for a 25-year-old, less than 9 percent. Reductions are smaller for lower earners, a

nd larger for higher ones."

In keeping with the need to present this initiative, when it becomes public, as a howling emergency requiring immediate passage, details are impossible to come by yet. But one thing is for sure - all the economists on this "summit," all the politicians and other talking heads agree that "long term deficit strains" mean your entitlements, not those of the investor class --- Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. The economists who will be consulted by the "fiscal responsibility summit" will be all those who confused the debt creation of the housing bubble with "wealth creation," who predicted it would last forever, and who solemnly assured us that handing over a trillion or three, no strings attached, to Wall Street predators for their yearly bonuses would "rescue" and restart the economy.

Economists who predicted the bubble and the bailout, like Michael Hudson, Dean Baker, Paul Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and John Galbraith will not be invited, consulted or even quoted in the rooms where the Obama-endorsed bipartisan fiscal responsibility summit convenes. Those kind of economists have been effectively banned from the corporate media, exiled to spaces where their voices are not heard by most of the public, and blacklisted by the Obama administration, which prefers to get its economic advice from the same crew that gave us the bubble and its aftermath, and profited massively from both.

There are also whispers that the discredited former congressman Harold Ford may be in line for an administration appointment, perhaps for Secretary of Commerce or some lesser position. Since leaving Congress, Ford has a cushy job as a VP at Merrill Lynch. Within weeks of receiving billions in federal bailout money via a Bank of America buyout, Merrill Lynch paid out $800 million in bonuses, $696 million of it to its top 100 employees. Ford was doubtless one of those instant millionaires.

The idea that the man who once claimed his black grandmother was white to get a few extra votes, and who offered himself to Bush as a swing vote to privatize Social Security has anything to offer an Obama administration ought to be laughed out of any unpadded room. But after appointing a bloodstained Reaganite war criminal to head the Pentagon, with defense lobbyist William Lynn as his assistant, after Obama's CIA chief affirmed the administration's intention to continue cross-border kidnappings (called "extraordinary renditions") to hand victims over to torturers, and its lawyers blocked the attempts of torture and kidnap victims to seek redress in the courts because of state secrecy, the same grounds cited by the Bush Justice Department -- after all these things, and after the administration's defiance of the majority of US public opinion on investigating the crimes of the Bush era, nobody is laughing.

The newly confirmed deputy chief at the Pentagon was that agency's chief financial officer for most of the 1990s, when an estimated two or three trillion simply vanished without a trace. So don't expect the "fiscal responsibility" summit to even look in that direction. As the Obama administration and its rapacious economic advisors turn their attention from Wall Street giveaways to lecturing the nation on "fiscal responsibility," it's time to beware.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1031&Itemid=1

http://www.plu.edu/~seppibj/img/sacrifice.jpg

Despite rhetoric, Obama continues Bush policy on detainees: Indefinite detention, no legal rights
John Byrne
Published: Saturday February 21, 2009


Bagram airbase flies under the radar but will continue to operate without US law
In a stunning departure from his rhetoric on Guantánamo Bay prison, President Barack Obama signaled Friday he will continue Bush Administration policy with regard to detainees held at a US airbase in Afghanistan, saying they have no right to challenge their detentions in US courts -- and denying them legal status altogether.

"This Court’s Order of January 22, 2009 invited the Government to inform the Court by February 20, 2009, whether it intends to refine its position on whether the Court has jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by detainees held at the United States military base in Bagram, Afghanistan," Acting Assistant Obama Attorney General Michael Hertz wrote in a brief filed Friday. "Having considered the matter, the Government adheres to its previously articulated position."

The move seems to be a reversal from Obama's much-trumpeted announcement to close the US prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba in January, in which he promised to return the United States to the "moral high ground" and "restore the standards of due process"

The US Supreme Court previously ruled that it was unconstitutional to hold detainees at Guantánamo Bay without giving them access to US courts. Following that ruling, more than 200 detainees filed suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Obama Administration announcement would appear to fly in the face of that ruling. The Court, while often supportive of previous Bush Administration terror policies, has strongly resisted efforts to curb its role in the legal aspect of US detention systems.

Bagram prison, where approximately 600 detainees are being held without charge or even term limits on their stay, is located about 30 miles north of Kabul in a coverted Soviet Union base. The US is mulling a $60 million plan to expand the facility, which would double its current size.

It's been closed to journalists and human rights activists, but open to lawyers. The lawyers, however, apparently have no recourse for their potential clients.

Bagram has added more than 100 prisoners since 2005, giving it a population more than double that of the current Guantánamo Bay (245).

It's uncertain whether the Supreme Court would uphold Obama's position. In the Guantanamo case, "the Court deemed the Bush administration's system for determining whether to continue holding detainees -- akin to a parole board -- was an inadequate substitute for habeas relief," Legal Times wrote Friday. "The Court also recognized that the United States exercised de facto sovereignty over the base, placing Guantánamo within its jurisdiction.

But "the Court did not address Bagram, but said in some circumstances noncitizens being held in territories under U.S. control may have limited constitutional rights," Legal Times added.

"Yesterday's announcement that the Obama administration has not even considered departing from the very same unjust and inhumane policies of his predecessor, is an ominous sign that human rights and the rule of law are simply not a priority of this administration," the International Justice Network, who is counsel in all the cases under review, said to Raw Story in a statement. "We expected more from this President when he promised that we would not trade our fundamental values for false promises of security. Unless there is a serious reconsideration of this issue at the highest levels of the Obama government, America will not be able to put this dark chapter of our history behind us."

Another detainee lawyer also bemoaned the filing.

"The decision by the Obama Administration to adhere to a position that has contributed to making our country a pariah around the world for its flagrant disregard of people’s human rights is deeply disappointing," the International Rights Clinic's Barbara Olshansky, who represents three Bagram detainees, told the paper. "We are trying to remain hopeful that the message being conveyed is that the new administration is still working on its position regarding the applicability of the laws of war -- the Geneva Conventions -- and international human rights treaties that apply to everyone in detention there."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_continues_Bush_policy_at_Afghan_0221.html

State Secrets and Deceit: Obama Embraces CIA Torture

by Tom Burghardt

Global Research, February 13, 2009

As predictably as night follows day, the Obama regime defended the CIA's practice of "extraordinary rendition" (kidnapping) of suspected "terrorists" to third countries where they are subject to "enhanced interrogation" (torture) by allied security services.

Binyam Mohamed and four other victims have charged that they were brutalized after being "disappeared" by CIA operatives and secretly flown to Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan and eastern European CIA "black sites."

On Monday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas N. Letter argued before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that the "change" administration would press ahead with the Bush regime's odious invocation of the state secrets privilege to suppress a lawsuit brought by torture victims against Boeing subsidiary, San Jose, California-based Jeppesen DataPlan.

In a thinly-veiled threat to the Ninth Circuit, Letter told the Court according to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Judges shouldn't play with fire."

Claiming that allowing the suit to go forward would irreparably harm "national security," Letter argued that once they examine the government's classified evidence "you will see that this case cannot be litigated."

In a truly Orwellian twist that further compromises American credibility and the Obama administration, The Guardian reported February 11 that "US defence officials are preventing Barack Obama from seeing evidence that a former British resident held in Guantánamo Bay has been tortured."

Clive Stafford Smith, the director of the legal charity Reprieve, which represents Ethiopian-born Binyam Mohamed, sent Obama evidence of what he called "truly mediaeval" abuse but substantial parts were blanked out so the president could not read it.

In the letter to the president, Stafford Smith urges him to order the disclosure of the evidence.

Stafford Smith tells Obama he should be aware of the "bizarre reality" of the situation. "You, as commander in chief, are being denied access to material that would help prove that crimes have been committed by US personnel. This decision is being made by the very people who you command." (Richard Norton-Taylor and Ian Cobain, "Binyam Mohamed torture evidence 'hidden from Obama'," The Guardian, February 11, 2009)


The censoring of Stafford Smith's evidential letter by U.S. defense officials might have been done, according to The Guardian "to protect the president from criminal liability or political embarrassment." In any event it now appears Obama, by casting his lot with war criminals, kidnappers and torturers has every reason to be concerned with his own criminal liability.

These latest revelations follow on the heels of repeated threats by "U.S. intelligence officials" that they would "stop sharing intelligence" with the UK if evidence relating to Mohamed's torture were disclosed. Indeed, Mohamed's U.S.-appointed military lawyer, Lieutenant Colonel Yvonne Bradley, told a news conference on February 10 that Mohamed's treatment "would make waterboarding seem like child's play."

At Monday's hearing in San Francisco The New York Times reports, undercutting arguments that the president is "distracted" by the economic meltdown, that when asked by Judge Mary M. Schroeder, "Is there anything material that has happened" in a sly reference to Obama's November election, Letter replied, "No, your honor."

Judge Schroeder asked, "The change in administration has no bearing?"

Once more, he said, "No, Your Honor." The position he was taking in court on behalf of the government had been "thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration," and "these are the authorized positions," he said. (John Schwartz, "Obama Backs Off a Reversal on Secrets," The New York Times, February 10, 2009)


And indeed they are, demonstrating once again the continuity--and consensus--amongst ruling class elites when its comes to the defense of repressive national security policies. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director said:

Eric Holder's Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again. ("Justice Department Stands Behind Bush Secrecy in Extraordinary Rendition Case," American Civil Liberties Union, Press Release, February 9, 2009)


As ACLU staff attorney Ben Wizner, who argued the case for the plaintiffs, told Glenn Greenwald about Jeppesen DataPlan's role in the CIA's "rendition" program:

They were essentially the CIA's torture travel agents. They were the one who arranged all the overflight rights for the CIA civilian planes to be able to fly from country to country. They handled the security and the logistics. They filed dummy flight plans to try to trick air traffic controllers into not being able to track where the actual flights were going. And we know they knew what they were doing because we have a witness in our case, someone who's given us a sworn declaration, who was an employee of Jeppesen DataPlan, and who was present when senior officials of the company were openly boasting about their role in the torture flights, and about how much money they made from them because the CIA spared no expense.

We were able, with the help of an investigative journalist and other documentary evidence, to link Jeppesen to an number of very specific CIA rendition flights, involving these five torture victims who were flown to countries like Egypt, Morocco, to CIA sites in Afghanistan and eastern Europe. ("ACLU's Ben Wizner on immediate Obama tests," Salon, January 30, 2009)


That Jeppesen employee, Sean Belcher, a technical writer hired by the firm in 2006, told the San Francisco Chronicle,

...he attended a breakfast for new employees on Aug. 11, 2006, and heard a welcoming speech from Bob Overby, a company director. While describing Jeppesen's work, Belcher said, Overby told the employees, "We do all the extraordinary rendition flights." Later, he said, Overby added that these were "the torture flights," and explained, "Let's face it, some of these flights end up this way."

Belcher also quoted Overby as saying that the flights paid well and that the government spared no expense. Belcher said he quit his job five days later. (Bob Egelko, "Ex-San Jose aviation firm worker says exec talked of torture flights," San Francisco Chronicle, December 15, 2007)


As the CIA's booking agent, Jeppesen worked with tiny charter airlines that were no more than CIA corporate cut-outs. As investigative journalists Trevor Paglen and A. C. Tho

mpson documented,

A curious quirk of the CIA's fleet of aircraft is that they are civilian, rather than military, planes. Owing to U.S. law and the CIA's status as a civilian agency, the planes are owned by front-companies and operated by a handful of aviation charter companies. One of the consequence of this is that each of these civilian companies leave a long and voluminous paper trail...

As we look more closely at the corporate documents and aviation filings we've gotten hold of, a landscape begins to emerge. This particular landscape isn't "over there," on the many battlefields of the "war on terror." Rather, the landscape we see depicted in these documents is stealthily and subtly woven into the fabric of everyday life in the United States. (Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights, Hoboken, NJ: Melville House Publishing, 2006, pp. 45-46)


Indeed, once the charter companies were selected by the CIA, Jeppesen handled the logistical and navigational details, designed flight plans, obtained flight clearance to fly over other countries, ground-crew arrangements, even hotel reservations for the pilots and the other facilitators of human rights abuse. As Boeing says on its website, "From Aachen to Zhengzhou, King Airs to 747s, Jeppesen has done it all." And Jeppesen DataPlan, in an Orwellian burst of chutzpah, declared:

Trust. The key ingredient in any International Trip Planning relationship. Just like the trust pilots place in Jeppesen's Worldwide Instrument Charting, you can count on caring, professional people who work with you personally to ensure your needs are met.


How precisely were Binyam Mohamed's "needs" met? According to the complaint filed in 2007 by the ACLU, after being abducted in Pakistan the Ethiopian national was secretly flown to Morocco. Once there,

Mr. Mohamed was subjected to severe physical and psychological torture. He was routinely beaten, suffering broken bones and, on occasion, loss of consciousness due to the beatings. His clothes were cut off with a scalpel and the same scalpel was then used to make incisions on his body, including his penis. A hot stinging liquid was then poured into open wounds on his penis where he had been cut. He was frequently threatened with rape, electrocution, and death.

Mr. Mohamed was handcuffed, fitted with earphones, and forced to listen to extremely loud music day and night, sometimes interrupting his sleep for forty-eight hours at a time. He was placed in a damp, moldy room with open sewage for a month at a time. He believed his food to be drugged, but when he refused to eat he was forcibly hooked up to two different IVs. These IVs alternated pumping different substances into his body, the combination of which forced him to undergo painful withdrawal symptoms. (IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, Division of San Jose; BINYAM MOHAMED, ABOU ELKASSIM BRITEL, AHMED AGIZA, Plaintiffs, v. JEPPESEN DATAPLAN, INC., Civil Action No. 2798, COMPLAINT, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, p. 18)


And what of Jeppesen's collusive behavior with the CIA? The complaint avers,

In return for undisclosed fees, Jeppesen has played a critical role in the successful implementation of the extraordinary rendition program. It has furnished essential flight and logistical support to aircraft used by the CIA to transfer terror suspects to secret detention and interrogation facilities in countries such as Morocco and Egypt where, according to the U.S. Department of State, the use of torture is "routine," as well as to U.S.-run detention facilities overseas, where the United States government maintains that the safeguards of U.S. law do not apply. ...

In providing its services to the CIA, Jeppesen knew or reasonably should have known that Plaintiffs would be subjected to forced disappearance, detention, and torture in countries where such practices are routine. Indeed, according to published reports, Jeppesen had actual knowledge of the consequences of its activities. (Complaint, op. cit., pp. 3-4)


As long time readers of Antifascist Calling are well aware, once Jeppesen DataPlan had "done it all" to deliver Mohamed into the hands of his torturers in Morocco, he was subsequently "rendered" to Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan and then on to Guantánamo where he was subjected to the full panoply of behavior modification techniques that evolved from the CIA's MKULTRA "mind control" program of the 1950s-1970s.

Reporting last September, I documented how CIA and U.S. military psychologists, under the ever-vigilant tutelage of contractors Drs. Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell, did the heavy-lifting to tailor a regime of psychological assault on prisoners under the control of the CIA and the Pentagon.

Drawing their "inspiration" from torture manuals written decades apart, the CIA's "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation," Military Intelligence's "Human Resource Exploitation Manual-1983," and "reversed-engineered" techniques culled from the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape program known as SERE, interrogators implemented a repulsive torture regime under orders from the highest levels of the Bush administration, as ABC News revealed last April.

The "refined" methods described in KUBARK and HRE included: forced drugging, hooding, sexual humiliation, extended sensory deprivation, prolonged interrogation, environmental and dietary manipulation, beatings, stress positions and other methods of "self-inflicted pain." CIA officers and their Military Intelligence doppelgängers, at the urging of White House masters, systematically committed war crimes on defenseless prisoners in their custody. These are the closely-guarded state secrets the Obama regime seeks to conceal.

Currently incarcerated at the Guantánamo Bay torture facility and gravely ill due to a prolonged hunger strike the U.S. government is preparing to release Mohamed, having failed to produce a shred of evidence linking him to any "terrorist" activity whatsoever.

The kid-gloves approach to a Boeing subsidiary shouldn't surprise anyone. According to Washington Technology, Boeing clocked-in at number two on their "Top 100" list of "prime government contractors," pulling down some $9,706,621,413 in state largess.

A major corporate grifter, for decades Boeing has feathered its nest (and that of its well-paid executives) by feeding at the trough of taxpayer-financed handouts. According to The Seattle Times, CEO James McNerney "earned" some $19 million in total compensation in 2007.

However, Boeing's shady dealings have also resulted in huge fines for corporate malfeasance. As the Project on Government Oversight's Federal Contractor Misconduct Database documents, since 1995 Boeing has paid some $1.6 billion in fines to the federal government, private citizens, states and counties in judgments levied against the defense giant.

According to POGO, these range from Arms Export Control violations, defective pricing, discriminatory practices against employees, the manufacturing of defective parts, Anti-Trust Law violations and the illegal discharge of radioactive and toxic chemical waste into the environment. Sounds like business as usual to me!

"Less than three weeks after the inauguration," as the World Socialist Web Site points out, "it is becoming ever more apparent that the new administration has been brought into office to defend the same social and class interests as the previous one, is utilizing similar methods and relying on the same personnel within the national security apparatus responsible for the crim

inal activities of the past eight years."

And with a "reconfigured" National Security Council on the horizon according to The Washington Post, one endowed with ever-more sweeping powers to set "strategy across a wide spectrum of international and domestic issues," who pray tell will be heading up those efforts? Why none other than John O. Brennan, of course!

Obama's first choice to head the CIA, Brennan has a dual role within the administration: as NSC Director James L. Jones' top adviser and as the president's resident counterterrorism and homeland security "expert."

As I reported shortly after the election in November, Brennan was a former president and CEO of The Analysis Corporation (TAC). During the 1990s, TAC developed the government's first terrorist database and in 2003 it morphed into the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE)--the "watch list people"--managed by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) which Brennan directed for three years. How convenient!

However, Obama was forced to remove Brennan from consideration as CIA Director when it was revealed he was a leading advocate of the extraordinary rendition program and a staunch defender of the Company's "enhanced coercive interrogation techniques," the focus of the ACLU's lawsuit on behalf of Binyam Mohamed and other "war on terror" casualties.

In seeking to deny the victims their day in court, the Obama administration takes full possession of Bushist savagery. Now how's that for a dirty little (state) secret!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12280

"I'm pleased to announce that this morning the Treasury Department began directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from paychecks, meaning that by April 1st, a typical family will begin taking home at least $65 more every month," Obama said in his weekly radio address.