Obama — Worse than Bush

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has made clear that he plans to fight any cuts to the Pentagon budget tooth and nail. We have every reason to believe Obama holds similar, even identical, views. As Glenn Greenwald has noted, this sets up a near-guaranteed gutting of American social programs if the so-called "Super Congress" has any teeth. Republicans will oppose any cuts to defense. Obama has pushed for cuts to social programs already. Now he makes clear his commitment to monstrous military extravagance. Panetta has gone so far as to assert that any possible cuts "would do real damage to our security, our troops and their families, and our military's ability to protect the nation."

The Orwellian doublethink in Panetta and the Pentagon's assertions is something to behold. Note that the Pentagon is also angling for more money on the grounds that there are new security threats in the form of climate change, among other things. This hopelessly expansive, all-encompassing, "everything is a national security issue" thinking will will swell to include economic issues. Indeed, it already has, as seen in much of the hysterical rhetoric about China.

Paul Krugman noted, again, the other day that the US is looking more and more like a banana republic. One of the features of those failed states is massive numbers of citizens working for the military. Going into the military in many of these countries was the equivalent of going into business in western Europe or North America.

Have Democrats settled on the military as the only social program Republicans will support? Or is Obama just as spinelessly militant as Joseph Lieberman and war-hungry Republicans?

The US patted itself on the back over the success of its strategy of forcing the Soviet Union to spend itself into oblivion on 'defense.' On the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter, "We have given the Soviets their Vietnam."

The US is now doing the same . . . to itself.

Question: What Is the Biggest Problem with American Democracy?

This has been answered very nicely by Paul Krugman, Michael Kinsley, James K. Galbraith and many others on the liberal and progressive end of the spectrum. The US is already a de facto oligarchy. Clinton, Bush and now Obama have worked diligently to formalize American Oligarchy, with the unalloyed support of Wall Street and a huge percentage of corporate boards, Democrats, Republicans and American super-rich.

I emphasize that this issue has been expressly raised by many who are far less left-leaning than I am.

It's a possibly-encouraging feature of American democracy that some who could easily ride the wave among fellow oligarchs are vocally opposed to the decline (among them, George Soros).

By contrast, a deeply discouraging feature is the absolute failure of the vast majority of American journalists to do anything even remotely resembling the work they assert they do. Here is London Times editor Robert Lowe in 1851:

The first duty of the press is to obtain the earliest and most correct intelligence of the events of the time, and instantly, by disclosing them, to make them the common property of the nation... The Press lives by disclosures... For us, with whom publicity and truth are the air and light of existence, there can be no greater disgrace than to recoil from the frank and accurate disclosure of facts as they are. We are bound to tell the truth as we find it, without fear of consequences – to lend no convenient shelter to acts of injustice and oppression, but to consign them at once to the judgment of the world.

Similar thoughts have been voiced by H. L. Mencken, Mark Twain, Studs Terkel, and others. But today, we hear prominent members of the American news establishment explicitly reject this journalistic duty. The torrent of condemnation of and vile misreporting on Julian Assange is a perfect example of this (by, among others, the New York Times, including 'star reporter' John Burns).

Equally discouraging is the deeply delusional state of the American people. Economist Ken Rogoff was recently on Charlie Rose (Rose usually dismally middle-of-the-road to conservative). In response to a question on why Americans support the Republican campaign to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires, Rogoff — absolutely on-target — said something to the effect, "Because everyone expects to be rich." I've heard this on the street myself — people with no prospects of any kind asserting with total confidence that they are going to win the lottery. I heard this twenty years ago in Massachusetts when it was reported, during widespread opposition to a modest tax increase proposal, that many lottery ticket buyers spent more on the lottery each year than they paid in their state taxes. (Dollar for dollar, which do you think returned more value to them? Hint: Expected gain on a one dollar lottery ticket is less than a penny.)

The US may very well have the most ill-informed, poorly-educated, deluded population of any country on Earth. (But China seems determined to best us on that count.)

Will War's Idolaters Ever Just Shut the Fuck Up?

Martin Bright in the Spectator

Incidentally, I now think the invasion was indeed an error: carried out at the wrong time, by the wrong coalition for the wrong reasons. But where I do agree with the “decents” is that those who opposed intervention in 2002/3 were arguing for the murderous Baathist regime to stay in power. This should remain on their conscience just as the murderous consequences of the invasion are on the conscience of those who supported the war.

(via Chris Bertram at Crooked Timber, via comments at Aaronovitch Watch)

Martin Bright's assertion that those who argued against the war were arguing for preservation of the Baathist regime is simply idiotic. False logic, false dichotomy.

First, it is patently obvious that the intent of the two sides was different, and the difference is essential. The pro-war brigade intended that the 'coalition' go to war. (I'm tempted to say they wanted a war. That might be unfair, though not in the case of the Dick Cheneys. It both fair and accurate that a significant portion of them wanted to see Arabs killed. Whether Martin Bright is among those genocidal racists I do not know. Daniel Pipes, Ann Coulter and their ilk certainly are.)

The anti-war activists expressly (1) advocated other techniques for achieving 'regime change (if that really was the goal of war's advocates — it wasn't), or (2) argued against war on the grounds that the consequences of war would be disastrous (which has proven true), or (3) argued that Bush & Co had not only failed to make their case but had likely misrepresented the facts (at best) or lied outright (which has also proven true). This is by no means an exhaustive list of the arguments against the war. The second argument is unambiguously one of accepting the lesser of two evils — by no stretch of the imagination an argument for the continuation of the lesser evil.

Let's take an example from ethics and popular entertainment. A person is threatened with the murder of her child if she does not surrender secret X — the nuclear launch codes that will enable terrorists to kill vast numbers. Any of us can easily imagine the person herself desperately arguing that she cannot surrender the codes. I do not imagine many, if any, saying that she is arguing for the murder of her child even though a consequence of her following the line of her own argument will be the child's death. You might as well suggest that, because she won't surrender the codes, she is killing her child. And of course, the weak-minded right-wing did indeed take this line of un-reasoning from 2001 on — that those not "with us" were "against us," those against the war were for terrorists. Utter nonsense, bordering on actionable libel.

WTF! Papa Dub Votes for More Bushes!

Turkey knows one when he sees one.

In the midst of the awful events in the Middle East, the growing economic cluster-fuck, and the total annihilation of Earth's environment, we do have to maintain a sense of humor.

Papa Dub George H. W. Bush, 41st President of the United States and now 84 years old, is setting an example:

"I'd like to see him run. I'd like to see him be president some day," said Papa Dub of his son Jeb.

We the People have some bad news for you, Papa Dub: Baby Dub pretty much shot the whole Bush family wad for the next thousand years — assuming there are still any humans 1,000 years from now, after WALT — the War on All Living Things.

I figure it'll be at least 200 years before anybody with the name Bush can even get elected dog catcher (though in New York State, they could probably get elected to the state legislature or governor).

Papa Dub also had some choice words regarding Baby Dub:

"The fact that everything that's a problem in this country should be put on his shoulders, that's not fair.

"He ran a clean operation, having kept this country strong and free after unprecedented in history attack, 9/11, and he'll have a lot to be proud of . . . . He'll come home with his head high."

And his tail between his legs.

And then he'll get his orange outfit for his life term in a super max prison for crimes against humanity.

And I for one do not blame Baby Dub for everything that's wrong in this country. The laundry in my building just plain sucks . . . nothing to do with Baby Dub. (But I know if Al Gore had been prez, we'd have some kind of newfangled, Gore-invented, laundry-washing-and-folding robot by now, dammit.)

Bush Ducks Thrown Shoes in Baghdad

The Economic Rapture: Chapter III — Give Citigroup Something For Nothing

This is the Economic Rapture. The faithful are being called up to economic Heaven. The rest of us poor saps will rot in everlasting damnation.

On Friday, November 21st, Citigroup stock closed at less than $4 per share.

Today, the US government announced that it would effectively guarantee Citigroup a per share price of about $10.

Wow! The government won't guarantee American workers a wage of $8 per hour. As of July 2009, if you have a job, you must be paid $7.25 per hour. If you work 40 hours per week, or 1080 hours per year, $7,830 per year.

But the government does not guarantee you a job! The government gives you a very modest amount for a limited time if and only if you qualify for unemployment. You may also qualify for food stamps and for housing. So the government may help you achieve mere survival if you qualify.

And for years now, the Official Dogma has been to tighten qualifications on the thesis that doing so — instituting a stick approach — will get people moving, will force us lazy-ass Americans to find work. (Never mind that they may just not be work.)

What is the qualification for a bloated financial institution getting federal assistance? Fucking up! The bigger Citigroup or Goldman Sachs or AIG fucked up, the more money the government gives them — exactly the opposite of the line they take with us.

What's the difference? Well, friends of feds run those institutions. Buddies who went to Harvard, Yale, Chicago. Friends from college, business school. Friends who were colleagues at Goldman or Citi.

This past weekend, guru Robert Rubin was busy meeting with federal officials. Current Citi head was meeting.

When was the last time any Bush figure — or for that matter, any Obama figure — met with a labor leader?

For months I have been saying that this is an economic downturn with an essential difference — the wealthiest Americans, the creditors, the Rentier class — is at risk. In past downturns, when regular folks — you and me — were at risk, who cared? "Let us eat cake."

But Bush and Paulson, or Obama and Geithner, can't let their peers suffer. And make no mistake, even if Obama came up from nothing, he ain't there any more. Stop kidding yourselves, folks. Check out who Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner hang out with. It ain't production line workers.

If the automanufactures get a bailout from Obama, will they be required to refrain from laying off workers? Will they be required to keep jobs in the US?

No requirement has yet been imposed on financial institutions to loan to regular debtors. The British did impose such a requirement, so it can be done. But not in the US.

This will come back to haunt them. Even if We the People don't wake up, as we did in the lead-up to the first round of bailouts (before the media and the elite closed ranks), we must be able to buy stuff.

Bush may have sounded like the craven idiot he is when, after 9/11, he urged us to go out and buy stuff. BUT all he was doing was saying what the Wall Street brigade was thinking. Now they are saying it more explicitly. That's the whole damn point of (supposedly) injecting 'liquidity' into the economy.

But if it doesn't work, and we lose our ability even to buy the food and water we need to live, somebody wiser than our leaders will step in. Watch for China, or some other Asian giant, to formulate its version of the Marshall Plan . . . for us. At the moment, we are still the world's leading buyers, consumers, wasters.

Of course, we needn't be. The US comprises less than 5% of the Earth's human population. Five percent can go by the board with the world's economy still doing quite well. After all, for decades here in the US, 3% or 4% unemployment has been called "full employment". (How's that for Newspeak?)

So if China, India, Korea and others can find other, more flexible recipients of aid, perhaps they'll give up on the US.

_______________
AN ASIDE

Monday, November 24, Citigroup saw its stock soar, increasing in value by almost 60%. How many of the insiders, do you suppose, took advantage of their advance knowledge? In the chaos of the Rapture, given the Bush hostility to regulation and oversight (as opposed to just plain spying on just plain folks), how much inspection will there be of trades by the Rubins or Geithners or Paulsons?

Bush Defends Capitalism

Based on our experience of Bush — the Iraq atrocity, the 2000 constitutional coup, the credit pyramid scheme — a W endorsement of Capitalism or the 'Free Market' should be more than sufficient to tell us that Capitalism is a con.

But this is also the United States of Perpetual Faith. So the very 'experts' who assured us that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq are still relied upon for 'analysis' of foreign policy. The very 'experts' who manufactured the Credit Pyramid Scheme (Robert Rubin, Henry Paulson, Goldman Sachs, etc.) are now relied upon to solve the disaster of their own making.

So none see any contradiction in (1) proclaiming the glories of our 'Free Market' system, (2) demanding a broad public rescue of incompetent, corrupt billionaires, and (3) demanding that 'free trade' remain unrestricted.


The Great President, while admitting capitalism's lack of perfection, asserted that "by far the most efficient and just way of structuring an economy". Really? To ram down the throats of millions a bill for trillions so that an handful of billionaires can remain billionaires? Talk about taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Is there any precedent in human history for so great a theft from the common folk for the benefit of the elite?

And all under the pretense that the many can only be saved by first saving the few. The irony of this last point is that capitalism does indeed grant priority to the capitalists — the owners, the wealthy — precisely because those few control the business decision-making upon which the rest of us are dependent. But so corrupt is our system that this is true only in principle. We are now seeing the bailout diverted to mergers and acquisitions, bonuses, stockholder bribes. Unemployment skyrockets, wages drop, benefits vanish, retirement accounts evaporate, and to these common disasters the market responds with enthusiasm, as it has for years.

People are now optimistically awaiting an Obama administration that is turning to the same corrupt charlatans that Bush has turned to. The most marked difference to date being an Obama willingness to bail out automobile manufacturers. This on its face might seem like a more honest effort to help workers, but there is a test in this strategy. Will an Obama bailout of Ford, GM and Chrysler include any protections for workers. Or will we see the carmakers instantly take the opportunity to layoff exactly the people they claim to be defending with their calls for assistance?

American Injustice

The Bush Department of Injustice has declared that seventeen Chinese prisoners at Guantanamo may be held there for the rest of their lives, though they have never been charged with any crime in the seven years they have been held.

This could be an early test for the next administration. The men, ethnic Uighurs (an oppressed Muslim people of western China), were captured by Pakistani troops in Afghanistan in 2001 and handed off to the US. (Afghanistan borders western China.)

A federal judge has ruled they should be freed, but the Bush regime has blocked their release.

At every turn, the Bush brigade has trampled their rights under domestic and international law. To this day by stipulation of the Department of Defense, they are chained to the floor through meetings with their lawyer, Sabin Willett.

Here is the Orwellian logic of the US Department of Injustice, quoted in the Guardian article:

[T]he men "are linked to an organisation that the state department has labelled to be a terrorist entity, and it is beside the point that the organisation is not 'a threat to us' because the law excluding members of such groups does not require such proof."

"Linked to a terrorist entity" . . . . After seven years of Bush crimes against humanity, we have a sense what that does and does not mean. We know that someone "is linked" just in case the Bush administration asserts that there is a link.

"The law . . . does not require proof" . . . . Well, the Bush administration has never required proof — never even required evidence — of something to proceed with attacks, injustices, an entire war.

The Bush standard for seven long years has been "If it might be the case, proceed as if it were the case. Assert what ever is required, lie as 'need' dictates, regardless of proof or evidence."

This hasn't been a bootstrapping technique, which requires something like a foundation or rational starting point. It has been nothing more than outright fabrication, from start to finish. Purely, utterly circular. A true Catch-22. "They are in our custody. They must be their for a reason, because we make no mistakes. Therefore, they must remain in custody."

Tina Fey and Will Ferrell Bushify and Palinize

McPalin Action

Today I ordered McCain and Palin and action figures. I already have a George W. Bush Naval Aviator figure — fully poseable — and a "Jennifer" 101st Airborne Military Police figure. So I ordered McCain and Palin. Turns out those two aren't made.

I hope they get here soon. I need them to do a action animation before the election.

I think Jennifer looks eastern European.

Monkey-Prez Mockery

Time is rapidly running out to mock Monkey-Prez. After the election the only chance we may ever get will be during the trial of Bush for crimes against humanity. So we gotta strike while the iron is luke warm. Let us now consider our Glorious Leader.

Bush embraces that cowboy image. Well, let me tell you, I know cowboys. Cowboys are friends of mine. And Mr. Bush, you're no cowboy.

Consider, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN BUSH ACTUALLY RIDING A HORSE?! No. According to former Mexican President Vicente Fox, George is a-scared of horses. Now what kind of cowboy is that?

Bush also likes gettin' down with the troops. But see this guy off to the right? He's making sure that Monkey-Prez can actually complete his order. The problem? Baby Doc Bush doesn't like his greens.
And last, whom does His Gloriousness resemble here? Your Dishonorable Irritation says . . . Truman Capote! What do you think Bush would make of that?

BBC: Monkey-Prez "vows to stabilise US economy"

Feel better? Irritated that your not-particularly-honorable ranter should denigrate monkeys? I agree. I irritate myself. An itch I can't scratch.

But the buffoon Bush remains. What are we to do? Here's a passage from the BBC:

President George W Bush has promised the American people the US government is working "aggressively" to restore stability to the economy.

Speaking from the White House, Mr Bush said recent market turmoil was being driven by "uncertainty and fear".

He spoke as world markets tumbled amid rising fears of a global recession, despite interest rate cuts and huge cash injections by central banks.

He also defended the recent $700bn (£410bn) rescue plan for Wall Street.

Mr Bush said the bail-out package he signed into law a week ago was big enough but added "it will take time to have its full impact".

Others have noted that the Bush blather closely resembles in style his lies following 9/11 and leading to war.

As for taking "time to have its full impact": Yes it will take time for the Republicans to totally annhilate the United States.

Sadly, I see little evidence that the Democrats will do much better. Check out Obama's economics team — almost entirely out of the Clinton deregulation/Greenspan cult.

Bush Administration Caught Lying — Again

ABC News is breaking finally running a story on NSA spying on Americans. Bush administration officials, including the President and General Michael Hayden (current CIA Director), repeatedly denied that the US was listening in on phone conversations of Americans. This claim is directly refuted by two former military linguists who took part in the eavesdropping program.

AFTERDOWNINGSTREET.ORG got this one OVER A YEAR AGO, but the pissants in the US media mainstream had their heads up their assholes as usual.

Yet another impeachable offense by the most criminal administration in American history?

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has written extensively on these issues.

CNN has the story.

ABC News:

"Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia.

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), called the allegations "extremely disturbing" and said the committee has begun its own examination.

'We have requested all relevant information from the Bush Administration,' Rockefeller said Thursday. 'The Committee will take whatever action is necessary.'

'These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones,' said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003"