Between Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, and Ralph Nader, two out of three of these people need to agree to withdraw from the Presidential race no later than Sept. 1.
The key is that we need one unified opposition candidate. We work in a winner-take-all system. To try to run three separate campaigns and to split our time, our money and our resources between them is political suicide. It is letting pride get in the way of our chances at success.
We don't need symbolic campaigns. We need a serious effort to change the country. If we run symbolic campaigns, we are essentially abandoning our country to the less than gentile ministrations of the two parties who represent rule by the corporations, of the corporations, and for the corporations. This is destroying America for the rest of us, and we need a serious effort to end it. Not symbolic campaigns. If we run three separate campaigns, then we confirm the charges of the Democrats that we aren't serious and can't win.
OK, its not hard to see how Mr. Nader and Ms. McKinney could combine campaigns. Their positions are relatively close to each other. But sure its impossible for the Greens and the Libertarians to unite, isn't it?
Here's how its done. The groups all agree to agree on what they agree on. What is the result of that Yogi Berra-ish sentence? What do they agree on? They agree on ending the war. They agree on bringing our troops home? They believe further in a general change in foreign policy of being less militaristic and imperialistic. They agree that our current government is corrupt and in the hands of special interests. They agree on ending secret detentions and domestic spying and torture. They agree we need to break the two-party monopoly and reform our system of elections to make them free, fair, honest and transparent.
When we win, that's a rather large action list for a two-year period before the next Congressional elections in 2010. So, that's plenty to agree on. Thus, even though the Greens and Libertarians might disagree on economics and health care and so many other things, it doesn't matter. The only thing the parties need to do is to agree that when they win they won't act unilaterally in these areas over the objections of their coalition partners.
The benefit is that we now get to run one and only opposition campaign for President. Now our votes are unified behind one candidate, while the pro-corporate votes are split. Remember, its a winner-take-all election, and this gives us our best chance of winning. And we have to win to break the locks on the system. We know neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are going to break their two-party lock on the system. We know neither will create elections that aren't decided by money. We know neither will introduce reforms like proportional representation and instant run-off voting.
Unless we can win, all of these blocks to democracy will remain. And we'll constantly be locked-out underdogs fighting from outside to try to change the system. And the only way we can win that fight is to win a winner-take-all election, then take power and introduce the real changes we need to occur.
Furthermore, this needs to happen not only at the Presidential level, but also at elections all the way down the line. We need to have single unity opposition candidates in every House and Senate race. And beyond that we need to be competing to take back our country at the state and local levels of government.
So, let the candidates campaign for awhile to determine who is the strongest candidate. But at some point, and I'd say not later than Labor Day, they need to settle that and unite behind whomever is the strongest candidate. This is the only way to really change this country. Anything less is failing the need to act effectively and rationally to return our country to be a land of the free governed by the people, of the people and for the people.
When we've taken back our country, and we've reformed our political system such that its a true democracy that represents the will of the people, then I'd be happy to see the Libertarians and the Greens and any others debate their ideas for the best policies of the nation. But for today, that's a hopeless act of pride and we need to unify to win and make the changes we know this land requires.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Why do Democrats hate freedom?
Why did the Democrats just vote to help legalize President Bush's lawbreaking, and also to further strip away the rights and liberties of Americans? A website called maplight.org may be shedding some light on the question.
Telecom donations tied to FISA vote
" Maplight's analysis, crunched using contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics, found that the 293 House members voting last week in favor of the wiretapping compromise received, on average, more than double the amount of money as those who voted against it."
And, when I went to excellent website that Maplight.org has started, I dug a bit and created the table illustrated above. Now, one striking thing is the dates of the data in the table. They go back to 2001. But, when you look at the top three on the list, while Sen. McCain and Clinton had been in the US Senate that whole time, Sen. Obama has only been on the national stage for about half of that period. Yet, there he is very high up the list.
This vote was highly damaging in several ways. For one, it was the last step in essentially legalizing President Bush's illegal spying on Americans. Remember, President Bush initially stood up before the nation and announced both that he had already been breaking the law on a regular basis, but that he would continue to do so. In a nation of laws, that should have sparked immediate impeachment hearings. Instead, the Congress with full 'bipartisan' support has passed laws legalizing the unconstitutional spying on Americans. And now this bill goes further and gives immunity to the companies that knowingly collaborated in these illegal acts.
Furthermore, it blocks any attempt to find out the scope of the program or other information. The lawsuits that were progressing on this issue were the only real avenue of getting to that information given the inaction of the Democratic led Congress. This bill shuts those down.
Further, it establishes a very dangerous precedent in that the President can bypass everything you thought you knew about how a law was made in this country and just make up his own laws at any time. You know at some point in the future that advisors to a President are going to be discussing some future illegal act by a President and that this issue will come up in the discussion as an argument for the President to act illegally.
And, while the public debate has been over telecom immunity, this bill also contains a very dangerous expansion of the government's ability to spy on Americans.
Sen. Feingold will attempt to filibuster FISA bill
Even worse are the provisions of the bill that will make it very easy for the government to essentially suck up the communications, all communications of Americans that go overseas, whether it's an email or a text message or a phone call to a daughter, junior year abroad, or a child who's in Iraq or a reporter or a business associate. This is one of the greatest intrusions, potentially, on the rights of Americans protected under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution in the history of our country.
And gee, there's Sen. Obama with $200,000 plus in his campaign accounts from the industry he just said he supports giving immunity. Of course, like any politician he'll say that's not why he voted.
But, try going to visit Sen. Obama's office to discuss this issue with him? Give it a try. See how far you get. If you are really lucky and persistent, you might get a brief interview with staff who will listen to your pitch and then cite back the party line on why Sen. Obama just gave away the rights your forefathers died to obtain for you.
Wanna bet the executives of those telecom companies that have funneled so much money into Sen. Obama's coffers wouldn't have any trouble at all speaking to the Senator about this issue? Wanna bet their phone calls got returned by the Senator? Even if it is not as nefarious as buying votes, it is certainly buying access. Access that you as a citizen who is concerned about a government that is taking away your rights would never had is certainly granted to the big companies that funnel money to these politicians.
And, with Sen. Obama now foregoing public financing, what do you think the odds were that he was going to turn and bite the hand of an industry that's funded him so well and that he is surely counting on for more donations into the fall campaign?
Tales from the workplace
Zogby Poll:...Finds One in Four Working Americans Describe their Employer as a "Dictatorship"
"One out of every four working Americans (25%) describes their workplace as a dictatorship, while just 34% of bosses in the American workplace react well to valid criticism, according to a new Workplace Democracy Association/Zogby Interactive survey."
Overconfident CEOs
"they find that CEOs appear to overly attribute their role in successful deals, leading to more deals even though these subsequent deals are value destructive.
They also find evidence that CEOs alter their stock holdings prior to deals in a pattern consistent with overconfidence in the outcome of these subsequent deals. "
Thanks to Progressive Review where I found these.
"One out of every four working Americans (25%) describes their workplace as a dictatorship, while just 34% of bosses in the American workplace react well to valid criticism, according to a new Workplace Democracy Association/Zogby Interactive survey."
Overconfident CEOs
"they find that CEOs appear to overly attribute their role in successful deals, leading to more deals even though these subsequent deals are value destructive.
They also find evidence that CEOs alter their stock holdings prior to deals in a pattern consistent with overconfidence in the outcome of these subsequent deals. "
Thanks to Progressive Review where I found these.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Celebrate George Carlin!
go to a search engine and type 'george carlin video'. Or go to video site and just search on 'george carlin'. Sit back and enjoy the results!
Or, here's a list of what I've found ....
George Carlin on white people
George Carlin on death -RIP
George Carlin on death - again
George Carlin -Wonderful Wino
George Carlin - 7 dirty words
George Carlin on Religion-1
George Carlin - pro-life is anti-woman
George Carlin - Sanctity of Life
George Carlin - Seven Words
George Carlin - Please Wake Up America
George Carlin - Education and the owners of America
George Carlin comments on 9/11 truth and NWO
George Carlin - voting
George Carlin- Religion is bullshit
George Carlin defrags the 10 Commandments
George Carlin on soft language
George Carlin on Airport Security
George Carlin on the American Dream
George Carlin on American bullshit
George Carlin - We like war
George Carlin - Bicycles
George Carlin - Flamethrowers
George Carlin - the Hippy Dippy Weatherman
Gonna miss having George around!
Friday, June 20, 2008
Obama keeps turning right
The hits just keep on coming. Now its NAFTA. I was watching Democracy Now! this morning, and the guest Joseph Nevins, mentioned that Obama had recently given a speech where he'd changed his stance on NAFTA since the primaries.
Gee, what a shock.
A quick search found a link to CNN article about the speech.
Can I say "I told you so?" For someone like me who always felt like Obama looked like a con and didn't believe him, this isn't exactly a great shock. And especially in this case, since one of his advisors had let it slip months before that Obama was lying about NAFTA. Remember this ...
At the time, the Obama campaign denied this story. But gee, guess what turned out to be the truth?
At this point, huge alarm bells should be going off about Obama. During the Democratic primaries, Mr. Obama tried to position himself as the Great Progressive Hope. The problem is, apparently it was all a lie. Now Obama is apparently giving a series of speeches where he is disavowing everything he said in the primaries. We've seen it in foreign policy. Now we find out that all that talk sympathetic to workers who've lost their jobs was just 'overheated rhetoric' in the campaign.
Now all we get from Sen. Obama is the old Clintonesque bull about 'labor' and 'environmental' standards. The only update to this old red herring is adding the word 'enforceable'. Of course, politically you have to realize he's added that new word to try to get around the fact that most people have figured out this was just window dressing in the Clinton era to try to get people to accept a very pro-corporate trade deal that was going to cost Americans jobs and drive down our standard of living. The trick is to realize that the Clinton era Democrats of course never said that the labor and enviromental standards they were touting were in fact 'unenforceable'. Expect more of the same from the Obama Democrats. The trade deals will continue to enhance his big contributors, and a few years later everyone will know that his 'enforceable' standards didn't mean squat.
Shouldn't Democrats and people on the left be very concerned by now that the Obama that was presented in the primaries was essentially a fraud? Don't these quotes above from Obama clearly say that the man was simply willing to say anything and take any position in order to win the nomination? Why is it I can almost hear him making an under-the-breath comment of "gee, you really believed that?"
Here's the core of the problem. We know what the Democratic Party represents. We've seen the Clinton presidential era, we've seen their lack of opposition to the Republicans when in the minority, and we've seen the actions the Democratic majority in Congress is taking. Almost as I type they are fully funding the war (again), and massively expanding the government's powers to spy on Americans without a warrant. And just along the way they are making sure the telecoms that have been funneling them money all this year can't be sued for breaking the law and spying on us when the spying was illegal.
We can see the ACTIONS the Democrats take. We see them support the bankruptcy bill that the banking and credit card industries wanted knowing this economic downturn was coming. We see them supporting a bill big pharma wanted that protected big pharma profits by blocking Americans from shopping for meds overseas. We constantly see from their ACTIONS that the Democrats support an aggressive militaristic empire abroad that spies on its citizens in the name of security and that they follow trade and economic policies that benefit their big contributors at a big cost to the rest of us.
Sen. Obama in the primaries tried to pretend that he opposed this. Sen. Obama in the primaries tried to differentiate himself from Sen. Clinton (who is directly connectd to these same policies) and pretend he was an alternative.
But, clearly he is not. What we are now hearing on a regular basis from Sen. Obama is "Ha, Ha, I fooled you!".
Its way too late for the Democrats to correct their mistake. The only people who can change their votes are super-delegates, and not only are they the same Democratic party hacks who support these psuedo-republican policies, but the only alternative is probably DLC founder Hillary Clinton who's been the poster child for these policies for two decades now. And the real clincher is that the Democrats won't think its been a mistake. Listen closely and you'll certainly hear the Democrats tell you that its perfectly normal to lie to the party members to get a nomination then radically change all your policies to something different. That alone should tell everyone to get far, far away from the Democrats.
Nope, its clear the Democrats are not the answer. Its clear that this is the time for everyone on the left to move to campaigns and parties that really represent our interests. Supporting politicians that disrespect us by lying to our faces to get our votes in not the answer. There are candidates on the ballot this year that have shown a committment throughout their public lives to representing our interests and fighting corporate interests. I speak of both Rep. McKinney and Mr. Nader (links in column on right).
If you vote for Obama, you are voting for a candidate that is going to continue the policies of Clinton, Reid and Pelosi. The fine print always said this, even though the candidate and his campaign said otherwise. And now we know that Obama will directly lie to you to get you to put him in office. What he wants is power. And what he's just shown is that he lacks the morals and character that would keep him from saying anything to get it.
There are clearly better choices on the ballot this Nov.
Gee, what a shock.
A quick search found a link to CNN article about the speech.
Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.
Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.
Can I say "I told you so?" For someone like me who always felt like Obama looked like a con and didn't believe him, this isn't exactly a great shock. And especially in this case, since one of his advisors had let it slip months before that Obama was lying about NAFTA. Remember this ...
Goolsbee "candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign" but reassured Rioux that Obama's NAFTA-bashing "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." Three weeks later, Canada's CTV News reported that a "senior member" of Obama's campaign had phoned Wilson personally to advise him to "not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA."
At the time, the Obama campaign denied this story. But gee, guess what turned out to be the truth?
At this point, huge alarm bells should be going off about Obama. During the Democratic primaries, Mr. Obama tried to position himself as the Great Progressive Hope. The problem is, apparently it was all a lie. Now Obama is apparently giving a series of speeches where he is disavowing everything he said in the primaries. We've seen it in foreign policy. Now we find out that all that talk sympathetic to workers who've lost their jobs was just 'overheated rhetoric' in the campaign.
Now all we get from Sen. Obama is the old Clintonesque bull about 'labor' and 'environmental' standards. The only update to this old red herring is adding the word 'enforceable'. Of course, politically you have to realize he's added that new word to try to get around the fact that most people have figured out this was just window dressing in the Clinton era to try to get people to accept a very pro-corporate trade deal that was going to cost Americans jobs and drive down our standard of living. The trick is to realize that the Clinton era Democrats of course never said that the labor and enviromental standards they were touting were in fact 'unenforceable'. Expect more of the same from the Obama Democrats. The trade deals will continue to enhance his big contributors, and a few years later everyone will know that his 'enforceable' standards didn't mean squat.
Shouldn't Democrats and people on the left be very concerned by now that the Obama that was presented in the primaries was essentially a fraud? Don't these quotes above from Obama clearly say that the man was simply willing to say anything and take any position in order to win the nomination? Why is it I can almost hear him making an under-the-breath comment of "gee, you really believed that?"
Here's the core of the problem. We know what the Democratic Party represents. We've seen the Clinton presidential era, we've seen their lack of opposition to the Republicans when in the minority, and we've seen the actions the Democratic majority in Congress is taking. Almost as I type they are fully funding the war (again), and massively expanding the government's powers to spy on Americans without a warrant. And just along the way they are making sure the telecoms that have been funneling them money all this year can't be sued for breaking the law and spying on us when the spying was illegal.
We can see the ACTIONS the Democrats take. We see them support the bankruptcy bill that the banking and credit card industries wanted knowing this economic downturn was coming. We see them supporting a bill big pharma wanted that protected big pharma profits by blocking Americans from shopping for meds overseas. We constantly see from their ACTIONS that the Democrats support an aggressive militaristic empire abroad that spies on its citizens in the name of security and that they follow trade and economic policies that benefit their big contributors at a big cost to the rest of us.
Sen. Obama in the primaries tried to pretend that he opposed this. Sen. Obama in the primaries tried to differentiate himself from Sen. Clinton (who is directly connectd to these same policies) and pretend he was an alternative.
But, clearly he is not. What we are now hearing on a regular basis from Sen. Obama is "Ha, Ha, I fooled you!".
Its way too late for the Democrats to correct their mistake. The only people who can change their votes are super-delegates, and not only are they the same Democratic party hacks who support these psuedo-republican policies, but the only alternative is probably DLC founder Hillary Clinton who's been the poster child for these policies for two decades now. And the real clincher is that the Democrats won't think its been a mistake. Listen closely and you'll certainly hear the Democrats tell you that its perfectly normal to lie to the party members to get a nomination then radically change all your policies to something different. That alone should tell everyone to get far, far away from the Democrats.
Nope, its clear the Democrats are not the answer. Its clear that this is the time for everyone on the left to move to campaigns and parties that really represent our interests. Supporting politicians that disrespect us by lying to our faces to get our votes in not the answer. There are candidates on the ballot this year that have shown a committment throughout their public lives to representing our interests and fighting corporate interests. I speak of both Rep. McKinney and Mr. Nader (links in column on right).
If you vote for Obama, you are voting for a candidate that is going to continue the policies of Clinton, Reid and Pelosi. The fine print always said this, even though the candidate and his campaign said otherwise. And now we know that Obama will directly lie to you to get you to put him in office. What he wants is power. And what he's just shown is that he lacks the morals and character that would keep him from saying anything to get it.
There are clearly better choices on the ballot this Nov.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Numbers and the mistake
OK, my background is mathematics and engineering. Sometimes I'm fascinated by the way numbers and statistics will help to illustrate or just plain see a pattern. Yeah, I know numbers and statistics can lie. But sometimes they can be very interesting.
Bill Quiqley, in a piece up on Znet gives numbers compiled by a magazine called Nuclear Resister on the number of anti-war arrests by year.
Since 2002, the NUCLEAR RESISTER has documented anti-war arrests for protestors each year:
2002 - 1800 arrests
2003 6072 arrests
2004 2440 arrests
2005 975 arrests
2006 950 arrests
2007 2272 arrests
2008 810 as of May 1
To me, this pattern, and the fact that the was is still continuing, shows the mistake the anti-war movement has made. One way to look at these numbers is to say that the number of CD arrests by antiwar protesters dropped at the time of the Kerry campaign in 2004. And they stayed down through the 2006 elections, only to start climbing afterwards.
The anti-war movement essentially committed itself to the Democratic Party over this time. They backed the Kerry campaign, didn't support an independent, and seemed to deliberately back off any independent action in that time. This seemed to both kill the momentum of the antiwar movement, and it silently delivered a message that working in politics to back Democrat was the answer.
The number stayed low through the 2006 election. Then it starts to rise again. And surely it starts to rise because the anti-war movement was figuring out that having the Democrats in power in Congress meant nothing to end the war because the Democratic leadership supports the war.
To me, the numbers after 2006 are encouraging. It shows a movement waking up from a delusion that the Democrats were the answer.
Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership is about to ensure passage of a war funding bill that fully funds the Iraq war into 2009 (at a cost of something like over a $160 billion). And they have taken any impeachment acts for lying the nation into war completely 'off the table'. Perhaps that was always a pun too since the mechanism to bury Rep. Kucinich impeachment resolutions is called 'tabling'.
Bill Quiqley, in a piece up on Znet gives numbers compiled by a magazine called Nuclear Resister on the number of anti-war arrests by year.
Since 2002, the NUCLEAR RESISTER has documented anti-war arrests for protestors each year:
2002 - 1800 arrests
2003 6072 arrests
2004 2440 arrests
2005 975 arrests
2006 950 arrests
2007 2272 arrests
2008 810 as of May 1
To me, this pattern, and the fact that the was is still continuing, shows the mistake the anti-war movement has made. One way to look at these numbers is to say that the number of CD arrests by antiwar protesters dropped at the time of the Kerry campaign in 2004. And they stayed down through the 2006 elections, only to start climbing afterwards.
The anti-war movement essentially committed itself to the Democratic Party over this time. They backed the Kerry campaign, didn't support an independent, and seemed to deliberately back off any independent action in that time. This seemed to both kill the momentum of the antiwar movement, and it silently delivered a message that working in politics to back Democrat was the answer.
The number stayed low through the 2006 election. Then it starts to rise again. And surely it starts to rise because the anti-war movement was figuring out that having the Democrats in power in Congress meant nothing to end the war because the Democratic leadership supports the war.
To me, the numbers after 2006 are encouraging. It shows a movement waking up from a delusion that the Democrats were the answer.
Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership is about to ensure passage of a war funding bill that fully funds the Iraq war into 2009 (at a cost of something like over a $160 billion). And they have taken any impeachment acts for lying the nation into war completely 'off the table'. Perhaps that was always a pun too since the mechanism to bury Rep. Kucinich impeachment resolutions is called 'tabling'.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Obama and Financial Reform
One thing is clear about today. The deregulation of financial firms that occurred in the Bill Clinton 1990's is a key factor in the current financial crisis and recession we are facing today. So, I was interested in what the supreme agent of change, Sen. Obama, had to say about financial reform. Especially in the light of articles like those from Pam Martens about the large amount of contributions to the Obama campaign. How strong would Obama be in terms of imposing regulatory reform on a group of people who were key backers of his campaign from the beginning?
A google search on Obama and financial reform led to this USA Today article on a major speech by Sen. Obama on financial reform that occurred on March 26,2008.
The USA Today article also contained a link to this PDF file containing the full text of Sen. Obama's speech. The speech is worth exploring both because of its presence as perhaps one of the key issues that should be considered in this campaign, and also because its a classic example of what seems to be Sen. Obama's approach to speaking and policy.
In classic Obama fashion, on the surface it seems very nice. He is an articulate man who clearly has the good writers one would expect from a major political figure. He (or his writers) can show a grasp of the problems facing the country, and can usually annunciate them with emotion and impact. He, or his writers, can add enough details like long names of international agencies that make Sen. Obama sound well informed. He also appears to be saying he wants to make reforms to address the problem.
If someone just listened to the speech once, and did so rather casually, then I could easily see them walking away from an Obama speech being rather impressed. The problem lies when you look a little deeper. Being able to sound good is something that citizens should just treat as a given and then ignore. The key question of the day is what would a President Obama do about the crisis in our financial system. And when you look at the details it seems that the bark is far worse than the bite.
Here are the key items in the speech from the USA Today article, with some notes and comments about their true meaning.
• Giving the Federal Reserve system more oversight authority over institutions to which it provides credit as a "lender of last resort." Although Obama did not outline specifics, saying those would depend on the level of the Fed's assistance, "but at the very least, these new regulations should include liquidity and capital requirements."
Is he kidding? The Federal Reserve is one of the agencies that's gotten us into this mess. And one of the ways they've done so is to fail in their existing responsibilities to regulate banks. There are strong opinions out there that the Fed's policies under Greenspan helped create the bubble which is now deflating while trying to avoid a downturn after the earlier "dot com" speculation bubble deflated.
And Sen. Obama's big answer is to put this group in charge of 'oversight' of these firms. Talk about putting the fox in charge of guarding the henhouse. These sound like nice words until you stop and think about it.
If you really want regulation and oversight, what you do is you create an independent body that has the legal responsibility to handle that. You create clear and transparent rules that are fair and which must be followed. Then you put an independent body into the task of making sure those rules are followed. You want a body to be free of any other duties or roles that might cause a conflict of interest. And its clear that you want to instruct them to be aggressive in making sure the rules are followed, if for no other reason than to regain confidence in financial markets and the big players in them. Putting the Fed in charge of oversight does none of this.
• Strengthening capital, liquidity and financial disclosure regulations for financial institutions. "Transparency requirements must demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counterparties," Obama said.
The first two are obvious and basically a return to earlier and saner policies. The very bank friendly regulators have obviously loosened up the rules on capital and liquidity way too much. The last is nice. That's it, nice. The idea of transparency is a good one. It is again obvious that you must have transparency in order to have a fair market. The problem is that this is almost the classic do-nothing reform by any politician that wants to sound like they are for reform but don't really want to do anything. They always offer 'transparency' as the answer.
The problem is that these regulations are then usually laxly enforced. The regulatory agency will always have other responsibilities, and enforcing a bunch of regulations on 'reporting' issues will always be a low priority. It is also an idea that is open to much mischief in the details. It is very easy to be for 'transparency', but then make sure the details of the rules have some big loopholes in them.
And, it really doesn't do anything. Gee, now there are some new reports out there. Maybe somebody reads them and says 'wow, that's awful'. What happens then? If the 'reform' is limited to just 'transparency', then nothing happens. So, while transparency is always an important concept that we must work for in any free and fair society, when it is presented by itself as the answer to a problem, it usually isn't.
• Creating a financial oversight panel that could monitor and report to the president about such rapid financial developments as the growth of bond-backed subprime mortgages.
Another one that sounds good on the surface. Creating a new body or board that does nothing is another classic do-nothing reform. Note that the boards only roles are to 'monitor and report to the President'. There's no authority to do anything here. Just yet another board that creates yet another report. A bunch of tax payer money wasted to no effect.
It is expected of any competent President and administration that they will pay attention to developments in the financial markets. That should be a part of the basic job description of a Presidential administration. How he wants to do it is his business, but its really better if you don't create some new board or body to do it. Because the things never go away.
And while President Obama might pay attention to their advice (interestingly he never actually 'says' that he will do so), there's no guarantee that the next President will. President Bush would obviously pay no attention to some board writing reports being critical of financial firms and calling for regulation. In fact, its a pretty fair guess that another president like President Bush would just stuff this board with cronies who would produce meaningless reports that all is wonderful and hunky and even dory.
So, all we've done is to create yet another government board that has no authority and that duplicates the duties a President and his administration should be doing anyways. This board will probably never go away and we'll be paying the salaries of board members and staff and renting office space and paying big expenses for them to go to their meetings for years and years to come.
When you see a politician propose a 'reform' that will clearly do absolutely nothing as part of a heavily promoted speech on such needed reforms, it really makes you question what is going on. Is the goal to sound good? Or is the goal to create meaningful reforms that will really fix the problem? Any speech with this reform in it has a very high probability of only wanting to accomplish the first. It smells a lot like trying to sound good AND managing not to upset any Wall St contributors at the same time by proposing ineffective nonsense.
• Providing an additional $30 billion in economic stimulus spending, including $10 billion in a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners. Obama said the fund was designed to help homeowners "sell a home that is beyond their means, or modify their loan to avoid foreclosure or bankruptcy." He also called for overhauling bankruptcy laws, "so families aren't forced to stick to the terms of a home loan that was predatory or unfair."
Good idea for a short term response to the current mess. Better than the Republicans just funneling money to their investor friends in that it actually gives a small amount to actual homeowners to help them. Does absolutely nothing to solve the bigger and more structural problems in the economic system, but its a nice bandaid to help with the current problem. Althought I'd hazard a quick, rough, off-the-cuff guess that its not nearly big enough.
• Strengthening investigations into trading activity that appears to involve market manipulation. "Reports have circulated in recent days that some traders may have intentionally spread rumors that (investment banker) Bear Stearns was in financial distress while making market bets against the company. The SEC should investigate and punish this kind of market manipulation and report its conclusions to Congress," Obama said.
Good, but way too narrow. There are much bigger irregularities out there. This is focused only some very specific cases of market manipulation. But it does nothing about say the people who bragged that they were creating financial instruments that no one could understand in which to peddle all this bad mortgage debt. There are some very big investigations that should take place, and instead Sen. Obama is proposing one or two show trials against a few people.
Note very carefully that this is the only 'investigate' on the list. Now go back and look at the contributor lists to his campaign and see who's walking away not being investigated. Any politician that is going to refuse to investigate his campaign backers is also going to need some sort of showy investigation of someone else in order to make it look like they are doing something.
• Creating a 10% mortgage interest tax credit for homeowners who do not itemize their taxes, cutting income taxes by up to $1,000 a year for "working families" and eliminating income taxes for retirees making less than $50,000 per year.
Another nice idea. Of course, most people I know started itemizing their taxes when they bought a home, so that's not really any real money, but maybe just some people being able to go back to filing 1040EZ forms and still get some interest credit. A $1000 tax cut isn't a bad idea, although not big enough and with the big vagueness on what's a 'working family'. And helping retirees pay less taxes is also a good idea. To me there is a very strong case for a society to say that anyone who's reached retirement age has done their bit and probably shouldn't be paying income taxes. And the limit keeps that from applying to rich investors.
But, again, these do absolutely nothing to reform a financial industry that just scammed and conned a nation into a financial crisis.
That's the whole list. The bad idea of putting the Fed in charge, along with some vague talk about tightening up capital and liquidity requirements. Doesn't even say if they'll go back to where they should be after a long run of loosening them, but at least he says they should start heading back in the right direction.
But for all those pretty words, that's pretty much it.
And, what's not said is very important. When I read through the text of the speech I can find little or not criticism of the massive billion dollar bailouts being given to the financial industry. The only thing close to criticism is the proposal that those getting the money should be subject to some oversight by the Federal Reserve. Not a word of criticism about hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars being made available to financial institutions. And not a hint that he might change or end that giveaway of tax payer money if elected.
The reaction to the speech is telling. First in the USA Today article you get a sense of the truly false debate between Democrat and Republican. McCain said "There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face."
Huh? Obama wants to put the Fed in charge of regulation and create some silly board that does nothing. And McCain is ranting about big government programs? Obama is using a fraction of the amount of money to help homeowners as compared to what's been already promised to bailout the financial industry, and McCain is complaining about 'big government programs'? The guy who supporting spending another $160+ billion on the war in Iraq is complaining about 'big government programs'?
So often, the 'debate' between Republicans and Democrats seems incredibly phony and irrelevant. You've got two candidates that both essentially promise to let the financial industry get off scot-free for a lot of fraud and abuse, so they've got to somehow try to create some sense of difference and debate. Thus you get Sen. Obama making a speech full of very nice sounding words. And you get Sen. McCain giving a stock Republican line while acting completely shocked that anyone would dare to propose even useless and meaningless fig-leaf reforms. A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
And the reaction you did not hear is also telling. Remember Sherlock Holmes and the notion that the most important clue was that the dog did NOT bark? Have you heard any howls of pain from Wall Street over this speech? After all, these are not people who keep their opinions quiet. There are close ties usually between investment companies and bankers and corporate media firms. And every media is full of 'business reporters' who's job is largely to publically announce whatever these companies are saying on a regular basis. So, if they were upset, I think you'd hear about it. Where's the outrage from Wall Street? Perhaps the silence is a rather important clue about what's really going on.
By contrast, go to this page on the Nader for President website where he gives his own proposals in the area. There are twelve of them, and at least 8 of those are very serious reforms that are clearly worded to state specific changes he feels that should be made. The list is too long to copy in here without making this already long post incredibly way too long. But follow the link and compare with what Mr. Obama is saying.
Plus, you have a basic ability to have more confidence in Mr. Nader's willingness to follow through on these proposals simply because he's not sitting on top of a campaign war chest stuffed full of Wall St. money.
I did a quick look on her website and on google for statements from Ms. McKinney on the issue and couldn't find any.
A google search on Obama and financial reform led to this USA Today article on a major speech by Sen. Obama on financial reform that occurred on March 26,2008.
The USA Today article also contained a link to this PDF file containing the full text of Sen. Obama's speech. The speech is worth exploring both because of its presence as perhaps one of the key issues that should be considered in this campaign, and also because its a classic example of what seems to be Sen. Obama's approach to speaking and policy.
In classic Obama fashion, on the surface it seems very nice. He is an articulate man who clearly has the good writers one would expect from a major political figure. He (or his writers) can show a grasp of the problems facing the country, and can usually annunciate them with emotion and impact. He, or his writers, can add enough details like long names of international agencies that make Sen. Obama sound well informed. He also appears to be saying he wants to make reforms to address the problem.
If someone just listened to the speech once, and did so rather casually, then I could easily see them walking away from an Obama speech being rather impressed. The problem lies when you look a little deeper. Being able to sound good is something that citizens should just treat as a given and then ignore. The key question of the day is what would a President Obama do about the crisis in our financial system. And when you look at the details it seems that the bark is far worse than the bite.
Here are the key items in the speech from the USA Today article, with some notes and comments about their true meaning.
• Giving the Federal Reserve system more oversight authority over institutions to which it provides credit as a "lender of last resort." Although Obama did not outline specifics, saying those would depend on the level of the Fed's assistance, "but at the very least, these new regulations should include liquidity and capital requirements."
Is he kidding? The Federal Reserve is one of the agencies that's gotten us into this mess. And one of the ways they've done so is to fail in their existing responsibilities to regulate banks. There are strong opinions out there that the Fed's policies under Greenspan helped create the bubble which is now deflating while trying to avoid a downturn after the earlier "dot com" speculation bubble deflated.
And Sen. Obama's big answer is to put this group in charge of 'oversight' of these firms. Talk about putting the fox in charge of guarding the henhouse. These sound like nice words until you stop and think about it.
If you really want regulation and oversight, what you do is you create an independent body that has the legal responsibility to handle that. You create clear and transparent rules that are fair and which must be followed. Then you put an independent body into the task of making sure those rules are followed. You want a body to be free of any other duties or roles that might cause a conflict of interest. And its clear that you want to instruct them to be aggressive in making sure the rules are followed, if for no other reason than to regain confidence in financial markets and the big players in them. Putting the Fed in charge of oversight does none of this.
• Strengthening capital, liquidity and financial disclosure regulations for financial institutions. "Transparency requirements must demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counterparties," Obama said.
The first two are obvious and basically a return to earlier and saner policies. The very bank friendly regulators have obviously loosened up the rules on capital and liquidity way too much. The last is nice. That's it, nice. The idea of transparency is a good one. It is again obvious that you must have transparency in order to have a fair market. The problem is that this is almost the classic do-nothing reform by any politician that wants to sound like they are for reform but don't really want to do anything. They always offer 'transparency' as the answer.
The problem is that these regulations are then usually laxly enforced. The regulatory agency will always have other responsibilities, and enforcing a bunch of regulations on 'reporting' issues will always be a low priority. It is also an idea that is open to much mischief in the details. It is very easy to be for 'transparency', but then make sure the details of the rules have some big loopholes in them.
And, it really doesn't do anything. Gee, now there are some new reports out there. Maybe somebody reads them and says 'wow, that's awful'. What happens then? If the 'reform' is limited to just 'transparency', then nothing happens. So, while transparency is always an important concept that we must work for in any free and fair society, when it is presented by itself as the answer to a problem, it usually isn't.
• Creating a financial oversight panel that could monitor and report to the president about such rapid financial developments as the growth of bond-backed subprime mortgages.
Another one that sounds good on the surface. Creating a new body or board that does nothing is another classic do-nothing reform. Note that the boards only roles are to 'monitor and report to the President'. There's no authority to do anything here. Just yet another board that creates yet another report. A bunch of tax payer money wasted to no effect.
It is expected of any competent President and administration that they will pay attention to developments in the financial markets. That should be a part of the basic job description of a Presidential administration. How he wants to do it is his business, but its really better if you don't create some new board or body to do it. Because the things never go away.
And while President Obama might pay attention to their advice (interestingly he never actually 'says' that he will do so), there's no guarantee that the next President will. President Bush would obviously pay no attention to some board writing reports being critical of financial firms and calling for regulation. In fact, its a pretty fair guess that another president like President Bush would just stuff this board with cronies who would produce meaningless reports that all is wonderful and hunky and even dory.
So, all we've done is to create yet another government board that has no authority and that duplicates the duties a President and his administration should be doing anyways. This board will probably never go away and we'll be paying the salaries of board members and staff and renting office space and paying big expenses for them to go to their meetings for years and years to come.
When you see a politician propose a 'reform' that will clearly do absolutely nothing as part of a heavily promoted speech on such needed reforms, it really makes you question what is going on. Is the goal to sound good? Or is the goal to create meaningful reforms that will really fix the problem? Any speech with this reform in it has a very high probability of only wanting to accomplish the first. It smells a lot like trying to sound good AND managing not to upset any Wall St contributors at the same time by proposing ineffective nonsense.
• Providing an additional $30 billion in economic stimulus spending, including $10 billion in a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners. Obama said the fund was designed to help homeowners "sell a home that is beyond their means, or modify their loan to avoid foreclosure or bankruptcy." He also called for overhauling bankruptcy laws, "so families aren't forced to stick to the terms of a home loan that was predatory or unfair."
Good idea for a short term response to the current mess. Better than the Republicans just funneling money to their investor friends in that it actually gives a small amount to actual homeowners to help them. Does absolutely nothing to solve the bigger and more structural problems in the economic system, but its a nice bandaid to help with the current problem. Althought I'd hazard a quick, rough, off-the-cuff guess that its not nearly big enough.
• Strengthening investigations into trading activity that appears to involve market manipulation. "Reports have circulated in recent days that some traders may have intentionally spread rumors that (investment banker) Bear Stearns was in financial distress while making market bets against the company. The SEC should investigate and punish this kind of market manipulation and report its conclusions to Congress," Obama said.
Good, but way too narrow. There are much bigger irregularities out there. This is focused only some very specific cases of market manipulation. But it does nothing about say the people who bragged that they were creating financial instruments that no one could understand in which to peddle all this bad mortgage debt. There are some very big investigations that should take place, and instead Sen. Obama is proposing one or two show trials against a few people.
Note very carefully that this is the only 'investigate' on the list. Now go back and look at the contributor lists to his campaign and see who's walking away not being investigated. Any politician that is going to refuse to investigate his campaign backers is also going to need some sort of showy investigation of someone else in order to make it look like they are doing something.
• Creating a 10% mortgage interest tax credit for homeowners who do not itemize their taxes, cutting income taxes by up to $1,000 a year for "working families" and eliminating income taxes for retirees making less than $50,000 per year.
Another nice idea. Of course, most people I know started itemizing their taxes when they bought a home, so that's not really any real money, but maybe just some people being able to go back to filing 1040EZ forms and still get some interest credit. A $1000 tax cut isn't a bad idea, although not big enough and with the big vagueness on what's a 'working family'. And helping retirees pay less taxes is also a good idea. To me there is a very strong case for a society to say that anyone who's reached retirement age has done their bit and probably shouldn't be paying income taxes. And the limit keeps that from applying to rich investors.
But, again, these do absolutely nothing to reform a financial industry that just scammed and conned a nation into a financial crisis.
That's the whole list. The bad idea of putting the Fed in charge, along with some vague talk about tightening up capital and liquidity requirements. Doesn't even say if they'll go back to where they should be after a long run of loosening them, but at least he says they should start heading back in the right direction.
But for all those pretty words, that's pretty much it.
And, what's not said is very important. When I read through the text of the speech I can find little or not criticism of the massive billion dollar bailouts being given to the financial industry. The only thing close to criticism is the proposal that those getting the money should be subject to some oversight by the Federal Reserve. Not a word of criticism about hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars being made available to financial institutions. And not a hint that he might change or end that giveaway of tax payer money if elected.
The reaction to the speech is telling. First in the USA Today article you get a sense of the truly false debate between Democrat and Republican. McCain said "There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face."
Huh? Obama wants to put the Fed in charge of regulation and create some silly board that does nothing. And McCain is ranting about big government programs? Obama is using a fraction of the amount of money to help homeowners as compared to what's been already promised to bailout the financial industry, and McCain is complaining about 'big government programs'? The guy who supporting spending another $160+ billion on the war in Iraq is complaining about 'big government programs'?
So often, the 'debate' between Republicans and Democrats seems incredibly phony and irrelevant. You've got two candidates that both essentially promise to let the financial industry get off scot-free for a lot of fraud and abuse, so they've got to somehow try to create some sense of difference and debate. Thus you get Sen. Obama making a speech full of very nice sounding words. And you get Sen. McCain giving a stock Republican line while acting completely shocked that anyone would dare to propose even useless and meaningless fig-leaf reforms. A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
And the reaction you did not hear is also telling. Remember Sherlock Holmes and the notion that the most important clue was that the dog did NOT bark? Have you heard any howls of pain from Wall Street over this speech? After all, these are not people who keep their opinions quiet. There are close ties usually between investment companies and bankers and corporate media firms. And every media is full of 'business reporters' who's job is largely to publically announce whatever these companies are saying on a regular basis. So, if they were upset, I think you'd hear about it. Where's the outrage from Wall Street? Perhaps the silence is a rather important clue about what's really going on.
By contrast, go to this page on the Nader for President website where he gives his own proposals in the area. There are twelve of them, and at least 8 of those are very serious reforms that are clearly worded to state specific changes he feels that should be made. The list is too long to copy in here without making this already long post incredibly way too long. But follow the link and compare with what Mr. Obama is saying.
Plus, you have a basic ability to have more confidence in Mr. Nader's willingness to follow through on these proposals simply because he's not sitting on top of a campaign war chest stuffed full of Wall St. money.
I did a quick look on her website and on google for statements from Ms. McKinney on the issue and couldn't find any.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Gotta love those Democrats
Where do we begin?
Well, first there's the Dems getting ready to both rubber-stamp Bush's illegal, unconstitutional spying on Americans, but making sure that the telecoms get immunity for the crimes they committed by aiding this illegal spying.
Democrats Ready to Gut the Constitution to Protect Their “Constituents” — The Telecoms by tom Burghardt and found over at www.dissidentvoice.org
Then there's the Dems acting to fully fund more of the war and occupation in Iraq.
Democrats to back down on Iraq war conditions found through a link on www.antiwar.org
" Lawmakers are arranging to send Bush $165 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to last for about a year and well beyond when Bush leaves office on January 20.
"It'll be the lump sum of money, veterans (funding) and that's it," said one House aide familiar with the negotiations on the legislation."
The article on the Dems allowing immunity for illegal wiretapping has this quote from the ACLU.
"Allowing phone companies to avoid litigation by simply presenting a “permission slip” from the president is not court review. This is immunity pure and simple because the companies are NOT being judged on whether they followed the law. A document stating that the president asked them to conduct warrantless wiretapping is not enough justification for violating the basic privacy rights of Americans. (”Facts on Senator Kit Bond’s (R-MO) FISA Proposal,” American Civil Liberties Union, June 13, 2008)"
When you read this, what you realize is that what is at stake is clearly and simply whether or not we still operate under the Constitution, or whether we live in a country ruled by an all-powerful executive that can do whatever he chooses. The Founding Fathers based their system of Checks and Balances on the belief that the Congress would work to protect its prerogatives from encroachment by an aggressive President. Instead we see a Congress that is willing to completely abandon its role in the law-making process and just give the President the authority to do whatever he wants.
Anyone who stayed awake in high school civics learned what the proper law making procedure is under the Constitution. A bill is proposed in either House of the Congress. It then has to be passed by both Houses, when it then goes to the President for his signature or veto. Afterwards, its the Presidents role to enforce that law.
The 'law' that is on the books from that process is very clear. Its starts with a Constitution that says we are protected from unwarranted searches. There was a big loophole carved into that law in the name of 'security' by the creation of the FISA act. But even that protected the need for a judge to review evidence to give a warrant, albeit by a secret court.
The President's role is to obey and execute that law. Its not the President's role to independently make a new law when he wants. If the President wants changes, then he needs to go to Congress and ask for them. And its deliberately not automatic and a protection of our liberties that the Congress might choose not to make changes just because the President asks for them.
What we've seen instead is the President just making up the law on his own. He wanted to have the capability to spy on Americans without getting a warrant. So, he just told himself that this was ok. Then, he went to the phone companies and told them he said it was ok. According to this Congress, led by the Democratic majority that pretends to be an opposition party, this is just fine and dandy.
The more I think about this, the more it strikes me that this is just shredding the Constitution. Its removing any protections Americans have against unwarranted searches. And it removes the basic checks and balances that allow all the voices of a democracy to participate in the law making process and instead just tells the President to do whatever he wants to do.
When the talk is of street criminals, we are told we need tough laws and enforcement as a 'deterrent'. What do we see in this case if we look at it this way? If the President decides he wants to in some other way to spy upon Americans or to take away other rights under the Constituion, if he looks at this he has to thing just 'sure, go ahead.' That's the precedent that's being set. Or, if the President is asking some other corporation to break the law, this now establishes the precedent that the President can do that.
And anyone who thought that electing Democrats would either slow this down or stop the war was just delusional. And its the same for this election. Voting Dem is voting for more of the same. If you want something different, its time to elect some different people.
Well, first there's the Dems getting ready to both rubber-stamp Bush's illegal, unconstitutional spying on Americans, but making sure that the telecoms get immunity for the crimes they committed by aiding this illegal spying.
Democrats Ready to Gut the Constitution to Protect Their “Constituents” — The Telecoms by tom Burghardt and found over at www.dissidentvoice.org
Then there's the Dems acting to fully fund more of the war and occupation in Iraq.
Democrats to back down on Iraq war conditions found through a link on www.antiwar.org
" Lawmakers are arranging to send Bush $165 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to last for about a year and well beyond when Bush leaves office on January 20.
"It'll be the lump sum of money, veterans (funding) and that's it," said one House aide familiar with the negotiations on the legislation."
The article on the Dems allowing immunity for illegal wiretapping has this quote from the ACLU.
"Allowing phone companies to avoid litigation by simply presenting a “permission slip” from the president is not court review. This is immunity pure and simple because the companies are NOT being judged on whether they followed the law. A document stating that the president asked them to conduct warrantless wiretapping is not enough justification for violating the basic privacy rights of Americans. (”Facts on Senator Kit Bond’s (R-MO) FISA Proposal,” American Civil Liberties Union, June 13, 2008)"
When you read this, what you realize is that what is at stake is clearly and simply whether or not we still operate under the Constitution, or whether we live in a country ruled by an all-powerful executive that can do whatever he chooses. The Founding Fathers based their system of Checks and Balances on the belief that the Congress would work to protect its prerogatives from encroachment by an aggressive President. Instead we see a Congress that is willing to completely abandon its role in the law-making process and just give the President the authority to do whatever he wants.
Anyone who stayed awake in high school civics learned what the proper law making procedure is under the Constitution. A bill is proposed in either House of the Congress. It then has to be passed by both Houses, when it then goes to the President for his signature or veto. Afterwards, its the Presidents role to enforce that law.
The 'law' that is on the books from that process is very clear. Its starts with a Constitution that says we are protected from unwarranted searches. There was a big loophole carved into that law in the name of 'security' by the creation of the FISA act. But even that protected the need for a judge to review evidence to give a warrant, albeit by a secret court.
The President's role is to obey and execute that law. Its not the President's role to independently make a new law when he wants. If the President wants changes, then he needs to go to Congress and ask for them. And its deliberately not automatic and a protection of our liberties that the Congress might choose not to make changes just because the President asks for them.
What we've seen instead is the President just making up the law on his own. He wanted to have the capability to spy on Americans without getting a warrant. So, he just told himself that this was ok. Then, he went to the phone companies and told them he said it was ok. According to this Congress, led by the Democratic majority that pretends to be an opposition party, this is just fine and dandy.
The more I think about this, the more it strikes me that this is just shredding the Constitution. Its removing any protections Americans have against unwarranted searches. And it removes the basic checks and balances that allow all the voices of a democracy to participate in the law making process and instead just tells the President to do whatever he wants to do.
When the talk is of street criminals, we are told we need tough laws and enforcement as a 'deterrent'. What do we see in this case if we look at it this way? If the President decides he wants to in some other way to spy upon Americans or to take away other rights under the Constituion, if he looks at this he has to thing just 'sure, go ahead.' That's the precedent that's being set. Or, if the President is asking some other corporation to break the law, this now establishes the precedent that the President can do that.
And anyone who thought that electing Democrats would either slow this down or stop the war was just delusional. And its the same for this election. Voting Dem is voting for more of the same. If you want something different, its time to elect some different people.
Friday, June 13, 2008
The Grand Delusion
Wow, John Pilger has a powerful piece out today.
Obama Is a Truly Democratic Expansionist
"In 1941, the editor Edward Dowling wrote: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." What has changed? The terror of the rich is greater than ever, and the poor have passed on their delusion to those who believe that when George W Bush finally steps down next January, his numerous threats to the rest of humanity will diminish.
The nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, "marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US history", is a product of the new delusion. "
...
"Understanding Obama as a likely president of the United States is not possible without understanding the demands of an essentially unchanged system of power: in effect a great media game."
...
"It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionist."
---------------
Follow the link and read the whole piece.
Obama Is a Truly Democratic Expansionist
"In 1941, the editor Edward Dowling wrote: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." What has changed? The terror of the rich is greater than ever, and the poor have passed on their delusion to those who believe that when George W Bush finally steps down next January, his numerous threats to the rest of humanity will diminish.
The nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, "marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US history", is a product of the new delusion. "
...
"Understanding Obama as a likely president of the United States is not possible without understanding the demands of an essentially unchanged system of power: in effect a great media game."
...
"It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionist."
---------------
Follow the link and read the whole piece.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Pressuring President Obama
One of the myths going around right now is that an Obama presidency would be a good thing because the more left minded of us could 'pressure' an Obama presidency better than we could a McCain Presidency.
Well, lets think about that for a moment. And to look at that premise, lets ask if after the Democratic victory in gaining control of Congress in 2006 led to the left being able to pressure the Democrats into gaining what they wanted from Congress.
This is a video you might remember. Its from the day a military mom tried to talk to Democratic committee chair Obey about ending the war. She is shouted down by Rep Obey who rants on about 'idiot liberals'.
Marine Mom and Rep. Obey. We Share your frustration
So, ask yourself this, given the fact that an overwhelming number of Democratic voters wants to see the Iraq war and occupation ended, how effective have they been at 'pressuring' the Democratic leadership in Congress to obtain real action in this area? Has the war and occupation been ended? Has the Bush policy been in any way restrained or stopped?
Nope. What you've seen instead is a Democratic leadership that promised immediately after the last election that war funding would not be cut. They've held to that promise even though large majorities of Americans now think the war was a mistake and that in one way or another we should withdraw from Iraq.
Ie, the course of the war in Iraq has been largely the same over the last two years as if the Republicans had retained the leadership of the Congress. There is little reason to think that the situation has been at all improved by having Democratic leadership in Congress. And this video shows the complete disrespect that the Democratic leadership in Congress has for the antiwar activists who dared to try to talk to them about this.
Note also that this conversation has to happen in a hallway. Presumably because that's the only way this lady could even talk to Rep. Obey. I'm sure she'd have accepted an appointment to come sit and talk in his office if Rep. Obey had offered one. Instead the only means of talking to the Representative was to try to intercept him in the hallway between meetings.
Can it be said that this military mom had any more access to Congress or ability pressure Congress because the Democrats hold the Speaker's office and the committee chairs? The answer to that would appear to be no.
Or, think a bit about the issue of impeachment. Has the large number of people who support at least an investigation into impeachment of George W. Bush been able to 'pressure' the Democratic leadership into doing this? Is there any difference in the outcome of this debate in a Democratically led Congress versus a Republican led Congress.
Now, the main difference with an Obama Presidency is that you'd never be able to intercept the President in a hallway like and talk to him. And its doubtful that any activist would get a meeting with the President to talk. If a member of the House of Representatives won't take a meeting like this, you know the President won't.
So, how is it possible to believe that if Obama is elected President that it would be any more possible to 'pressure' him than to 'pressure' a President McCain?
All of this is given as a secondary reason why people should vote for Obama. Its used in the times when the Democratic supporters have already lost the argument that Obama is actually proposing better policies than McCain. After they've lost that argument, through facts like Obama's recent AIPAC speech, they fall back on this argument that we'll be better able to 'pressure' a President Obama.
Yeah, right.
Well, lets think about that for a moment. And to look at that premise, lets ask if after the Democratic victory in gaining control of Congress in 2006 led to the left being able to pressure the Democrats into gaining what they wanted from Congress.
This is a video you might remember. Its from the day a military mom tried to talk to Democratic committee chair Obey about ending the war. She is shouted down by Rep Obey who rants on about 'idiot liberals'.
Marine Mom and Rep. Obey. We Share your frustration
So, ask yourself this, given the fact that an overwhelming number of Democratic voters wants to see the Iraq war and occupation ended, how effective have they been at 'pressuring' the Democratic leadership in Congress to obtain real action in this area? Has the war and occupation been ended? Has the Bush policy been in any way restrained or stopped?
Nope. What you've seen instead is a Democratic leadership that promised immediately after the last election that war funding would not be cut. They've held to that promise even though large majorities of Americans now think the war was a mistake and that in one way or another we should withdraw from Iraq.
Ie, the course of the war in Iraq has been largely the same over the last two years as if the Republicans had retained the leadership of the Congress. There is little reason to think that the situation has been at all improved by having Democratic leadership in Congress. And this video shows the complete disrespect that the Democratic leadership in Congress has for the antiwar activists who dared to try to talk to them about this.
Note also that this conversation has to happen in a hallway. Presumably because that's the only way this lady could even talk to Rep. Obey. I'm sure she'd have accepted an appointment to come sit and talk in his office if Rep. Obey had offered one. Instead the only means of talking to the Representative was to try to intercept him in the hallway between meetings.
Can it be said that this military mom had any more access to Congress or ability pressure Congress because the Democrats hold the Speaker's office and the committee chairs? The answer to that would appear to be no.
Or, think a bit about the issue of impeachment. Has the large number of people who support at least an investigation into impeachment of George W. Bush been able to 'pressure' the Democratic leadership into doing this? Is there any difference in the outcome of this debate in a Democratically led Congress versus a Republican led Congress.
Now, the main difference with an Obama Presidency is that you'd never be able to intercept the President in a hallway like and talk to him. And its doubtful that any activist would get a meeting with the President to talk. If a member of the House of Representatives won't take a meeting like this, you know the President won't.
So, how is it possible to believe that if Obama is elected President that it would be any more possible to 'pressure' him than to 'pressure' a President McCain?
All of this is given as a secondary reason why people should vote for Obama. Its used in the times when the Democratic supporters have already lost the argument that Obama is actually proposing better policies than McCain. After they've lost that argument, through facts like Obama's recent AIPAC speech, they fall back on this argument that we'll be better able to 'pressure' a President Obama.
Yeah, right.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The real Obama is standing up
From www.commondreams.org
Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama’s Economic Policy
"Just days after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Obama is naming as his economic policy director an economist who has clashed with critics of Wal-Mart by defending the company as a boon to poor Americans."
------------
I can't say I'm surprised by this. We've known that Obama was being heavily funded by Wall Street and corporate America (see the Pam Martens articles
And we've known that the pattern of Democratic Party politics for the last twenty years is for the nominee to lie to the party voters during the primary season. Then they always swerve hard to the right as soon as they get the nomination never to return to the pseudo-progressive lines they used in the primaries.
And, what does it say for Obama's character that he only does this after he has the nomination sewn up? When he needs to talk to Democrats about the President he'll be he tries to sound progressive and chants 'change' like a mantra. Then as soon as he's got the nomination he reveals that his campaign's economic adviser is someone who's been promoting and defending Wal-Mart? Any Democrat should be insulted by this.
There's also been this strange meme where we were supposed to believe that Obama wasn't really the candidate he pretended to be when he makes awful anti-progressive speeches like the ones to the Cuban lobby in Miami or the AIPAC lobby in DC. There's been this bizarre notion that he's really a secret revolutionary whom we have to support on faith.
Well, I guess half of that was true. He wasn't the candidate he was pretending to be in the primaries. Instead he's much worse. The guy who's been defending Wal-mart now has charge of Obama's economic policies. That's Wal-mart, the company that hate unions and doesn't allow any employee organizing, the company that destroys locallly owned small businesses, the company that has helped destroy American manufacturing and good jobs by importing all the made-in-China crap.
Now Obama wants to tell us that what's good for Wal-mart is the 'change' we can expect?
BTW, does anyone notice that the Democrats just gave everyone a stirring choice between a former Wal-mart board member and someone who picks a Wal-mart ally as economic advisor? That's the Democrats idea of a debate. And they worked hard to kick everyone else off the stage.
Green Party of the USA
---------------------
Another article on Obama from today's news. This one about his recent speech to AIPAC. From www.counterpunch.org
Deadly Fallout From Obama's Groveling Before Israel Lobby, By JAMES G. ABOUREZK
"It was left to Barack Obama, a candidate who at one time brought a great deal of hope to many Americans, including this writer, to complete the round robin of pandering to AIPAC, first by wearing not only an American flag pin, but one conjoined with an Israeli flag pin as well. Obama’s nomination has improved America’s image around the world, with the realization that, “everyone has a chance in America,” as the saying used to go. But that is what makes his pandering so painful.
Obama declared Jerusalem indivisible, presumably for the Israelis only, in contrast to the United Nations’ holding that Jerusalem was, and is, an international city, belonging to neither side."
Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama’s Economic Policy
"Just days after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Obama is naming as his economic policy director an economist who has clashed with critics of Wal-Mart by defending the company as a boon to poor Americans."
------------
I can't say I'm surprised by this. We've known that Obama was being heavily funded by Wall Street and corporate America (see the Pam Martens articles
And we've known that the pattern of Democratic Party politics for the last twenty years is for the nominee to lie to the party voters during the primary season. Then they always swerve hard to the right as soon as they get the nomination never to return to the pseudo-progressive lines they used in the primaries.
And, what does it say for Obama's character that he only does this after he has the nomination sewn up? When he needs to talk to Democrats about the President he'll be he tries to sound progressive and chants 'change' like a mantra. Then as soon as he's got the nomination he reveals that his campaign's economic adviser is someone who's been promoting and defending Wal-Mart? Any Democrat should be insulted by this.
There's also been this strange meme where we were supposed to believe that Obama wasn't really the candidate he pretended to be when he makes awful anti-progressive speeches like the ones to the Cuban lobby in Miami or the AIPAC lobby in DC. There's been this bizarre notion that he's really a secret revolutionary whom we have to support on faith.
Well, I guess half of that was true. He wasn't the candidate he was pretending to be in the primaries. Instead he's much worse. The guy who's been defending Wal-mart now has charge of Obama's economic policies. That's Wal-mart, the company that hate unions and doesn't allow any employee organizing, the company that destroys locallly owned small businesses, the company that has helped destroy American manufacturing and good jobs by importing all the made-in-China crap.
Now Obama wants to tell us that what's good for Wal-mart is the 'change' we can expect?
BTW, does anyone notice that the Democrats just gave everyone a stirring choice between a former Wal-mart board member and someone who picks a Wal-mart ally as economic advisor? That's the Democrats idea of a debate. And they worked hard to kick everyone else off the stage.
Green Party of the USA
---------------------
Another article on Obama from today's news. This one about his recent speech to AIPAC. From www.counterpunch.org
Deadly Fallout From Obama's Groveling Before Israel Lobby, By JAMES G. ABOUREZK
"It was left to Barack Obama, a candidate who at one time brought a great deal of hope to many Americans, including this writer, to complete the round robin of pandering to AIPAC, first by wearing not only an American flag pin, but one conjoined with an Israeli flag pin as well. Obama’s nomination has improved America’s image around the world, with the realization that, “everyone has a chance in America,” as the saying used to go. But that is what makes his pandering so painful.
Obama declared Jerusalem indivisible, presumably for the Israelis only, in contrast to the United Nations’ holding that Jerusalem was, and is, an international city, belonging to neither side."
Words from a founding father
“Nothing could be more irrational than to give the people power, and to withhold from them information without which power is abused. A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with power which knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.”
James Madison
[1751-1836]
(From this page that a google found … http://www.naafoundation.org/pdf/Speaking_of_a_Free_Press.pdf )
---------
I wonder what Mr. Madison would have thought of today's corporate controlled press? About a press that is at best more concerned with profit than in providing citizens a means of acquiring popular information? Or that at worst is promoting the agenda of its corporate owners to the deliberate destruction of our democracy?
James Madison
[1751-1836]
(From this page that a google found … http://www.naafoundation.org/pdf/Speaking_of_a_Free_Press.pdf )
---------
I wonder what Mr. Madison would have thought of today's corporate controlled press? About a press that is at best more concerned with profit than in providing citizens a means of acquiring popular information? Or that at worst is promoting the agenda of its corporate owners to the deliberate destruction of our democracy?
Friday, June 06, 2008
Important Obama articles
For me, these are the most important articles about Obama.
Part 1
Obama's Money Cartel, by Pam Martens
Part 2
The Obama Bubble Agenda, by Pam Martens
One thing that always struck me about the Obama campaign was how it attracted money early, and especially Wall St money. The Bill Clinton Administration was very closely tied to Wall St. After the '92 election, 'its the economy stupid' and making the economy work for ordinary Americans went out the window fast. Robert Rubin came straight from Wall St and became first a key economic adviser and then Treasury Secretary. Add to this the fact that Hillary Clinton was NY's Senator, and you'd think that's where the Wall St money would go. Seeing Obama pull in lots of Wall Street money was always very surprising.
Part 1
Obama's Money Cartel, by Pam Martens
Part 2
The Obama Bubble Agenda, by Pam Martens
One thing that always struck me about the Obama campaign was how it attracted money early, and especially Wall St money. The Bill Clinton Administration was very closely tied to Wall St. After the '92 election, 'its the economy stupid' and making the economy work for ordinary Americans went out the window fast. Robert Rubin came straight from Wall St and became first a key economic adviser and then Treasury Secretary. Add to this the fact that Hillary Clinton was NY's Senator, and you'd think that's where the Wall St money would go. Seeing Obama pull in lots of Wall Street money was always very surprising.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Protection from a Pain Ray
Article from a physicist on how to defend against a pain ray.
Don't Bet Burned! By MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. courtesy of CounterPunch.org
"Fine, but how do you thwart it? The best protection is distance, just don't be the target! However, if one wishes to engage in a demonstration and be protected from this device, the best protection would be your own electromagnetic shielding or "Faraday cage." If you are within a conducting mesh (a Faraday cage), where the mesh openings are small with respect to the incident radiation, and with a ground wire that leads intercepted electromagnetic energy away from you, then you are safe. This remedy is not likely to be convenient, but then, perhaps creative talents can find effective refinements of this concept. A suit of armor with chains trailing from your ankles to leak currents into the ground may not be ideal protection. However, plastic shields with embedded meshing, even aluminum foil or aluminized mylar (shiny garbage bags?), behind which individuals could stand (huddle?, crouch?) might allow people to thwart the intent of the device. Once people understand the physics being used against them, they may be able to to fashion materials readily available to them into effective countermeasures; this requires some planning."
Don't Bet Burned! By MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. courtesy of CounterPunch.org
"Fine, but how do you thwart it? The best protection is distance, just don't be the target! However, if one wishes to engage in a demonstration and be protected from this device, the best protection would be your own electromagnetic shielding or "Faraday cage." If you are within a conducting mesh (a Faraday cage), where the mesh openings are small with respect to the incident radiation, and with a ground wire that leads intercepted electromagnetic energy away from you, then you are safe. This remedy is not likely to be convenient, but then, perhaps creative talents can find effective refinements of this concept. A suit of armor with chains trailing from your ankles to leak currents into the ground may not be ideal protection. However, plastic shields with embedded meshing, even aluminum foil or aluminized mylar (shiny garbage bags?), behind which individuals could stand (huddle?, crouch?) might allow people to thwart the intent of the device. Once people understand the physics being used against them, they may be able to to fashion materials readily available to them into effective countermeasures; this requires some planning."
Community
I was over at www.johnpilger.com today. After posting the story below, I decided to go have a look at what else he might have written recently. What I found was this article, Destroying the best of Britain.
Its an article about how the British government is closing lots of local post offices. And its an article about how such local post offices have long been the center of communities. Its an article on how the people who work there help their neighbors. So, despite the fact that this is an article about a local issue in a foreign land, it got me thinking a bit about community and profit.
The theory we are constantly bombarded with here in the US is that everything should be decided by the market. That everything must justify itself by paying for itself. That whenever possible government services should be privatized, and that the government should not provide a service that would compete with what a private company can offer.
Of course, I think that's just dead wrong. There are some things that simply can not have their value determined by the marketplace. And this notion of 'community' is one of these.
We know that community is vital for a healthy life. We either know this from reading academic studies, or we know it from having experienced it. Or maybe we know it from living in the modern American city where 'community' can be so hard to find.
There would seem to be a strong value in creating and building community. It leads to less stress, or at least people to talk to and be with to help relieve the stress we get from other parts of life. It leads to a safer place to live. It leads generally to higher property values. Has anyone ever noticed that all the 'communities' that the rightwingers refer to as the "People's Republic of ___________" all have very high property values?
As such, there are some decisions that should not be taken on the pure basis of profit and loss. The local post offices described by Mr. Pilger in this article would seem to be one. The notion of putting local libraries and community centers and recreation centers in the communities is another. These provide a place for people to come together. They provide a place for a 'community' to form and grow.
As such, these sorts of services can't be judged entirely by the monetary bottom line. They provide value to the society as a whole that doesn't show up on an accountant's ledger sheet. They are therefore well worth the investment even if the accountants complain that they are losing money.
Sometimes, one gets the impression that there's been a deliberate attempt to destroy 'community' in America. Maybe its just the free market gone wild. Maybe its just collateral damage from the drive to make a buck anywhere a buck can be made. But, sometimes you get the sense its something more. That the goal is to destroy 'community' itself.
Why? Because only from collective action can we stand and defend ourselves against the corporate predators that stalk our streets. Only by standing together can we defend our rights and our livlihoods. And, its 'community' where we learn to stand together. Its 'community' that forms the bonds that let us stand together. Its 'community' that teaches us that what happens to our neighbor is important to us, so its well worth it to go stand with your neighbor when they face trouble. Because you'll damn well want someone standing with you when you face trouble.
There seems to be a goal to make us all individuals. To make us all solitary people who see the world through our TV sets or through our computer screens as individuals and not as groups. There seems to be a goal to shatter all the bonds of family and friends and neighbors that tie us to others.
When we stand alone, we fell powerless. We know ther's nothing we can do. We can't stand against a corporation that cares only for its own profit. We can't stand against a government that does not represent us. Alone, we are powerless.
So much has been destroyed that sometimes it feels like its hard to find anything like this. That just means we need to find a way to rebuild 'community'. That's harder than just joining in on something that's already there. Its too bad that we've allowed it to be so battered and torn apart. But that just means we need to do more work to build it.
But it can be hard to know exactly how. I guess just go down to the street all alone and see if you can meet someone kind. :)
Its an article about how the British government is closing lots of local post offices. And its an article about how such local post offices have long been the center of communities. Its an article on how the people who work there help their neighbors. So, despite the fact that this is an article about a local issue in a foreign land, it got me thinking a bit about community and profit.
The theory we are constantly bombarded with here in the US is that everything should be decided by the market. That everything must justify itself by paying for itself. That whenever possible government services should be privatized, and that the government should not provide a service that would compete with what a private company can offer.
Of course, I think that's just dead wrong. There are some things that simply can not have their value determined by the marketplace. And this notion of 'community' is one of these.
We know that community is vital for a healthy life. We either know this from reading academic studies, or we know it from having experienced it. Or maybe we know it from living in the modern American city where 'community' can be so hard to find.
There would seem to be a strong value in creating and building community. It leads to less stress, or at least people to talk to and be with to help relieve the stress we get from other parts of life. It leads to a safer place to live. It leads generally to higher property values. Has anyone ever noticed that all the 'communities' that the rightwingers refer to as the "People's Republic of ___________" all have very high property values?
As such, there are some decisions that should not be taken on the pure basis of profit and loss. The local post offices described by Mr. Pilger in this article would seem to be one. The notion of putting local libraries and community centers and recreation centers in the communities is another. These provide a place for people to come together. They provide a place for a 'community' to form and grow.
As such, these sorts of services can't be judged entirely by the monetary bottom line. They provide value to the society as a whole that doesn't show up on an accountant's ledger sheet. They are therefore well worth the investment even if the accountants complain that they are losing money.
Sometimes, one gets the impression that there's been a deliberate attempt to destroy 'community' in America. Maybe its just the free market gone wild. Maybe its just collateral damage from the drive to make a buck anywhere a buck can be made. But, sometimes you get the sense its something more. That the goal is to destroy 'community' itself.
Why? Because only from collective action can we stand and defend ourselves against the corporate predators that stalk our streets. Only by standing together can we defend our rights and our livlihoods. And, its 'community' where we learn to stand together. Its 'community' that forms the bonds that let us stand together. Its 'community' that teaches us that what happens to our neighbor is important to us, so its well worth it to go stand with your neighbor when they face trouble. Because you'll damn well want someone standing with you when you face trouble.
There seems to be a goal to make us all individuals. To make us all solitary people who see the world through our TV sets or through our computer screens as individuals and not as groups. There seems to be a goal to shatter all the bonds of family and friends and neighbors that tie us to others.
When we stand alone, we fell powerless. We know ther's nothing we can do. We can't stand against a corporation that cares only for its own profit. We can't stand against a government that does not represent us. Alone, we are powerless.
So much has been destroyed that sometimes it feels like its hard to find anything like this. That just means we need to find a way to rebuild 'community'. That's harder than just joining in on something that's already there. Its too bad that we've allowed it to be so battered and torn apart. But that just means we need to do more work to build it.
But it can be hard to know exactly how. I guess just go down to the street all alone and see if you can meet someone kind. :)