Obama's Big Mistake
I’ve been trying to ponder how we got to this absurd place where right wing Fat Cats like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh can pose as populists on the side of “the people” opposing Barack Obama, who I suppose must represent established power in the eyes of the Tea-baggers. My conclusion is that Obama made one great mistake which was in not prosecuting the malfeasance on Wall Street. And I don’t mean just Brenie Madoff. A fascinating column from Gillian Tett of the Financial Times outlines the stark contrast between the S & L scandal of the early 1990′s and our current bailout of the Wall Street Oligarchs.
How many financiers do you think ended up in jail after America’s Savings and Loans scandals? The answer can be found in a fascinating, old report from the US Department of Justice*.
According to some of its records, between 1990 and 1995 no less than 1,852 S&L officials were prosecuted, and 1,072 placed behind bars. Another 2,558 bankers were also jailed, often for offenses which were S&L-linked too.
Aside from Madoff, can you think of a single banker who has gone to jail for creating fraudulent securities far more poisonous than anything the S & L bankers ever could dream of? Instead of listening to Larry Summers and Tim Geithner who were bought and sold by Wall Street many years ago, Obama had a chance in January to set the tone of his administration by suing all the Investment banks to stop the bonus payouts. At the time Rush Limbaugh was on the side of the bankers who loaned him the money for his private jet, claiming it would be “class warfare” to stop the bonuses.
But Obama let his populist moment pass and all the guy on Main Street saw was the bankers getting bailed out, billions in bonuses getting paid out, and the rest of us getting treated like chumps. Obama ended up on the side of the Fat Cats. Instead of putting the AIG financial services team on a perp walk, he just let them walk and so this underlying anger has now gotten channeled by Beck and Limbaugh into absurd parodies like preventing the President from giving a speech to urge school kids to study hard. We all know Beck and Limbaugh given the choice between “the people” and their own privilege always “fly private”. Limbaugh was right in one sense–what was needed in January was a little class warfare. A little clarity of which party was on the side of the people and which party was on the side of the private jet riding oligarchs.
I have used the meme of the Interregnum before–a confusing time in which the old is dying and the new cannot be born. We are in such a moment now and it is very confusing for the average citizen. 18 months ago I quoted Eric Altermann writing about Walter Lippmann
Lippmann likened the average American-or “outsider,” as he tellingly named him-to a “deaf spectator in the back row” at a sporting event: “He does not know what is happening, why it is happening, what ought to happen,” and “he lives in a world which he cannot see, does not understand and is unable to direct.” In a description that may strike a familiar chord with anyone who watches cable news or listens to talk radio today, Lippmann assumed a public that “is slow to be aroused and quickly diverted . . . and is interested only when events have been melodramatized as a conflict.”
This is what is happening today. The public is confused and Beck and Limbaugh–like their spiritual godfather Joe McCarthy–are very good at melodrama and paranoia. As David Carr points out this morning “The administration seems to believe that if all the information on a given issue is on the table — or in this case, on the Web — then the truth, or at least their version of it, will win out.” But Beck and Limbaugh are not interested in facts, they interested in conflict and emotion.
I don’t know if Obama’s decision to side with Summers, Geithner and the oligarchs in January was fatal. I still believe, in a verbal class war, the President could make it very clear to Main Street which side of the divide the Republican Party is on. But he has to be willing to fight that war. He has to be willing to take on the insurance companies, the coal companies, the military contractors, the bankers, the drug companies–the whole panoply of established power. Those of us who took his side early in the campaign know that Barack was never the establishment candidate–that was Hillary–and that he ran his early candidacy with lots of small donations raised on the web. Rahm Emmanuel thinks he needs the establishment on his side to fight in 2012, but I would rather see a little class warfare now than see one more sold-out Democratic Presidency unwilling to take on the oligarchs.
Unfortunately Jon, I agree with you entirely and most sadly.
I feel pretty used at this point – and I think I’m not the only one.
He, BHO, needs to get back to his base – and start doing what he got elected to do. A good start would be to get rid of the Wall Street crowd running the economy and, yep< start prosecuting some of the WS fat cats.
Works for me!
Unfortunately Jon, I agree with you entirely and most sadly.
I feel pretty used at this point – and I think I’m not the only one.
He, BHO, needs to get back to his base – and start doing what he got elected to do. A good start would be to get rid of the Wall Street crowd running the economy and, yep< start prosecuting some of the WS fat cats.
Works for me!
Unfortunately Jon, I agree with you entirely and most sadly.
I feel pretty used at this point – and I think I’m not the only one.
He, BHO, needs to get back to his base – and start doing what he got elected to do. A good start would be to get rid of the Wall Street crowd running the economy and, yep< start prosecuting some of the WS fat cats.
Works for me!
Unfortunately Jon, I agree with you entirely and most sadly.
I feel pretty used at this point – and I think I’m not the only one.
He, BHO, needs to get back to his base – and start doing what he got elected to do. A good start would be to get rid of the Wall Street crowd running the economy and, yep< start prosecuting some of the WS fat cats.
Works for me!
Ah! The smell of coffee.
Contrary to libertarians’ cozy belief in the infallible rightness of markets, a market-based system is not intrinsically stable nor does it necessarily result in an optimum outcome. Markets are human constructions that work within a framework of formal and informal laws, rules and regulations. Gaining commercial advantage may therefore involve inventing a new wonder drug or similar but it may equally involve consorting with and lobbying lawmakers and regulators to get the market-governing rules changed in ways that favour you at the expense of others.
When markets remain within their proper bounds they are second to none as a mechanism for allocating resources etc. Step outside those bounds however and pseudo markets, fixed to favor the sectional advantage of some group or oligarch, are monsters.
In a complex society there are multiple checks and balances whereby special interests hopefully neutralise each others’ influence – but this does not infallibly work. The role of government above all is therefore to act as uber-regulator in the public interest (I like the old concept of ‘Commonwealth’) and push back when one or more special interests starts winning too much power and influence – as banking has and as Eisenhower prophetically warned the MIC might (it did!).
If the government cannot do this push back, if it has been captured by and become a tool of the oligarchs, then it has lost its legitimacy as an institution whose whole raison d’etre is to represent the will of the people. In the circumstances, it is only to be expected that people will be angry and that many will fall for the snake oil solutions of the demagogues.
What baffles me is that a President who campaigned on change, came to power in a crisis and who has in Rahm Emmanuel a Chief of Staff who believes in never letting a crisis go to waste, should be backing a broken establishment and turning a blind eye to epic levels of corruption when there is a clear opportunity to remake the system along fairer lines.
Ah! The smell of coffee.
Contrary to libertarians’ cozy belief in the infallible rightness of markets, a market-based system is not intrinsically stable nor does it necessarily result in an optimum outcome. Markets are human constructions that work within a framework of formal and informal laws, rules and regulations. Gaining commercial advantage may therefore involve inventing a new wonder drug or similar but it may equally involve consorting with and lobbying lawmakers and regulators to get the market-governing rules changed in ways that favour you at the expense of others.
When markets remain within their proper bounds they are second to none as a mechanism for allocating resources etc. Step outside those bounds however and pseudo markets, fixed to favor the sectional advantage of some group or oligarch, are monsters.
In a complex society there are multiple checks and balances whereby special interests hopefully neutralise each others’ influence – but this does not infallibly work. The role of government above all is therefore to act as uber-regulator in the public interest (I like the old concept of ‘Commonwealth’) and push back when one or more special interests starts winning too much power and influence – as banking has and as Eisenhower prophetically warned the MIC might (it did!).
If the government cannot do this push back, if it has been captured by and become a tool of the oligarchs, then it has lost its legitimacy as an institution whose whole raison d’etre is to represent the will of the people. In the circumstances, it is only to be expected that people will be angry and that many will fall for the snake oil solutions of the demagogues.
What baffles me is that a President who campaigned on change, came to power in a crisis and who has in Rahm Emmanuel a Chief of Staff who believes in never letting a crisis go to waste, should be backing a broken establishment and turning a blind eye to epic levels of corruption when there is a clear opportunity to remake the system along fairer lines.
Ah! The smell of coffee.
Contrary to libertarians’ cozy belief in the infallible rightness of markets, a market-based system is not intrinsically stable nor does it necessarily result in an optimum outcome. Markets are human constructions that work within a framework of formal and informal laws, rules and regulations. Gaining commercial advantage may therefore involve inventing a new wonder drug or similar but it may equally involve consorting with and lobbying lawmakers and regulators to get the market-governing rules changed in ways that favour you at the expense of others.
When markets remain within their proper bounds they are second to none as a mechanism for allocating resources etc. Step outside those bounds however and pseudo markets, fixed to favor the sectional advantage of some group or oligarch, are monsters.
In a complex society there are multiple checks and balances whereby special interests hopefully neutralise each others’ influence – but this does not infallibly work. The role of government above all is therefore to act as uber-regulator in the public interest (I like the old concept of ‘Commonwealth’) and push back when one or more special interests starts winning too much power and influence – as banking has and as Eisenhower prophetically warned the MIC might (it did!).
If the government cannot do this push back, if it has been captured by and become a tool of the oligarchs, then it has lost its legitimacy as an institution whose whole raison d’etre is to represent the will of the people. In the circumstances, it is only to be expected that people will be angry and that many will fall for the snake oil solutions of the demagogues.
What baffles me is that a President who campaigned on change, came to power in a crisis and who has in Rahm Emmanuel a Chief of Staff who believes in never letting a crisis go to waste, should be backing a broken establishment and turning a blind eye to epic levels of corruption when there is a clear opportunity to remake the system along fairer lines.
Maybe it has something to do with the amounts of money raised by Obama from those same oganizations.
Maybe it has something to do with the amounts of money raised by Obama from those same oganizations.
I think it is simpler than that. Liberals (aka progressive) generally argue for tolerance of alternative viewpoints. Extreme conservatives base their positions on “us versus them” constructs. It is easy to polarize and build on the base of your supporters, as they virally spread your message (ex. recent health care “debates” in town halls). It is much harder to bring people together (ex. community organizing). When you have a few people occasionally arguing for tolerance, and an entire communications infrastructure (Rupert Murdock’s media empire plus Rush Limbaugh) dedicated to a polarizing message, the message takes on the appearance of reality and then becomes the reality for many. It will be really interesting to hear how the Supreme Court formulates their opinion of the Hillary Clinton movie case. If it goes in favor of free speech for a corporation, then Murdock may join Berlusconi as people who can use their media power to take over an entire country.
I think it is simpler than that. Liberals (aka progressive) generally argue for tolerance of alternative viewpoints. Extreme conservatives base their positions on “us versus them” constructs. It is easy to polarize and build on the base of your supporters, as they virally spread your message (ex. recent health care “debates” in town halls). It is much harder to bring people together (ex. community organizing). When you have a few people occasionally arguing for tolerance, and an entire communications infrastructure (Rupert Murdock’s media empire plus Rush Limbaugh) dedicated to a polarizing message, the message takes on the appearance of reality and then becomes the reality for many. It will be really interesting to hear how the Supreme Court formulates their opinion of the Hillary Clinton movie case. If it goes in favor of free speech for a corporation, then Murdock may join Berlusconi as people who can use their media power to take over an entire country.
I think it is simpler than that. Liberals (aka progressive) generally argue for tolerance of alternative viewpoints. Extreme conservatives base their positions on “us versus them” constructs. It is easy to polarize and build on the base of your supporters, as they virally spread your message (ex. recent health care “debates” in town halls). It is much harder to bring people together (ex. community organizing). When you have a few people occasionally arguing for tolerance, and an entire communications infrastructure (Rupert Murdock’s media empire plus Rush Limbaugh) dedicated to a polarizing message, the message takes on the appearance of reality and then becomes the reality for many. It will be really interesting to hear how the Supreme Court formulates their opinion of the Hillary Clinton movie case. If it goes in favor of free speech for a corporation, then Murdock may join Berlusconi as people who can use their media power to take over an entire country.
Bring justice home first and then worry about the rest of the world. A social contract based on justice, not money. If that doesn’t happens then there will be a loss of trust and all the institutions…moral decay …and the death of a dream of freedom and justice.
Bring justice home first and then worry about the rest of the world. A social contract based on justice, not money. If that doesn’t happens then there will be a loss of trust and all the institutions…moral decay …and the death of a dream of freedom and justice.
Bring justice home first and then worry about the rest of the world. A social contract based on justice, not money. If that doesn’t happens then there will be a loss of trust and all the institutions…moral decay …and the death of a dream of freedom and justice.
Bring justice home first and then worry about the rest of the world. A social contract based on justice, not money. If that doesn’t happens then there will be a loss of trust and all the institutions…moral decay …and the death of a dream of freedom and justice.
The face value of the dollar is directly related to the national and international trust. Internationally you are loosing grounds because what the world expected didn’t happen. The Wall street-Bermuda triangle-riddle, hasn’t been solved yet.
The face value of the dollar is directly related to the national and international trust. Internationally you are loosing grounds because what the world expected didn’t happen. The Wall street-Bermuda triangle-riddle, hasn’t been solved yet.
The face value of the dollar is directly related to the national and international trust. Internationally you are loosing grounds because what the world expected didn’t happen. The Wall street-Bermuda triangle-riddle, hasn’t been solved yet.
The face value of the dollar is directly related to the national and international trust. Internationally you are loosing grounds because what the world expected didn’t happen. The Wall street-Bermuda triangle-riddle, hasn’t been solved yet.
Sir, you have it exactly right. And I would add, that the softies in the more humane set of us plague animals also take it in the ass from the virulent Reds, because the pols that sell themselves as “on our side,” to the extent they sort of maybe in some small areas are, are not even playing the same game as the Reds. Who know that both saltatory (leaping) gains and gradual increments of pro-them “change” are never to be yielded, not an inch, no how now way. They have installed a ratchet system, with pawls in the form of entrenched interests, takeovers of the sort that if the softies had the balls to try 9see Murdoch) would have the True Believers forming actual well-drilled if not particularly well-regulated militias shooting up the place, and rules and Gerrymandering and now just patent no-ism. And that ratchet only turns to the Right. And I wonder if the dumb shits who man the emotional and soon maybe physical barricades have any idea that the Few Good Men are the ones who have cut off their purses and their nuts.
I’m past the point of thinking that there’s a snowball’s chance for a persistent human presence, and a lot less of a chance that things will ever move back toward a middle, with liberty and justice for all. See post below for the latest examples. We missed our chance to get some heads severed and mounted on pikes…
Sir, you have it exactly right. And I would add, that the softies in the more humane set of us plague animals also take it in the ass from the virulent Reds, because the pols that sell themselves as “on our side,” to the extent they sort of maybe in some small areas are, are not even playing the same game as the Reds. Who know that both saltatory (leaping) gains and gradual increments of pro-them “change” are never to be yielded, not an inch, no how now way. They have installed a ratchet system, with pawls in the form of entrenched interests, takeovers of the sort that if the softies had the balls to try 9see Murdoch) would have the True Believers forming actual well-drilled if not particularly well-regulated militias shooting up the place, and rules and Gerrymandering and now just patent no-ism. And that ratchet only turns to the Right. And I wonder if the dumb shits who man the emotional and soon maybe physical barricades have any idea that the Few Good Men are the ones who have cut off their purses and their nuts.
I’m past the point of thinking that there’s a snowball’s chance for a persistent human presence, and a lot less of a chance that things will ever move back toward a middle, with liberty and justice for all. See post below for the latest examples. We missed our chance to get some heads severed and mounted on pikes…
Sir, you have it exactly right. And I would add, that the softies in the more humane set of us plague animals also take it in the ass from the virulent Reds, because the pols that sell themselves as “on our side,” to the extent they sort of maybe in some small areas are, are not even playing the same game as the Reds. Who know that both saltatory (leaping) gains and gradual increments of pro-them “change” are never to be yielded, not an inch, no how now way. They have installed a ratchet system, with pawls in the form of entrenched interests, takeovers of the sort that if the softies had the balls to try 9see Murdoch) would have the True Believers forming actual well-drilled if not particularly well-regulated militias shooting up the place, and rules and Gerrymandering and now just patent no-ism. And that ratchet only turns to the Right. And I wonder if the dumb shits who man the emotional and soon maybe physical barricades have any idea that the Few Good Men are the ones who have cut off their purses and their nuts.
I’m past the point of thinking that there’s a snowball’s chance for a persistent human presence, and a lot less of a chance that things will ever move back toward a middle, with liberty and justice for all. See post below for the latest examples. We missed our chance to get some heads severed and mounted on pikes…
And in case anybody is paying attention and gives a shit and has even a smidgen of unburned Outrage Fuel left, how’s about this soul-satisfying “Warstler We’re No. 1″ bit of news And here you have it: “Top of the world, Ma!”
And in case anyone has any illusions that the Bad Boys of Bubbleland aren’t still very much on top of their FuckAllYouOtherMopes game, How about this latest entry in the Derivative Hard Rock Casino? Well, given that the wager in this one is that the old people die before their actuarial time, come on, Warstler, you little cretin, remind us of our duty to feed your mouth and shelter you in your “old room” when you Boomerang back home, and build a bunch of equity with your future-interest name on it (in the will, dork). And then DIE, DIE, DIE, you old basterds, and git out of the way of those very special new much smarter frisky young dolts…
Who themselves are too stupid to see that the people waving the false flag for the false-economic bullshit they buy into (libertarian free market mumbo-jumbo, if only markets worked perfectly then QED markets would work perfectly — gotta Love the deep circular logic) have stolen and are still busily stealing any wealth their supposedly vastly improved intellects might ever possibly generate. So we can all tell each other to go fuck ourselves, and come out shooting.
And in case anybody is paying attention and gives a shit and has even a smidgen of unburned Outrage Fuel left, how’s about this soul-satisfying “Warstler We’re No. 1″ bit of news And here you have it: “Top of the world, Ma!”
And in case anyone has any illusions that the Bad Boys of Bubbleland aren’t still very much on top of their FuckAllYouOtherMopes game, How about this latest entry in the Derivative Hard Rock Casino? Well, given that the wager in this one is that the old people die before their actuarial time, come on, Warstler, you little cretin, remind us of our duty to feed your mouth and shelter you in your “old room” when you Boomerang back home, and build a bunch of equity with your future-interest name on it (in the will, dork). And then DIE, DIE, DIE, you old basterds, and git out of the way of those very special new much smarter frisky young dolts…
Who themselves are too stupid to see that the people waving the false flag for the false-economic bullshit they buy into (libertarian free market mumbo-jumbo, if only markets worked perfectly then QED markets would work perfectly — gotta Love the deep circular logic) have stolen and are still busily stealing any wealth their supposedly vastly improved intellects might ever possibly generate. So we can all tell each other to go fuck ourselves, and come out shooting.
And in case anybody is paying attention and gives a shit and has even a smidgen of unburned Outrage Fuel left, how’s about this soul-satisfying “Warstler We’re No. 1″ bit of news And here you have it: “Top of the world, Ma!”
And in case anyone has any illusions that the Bad Boys of Bubbleland aren’t still very much on top of their FuckAllYouOtherMopes game, How about this latest entry in the Derivative Hard Rock Casino? Well, given that the wager in this one is that the old people die before their actuarial time, come on, Warstler, you little cretin, remind us of our duty to feed your mouth and shelter you in your “old room” when you Boomerang back home, and build a bunch of equity with your future-interest name on it (in the will, dork). And then DIE, DIE, DIE, you old basterds, and git out of the way of those very special new much smarter frisky young dolts…
Who themselves are too stupid to see that the people waving the false flag for the false-economic bullshit they buy into (libertarian free market mumbo-jumbo, if only markets worked perfectly then QED markets would work perfectly — gotta Love the deep circular logic) have stolen and are still busily stealing any wealth their supposedly vastly improved intellects might ever possibly generate. So we can all tell each other to go fuck ourselves, and come out shooting.
And in case anybody is paying attention and gives a shit and has even a smidgen of unburned Outrage Fuel left, how’s about this soul-satisfying “Warstler We’re No. 1″ bit of news And here you have it: “Top of the world, Ma!”
And in case anyone has any illusions that the Bad Boys of Bubbleland aren’t still very much on top of their FuckAllYouOtherMopes game, How about this latest entry in the Derivative Hard Rock Casino? Well, given that the wager in this one is that the old people die before their actuarial time, come on, Warstler, you little cretin, remind us of our duty to feed your mouth and shelter you in your “old room” when you Boomerang back home, and build a bunch of equity with your future-interest name on it (in the will, dork). And then DIE, DIE, DIE, you old basterds, and git out of the way of those very special new much smarter frisky young dolts…
Who themselves are too stupid to see that the people waving the false flag for the false-economic bullshit they buy into (libertarian free market mumbo-jumbo, if only markets worked perfectly then QED markets would work perfectly — gotta Love the deep circular logic) have stolen and are still busily stealing any wealth their supposedly vastly improved intellects might ever possibly generate. So we can all tell each other to go fuck ourselves, and come out shooting.
As forceful and unmisteable as it is, was this really BHM’s big mistake? A lot of people across the landscape would say that he hit too many things across the board at once, thus revealing what they credibly could take as a thrust toward nationalization of everything–a prejudice in favor of centralization where in many cases, arguably no such thrust was warrented. An insult to the states and to localization, generally, of government. So, a great over-confidence and cocksuredness.
If this alone is not anti-populist, then I don’t know what is, and nor do I construe what populism is good for. In general, he’s been a motivational idiot. But still he’s a smart fellow, smart enough to pick off his absurdly numerous czars and czarinas one-by-one, to prove again his bona fides with the Folk.
Perhaps he could replace Emmanuel with a more savvy person who might race him back to the populist, rather than the plutocratic, Center. But of course he lacks the spine to do such a thing, and for that lack he’ll have to take a hit at the mid-terms. The People are leaving.
The White House peaked far too soon.
What they’ll need is a TKO on healthcare by late December, combined with a well handled foreign crisis. The two, together, would shore things up nicely. Yet they haven’t either the talent or the spine in sight.
Still, here’s hoping…
As forceful and unmisteable as it is, was this really BHM’s big mistake? A lot of people across the landscape would say that he hit too many things across the board at once, thus revealing what they credibly could take as a thrust toward nationalization of everything–a prejudice in favor of centralization where in many cases, arguably no such thrust was warrented. An insult to the states and to localization, generally, of government. So, a great over-confidence and cocksuredness.
If this alone is not anti-populist, then I don’t know what is, and nor do I construe what populism is good for. In general, he’s been a motivational idiot. But still he’s a smart fellow, smart enough to pick off his absurdly numerous czars and czarinas one-by-one, to prove again his bona fides with the Folk.
Perhaps he could replace Emmanuel with a more savvy person who might race him back to the populist, rather than the plutocratic, Center. But of course he lacks the spine to do such a thing, and for that lack he’ll have to take a hit at the mid-terms. The People are leaving.
The White House peaked far too soon.
What they’ll need is a TKO on healthcare by late December, combined with a well handled foreign crisis. The two, together, would shore things up nicely. Yet they haven’t either the talent or the spine in sight.
Still, here’s hoping…
As forceful and unmisteable as it is, was this really BHM’s big mistake? A lot of people across the landscape would say that he hit too many things across the board at once, thus revealing what they credibly could take as a thrust toward nationalization of everything–a prejudice in favor of centralization where in many cases, arguably no such thrust was warrented. An insult to the states and to localization, generally, of government. So, a great over-confidence and cocksuredness.
If this alone is not anti-populist, then I don’t know what is, and nor do I construe what populism is good for. In general, he’s been a motivational idiot. But still he’s a smart fellow, smart enough to pick off his absurdly numerous czars and czarinas one-by-one, to prove again his bona fides with the Folk.
Perhaps he could replace Emmanuel with a more savvy person who might race him back to the populist, rather than the plutocratic, Center. But of course he lacks the spine to do such a thing, and for that lack he’ll have to take a hit at the mid-terms. The People are leaving.
The White House peaked far too soon.
What they’ll need is a TKO on healthcare by late December, combined with a well handled foreign crisis. The two, together, would shore things up nicely. Yet they haven’t either the talent or the spine in sight.
Still, here’s hoping…
As forceful and unmisteable as it is, was this really BHM’s big mistake? A lot of people across the landscape would say that he hit too many things across the board at once, thus revealing what they credibly could take as a thrust toward nationalization of everything–a prejudice in favor of centralization where in many cases, arguably no such thrust was warrented. An insult to the states and to localization, generally, of government. So, a great over-confidence and cocksuredness.
If this alone is not anti-populist, then I don’t know what is, and nor do I construe what populism is good for. In general, he’s been a motivational idiot. But still he’s a smart fellow, smart enough to pick off his absurdly numerous czars and czarinas one-by-one, to prove again his bona fides with the Folk.
Perhaps he could replace Emmanuel with a more savvy person who might race him back to the populist, rather than the plutocratic, Center. But of course he lacks the spine to do such a thing, and for that lack he’ll have to take a hit at the mid-terms. The People are leaving.
The White House peaked far too soon.
What they’ll need is a TKO on healthcare by late December, combined with a well handled foreign crisis. The two, together, would shore things up nicely. Yet they haven’t either the talent or the spine in sight.
Still, here’s hoping…
Try again with another shot at html orthography:
And in case anybody is paying attention and gives a shit and has even a smidgen of unburned Outrage Fuel left, how’s about this soul-satisfying “Warstler We’re No. 1″ bit of news And here you have it: “Top of the world, Ma!”
And in case anyone has any illusions that the Bad Boys of Bubbleland aren’t still very much on top of their FuckAllYouOtherMopes game, How about this latest entry in the Derivative Hard Rock Casino? Well, given that the wager in this one is that the old people die before their actuarial time, come on, Warstler, you little cretin, remind us of our duty to feed your mouth and shelter you in your “old room” when you Boomerang back home, and build a bunch of equity with your future-interest name on it (in the will, dork). And then DIE, DIE, DIE, you old basterds, and git out of the way of those very special new much smarter frisky young dolts…
Who themselves are too stupid to see that the people waving the false flag for the false-economic bullshit they buy into (libertarian free market mumbo-jumbo, if only markets worked perfectly then QED markets would work perfectly — gotta Love the deep circular logic) have stolen and are still busily stealing any wealth their supposedly vastly improved intellects might ever possibly generate. So we can all tell each other to go fuck ourselves, and come out shooting.
Try again with another shot at html orthography:
And in case anybody is paying attention and gives a shit and has even a smidgen of unburned Outrage Fuel left, how’s about this soul-satisfying “Warstler We’re No. 1″ bit of news And here you have it: “Top of the world, Ma!”
And in case anyone has any illusions that the Bad Boys of Bubbleland aren’t still very much on top of their FuckAllYouOtherMopes game, How about this latest entry in the Derivative Hard Rock Casino? Well, given that the wager in this one is that the old people die before their actuarial time, come on, Warstler, you little cretin, remind us of our duty to feed your mouth and shelter you in your “old room” when you Boomerang back home, and build a bunch of equity with your future-interest name on it (in the will, dork). And then DIE, DIE, DIE, you old basterds, and git out of the way of those very special new much smarter frisky young dolts…
Who themselves are too stupid to see that the people waving the false flag for the false-economic bullshit they buy into (libertarian free market mumbo-jumbo, if only markets worked perfectly then QED markets would work perfectly — gotta Love the deep circular logic) have stolen and are still busily stealing any wealth their supposedly vastly improved intellects might ever possibly generate. So we can all tell each other to go fuck ourselves, and come out shooting.
Sheesh, JTM, you’re talking about knocking off Libertarians one-by-one, and Jon and I are talking about the populist vote. Put yourself in the shoes of a political consultant. This is a time for alarm, going into the midterms.
Sheesh, JTM, you’re talking about knocking off Libertarians one-by-one, and Jon and I are talking about the populist vote. Put yourself in the shoes of a political consultant. This is a time for alarm, going into the midterms.
Sheesh, JTM, you’re talking about knocking off Libertarians one-by-one, and Jon and I are talking about the populist vote. Put yourself in the shoes of a political consultant. This is a time for alarm, going into the midterms.
I’m talking about wouldn’t it be lovely if people could all just get along and do the things that make where we all have to live a better place (lots of definitional issues there, ofr course,) but looks to me that there is no way that is going to happen and all the churning and burning between now and the end game is just froth on the cosmic ocean waves.
And I said not a thing about “knocking off libertarians one by one.” I am just tired of preachy-preachy Ayn Rand agree-with-me-in every-little-thing-or-you-are-apostate noise that is just a cover for a bunch of selfish self-interest that puffs itself up as the way to the Good Life for everyone. “Free market” and “tiny government (spending trillions on war and leading the world in weapons sales because ‘defense’ is the only true function of national government)” is just a pretty thin cover for fang-and-claw social Darwinism, or if you prefer a less loaded term, “I got mine, fuck you-ism.” And as a former Large Government Insider, you know how it really works, and maybe glim where it’s leading. Which makes no difference as long as the Few are comfortably To of the World while the rest starve, of course.
I would not want to wear the shoes of a political consultant or walk a mile much less, down the slippery slope that that set of charmers puts us on.
I’m talking about wouldn’t it be lovely if people could all just get along and do the things that make where we all have to live a better place (lots of definitional issues there, ofr course,) but looks to me that there is no way that is going to happen and all the churning and burning between now and the end game is just froth on the cosmic ocean waves.
And I said not a thing about “knocking off libertarians one by one.” I am just tired of preachy-preachy Ayn Rand agree-with-me-in every-little-thing-or-you-are-apostate noise that is just a cover for a bunch of selfish self-interest that puffs itself up as the way to the Good Life for everyone. “Free market” and “tiny government (spending trillions on war and leading the world in weapons sales because ‘defense’ is the only true function of national government)” is just a pretty thin cover for fang-and-claw social Darwinism, or if you prefer a less loaded term, “I got mine, fuck you-ism.” And as a former Large Government Insider, you know how it really works, and maybe glim where it’s leading. Which makes no difference as long as the Few are comfortably To of the World while the rest starve, of course.
I would not want to wear the shoes of a political consultant or walk a mile much less, down the slippery slope that that set of charmers puts us on.
I’m talking about wouldn’t it be lovely if people could all just get along and do the things that make where we all have to live a better place (lots of definitional issues there, ofr course,) but looks to me that there is no way that is going to happen and all the churning and burning between now and the end game is just froth on the cosmic ocean waves.
And I said not a thing about “knocking off libertarians one by one.” I am just tired of preachy-preachy Ayn Rand agree-with-me-in every-little-thing-or-you-are-apostate noise that is just a cover for a bunch of selfish self-interest that puffs itself up as the way to the Good Life for everyone. “Free market” and “tiny government (spending trillions on war and leading the world in weapons sales because ‘defense’ is the only true function of national government)” is just a pretty thin cover for fang-and-claw social Darwinism, or if you prefer a less loaded term, “I got mine, fuck you-ism.” And as a former Large Government Insider, you know how it really works, and maybe glim where it’s leading. Which makes no difference as long as the Few are comfortably To of the World while the rest starve, of course.
I would not want to wear the shoes of a political consultant or walk a mile much less, down the slippery slope that that set of charmers puts us on.
From my vantage it does seem Obama has made a mistake in trying to work with ‘the system’ (and current power brokers) where he had an opportunity to use popular support to buck the system (and step around the power brokers) and force at least one meaningful change.
News regarding his health care plans (which I don’t really know about because there doesn’t seem to be a clear rallying cry about them) seems to be all bad, and I can’t help but think that represents a failure by Obamas party.
I watched a Youtube video of Al Franken answering questions of protestors at one of these town hall meetings and he seemed to be winning them over by making direct, clear, arguments about what’s wrong and what the plan to fix it is.
Why aren’t those arguments being heard? If it’s just because vested interests are shouting them down I’m really going to regret not buying some gold a few years ago.
From my vantage it does seem Obama has made a mistake in trying to work with ‘the system’ (and current power brokers) where he had an opportunity to use popular support to buck the system (and step around the power brokers) and force at least one meaningful change.
News regarding his health care plans (which I don’t really know about because there doesn’t seem to be a clear rallying cry about them) seems to be all bad, and I can’t help but think that represents a failure by Obamas party.
I watched a Youtube video of Al Franken answering questions of protestors at one of these town hall meetings and he seemed to be winning them over by making direct, clear, arguments about what’s wrong and what the plan to fix it is.
Why aren’t those arguments being heard? If it’s just because vested interests are shouting them down I’m really going to regret not buying some gold a few years ago.
From my vantage it does seem Obama has made a mistake in trying to work with ‘the system’ (and current power brokers) where he had an opportunity to use popular support to buck the system (and step around the power brokers) and force at least one meaningful change.
News regarding his health care plans (which I don’t really know about because there doesn’t seem to be a clear rallying cry about them) seems to be all bad, and I can’t help but think that represents a failure by Obamas party.
I watched a Youtube video of Al Franken answering questions of protestors at one of these town hall meetings and he seemed to be winning them over by making direct, clear, arguments about what’s wrong and what the plan to fix it is.
Why aren’t those arguments being heard? If it’s just because vested interests are shouting them down I’m really going to regret not buying some gold a few years ago.
Well I don’t blame you, JTM, for either reluctance. Trust me on this one.
Well I don’t blame you, JTM, for either reluctance. Trust me on this one.
Well I don’t blame you, JTM, for either reluctance. Trust me on this one.
Jon, you have it so right.
Your last sentence sums it up the best:
“sold-out Democratic Presidency”.
I’m really sad that within a year the great hope that Obama represented, and rode on to the White House, has fizzled down to this.
(Even sadder that those who supported him on his way to the White House still think he’s their man).
Though to be honest, his voting record was very conservative even before he was elected (FISA).
He went back on all his promises to make government more transparent. Only keeping those promises that make gov’t bigger.
I still think he’s smarter than Bush and not secretly a Christian fundie. But he’s a conservative. He always said he was middle-of-the-road, which, in today’s politics, means halfway between NeoCons and ConservaDems.
Perhaps “Change” was just what the campaign told him to run on. Not what Rahm Emmanuel had in mind for the actual presidency.
He began his term by trying to appease the losers of this election – the Republicans – and appointed as many of the ‘old guard’ as he could into his administration.
Is it a mistake? Or is it by design? On that we can only speculate. But the results are identical.
Sold-out.
No other narrative can explain the perceived failures of this administration so fully.
Jon, you have it so right.
Your last sentence sums it up the best:
“sold-out Democratic Presidency”.
I’m really sad that within a year the great hope that Obama represented, and rode on to the White House, has fizzled down to this.
(Even sadder that those who supported him on his way to the White House still think he’s their man).
Though to be honest, his voting record was very conservative even before he was elected (FISA).
He went back on all his promises to make government more transparent. Only keeping those promises that make gov’t bigger.
I still think he’s smarter than Bush and not secretly a Christian fundie. But he’s a conservative. He always said he was middle-of-the-road, which, in today’s politics, means halfway between NeoCons and ConservaDems.
Perhaps “Change” was just what the campaign told him to run on. Not what Rahm Emmanuel had in mind for the actual presidency.
He began his term by trying to appease the losers of this election – the Republicans – and appointed as many of the ‘old guard’ as he could into his administration.
Is it a mistake? Or is it by design? On that we can only speculate. But the results are identical.
Sold-out.
No other narrative can explain the perceived failures of this administration so fully.
I just came across an interview with John Talbot, Obama supporter and former Goldman Sachs investment banker done while on a visit to Australia to promote his latest book.
Asked what was the single biggest lie told by Wall Street that got us into this crisis he replies,
“I think it would be this lie that I think originated in the United States back in 1981 under Ronald Reagan that free markets work best without any government interference and it was taken almost as a religion that if there was any government regulation at all, it interfered with the proper functioning of a market and the supply and demand curves and we ended up at sub-optimal levels of equilibrium.
What we found out is that that’s complete nonsense and if you’re a student of economics, you should’ve known it beforehand, because students of economics know that you can’t have a free market unless you have lots of regulation. You need to protect against fraudulent behaviour. You need to enforce contracts. You need to protect property rights. You need to have a very well developed judicial system and if you look at the countries of the world, this is what the poor countries of the world are lacking. They don’t have the rule of law, they don’t have good institutions and thus they don’t have strong markets and good economies.”
He goes on to observe,
“I think we’re going to be more in a W shape recovery, if at all, where we’re going to have another decline next year when the stimulus slows down. So, I’m less optimistic that what he’s done to date has solved the crisis and I particularly fault him and Geithner and Summers for not addressing the fundamental causes of the crisis, which I think are this fact that Wall Street and the bankers and the big corporations literally took control over the government and eliminated all regulation that protected consumers and individuals from their abhorrent behaviour.
The whole interview is worth a read and is at:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/John-R-Talbott-pd20090908-VNVLZ?OpenDocument&src=sph
I just came across an interview with John Talbot, Obama supporter and former Goldman Sachs investment banker done while on a visit to Australia to promote his latest book.
Asked what was the single biggest lie told by Wall Street that got us into this crisis he replies,
“I think it would be this lie that I think originated in the United States back in 1981 under Ronald Reagan that free markets work best without any government interference and it was taken almost as a religion that if there was any government regulation at all, it interfered with the proper functioning of a market and the supply and demand curves and we ended up at sub-optimal levels of equilibrium.
What we found out is that that’s complete nonsense and if you’re a student of economics, you should’ve known it beforehand, because students of economics know that you can’t have a free market unless you have lots of regulation. You need to protect against fraudulent behaviour. You need to enforce contracts. You need to protect property rights. You need to have a very well developed judicial system and if you look at the countries of the world, this is what the poor countries of the world are lacking. They don’t have the rule of law, they don’t have good institutions and thus they don’t have strong markets and good economies.”
He goes on to observe,
“I think we’re going to be more in a W shape recovery, if at all, where we’re going to have another decline next year when the stimulus slows down. So, I’m less optimistic that what he’s done to date has solved the crisis and I particularly fault him and Geithner and Summers for not addressing the fundamental causes of the crisis, which I think are this fact that Wall Street and the bankers and the big corporations literally took control over the government and eliminated all regulation that protected consumers and individuals from their abhorrent behaviour.
The whole interview is worth a read and is at:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/John-R-Talbott-pd20090908-VNVLZ?OpenDocument&src=sph
I just came across an interview with John Talbot, Obama supporter and former Goldman Sachs investment banker done while on a visit to Australia to promote his latest book.
Asked what was the single biggest lie told by Wall Street that got us into this crisis he replies,
“I think it would be this lie that I think originated in the United States back in 1981 under Ronald Reagan that free markets work best without any government interference and it was taken almost as a religion that if there was any government regulation at all, it interfered with the proper functioning of a market and the supply and demand curves and we ended up at sub-optimal levels of equilibrium.
What we found out is that that’s complete nonsense and if you’re a student of economics, you should’ve known it beforehand, because students of economics know that you can’t have a free market unless you have lots of regulation. You need to protect against fraudulent behaviour. You need to enforce contracts. You need to protect property rights. You need to have a very well developed judicial system and if you look at the countries of the world, this is what the poor countries of the world are lacking. They don’t have the rule of law, they don’t have good institutions and thus they don’t have strong markets and good economies.”
He goes on to observe,
“I think we’re going to be more in a W shape recovery, if at all, where we’re going to have another decline next year when the stimulus slows down. So, I’m less optimistic that what he’s done to date has solved the crisis and I particularly fault him and Geithner and Summers for not addressing the fundamental causes of the crisis, which I think are this fact that Wall Street and the bankers and the big corporations literally took control over the government and eliminated all regulation that protected consumers and individuals from their abhorrent behaviour.
The whole interview is worth a read and is at:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/John-R-Talbott-pd20090908-VNVLZ?OpenDocument&src=sph
Obama’s siding with the kleptocratic oligarchy should not come as a huge surprise. He voted to keep unlimited illegal wiretapping in place. And he was in favor of retroactive immunity for the telecoms. He wants to expand our presence in Afghanistan. He has been less than enthusiastic, to put it mildly, in pushing for healthcare reform. And his “investigation” of CIA torture is a whitewash of the Strangeloves who spearheaded the whole thing and today boast about it and their superpatriot status instead of rattling tin cups across iron bars.
I can say “at least he’s not Dick Cheney” and “at least he can speak two sentences without murdering the language,” and I can also say, “at least he’s not on vacation 28 weeks a year,” as well as, “at least he hasn’t handed any massive tax cuts to the megayacht crowd,” and, “At least he hasn’t started yet another Freedom Fries war for The Base to cheer on,” but sadly, that’s about as far as I can go. Mostly, I can praise Obama only for the bad things he hasn’t (yet) done.
Obama’s siding with the kleptocratic oligarchy should not come as a huge surprise. He voted to keep unlimited illegal wiretapping in place. And he was in favor of retroactive immunity for the telecoms. He wants to expand our presence in Afghanistan. He has been less than enthusiastic, to put it mildly, in pushing for healthcare reform. And his “investigation” of CIA torture is a whitewash of the Strangeloves who spearheaded the whole thing and today boast about it and their superpatriot status instead of rattling tin cups across iron bars.
I can say “at least he’s not Dick Cheney” and “at least he can speak two sentences without murdering the language,” and I can also say, “at least he’s not on vacation 28 weeks a year,” as well as, “at least he hasn’t handed any massive tax cuts to the megayacht crowd,” and, “At least he hasn’t started yet another Freedom Fries war for The Base to cheer on,” but sadly, that’s about as far as I can go. Mostly, I can praise Obama only for the bad things he hasn’t (yet) done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allport%27s_Scale
Thanks to Bob Wyman for pointing this out in another context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allport%27s_Scale
Thanks to Bob Wyman for pointing this out in another context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allport%27s_Scale
Thanks to Bob Wyman for pointing this out in another context.
To date, Obama has made two significant tactical mistakes. The first, selecting Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. Emanuel’s penchant for gamesmanship undercut the seriousness of Obama’s campaign convictions of trust, honesty and accountability. A message was sent, and the Players took note.
The second was in engaging in “sophomoric politics” with the finance/insurance industries. Castigation without investigation and indictment is not only “sophomoric”, given the magnitude of destruction casued by the bursting of the largest financial bubble in the “history of the world”, it’s criminal. Obama didn’t blink, he winked, and once again, the Players took note!
Health care reform will happen sometime before the end of the year. It has to; it’s why Obama was hired. Make no mistake; it won’t happen because “it’s the right thing to do”. Business, particularly big business, is tired of shouldering the cost of health care. In a global market place, better to push that cost onto the state.
What about “single payer”? Not yet. It’ll take a cycle or two (or three) before we’re ready for it. “Baby steps, baby steps” But Obama said so!?! Yes, and he’s also a politician (see the references to Emanuel and winking vs. blinking above).
Expect to see Obama recast as the “great coalition builder” after his speech to Congress tomorrow evening. By late Oct, several prominent Democrats and Republicans (both with safe seats) will step forward to reassure the public (middle). By the end of the year it will be a done deal, with leaders from both parties present at the legislation signing ceremony.
And then what? With mid-terms will only eight months away Democrats will campaign for greater coverage, Republicans on scaling back what’s been put into place.
What about Limbaugh, Beck and Mathews? They’ll continue shouting into their echo chambers. And so it goes.
To date, Obama has made two significant tactical mistakes. The first, selecting Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. Emanuel’s penchant for gamesmanship undercut the seriousness of Obama’s campaign convictions of trust, honesty and accountability. A message was sent, and the Players took note.
The second was in engaging in “sophomoric politics” with the finance/insurance industries. Castigation without investigation and indictment is not only “sophomoric”, given the magnitude of destruction casued by the bursting of the largest financial bubble in the “history of the world”, it’s criminal. Obama didn’t blink, he winked, and once again, the Players took note!
Health care reform will happen sometime before the end of the year. It has to; it’s why Obama was hired. Make no mistake; it won’t happen because “it’s the right thing to do”. Business, particularly big business, is tired of shouldering the cost of health care. In a global market place, better to push that cost onto the state.
What about “single payer”? Not yet. It’ll take a cycle or two (or three) before we’re ready for it. “Baby steps, baby steps” But Obama said so!?! Yes, and he’s also a politician (see the references to Emanuel and winking vs. blinking above).
Expect to see Obama recast as the “great coalition builder” after his speech to Congress tomorrow evening. By late Oct, several prominent Democrats and Republicans (both with safe seats) will step forward to reassure the public (middle). By the end of the year it will be a done deal, with leaders from both parties present at the legislation signing ceremony.
And then what? With mid-terms will only eight months away Democrats will campaign for greater coverage, Republicans on scaling back what’s been put into place.
What about Limbaugh, Beck and Mathews? They’ll continue shouting into their echo chambers. And so it goes.
To date, Obama has made two significant tactical mistakes. The first, selecting Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. Emanuel’s penchant for gamesmanship undercut the seriousness of Obama’s campaign convictions of trust, honesty and accountability. A message was sent, and the Players took note.
The second was in engaging in “sophomoric politics” with the finance/insurance industries. Castigation without investigation and indictment is not only “sophomoric”, given the magnitude of destruction casued by the bursting of the largest financial bubble in the “history of the world”, it’s criminal. Obama didn’t blink, he winked, and once again, the Players took note!
Health care reform will happen sometime before the end of the year. It has to; it’s why Obama was hired. Make no mistake; it won’t happen because “it’s the right thing to do”. Business, particularly big business, is tired of shouldering the cost of health care. In a global market place, better to push that cost onto the state.
What about “single payer”? Not yet. It’ll take a cycle or two (or three) before we’re ready for it. “Baby steps, baby steps” But Obama said so!?! Yes, and he’s also a politician (see the references to Emanuel and winking vs. blinking above).
Expect to see Obama recast as the “great coalition builder” after his speech to Congress tomorrow evening. By late Oct, several prominent Democrats and Republicans (both with safe seats) will step forward to reassure the public (middle). By the end of the year it will be a done deal, with leaders from both parties present at the legislation signing ceremony.
And then what? With mid-terms will only eight months away Democrats will campaign for greater coverage, Republicans on scaling back what’s been put into place.
What about Limbaugh, Beck and Mathews? They’ll continue shouting into their echo chambers. And so it goes.
To date, Obama has made two significant tactical mistakes. The first, selecting Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. Emanuel’s penchant for gamesmanship undercut the seriousness of Obama’s campaign convictions of trust, honesty and accountability. A message was sent, and the Players took note.
The second was in engaging in “sophomoric politics” with the finance/insurance industries. Castigation without investigation and indictment is not only “sophomoric”, given the magnitude of destruction casued by the bursting of the largest financial bubble in the “history of the world”, it’s criminal. Obama didn’t blink, he winked, and once again, the Players took note!
Health care reform will happen sometime before the end of the year. It has to; it’s why Obama was hired. Make no mistake; it won’t happen because “it’s the right thing to do”. Business, particularly big business, is tired of shouldering the cost of health care. In a global market place, better to push that cost onto the state.
What about “single payer”? Not yet. It’ll take a cycle or two (or three) before we’re ready for it. “Baby steps, baby steps” But Obama said so!?! Yes, and he’s also a politician (see the references to Emanuel and winking vs. blinking above).
Expect to see Obama recast as the “great coalition builder” after his speech to Congress tomorrow evening. By late Oct, several prominent Democrats and Republicans (both with safe seats) will step forward to reassure the public (middle). By the end of the year it will be a done deal, with leaders from both parties present at the legislation signing ceremony.
And then what? With mid-terms will only eight months away Democrats will campaign for greater coverage, Republicans on scaling back what’s been put into place.
What about Limbaugh, Beck and Mathews? They’ll continue shouting into their echo chambers. And so it goes.
The other way to look at it is that there is no more room to tap dance and changes will come upon his administration by the brute force of the winds of history.
The other way to look at it is that there is no more room to tap dance and changes will come upon his administration by the brute force of the winds of history.
The other way to look at it is that there is no more room to tap dance and changes will come upon his administration by the brute force of the winds of history.
The other way to look at it is that there is no more room to tap dance and changes will come upon his administration by the brute force of the winds of history.
Thanks for the link. All I got to say, as a former government and private practice lawyer and skeptical observer, is WHAT “rule of law,” here in this third world “undeveloping country” we call the USA?
Thanks for the link. All I got to say, as a former government and private practice lawyer and skeptical observer, is WHAT “rule of law,” here in this third world “undeveloping country” we call the USA?
Thanks for the link. All I got to say, as a former government and private practice lawyer and skeptical observer, is WHAT “rule of law,” here in this third world “undeveloping country” we call the USA?
Thanks for the link. All I got to say, as a former government and private practice lawyer and skeptical observer, is WHAT “rule of law,” here in this third world “undeveloping country” we call the USA?
@Gordon
Thank you for stating the obvious – that the rule of law and the creation of wealth go hand in hand.
Anyone who fails to grasp that distinction has no business in business or government. And a political party that goes out of its way to erase the obvious link between these things can – and must – be excoriated in the most explicit and public terms imaginable.
Bing ‘bipartisan’ in this environment means identifying people on both sides of the aisle who feel the same way. And more importantly, it means attacking people – on both sides of the aisle – who disagree.
Whatever else may be a matter of perspective, the world itself has settled any question about the rule of law, and it’s essential value to free and thriving human beings.
Making this a subject of ‘debate’ is like ‘discussing’ the ‘pros and cons’ of corruption, slavery, and genocide.
Simply entertaining the question goes beyond the pale. No respectable leader will tolerate such guff – especially not from within his own party.
But under Obama, we get total silence when the Senate ‘Ethics’ Committee decides that Chris Dodd could both receive illegally favorable treatment from Countrywide, while committing no serious offense.
In other words, it’s not just the bankers that Obama should have been going after. It’s the members of his own party who have spent the last decade or two lining their pockets with their contributions.
Schumer should have been the first to go.
@Gordon
Thank you for stating the obvious – that the rule of law and the creation of wealth go hand in hand.
Anyone who fails to grasp that distinction has no business in business or government. And a political party that goes out of its way to erase the obvious link between these things can – and must – be excoriated in the most explicit and public terms imaginable.
Bing ‘bipartisan’ in this environment means identifying people on both sides of the aisle who feel the same way. And more importantly, it means attacking people – on both sides of the aisle – who disagree.
Whatever else may be a matter of perspective, the world itself has settled any question about the rule of law, and it’s essential value to free and thriving human beings.
Making this a subject of ‘debate’ is like ‘discussing’ the ‘pros and cons’ of corruption, slavery, and genocide.
Simply entertaining the question goes beyond the pale. No respectable leader will tolerate such guff – especially not from within his own party.
But under Obama, we get total silence when the Senate ‘Ethics’ Committee decides that Chris Dodd could both receive illegally favorable treatment from Countrywide, while committing no serious offense.
In other words, it’s not just the bankers that Obama should have been going after. It’s the members of his own party who have spent the last decade or two lining their pockets with their contributions.
Schumer should have been the first to go.
@Gordon
Thank you for stating the obvious – that the rule of law and the creation of wealth go hand in hand.
Anyone who fails to grasp that distinction has no business in business or government. And a political party that goes out of its way to erase the obvious link between these things can – and must – be excoriated in the most explicit and public terms imaginable.
Bing ‘bipartisan’ in this environment means identifying people on both sides of the aisle who feel the same way. And more importantly, it means attacking people – on both sides of the aisle – who disagree.
Whatever else may be a matter of perspective, the world itself has settled any question about the rule of law, and it’s essential value to free and thriving human beings.
Making this a subject of ‘debate’ is like ‘discussing’ the ‘pros and cons’ of corruption, slavery, and genocide.
Simply entertaining the question goes beyond the pale. No respectable leader will tolerate such guff – especially not from within his own party.
But under Obama, we get total silence when the Senate ‘Ethics’ Committee decides that Chris Dodd could both receive illegally favorable treatment from Countrywide, while committing no serious offense.
In other words, it’s not just the bankers that Obama should have been going after. It’s the members of his own party who have spent the last decade or two lining their pockets with their contributions.
Schumer should have been the first to go.
Nice one. And did they ever. Now we have Max Bacchus – who has received more health care lobby money that anyone – with his foot planted firmly on the neck of Obama’s ‘signature’ policy.
I cannot understand why Obama is so deferential to top Democrats in Congress – especially when those same ‘leaders’ are almost enthusiastic in their humiliation of the President.
Nice one. And did they ever. Now we have Max Bacchus – who has received more health care lobby money that anyone – with his foot planted firmly on the neck of Obama’s ‘signature’ policy.
I cannot understand why Obama is so deferential to top Democrats in Congress – especially when those same ‘leaders’ are almost enthusiastic in their humiliation of the President.
Nice one. And did they ever. Now we have Max Bacchus – who has received more health care lobby money that anyone – with his foot planted firmly on the neck of Obama’s ‘signature’ policy.
I cannot understand why Obama is so deferential to top Democrats in Congress – especially when those same ‘leaders’ are almost enthusiastic in their humiliation of the President.
Nice one. And did they ever. Now we have Max Bacchus – who has received more health care lobby money that anyone – with his foot planted firmly on the neck of Obama’s ‘signature’ policy.
I cannot understand why Obama is so deferential to top Democrats in Congress – especially when those same ‘leaders’ are almost enthusiastic in their humiliation of the President.
Unfortunately it is now Obvious that Goldman-Sachs runs this Country. Every piece of the Bailout-Stimulus was either paid out Directly to Goldman-Sachs or they received Commissions to help facilitate their “Buddies” on Wall Street to receive the other parts of the Stimulus. The entire Treasury & Fed are run by former Goldman-Sachs Executives or cronies. The simple solution has always been to line up Guilty Bankers against a wall & shoot them. They – as a group – are: Amoral, Venal, Greedy Loan-Sharks who will prey on anyone as long as they get Paid. The stimulus will NEVER reach the Average American because it was NEVER intended to reach the Average American. The Stimulus is an Illusion to continue to perpetuate the Greed & Avarice of the Rich (Rush Limbaugh’s Favorite People). Fat Rush, Cry-Baby Sean & Insane Beck all talk about being “Free-Enterprise” & “Anti-Socialist” until the people receiving the Stimulus money are the Banks – then – in reality they are “Anti-Free-Enterprise”(because it would only help the little people) & “Pro-Socialism”(Because it Only Helps the Banks). In other words they “Hate” Socialism unless it means “Welfare” for Corporte America. Remember – When the “Leaders” of the “Conservative” movement are: A Fat, Obnoxious, Drug-Abuser, Nicotene Addict(Rush Limbaugh) & a self-confessed Manic-Depressive & Alcoholic (Glenn Beck) & a Snooty Irish Boy who got his Ass Kicked in High School for tattling on people – think of how Stupid their followers must be.
I hope Obama can Fight this Cabal – but it may just be that We are entering an era where We can now “See the Truth” which is that this Country has been run this way for years by the “Oligarchy” but they have never been this Bold before & now they don’t Fear the People anymore.
Unfortunately it is now Obvious that Goldman-Sachs runs this Country. Every piece of the Bailout-Stimulus was either paid out Directly to Goldman-Sachs or they received Commissions to help facilitate their “Buddies” on Wall Street to receive the other parts of the Stimulus. The entire Treasury & Fed are run by former Goldman-Sachs Executives or cronies. The simple solution has always been to line up Guilty Bankers against a wall & shoot them. They – as a group – are: Amoral, Venal, Greedy Loan-Sharks who will prey on anyone as long as they get Paid. The stimulus will NEVER reach the Average American because it was NEVER intended to reach the Average American. The Stimulus is an Illusion to continue to perpetuate the Greed & Avarice of the Rich (Rush Limbaugh’s Favorite People). Fat Rush, Cry-Baby Sean & Insane Beck all talk about being “Free-Enterprise” & “Anti-Socialist” until the people receiving the Stimulus money are the Banks – then – in reality they are “Anti-Free-Enterprise”(because it would only help the little people) & “Pro-Socialism”(Because it Only Helps the Banks). In other words they “Hate” Socialism unless it means “Welfare” for Corporte America. Remember – When the “Leaders” of the “Conservative” movement are: A Fat, Obnoxious, Drug-Abuser, Nicotene Addict(Rush Limbaugh) & a self-confessed Manic-Depressive & Alcoholic (Glenn Beck) & a Snooty Irish Boy who got his Ass Kicked in High School for tattling on people – think of how Stupid their followers must be.
I hope Obama can Fight this Cabal – but it may just be that We are entering an era where We can now “See the Truth” which is that this Country has been run this way for years by the “Oligarchy” but they have never been this Bold before & now they don’t Fear the People anymore.
Armand,
As you seize upon Jon’s use of the term “sell out”, let me ask you something about that concept. Doesn’t it seem to you that public officials can sell out only that for which they’ve stood? What does Obama stand for?
What I mean is, you can sell out either where you’ve come from, or else where you’ve promised to go. It strikes me that Obama is sellout-proof in that his campaign was deliberately gauzy on both fronts. As he stands for nothing in particular, he’s immune from selling out. See?
Armand,
As you seize upon Jon’s use of the term “sell out”, let me ask you something about that concept. Doesn’t it seem to you that public officials can sell out only that for which they’ve stood? What does Obama stand for?
What I mean is, you can sell out either where you’ve come from, or else where you’ve promised to go. It strikes me that Obama is sellout-proof in that his campaign was deliberately gauzy on both fronts. As he stands for nothing in particular, he’s immune from selling out. See?
Well,to me it’s kind of like toe-tapping, adulterous C Street Family Values. It’s selling out the people who were stupid and hopeful enough, once again, to believe that people who know they will be dead of natural causes, after decades of self-gratifying rapine, long before the crows and other carrion eaters home to roost, who have learned how to pillage the future as well as the present, free of consequences.
But if it’s just a game of semantics and you want to quibble about terms and not concepts, how’s about instead of “selling out,” you could just say “picking our pockets, stealing our security, fucking us in the ass and cutting our children’s throats” if you want. Anyone want to add anything?
Where’s that sheaf of pikes, now? I had it around here someplace….
Well,to me it’s kind of like toe-tapping, adulterous C Street Family Values. It’s selling out the people who were stupid and hopeful enough, once again, to believe that people who know they will be dead of natural causes, after decades of self-gratifying rapine, long before the crows and other carrion eaters home to roost, who have learned how to pillage the future as well as the present, free of consequences.
But if it’s just a game of semantics and you want to quibble about terms and not concepts, how’s about instead of “selling out,” you could just say “picking our pockets, stealing our security, fucking us in the ass and cutting our children’s throats” if you want. Anyone want to add anything?
Where’s that sheaf of pikes, now? I had it around here someplace….
Well,to me it’s kind of like toe-tapping, adulterous C Street Family Values. It’s selling out the people who were stupid and hopeful enough, once again, to believe that people who know they will be dead of natural causes, after decades of self-gratifying rapine, long before the crows and other carrion eaters home to roost, who have learned how to pillage the future as well as the present, free of consequences.
But if it’s just a game of semantics and you want to quibble about terms and not concepts, how’s about instead of “selling out,” you could just say “picking our pockets, stealing our security, fucking us in the ass and cutting our children’s throats” if you want. Anyone want to add anything?
Where’s that sheaf of pikes, now? I had it around here someplace….
Well,to me it’s kind of like toe-tapping, adulterous C Street Family Values. It’s selling out the people who were stupid and hopeful enough, once again, to believe that people who know they will be dead of natural causes, after decades of self-gratifying rapine, long before the crows and other carrion eaters home to roost, who have learned how to pillage the future as well as the present, free of consequences.
But if it’s just a game of semantics and you want to quibble about terms and not concepts, how’s about instead of “selling out,” you could just say “picking our pockets, stealing our security, fucking us in the ass and cutting our children’s throats” if you want. Anyone want to add anything?
Where’s that sheaf of pikes, now? I had it around here someplace….
Hugo,
The sheer number and variety of ‘bailouts’ has been a factor in grabbing the attention of folks who might otherwise have been less receptive to cries of “socialism! Marxism!”. But it isn’t clear to me that these bailout actions were so optional, or especially indicative of Obama’s character.
It is important to bear in mind that the right wing noise machine was going to crank up into high gear even if Obama had been a white southerner who did exactly what Bush had been doing, but with a “D” after his name. There is no actual connection between behavior and the “offense taken” by the professional promoters of “wing-nuttery”.
Given that, the basic error Obama has made is to preemptively distance himself from his left-flank. It’s one thing to start out genuinely pandering to your base and then make a great show of grudgingly conceding your way toward the center. Quite another to take the lefty ideas “off the table” at the outset and then get dragged back to Bushian right-wing territory.
Hugo,
The sheer number and variety of ‘bailouts’ has been a factor in grabbing the attention of folks who might otherwise have been less receptive to cries of “socialism! Marxism!”. But it isn’t clear to me that these bailout actions were so optional, or especially indicative of Obama’s character.
It is important to bear in mind that the right wing noise machine was going to crank up into high gear even if Obama had been a white southerner who did exactly what Bush had been doing, but with a “D” after his name. There is no actual connection between behavior and the “offense taken” by the professional promoters of “wing-nuttery”.
Given that, the basic error Obama has made is to preemptively distance himself from his left-flank. It’s one thing to start out genuinely pandering to your base and then make a great show of grudgingly conceding your way toward the center. Quite another to take the lefty ideas “off the table” at the outset and then get dragged back to Bushian right-wing territory.
Hugo,
The sheer number and variety of ‘bailouts’ has been a factor in grabbing the attention of folks who might otherwise have been less receptive to cries of “socialism! Marxism!”. But it isn’t clear to me that these bailout actions were so optional, or especially indicative of Obama’s character.
It is important to bear in mind that the right wing noise machine was going to crank up into high gear even if Obama had been a white southerner who did exactly what Bush had been doing, but with a “D” after his name. There is no actual connection between behavior and the “offense taken” by the professional promoters of “wing-nuttery”.
Given that, the basic error Obama has made is to preemptively distance himself from his left-flank. It’s one thing to start out genuinely pandering to your base and then make a great show of grudgingly conceding your way toward the center. Quite another to take the lefty ideas “off the table” at the outset and then get dragged back to Bushian right-wing territory.
Either way it’s a sell-out.
I remember candidate Obama pledging that he’d roll back No Child Left Behind. Now that he’s hideously beholden to the powers that be, he wants to improve it.
At some point we’ll have to say, “Fuck him”.
Either way it’s a sell-out.
I remember candidate Obama pledging that he’d roll back No Child Left Behind. Now that he’s hideously beholden to the powers that be, he wants to improve it.
At some point we’ll have to say, “Fuck him”.
Either way it’s a sell-out.
I remember candidate Obama pledging that he’d roll back No Child Left Behind. Now that he’s hideously beholden to the powers that be, he wants to improve it.
At some point we’ll have to say, “Fuck him”.
Either way it’s a sell-out.
I remember candidate Obama pledging that he’d roll back No Child Left Behind. Now that he’s hideously beholden to the powers that be, he wants to improve it.
At some point we’ll have to say, “Fuck him”.
Hugo- I’m not ready to give up yet. I just think he has to realize the wingnuts are not interested in compromise.
Hugo- I’m not ready to give up yet. I just think he has to realize the wingnuts are not interested in compromise.
Hugo- I’m not ready to give up yet. I just think he has to realize the wingnuts are not interested in compromise.
Hugo- I’m not ready to give up yet. I just think he has to realize the wingnuts are not interested in compromise.
And what could — this — possibly mean? Effete bierophilic prose playing paeans to a peasant-stock brew? Could politics indeed be coming full circle?
Naaah.
And what could — this — possibly mean? Effete bierophilic prose playing paeans to a peasant-stock brew? Could politics indeed be coming full circle?
Naaah.
And what could — this — possibly mean? Effete bierophilic prose playing paeans to a peasant-stock brew? Could politics indeed be coming full circle?
Naaah.
And what could — this — possibly mean? Effete bierophilic prose playing paeans to a peasant-stock brew? Could politics indeed be coming full circle?
Naaah.
No, Jon, I’m not ready to give up yet either, and didn’t take you as ready to do so. I’m just saying that Barack has more liabilities within than from without and that he’s slow on the uptake.
Many months ago I said that he would need a bare-bones Cabinet, the opposite of the over-large one we now see: Chieftan upon chieftan upon chieftan upon chieftan. It’s nuts.
No, Jon, I’m not ready to give up yet either, and didn’t take you as ready to do so. I’m just saying that Barack has more liabilities within than from without and that he’s slow on the uptake.
Many months ago I said that he would need a bare-bones Cabinet, the opposite of the over-large one we now see: Chieftan upon chieftan upon chieftan upon chieftan. It’s nuts.
No, Jon, I’m not ready to give up yet either, and didn’t take you as ready to do so. I’m just saying that Barack has more liabilities within than from without and that he’s slow on the uptake.
Many months ago I said that he would need a bare-bones Cabinet, the opposite of the over-large one we now see: Chieftan upon chieftan upon chieftan upon chieftan. It’s nuts.
No, Jon, I’m not ready to give up yet either, and didn’t take you as ready to do so. I’m just saying that Barack has more liabilities within than from without and that he’s slow on the uptake.
Many months ago I said that he would need a bare-bones Cabinet, the opposite of the over-large one we now see: Chieftan upon chieftan upon chieftan upon chieftan. It’s nuts.
A couple points:
First, it’s frustrating to see the opposition so able to steer the discussion their way (toward nothing). But I suspect this ultimately will not be very important in the end.
A lot of us would like to see the kind of us/them distinction we’ve become accustomed to lead to the righteous warriors of the left vanquish the foes on the news and in the courts (or wherever we imagine the epic battle would take place).
But I believe there are more realistic alternatives consistent with the all-inclusive, stay-out-or-join-in model Obama seems committed to. It remains to be seen what those might be. This revolution might not be televised, either by CNN or by The Huffington Post.
Second, your (Jon’s) statement brought to mind Lakoff’s point that the left too often believes that because our beliefs are true that we must prevail. (recently reframed by Lakoff as “the policyspeak disaster”) This is a dangerous trap both for activists and for those waiting in vain from the sidelines for Obama to fix all our problems.
To me the fact that the annoying popular debate has been staged and that people (unfortunately on the right more than on the left) are organizing around it is an improvement over what we’ve seen around other issues.
The question is not “what will Obama do” but “what will we do?”
I don’t think we’ll rid the nation of the Corporate Menace, but we might be able to get better health coverage in a nation that badly needs it.
A couple points:
First, it’s frustrating to see the opposition so able to steer the discussion their way (toward nothing). But I suspect this ultimately will not be very important in the end.
A lot of us would like to see the kind of us/them distinction we’ve become accustomed to lead to the righteous warriors of the left vanquish the foes on the news and in the courts (or wherever we imagine the epic battle would take place).
But I believe there are more realistic alternatives consistent with the all-inclusive, stay-out-or-join-in model Obama seems committed to. It remains to be seen what those might be. This revolution might not be televised, either by CNN or by The Huffington Post.
Second, your (Jon’s) statement brought to mind Lakoff’s point that the left too often believes that because our beliefs are true that we must prevail. (recently reframed by Lakoff as “the policyspeak disaster”) This is a dangerous trap both for activists and for those waiting in vain from the sidelines for Obama to fix all our problems.
To me the fact that the annoying popular debate has been staged and that people (unfortunately on the right more than on the left) are organizing around it is an improvement over what we’ve seen around other issues.
The question is not “what will Obama do” but “what will we do?”
I don’t think we’ll rid the nation of the Corporate Menace, but we might be able to get better health coverage in a nation that badly needs it.
A couple points:
First, it’s frustrating to see the opposition so able to steer the discussion their way (toward nothing). But I suspect this ultimately will not be very important in the end.
A lot of us would like to see the kind of us/them distinction we’ve become accustomed to lead to the righteous warriors of the left vanquish the foes on the news and in the courts (or wherever we imagine the epic battle would take place).
But I believe there are more realistic alternatives consistent with the all-inclusive, stay-out-or-join-in model Obama seems committed to. It remains to be seen what those might be. This revolution might not be televised, either by CNN or by The Huffington Post.
Second, your (Jon’s) statement brought to mind Lakoff’s point that the left too often believes that because our beliefs are true that we must prevail. (recently reframed by Lakoff as “the policyspeak disaster”) This is a dangerous trap both for activists and for those waiting in vain from the sidelines for Obama to fix all our problems.
To me the fact that the annoying popular debate has been staged and that people (unfortunately on the right more than on the left) are organizing around it is an improvement over what we’ve seen around other issues.
The question is not “what will Obama do” but “what will we do?”
I don’t think we’ll rid the nation of the Corporate Menace, but we might be able to get better health coverage in a nation that badly needs it.
A couple points:
First, it’s frustrating to see the opposition so able to steer the discussion their way (toward nothing). But I suspect this ultimately will not be very important in the end.
A lot of us would like to see the kind of us/them distinction we’ve become accustomed to lead to the righteous warriors of the left vanquish the foes on the news and in the courts (or wherever we imagine the epic battle would take place).
But I believe there are more realistic alternatives consistent with the all-inclusive, stay-out-or-join-in model Obama seems committed to. It remains to be seen what those might be. This revolution might not be televised, either by CNN or by The Huffington Post.
Second, your (Jon’s) statement brought to mind Lakoff’s point that the left too often believes that because our beliefs are true that we must prevail. (recently reframed by Lakoff as “the policyspeak disaster”) This is a dangerous trap both for activists and for those waiting in vain from the sidelines for Obama to fix all our problems.
To me the fact that the annoying popular debate has been staged and that people (unfortunately on the right more than on the left) are organizing around it is an improvement over what we’ve seen around other issues.
The question is not “what will Obama do” but “what will we do?”
I don’t think we’ll rid the nation of the Corporate Menace, but we might be able to get better health coverage in a nation that badly needs it.
And on NCLB, he’s the Antichrist.
And on NCLB, he’s the Antichrist.
You cant give up because if you do then you are with the others. That’s where the problem is. You can just wash your hands but you can work inside and try to push the promised changes.
Oliver Stone is doing a film on wall street that should be interesting maybe he’ll find out where the cash went .
You cant give up because if you do then you are with the others. That’s where the problem is. You can just wash your hands but you can work inside and try to push the promised changes.
Oliver Stone is doing a film on wall street that should be interesting maybe he’ll find out where the cash went .
You cant give up because if you do then you are with the others. That’s where the problem is. You can just wash your hands but you can work inside and try to push the promised changes.
Oliver Stone is doing a film on wall street that should be interesting maybe he’ll find out where the cash went .
You cant give up because if you do then you are with the others. That’s where the problem is. You can just wash your hands but you can work inside and try to push the promised changes.
Oliver Stone is doing a film on wall street that should be interesting maybe he’ll find out where the cash went .
bernard,
May God bless Oliver Stone in his new undertaking, but on his recent showings I would guess that he will miss the mark. He always has done. His aim is true, but his art over-shoots every time. He is ridiculous.
bernard,
May God bless Oliver Stone in his new undertaking, but on his recent showings I would guess that he will miss the mark. He always has done. His aim is true, but his art over-shoots every time. He is ridiculous.
bernard,
May God bless Oliver Stone in his new undertaking, but on his recent showings I would guess that he will miss the mark. He always has done. His aim is true, but his art over-shoots every time. He is ridiculous.
bernard,
May God bless Oliver Stone in his new undertaking, but on his recent showings I would guess that he will miss the mark. He always has done. His aim is true, but his art over-shoots every time. He is ridiculous.
At least his work is not shallow and that’s a plus.
Coming back to the subject The vision from outside the US is that Obama is powerless to bring the changes he proposed. In South America there is a military build up because the US are deploying 7 bases in Colombia. The end result is bad for both sides and leaves little room for a dialogue ( north and south). I think its a mistake, that’s not the way . The only winner is the International military complex of Russia, Europe and Asia.
At least his work is not shallow and that’s a plus.
Coming back to the subject The vision from outside the US is that Obama is powerless to bring the changes he proposed. In South America there is a military build up because the US are deploying 7 bases in Colombia. The end result is bad for both sides and leaves little room for a dialogue ( north and south). I think its a mistake, that’s not the way . The only winner is the International military complex of Russia, Europe and Asia.
At least his work is not shallow and that’s a plus.
Coming back to the subject The vision from outside the US is that Obama is powerless to bring the changes he proposed. In South America there is a military build up because the US are deploying 7 bases in Colombia. The end result is bad for both sides and leaves little room for a dialogue ( north and south). I think its a mistake, that’s not the way . The only winner is the International military complex of Russia, Europe and Asia.
At least his work is not shallow and that’s a plus.
Coming back to the subject The vision from outside the US is that Obama is powerless to bring the changes he proposed. In South America there is a military build up because the US are deploying 7 bases in Colombia. The end result is bad for both sides and leaves little room for a dialogue ( north and south). I think its a mistake, that’s not the way . The only winner is the International military complex of Russia, Europe and Asia.
I’m not an Oliver Stone fan. Like, not at all. But have you seen Any Given Sunday?
With that one, he managed to make one of the best films I’ve ever seen. Total digression, of course. Back to our previously scheduled gnashing of teeth.
I’m not an Oliver Stone fan. Like, not at all. But have you seen Any Given Sunday?
With that one, he managed to make one of the best films I’ve ever seen. Total digression, of course. Back to our previously scheduled gnashing of teeth.
I’m not an Oliver Stone fan. Like, not at all. But have you seen Any Given Sunday?
With that one, he managed to make one of the best films I’ve ever seen. Total digression, of course. Back to our previously scheduled gnashing of teeth.
I’m not an Oliver Stone fan. Like, not at all. But have you seen Any Given Sunday?
With that one, he managed to make one of the best films I’ve ever seen. Total digression, of course. Back to our previously scheduled gnashing of teeth.
You talking Oliver Stone and his Gekko fiction, or Michael Moore and his slightly astigmatic but still acute Coke bottle lenses? That nice hate-able fat guy who skewers the rest of us pretty sharply? The movie: “Capitalism: A Love Story”? Which will draw the usual “explainers” who will spend millions trying to blunt the impact and tell us how Wrong and Distorted the story is, and how People Like Him ought to Be Shut Up, so the field is clear for Made-For-Cable, Corporate-Funded Screeds against Billary? Which after all, Free Speech is all about EVERY citizen’s right to speak, no? Except for those Other People who don’t Share Our True Beliefs and Should Be Silenced Forever so they can’t Pollute Our Precious Bodily Fluids? And corporations after all are persons (however constituted and whether domiciled in the US or someplace far, far away to avoid the citizen’s liabilities), and if their voices are loud enough to drown out everyone else’s, well, that’s baseball for ya, wink wink.
(Oh, and did you hear the latest yuk? KFC is coming out with a Hillary Meal: Two small breasts, two fat thighs, and one Left Wing! Har Har Har Har Yuk! Fucking Left Lib’rals, I hate ‘em all, only good for shootin’ grumble grumble grumble snarl…)
Bernard, I’m sure you’ve noticed how the beefy guys with the buzz cuts and neck rolls and no lips and that raptor gaze and the chests full of medals, on different-colored uniforms under different flags, all look a lot more like one another than they look like the rest of us. Their lifetime career games involve scaring the rest of us into giving them lots of money and war toys and leeway to threaten and occasionally shoot one another up to keep the adrenalin and tales of glorious courage flowing (and of course kill a few of us negligible “ineffective non-combatants” to keep us in the appropriate state of fear of “the other, the Enemy.” Who’s gonna “get us” and “take us over,” like the Closet Monster, or those things under the bed.) Seen any of the many examples of that fundamental truth, that the “Band of Brothers” is ALL the soldiers of whatever side, who always seem to come together after the shootin’ stops to lean on each other and cry for the KIA and the shared fear and excitement of that Wonderful Time?
Oh, yes, they are “under civilian control.” Kind of like the 1,800-pound bull between the rodeo rider’s legs, to which he is strapped by a one-handed grip on a rope he’s not strong enough to break, and is bound by pride and macho and fear to try not to let go of, is “under his control.”
Good thing we occasionally have our own forms of rodeo clowns, known as “statesmen” and “diplomats,” to kind of distract the beast once we’re tossed and at least reduce the chance of getting trampled or gored.
You know why the US military is doing what it’s doing in Colombia and so many other places. There’s the “surface” mission of supposedly carrying on a global War on Drugs, but then you have the real reasons, having to do with building commands and moving geostrategically and doing all the shit that our sainted Honest Man, Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, pulled the blackout hood off of. And gee, when will our Fourth Estate ever get around to shining the floodlights of honest journalism on all that corruption?
Ain’t never gonna happen, of course, because we sheeple love our mythical notions of the Upright Soldier, the Virtuous Warrior, the Keeper of the Flame, Protector of the Light of Freedom and Liberty for All except the illegal aliens who change our sheets and keep up the landscaping fo $5 an hour, and all that is good and noble including raping and murdering and making the world safe for America’s enormous dead-end appetite for oil and all the other indicia of a meaningless but self-gratifying consumerism.
But then, as our Muslim brothers, who are just as bad (but no worse) than we are, would say, “Insh’Allah. So it is written, so it shall be.”
Oh, and remember to send your tithes to those Christian evangelists who are busily fomenting Armageddon over there in the Holy Land — you wouldn’t want to miss the Rapture in your lifetime, now wouldja?
(Fucking stupid humans grumble grumble…)
You talking Oliver Stone and his Gekko fiction, or Michael Moore and his slightly astigmatic but still acute Coke bottle lenses? That nice hate-able fat guy who skewers the rest of us pretty sharply? The movie: “Capitalism: A Love Story”? Which will draw the usual “explainers” who will spend millions trying to blunt the impact and tell us how Wrong and Distorted the story is, and how People Like Him ought to Be Shut Up, so the field is clear for Made-For-Cable, Corporate-Funded Screeds against Billary? Which after all, Free Speech is all about EVERY citizen’s right to speak, no? Except for those Other People who don’t Share Our True Beliefs and Should Be Silenced Forever so they can’t Pollute Our Precious Bodily Fluids? And corporations after all are persons (however constituted and whether domiciled in the US or someplace far, far away to avoid the citizen’s liabilities), and if their voices are loud enough to drown out everyone else’s, well, that’s baseball for ya, wink wink.
(Oh, and did you hear the latest yuk? KFC is coming out with a Hillary Meal: Two small breasts, two fat thighs, and one Left Wing! Har Har Har Har Yuk! Fucking Left Lib’rals, I hate ‘em all, only good for shootin’ grumble grumble grumble snarl…)
Bernard, I’m sure you’ve noticed how the beefy guys with the buzz cuts and neck rolls and no lips and that raptor gaze and the chests full of medals, on different-colored uniforms under different flags, all look a lot more like one another than they look like the rest of us. Their lifetime career games involve scaring the rest of us into giving them lots of money and war toys and leeway to threaten and occasionally shoot one another up to keep the adrenalin and tales of glorious courage flowing (and of course kill a few of us negligible “ineffective non-combatants” to keep us in the appropriate state of fear of “the other, the Enemy.” Who’s gonna “get us” and “take us over,” like the Closet Monster, or those things under the bed.) Seen any of the many examples of that fundamental truth, that the “Band of Brothers” is ALL the soldiers of whatever side, who always seem to come together after the shootin’ stops to lean on each other and cry for the KIA and the shared fear and excitement of that Wonderful Time?
Oh, yes, they are “under civilian control.” Kind of like the 1,800-pound bull between the rodeo rider’s legs, to which he is strapped by a one-handed grip on a rope he’s not strong enough to break, and is bound by pride and macho and fear to try not to let go of, is “under his control.”
Good thing we occasionally have our own forms of rodeo clowns, known as “statesmen” and “diplomats,” to kind of distract the beast once we’re tossed and at least reduce the chance of getting trampled or gored.
You know why the US military is doing what it’s doing in Colombia and so many other places. There’s the “surface” mission of supposedly carrying on a global War on Drugs, but then you have the real reasons, having to do with building commands and moving geostrategically and doing all the shit that our sainted Honest Man, Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, pulled the blackout hood off of. And gee, when will our Fourth Estate ever get around to shining the floodlights of honest journalism on all that corruption?
Ain’t never gonna happen, of course, because we sheeple love our mythical notions of the Upright Soldier, the Virtuous Warrior, the Keeper of the Flame, Protector of the Light of Freedom and Liberty for All except the illegal aliens who change our sheets and keep up the landscaping fo $5 an hour, and all that is good and noble including raping and murdering and making the world safe for America’s enormous dead-end appetite for oil and all the other indicia of a meaningless but self-gratifying consumerism.
But then, as our Muslim brothers, who are just as bad (but no worse) than we are, would say, “Insh’Allah. So it is written, so it shall be.”
Oh, and remember to send your tithes to those Christian evangelists who are busily fomenting Armageddon over there in the Holy Land — you wouldn’t want to miss the Rapture in your lifetime, now wouldja?
(Fucking stupid humans grumble grumble…)
You talking Oliver Stone and his Gekko fiction, or Michael Moore and his slightly astigmatic but still acute Coke bottle lenses? That nice hate-able fat guy who skewers the rest of us pretty sharply? The movie: “Capitalism: A Love Story”? Which will draw the usual “explainers” who will spend millions trying to blunt the impact and tell us how Wrong and Distorted the story is, and how People Like Him ought to Be Shut Up, so the field is clear for Made-For-Cable, Corporate-Funded Screeds against Billary? Which after all, Free Speech is all about EVERY citizen’s right to speak, no? Except for those Other People who don’t Share Our True Beliefs and Should Be Silenced Forever so they can’t Pollute Our Precious Bodily Fluids? And corporations after all are persons (however constituted and whether domiciled in the US or someplace far, far away to avoid the citizen’s liabilities), and if their voices are loud enough to drown out everyone else’s, well, that’s baseball for ya, wink wink.
(Oh, and did you hear the latest yuk? KFC is coming out with a Hillary Meal: Two small breasts, two fat thighs, and one Left Wing! Har Har Har Har Yuk! Fucking Left Lib’rals, I hate ‘em all, only good for shootin’ grumble grumble grumble snarl…)
Bernard, I’m sure you’ve noticed how the beefy guys with the buzz cuts and neck rolls and no lips and that raptor gaze and the chests full of medals, on different-colored uniforms under different flags, all look a lot more like one another than they look like the rest of us. Their lifetime career games involve scaring the rest of us into giving them lots of money and war toys and leeway to threaten and occasionally shoot one another up to keep the adrenalin and tales of glorious courage flowing (and of course kill a few of us negligible “ineffective non-combatants” to keep us in the appropriate state of fear of “the other, the Enemy.” Who’s gonna “get us” and “take us over,” like the Closet Monster, or those things under the bed.) Seen any of the many examples of that fundamental truth, that the “Band of Brothers” is ALL the soldiers of whatever side, who always seem to come together after the shootin’ stops to lean on each other and cry for the KIA and the shared fear and excitement of that Wonderful Time?
Oh, yes, they are “under civilian control.” Kind of like the 1,800-pound bull between the rodeo rider’s legs, to which he is strapped by a one-handed grip on a rope he’s not strong enough to break, and is bound by pride and macho and fear to try not to let go of, is “under his control.”
Good thing we occasionally have our own forms of rodeo clowns, known as “statesmen” and “diplomats,” to kind of distract the beast once we’re tossed and at least reduce the chance of getting trampled or gored.
You know why the US military is doing what it’s doing in Colombia and so many other places. There’s the “surface” mission of supposedly carrying on a global War on Drugs, but then you have the real reasons, having to do with building commands and moving geostrategically and doing all the shit that our sainted Honest Man, Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, pulled the blackout hood off of. And gee, when will our Fourth Estate ever get around to shining the floodlights of honest journalism on all that corruption?
Ain’t never gonna happen, of course, because we sheeple love our mythical notions of the Upright Soldier, the Virtuous Warrior, the Keeper of the Flame, Protector of the Light of Freedom and Liberty for All except the illegal aliens who change our sheets and keep up the landscaping fo $5 an hour, and all that is good and noble including raping and murdering and making the world safe for America’s enormous dead-end appetite for oil and all the other indicia of a meaningless but self-gratifying consumerism.
But then, as our Muslim brothers, who are just as bad (but no worse) than we are, would say, “Insh’Allah. So it is written, so it shall be.”
Oh, and remember to send your tithes to those Christian evangelists who are busily fomenting Armageddon over there in the Holy Land — you wouldn’t want to miss the Rapture in your lifetime, now wouldja?
(Fucking stupid humans grumble grumble…)
“Oliver Stone is doing a film on wall street that should be interesting maybe he’ll find out where the cash went .”
Huh? When did Hollywood replace the US Attorney General? Oh, my mistake, Eric’s busy with that Cheney thing. Wouldn’t want him to lose focus on that farce…
“Oliver Stone is doing a film on wall street that should be interesting maybe he’ll find out where the cash went .”
Huh? When did Hollywood replace the US Attorney General? Oh, my mistake, Eric’s busy with that Cheney thing. Wouldn’t want him to lose focus on that farce…
“Oliver Stone is doing a film on wall street that should be interesting maybe he’ll find out where the cash went .”
Huh? When did Hollywood replace the US Attorney General? Oh, my mistake, Eric’s busy with that Cheney thing. Wouldn’t want him to lose focus on that farce…
This is a slow but persistent hammering on Obama’s coalition. The Republicans are not afraid of health care although some of their funding sources are. They are reeling from having become the third party in a two party system. They need to divide the mandate of the last election and the most vulnerable to that are the far left members who expected Obama to ride in and slay all dragons in the first year. By using the high expectations set to increase the frustration, they can use the behavioral habits engendered to heighten emotions and divide loyalties.
This is why it is important to become less reactionary and more turtle like: slow and persistent.
Remember the space cowboy question: “Are you a turtle?” The correct answer is “You bet your sweet ass I am.” It was inherited by the missile gypsies from the jet test pilot gypsies. When working close to the edge, slow as you go is how you stay alive.
It doesn’t matter that there is so much stupid for them to recruit. It matters that smart people don’t act stupid because of frustration. Al Franken handled that well. Know the answers to the important questions and don’t be drawn in.
This is a slow but persistent hammering on Obama’s coalition. The Republicans are not afraid of health care although some of their funding sources are. They are reeling from having become the third party in a two party system. They need to divide the mandate of the last election and the most vulnerable to that are the far left members who expected Obama to ride in and slay all dragons in the first year. By using the high expectations set to increase the frustration, they can use the behavioral habits engendered to heighten emotions and divide loyalties.
This is why it is important to become less reactionary and more turtle like: slow and persistent.
Remember the space cowboy question: “Are you a turtle?” The correct answer is “You bet your sweet ass I am.” It was inherited by the missile gypsies from the jet test pilot gypsies. When working close to the edge, slow as you go is how you stay alive.
It doesn’t matter that there is so much stupid for them to recruit. It matters that smart people don’t act stupid because of frustration. Al Franken handled that well. Know the answers to the important questions and don’t be drawn in.
Very astute.
I’m just wondering when the Obama administration will realize that they represent the second party in this scheme of things.
Very astute.
I’m just wondering when the Obama administration will realize that they represent the second party in this scheme of things.
Tomorrow morning.
Tomorrow morning.
Here here JTM , the next one is going to be:
” Lets nuke the Amazon !” lots of socialist there! it’s called escalation. We have a place on a mountain where you can see the forest of the Amazon like a green sea, its called : the balcony of the sky, I guess I’ll go there and wait for the big bang…
Your vivid description of the human nature is scary. No way out. Oh well… Hey Jose pass me the rum… here is to you mate.
In all fairness, it’s important to note that the Obama administration is only partly to blame for the shitfest that’s blown up in the national news.
A giant part of the blame rests with the national news itself. Here’s an astonishingly undated article that The Atlantic ran back in 1996, called Why Americans Hate the Media“.
What’s remarkable is that that the problems on display today have been under discussion for nearly twenty years – without an iota of improvement. Which all goes to show that if the internet is killing off the media as we know it, then it’s a very good thing.
“But how” you ask “will we get by without our much vaunted Fourth Estate?”.
In reality, the Fourth Estate checked out sometime shortly after Watergate, and what we have today is a perfect example not of what will happen, but of what has already taken place. As the article points out:
This conclusion was reached <i nearly two decades ago. The article was a follow up, published some three and a half years after the fact, which concluded that precisely zero progress had been made. If ever that was an organization totally immune to self-assessment, it’s the contemporary news media. To wit:
With regard to health care, Obama made his first colossal error in thinking that Congress could come up with a bill that wasn’t warped to the point of being truly dangerous by special interests. Strike two was his attempt to sell this ‘plan’ through a filter that reduces everything to the level of illiterate gladiator fights.
And here’s the thing. We know the toxic relationship between the news and our legislators is exactly that – toxic. That’s why ‘Change’ was such a big hit.
And I agree with Jon – if Obama had started his terms with some major head-rolling in the banking sphere (combined with a direct-to-voters push that called for equally serious head-rolling among the banking sectors biggest Congressional supporters in the GOP and DNC alike) he could have hit both sides of the toxic equation at once.
This could have had enormous value is he made it explicitly clear what he was doing. He should have stated – point blank – that the news and the lawmakers had both failed Americans spectacularly, and that his primary objective was restoring the position of the government as “a structure in which citizens can deal with worrisome collective problems.”
He would then turn directly to the major news anchors, and let them know that the 24-hour news cycle carried a major part of the blame, and that the White House was – as promised – Changing the rules of the game.
One of the best suggestions I heard (from the folks at The Gawker, specifically) was that Obama should scrap the daily press briefing altogether, and refusing to have a regular press secretary available at any time.
Instead, he’d deliver a weekly update to the established Press Corps in person, and personally ice-out anyone who adopted the sensationalistic WWF approach that we all know is wrong and bad.
His message? You can have direct access to the President – but only if you provide the President with direct access to the American people.
If this had been the norm, crap like that Gates vs. the Cambridge PD story never would have blown up, as the ‘no comment for another week’ rule would have meant the (obviously irrelevant) story died on its own long before anyone could coax additional fuel out of the White House.
In the meantime, his website should become a primary source of breaking news and realtime developments for policy issues that actually matter. And it shouldn’t just be news-style updates. Instead, it should contain graphic visualizations of large and complex problems, with particular developments presented in this highly educational context.
If the MSM want to waste time and hot air behaving like play-by-play commentators, fine. But like sports – which you can happily watch with the volume at zero – this approach would reduce the media to the status of ‘entirely optional’.
This would be a very good thing, and probably one that the public would welcome with relish. As The Atlantic piece notes,
That’s pop culture, of course, but the real sting comes from an example that includes Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace, and pertains – interestingly enough – to torture and disclosure. Without coming to any hard conclusions in either case, it demonstrates that
That quote is from Newt Gingrich. Yes, that Newt Gingrich. And he he’s the one telling you your ethics are crap, well then, you’re in serious trouble.
That’s a message that Obama could score major points reiterating. But again – before he picks a fight with people who push pixels by the pound, he’d do well to have his own direct channel operating clearly.
In the same way that the ‘public’ option is supposed to keep health insurance companies honest, this ‘direct line’ would keep the Press Corp from writing the story they want to write, for fear that people will turn, instead, to the story they actually want to hear.
The essential thing is that this direct source be open source, and built with data available to all. Moreover, it should be set up so that any criticism could be responded to by adding to the map of reality.
“What’s that? We didn’t factor in X? Okay, here you go – here’s X in context.”
That’s the rule. You never respond to challenges in isolation, where they can take on lives of their own. You deal with them by adding to a bigger story – one which you are in firm control.
Kind of the opposite of what we have today, if you get right down to it.
What we have today”?
Gresham’s Rule meets the Peter Principle, and both go out to lunch with Murphy’s Law.
Thanks as usual for the telling explication, exigesis, whatever. The prescription seems to be right on the money. Unfortunately, it’s not on the formulary for our Health Unsurance, and short of revolution there’s no chance of getting a prior authorization or an override for medical necessaity.
Now turn to page 666 in your texts, for dramatic proof of why it ain’t gonna get much better. The SUV has to do a 10-flip rollover, ejecting all the occupants, before there’s a chance of any Change. Too much inertia and momentum to overcome. Not to mention the Antichrist and all that Stooopid.
The excrement of the devil that’s what the oil is.
bernard, “they” won’t likely nuke the Amazon — too much timber to strip, gold and gems to harvest, slash-and-burn agricultural opportunities, and of course “they” need places to graze the cattle that become our Whoppers and Big Macs…
At least two ways out: human species die-off (slow or quick, take your pick), or some way to instill good will and common, emphasize and repeat common as in “we are all in this together,” sense. Maybe there’s something “they” could put in the water??…
I keep waiting for somebody to show me the error of my bitter observational and reportorial ways. Other than Warstler’s half-bakery, that is.
In the meantime, I’ll go sit on the back deck of my boat and watch the sunrise, sunset, flight of penguins and egrets and ospreys and such, and have a rum and Coke for you. Skoal!