.. dragged a comb across my head ...
.. turned the radio on: shock! Horror!
-=*=-
The Dummos are caving in - as forecast, adding their milquetoast caveats.
The $US700bio is practically jumping straight into the Beagle Boys' pockets.
It's hard to imagine a bigger failure - except for a 1929-style crash and following depression, which so far we just don't have.
Sure, there's turbulence in the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, real estate), but that has hardly impacted the day-to-day sheople®, although the threat of superannuation funds 'evaporating' probably is biting. The sheople actually expect the stock market to crash every so often - that's an easy one, because that's exactly what happens. More shock, horror, and note a word now often deployed in conjunction with the current crisis: bet.
But: the markets were obviously defective - because why else would the neoliberals have deregulated them?
The deregulated markets allowed fraud to bloom, stealing from the cash-flow and enriching the clever-dick 'masters of the (finance) universe.'
Note: the now deregulated markets are also obviously defective - proof is the current crisis.
Q: how would you like your markets next? A: The markets, deregulated and regulated both, failed. The fact that markets crash, whatever their regulatory status, is - um, err - rather telling, eh? That pretty-well removes 'the market' argument, like toadally. Sooo, where (the bloody hell) is their ideology?
The proposed solution is to steal even more, this time direct from the sheople - $US700bio or so (final bill nowhere near in sight); goodly percentages of which will go straight to the same (criminal!) 'masters of the (finance) universe.'
And most probably (like night follows day), the Dummos will be blamed; it's the old-style wedge, damned etc.
-=*=-
Monday, September 22, 2008
For The Record
I called it first.
-Atrios 23:19
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_09_21_archive.html#8905305475796506073
And Because It's So Obvious
If the Democrats pass this piece of shit, look for Republican challengers to run against them on it.
-Atrios 15:23
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_09_21_archive.html#6220077789091439706
Smack Down
09.22.08 -- 7:45PM By Josh Marshall
I think Kos, Digby and Kilgore have this about right. The Republican/McCain plan is to get the Democrats to bail out the GOP's Wall Street friends and then run against them for doing it.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/218880.php
2008/09/25
woke up, fell out'a bed ...
A New Deployment.
Several bloggers today have pointed to this obviously disturbing article from Army Times, which announces that "beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st [Brigade Combat Team] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities."
...From the Jeff Stein article:
For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored -- until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."
It’s amazing what you can find if you turn over a few rocks in the anti-terrorism legislation Congress approved during the election season.
Take, for example, the
Signed by President Bush on Oct. 17, the law (PL 109-364) has a provocative provision called “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.”
The thrust of it seems to be about giving the federal government a far stronger hand in coordinating responses to Katrina-like disasters.
But on closer inspection, its language also alters the two-centuries-old Insurrection Act, which Congress passed in 1807 to limit the president’s power to deploy troops within the United States.
That law has long allowed the president to mobilize troops only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”
But the amended law takes the cuffs off.
Specifically, the new language adds “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident” to the list of conditions permitting the President to take over local authority — particularly “if domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”
Since the administration broadened what constitutes “conspiracy” in its definition of enemy combatants — anyone who “has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States,” in the language of the Military Commissions Act (PL 109-366) — critics say it’s a formula for executive branch mischief.
Yet despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill.
One of the few to complain, Sen.
It “subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law,” he said in remarks submitted to the Congressional Record on Sept. 29.
“The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor,” he said.
Moreover, he said, it breaks a long, fundamental tradition of federal restraint.
“Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.”
Nothing unusual in Bush disregarding the Constitution.
So what is the rationale? We saw a hint perhaps in the activities of law enforcement agencies before and during the Republican convention, as detailed previously. Could the Administration expect a higher level of public unrest, say in the wake of the elections? Or worse? There might be reasins for unrest if the election result does not seem to reflect opinion polls - and they are swinging in favour of Obama. But they have ways - and lots of new ones.
Bobby: "There are about 30 scams the Republicans are deliberately using, particularly in the swing states to get Democratic voters off the rolls. These scams originate in the so-called Help America Vote Act which was passed after the Florida debacle in the year 2000. It was originally suggested by Democrats and Republicans but it was passed by a Republican congress with a Republican senate and a Republican president. And instead of reforming what happened in Florida it basically institutionalized all the problems that happened in Florida. And institutionalized a series of impediments that make it very difficult for Democrats to register, for Democrats to vote and then for Democrats to have their vote counted.
Some people might not be impressed and want to voice their objections. But would they get very far?
Not forgetting the bailout - wherein the Administration wants to hand over a shipload of taxpayers' money to, at best, reckless fat-cats, and without accountability. A note - some have referred to this as "financial socialism", but think on who is to get the benefit and recall Mussolini also bailed out Capital. Perhaps the wrong "ism" is being used. And if you put together all we have seen over the past nearly eight years ...
Time to recall the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.The time has come.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
before any bailout is started ...
.. better make sure that the bung is in, 'cause ...
.. there's a hole in your bucket, dear sleazer
-=*=-
«... we will find these people and we will bring them to justice.»
-=*=-
OK, pardnah, now let's see you put your money where your mouth is.
These people have perpetrated out-and-out fraud, a form of 'daylight robbery.' By 'these people,' I don't mean the people who brought us the Iraqi-WMD fraud (murder for oil), here 'these people' are the (self described?) 'masters of the universe,' the Oh, so clever-dicks on Wall St., the ones who invented then perpetrated the swindles at the heart of the current financial crisis - 1st guesstimate at damage limitation, $US700bio. Some are saying that without a bailout the financial system will collapse. Whether this is hype can't be ruled out, and going on the recent past should be strongly suspected, but nevertheless. Frau Merkel seems to think there's a problem sufficiently grave to say that it was irresponsible for the US ...; she did not look at all amused.
-=*=-
If you buy something, anything, 'due diligence' apart, you expect a) that the info (i.e. truth) is available (even if you have to work for it, but why that?) - and b) you expect it to work 'as advertised.'
Keywords: product suitability, product liability, truth in advertising, etc. (Probably a few more; my poor recall.)
Looking at (a), the providers of info were either totally incompetent (recall 'masters of the (financial) universe') - or they 'simply' lied, then as for (b), i.e. working as advertised, the MBSs, CDOs & SIVs, etc. not only do not work at all well, they are sooo bad as to be described as 'toxic.' The writers of many of the underlying mortgages were uncoupled from any and all risk, and must have known that they were going over the (prior, good practice) limits. There is no other possible explanation for 'NINJA' mortgages (No Income, No Job.)
Full (i.e. not only to US victims) 'money back' as (part) reparation must be considered as only reasonable - but who's gunna pay? Why stick it to the mostly hard-pressed taxpayers, aka sheople®?
One thing that is fur shure, is that all those who have fraudulently profited should pay - usually (like the ATO, say) the penalty for financial malfeasance is to fine by some multiple of the 'damage.'
Given that the freaks have come close to destroying the financial system, any penalty ort'a be suitably extreme.
-=*=-
We know all about GWBush&Co's hypocrisy, not to mention criminality, as demonstrated by the US illegal invasion of Iraq, this Nuremberg class war crime then having being extended by morphing the illegal invasion into a brutal occupation, each filthy crime more murdering than the other. But (and it's a mighty big 'BUT'), the hapless victims of the US executive, aided by the US congress, perpetrated by the Pentagon (no honour there) and ultimately by the mainly US 'grunts,' those poor, hapless victims in Iraq were not us, i.e. they were some foreign other. (Me racist? No, but the US perpetrators: yes; they call it 'exceptionalist.')
With the financial crisis, the hapless victims of the toxic products of the 'masters of the (financial) universe' are us, and our mostly 'Western' friends.
What we need is a) reasonable reparations for all victims, and b) all perpetrators brought to justice. By all means fix 'the markets,' but no single penny to the crooks that caused the crash.
Nothing else will really do, eh pardnah?
Some justice for the survivors in Iraq wouldn't go astray, either.
-=*=-
Update - i.e you don't have to take my word for it, this from Rep. Marcy Kaptur via GG:
«To Wall St. insiders . . . you have perpetrated the greatest financial crimes ever on this American Republic. You think you can get by with it because you are extraordinarily wealthy and are the largest contributors to both presidential and Congressional campaigns in both major parties.»
My comment: Democracy? What democracy. This is 'the world's best' (so they say), the best and the brightest - criminals.
2008/09/23
voodoo economics ...
.. with a 'sting'
-=*=-
Something to start the day with:
September 22, 2008
Will the Cure be Worse Than the Crisis?
The Paulson-Bernacke Bank Bailout Plan
By MICHAEL HUDSON
«... Cities and states vied with each other to slash property taxes, replacing them with income and sales taxes that fall mainly on labor and consumers. The upshot is that wealth has polarized to an unprecedented degree. According to statistics collected by the Congressional Budget Office, the wealthiest 1% now own 57% of the nation’s returns to wealth (interest, dividends and capital gains) and the richest 10% own no less than 77%.»
[counterpunch/hudson]
Dear reader, if you don't read it all, you might as well stop here now, and exit (bye.)
For those still here, this:
Wages share of income slumps to 43-year low
September 3, 2008 - 5:37PM
«... Both small business and wage incomes have declined as a proportion of national income over the past few decades.
Along with rising income tax and interest payments, the proportion decline has been the main reason for the fall in household disposable income from more than 75% of total factor income in the 1960s to 61% at last measure.
Factor income is GDP adjusted for indirect taxes and production subsidies, and shows how much of national income is going to "factors of production'', notably labour and capital.
The compensation of employees - wages and the like - has fallen to 52.4% of factor income, the ABS figures show, its lowest since the March quarter of 1965.
Not surprisingly, household consumption spending has fallen to its lowest since the end of 1974.
At the same time profits, boosted by the resources boom and a subdued labour force, have zoomed to a record 28.4% of factor income, easily eclipsing anything seen in the 49-year history of the national accounts.»
[smh/business]
One more (repeated from the best that money can buy ...):
No longer just goodies for the top 1%
The Trillion Dollar Meltdown - Easy Money, High Rollers and Great Credit Crash by Charles R Morris
Reviewed by Julian Delasantellis
«One of the most striking developments over the past quarter century is the dramatic shift of taxable incomes towards the wealthiest people. Between 1980 and 2005, the top tenth of the population's share of all taxable income went from 34% to 46%, an increase of about a third. The changing distribution within the top 10%, however, is what's truly remarkable. The unlucky folks in the 90th to the 95th percentiles actually lost a little ground, while those in the 95th to 99th gained a little.
Overall, however, income shares in the 90th and 99th percentile were basically flat (24% in 1980 and 26% in 2005). Almost all the top one-tenth's share gains, in other words, went to the top 1%, or the top "centile", who doubled their share of national cash income from 9% to 19%.
Even within the top centile, however, the distribution of gains was radically skewed. Nearly 60% of it went to the top tenth of 1% of the population, and more than a fourth of it to the top one-hundredth of 1% of the population. Overall, the top tenth of 1% more than tripled their share of cash income to about 9%, while the top one-hundredth of 1%, or fewer than 15,000 taxpayers, quadrupled their share to 3.6% of all taxable income. Among those 15,000, the average tax return reported US$26 million of income in 2005, while the take for the entire group was $384 billion.»
[atimes/BOOK REVIEW]
My comment: the rich have become richer, there's some proof, also some hints at by how much.
-=*=-
There has been a take-over by stealth, by a 'system' sometimes referred to as voodoo[1] economics (especially apposite given the next word in my dictionary is voracious[2]). The 'real' name could be neoliberal, neoclassical, Friedman or "Chicago School" economics. Keywords are deregulation, 'user pays,' privatisation, greed.
-=*=-
As for Costello's halving of the CGT and its contribution to doubling Aus' house-prices, voodoo economics could not have more severely ripped us sheople® off, had it been consciously designed with that aim in mind. Ooops! We don't 'believe' in coincidences...
Voodoo economics has recently reached a crescendo, the deregulation and consequent swindles both having accelerated in the GWBush&Co era, so much so that the entire banking system, if not the economy as a whole with it, teeters on the brink.
-=*=-
So we come to my ennui[3], which is not from idleness or lack of interest and nor am I bored, but I despair. Again the next word in my dictionary is apposite: enormity[4], being the qualifier of our calamity.
-=*=-
What the hell went wrong, where are the adults?
-=*end*=-
PS And the sting? If Hudson is correct, we the sheople will pay and pay, not just to keep ourselves alive, but also for Paulson's so-called recovery bailout - actually the next, possibly greatest, rip-off ever. As if the rich were not rich enough already.
How much longer will the non-US adults tolerate such greed and criminality?
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] voodoo —n. religious witchcraft as practised esp. in the W. Indies. —v. (-doos, -dooed) affect by voodoo; bewitch. [Dahomey] [POD]
[2] voracious adj. 1 gluttonous, ravenous. 2 very eager (voracious reader). voraciously adv. voracity n. [Latin vorax from voro devour] [ibid.]
[3] ennui n. mental weariness from idleness or lack of interest; boredom. [French: related to *annoy] [ibid.]
[4] enormity n. (pl. -ies) 1 monstrous wickedness; monstrous crime. 2 serious error. 3 great size. [Latin enormitas] [ibid.]
2008/09/17
the best that money can buy ...
.. phoney[1] intellectuals: shame on you ...
.. subtitle: neither use nor eff'n ornament - bah!
-=*=-
Apart from the greedastrophe®[2] (which could quite effectively end life as most of us would like to live it), there are a couple of significant problems: a) the out'a control US+Israel and b) the similarly out'a control economy. These problems are partly as a result of out'a control politics[3] nested in a failing system risibly termed 'democracy'[4]. I, for one, am not laughing. These (among more) aspects of our world are dysfunctional, altogether an insult to our collective intelligence.
-=*=-
Preamble: once, people cared, things got done. The main thrust of the Magna Carta was in limiting the power of the king, a process which should have been continued to its logical end, i.e. no concentration of power (and no royalty, to boot.) We had various revolutions (France, US, Russia, China) - to rid the sheople® of the time from oppression, either inspired by and/or coincident with The Enlightenment, "Das Kapital" and "Mein Kampf" (say. List not exhaustive, and not all positive.) Democracy - at least as 'old' as the ancient Greeks, was 'chosen' as the preferred system. Q: What went wrong? A: Lots, mainly 'powered' by greed.
-=*=-
Main argument: Consider SNAFU[6]. Why that? Where are the adults? What are the truly smart people doing; why, when the world could be sooo beautiful, are we drowning in lies, greed, crime and war? We have universities churning out so-called intellectuals, what's gone wrong with their product?
Subsidiary argument: given that things have gone and continue to go so very wrong, change is not just desirable but necessary, hence this blog title:¡ NoMothS !
No more of the same!
1. War: Big news, world; pay attention! War is wrong, we should have none of it (and that, since a long time - at least since WW2.) Message to all intellectuals: Why are you so ineffective? Any who are not actively opposing war are betraying the human race. Yep, as bad as that; traitors!
2. Democracy. The 1st principle here should be "Do no harm!" The primary failing is that our so-called representatives are not properly representing their electorates. At this point one must emphasize: the electorate is the vast bulk of the voters, not just the few obscenely rich fat-cats[7]. Current 'leadership' is leading the world astray: just stop it!
3. Economy. The worst aspect of the current economic paradigm is growth. As if the world was infinite: stop it! Population growth must cease - and numbers allowed to reduce to at or below a sustainable level. No more more! Then as if 'the market' knew all: stop it! Deregulation and its associated running-dog ideology has failed. There are no cops only in Utopia; in real life we need effective economic cops soonest. We've had 25 years of Friedman and the "Chicago School," time to ditch the lot. Time for economists to get real.
4. Morality. First of all, ditch the 'g*d squad;' simply not needed. A necessary and sufficient morality can be built solely on reflexive altruism: I won't piss in your water, if you don't piss in mine. Try my attempted formalisation, the chezPhil morality.
Discussion: a possible corollary of reflexive altruism is "Every wo/man for himself," the extreme being "I'm OK, Jack - pull the ladder up!" - but that idea contradicts democracy; the fact of the matter is that we're all in it together: one (finite) world. Consider "Cooperate or die!" - we have to work together to save the planet - it's a must.
-=*=-
Fazit: No politician is Superman, they all depend on advice, which can come directly from think-tanks but originates with actual thinkers, these mainly educated through universities. It's time for universities in general and thinkers in particular to abandon all unworkable ideologies and return to straight science: to practical solutions; stuff that works.
BUT: Even if the politicians get good advice, nothing will help unless the politicians don't start acting responsibly.
-=*end*=-
PS Yesterday, I quoted an evil troll, Q: "If yore so clever, why ain't you rich?"
As a member of the sheople, A: Its not sooo important to be rich, more to live a full and happy life. Besides, under the current system, it looks like being rich strongly correlates with being criminal (basically, sick people); I'd rather just be happy, thanks.
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] phoney (also phony) colloq. —adj. (-ier, -iest) 1 sham; counterfeit. 2 fictitious. —n. (pl. -eys or -ies) phoney person or thing. phoniness n. [origin unknown] [POD]
[2] Greedastrophe® - the coming excess CO2-caused climate change, change as in 'not for the better,' and coming sooner rather than later - unless proper remedial action is taken, soonest.
[3] politics n.pl. 1 (treated as sing. or pl.) a art and science of government. b public life and affairs. 2 (usu. treated as pl.) political principles or practice (what are his politics?). 3 activities concerned with seeking power, status, etc. [POD]
polity n. (pl. -ies) 1 form or process of civil government. 2 organized society; State. [Greek polites citizen, from polis city] [ibid.]
[4] democracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 a government by the whole population, usu. through elected representatives. b State so governed. 2 classless and tolerant society. [Greek demokratia rule of the people] [ibid.]
[5] Mein Kampf, a political manifesto in which [Hitler] spelt out Germany's need to rearm, strive for economic self-sufficiency, suppress trade unionism and communism, and exterminate its Jewish minority.
[The OXFORD World ENCYCLOPEDIA]
[6] snafu slang —adj. in utter confusion. —n. this state. [acronym of ‘situation normal: all fouled (or fucked) up’] [POD]
[7] No longer just goodies for the top 1%
The Trillion Dollar Meltdown - Easy Money, High Rollers and Great Credit Crash by Charles R Morris
Reviewed by Julian Delasantellis
«One of the most striking developments over the past quarter century is the dramatic shift of taxable incomes towards the wealthiest people. Between 1980 and 2005, the top tenth of the population's share of all taxable income went from 34% to 46%, an increase of about a third. The changing distribution within the top 10%, however, is what's truly remarkable. The unlucky folks in the 90th to the 95th percentiles actually lost a little ground, while those in the 95th to 99th gained a little.
Overall, however, income shares in the 90th and 99th percentile were basically flat (24% in 1980 and 26% in 2005). Almost all the top one-tenth's share gains, in other words, went to the top 1%, or the top "centile", who doubled their share of national cash income from 9% to 19%.
Even within the top centile, however, the distribution of gains was radically skewed. Nearly 60% of it went to the top tenth of 1% of the population, and more than a fourth of it to the top one-hundredth of 1% of the population. Overall, the top tenth of 1% more than tripled their share of cash income to about 9%, while the top one-hundredth of 1%, or fewer than 15,000 taxpayers, quadrupled their share to 3.6% of all taxable income. Among those 15,000, the average tax return reported US$26 million of income in 2005, while the take for the entire group was $384 billion.»
[atimes/BOOK REVIEW]
My comment: Only three words; ghastly, obscene greed.
2008/09/14
betrayal ...
.. who would you vote for?
-=*=-
I found this article:
September 13 / 14, 2008
CounterPunch Diary
Panic!
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
It talks about how the Obama campaign has been 'spooked' by Palin's candidature for VP.
That's definitely one of the current 'presenting symptoms' of Dummo angst, but it's not the real problem.
The real problem has its roots in lies; both 'sides' tell 'em, and although we might've become accustomed (shame!) to expect lies from 'the right' ("All politicians lie!" having been deployed by the right in 'defence' of Howard et al., as one component of the lying, illegally invading, brutally occupying B, B & H) - we still have trouble 'handling' lies coming from 'our' side, i.e. the (putative) left. (To add insult to injury, Blair was supposedly of the 'left.' More shame.)
But even then, lies are still only a contributing factor to the 'real' real problem, which is a lack of meaningful democratic choice. Take, for example, Rudd's promise to act on the greenhouse, and his government's actual proposed 'solution.' In very few words: a piss-weak cop-out. Just like the Libs, the Labs are copping-out to local industry (apart from food and services, now mainly only miners & finance), itself just another cog in the wheel of 'global commerce' which is in turn a cipher for (overwhelmingly US) capitalism.
Over the years, this malignant capitalism has taken more and more power to itself (sadly, no-one has effectively acted upon Ike's "Beware the M/I-plex!" warning) - and it would appear that neither the Labs nor the Libs in Aus, the Dummos nor the Repugs 'over there,' can act contrary to the dictates of this grotesque malignancy. Q: Why is this capitalism so malignant? A: Because a) it's leading directly to the destruction of our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere - our one and only life-support system, b) it's unmercifully crushing the lower class and squeezing the middle class and c) all this to the benefit of 'the spoilers,' an extremely few already obscenely-rich fat-cats.
Now back to democratic choice: we (the voters, sheople® almost to the wo/man) have so little choice it's near enough to none; neither the Labs nor the Libs in Aus, the Dummos nor the Repugs 'over there' differ significantly; simply none of them is prepared to act to save our planet - or to stop the vile wars, let alone to stop their lying.
No choice, no truth, no democracy and no justice - we're 'ruled' by criminals and proxy-murderers we cannot be rid of; vote one side out and the other does much of the same, as we slowly, agonisingly, drown in a vast sea of filthy lies - and the creeping, ever nearing greedastrophe®, the excess-CO2 caused climate chaos that may well finish most of us off.
-=*=-
If Obama manages to win, it will be largely despite what he says, rather than the other way around, i.e. that he claims to be some sort'a agent for change. By almost all measures, he is nothing much more than 'more of the same,' with his "All options!" vis-à-vis Iran, say, or his immediate reassurances (aka grovelling) to the Israel Lobby - or his stupid 'surge success' comments, all of which recalls my headline, namely betrayal[1]; here's a quote:
«Betrayal is a moral issue, and with respect to war, mass destruction, maiming, and death, it is a moral issue of the highest order. Betraying trust is a matter of deception that knowingly leads to significant harm. There is little doubt that the Iraq War and its aftermath have done considerable harm -- to our troops, to the Iraqi people, and to our nation as whole. It is equally clear that there has been a considerable amount of deception in the instigation of the war and throughout the occupation.»
[huffpo/George Lakoff/Whose Betrayal?]
My comment: Well, we know all that; some of us have for a looong time, now. But the killing doesn't stop, nor the planning for the next slaughter. The lies keep sluicing out'a our TVs...
If Obama 'goes down,' that'd be three Dummos in a row; Gore, Kerry and him. Dummos have the 'rocky' path; they are supposed to be progressives, i.e. goodies. Repugs are known to be bad, they may well even be expected to lie and kill, while Dummos have to lie and kill too, all the while pretending they're goodies (cognitive dissonance, anyone? - Ouch!) As 'proof,' note that the Dummo Clinton did get himself elected, but just like the Repugs, he managed - when not being sooo distracted - to bomb and kill, and then there was Albright's 'the price [1mio 'collateral' Iraqis dead incl. ½mio kids] was worth it.' The name of the game is to say one thing ("They hate us for our freedoms!") and to do quite another, namely murder for spoil. Hypocrisy is a very minor crime, compared to murder. Always the same 'game;' it's imperialism, US-style.
Here's another quote:
«(3) Imperialism has multiple interacting facets, which mutually reinforce each other: The mass media and culture in general are weapons for securing consent and/or acquiescence of the masses in pursuit of empire building which prejudices their material and spiritual existence. Imperialism cannot be isolated and reduced to simple economic reductionism. Economic exploitation is only possible under conditions of subjective subordination and that refers to education, entertainment, literature and art as terrains of class relations and class struggle linked to the empire.
(4) The social, ideological and political loyalties of the political elite, which direct the imperial state, determines the tactics and strategy which will be pursued in empire building. One cannot automatically assume that the political leadership will prioritize the interests of the MNCs in every region of the world at all times. When imperial leadership has divided loyalties with another state imperial policies may not coincide with the interests of the MNCs. Under these special circumstances of rulers with divided imperial loyalties, the ‘normal’ operations of the imperial state are suspended. The case of Zionist power in the US imperial state is a case in point. Through powerful and wealthy socio-political organizations, representation on powerful Congressional committees and strong presence in senior Executive offices (Pentagon, State Department, National Security Council, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury) and the mass media, the Zionist elite dictates US Middle East policy. The US military serves Israeli colonial-expansionist interests even at the expense of the major US oil companies which are prevented from signing billion-dollar oil contracts with Iran and other oil-rich countries at odds with Israel.»
[ICH/James Petras/Empire and Imperialism and the USA]
My comment: look at the keywords, para (3) says there's a wide-spectrum info-war against the sheople, para (4) says there's an immoral ideology out'a all control. Finally, using the word 'elite' is simply *wrong*, there's nothing élite[2] about bullying, let alone lying, cheating, stealing and murder - the main business of the US of A, Israel (which one dog/tail?), UK & Aus, aka the wannabe hegemon, its illegitimate sprog, the poodle with dag.
What a bloody mess, what of the (lost!) Enlightenment, where are the adults?
-=*end*=-
PS
«Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.»
– Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (antiwar.com)
More: if the sheople are not informed, or even deliberately misinformed (they are), if the choice of candidates is not a meaningful choice (it's not), then any resulting government is not just not popular, it's illegitimate. No legitimacy, no rights, neither to pass laws nor give orders. Any (i.e. the military) accepting orders from such an illegitimate authority, any who go on to kill (not all, but mostly innocent 'collaterals') are murderers, and exactly the same as the order givers, make themselves criminals.
Facit: Such undemocratic regimes must be seen, even by Blind Freddy, for what they are; if you, dear voter, appreciate that the choice 'presented' to you is not a meaningful choice, then it would only be correct to indicate as much: put both the major parties last on your preference list (your order, natch) - or perhaps it may be better not to vote at all.
PPS
There is a not-so-small "Ah - ha!" in here, it's been bubbling up (within me) for some time: the whole, wide world (or at least, as much as can I see of it) is totally dominated by propaganda, thanks, but "No, thanks!" mainly to the so-called leaders of the (not-so-free) world, the good - actually bad - old US of A. I realised - shock, horror! - that we were being propagandized a long time ago now (my 1st published mention was 13May'03). Recall that almost by definition propaganda[3] (selected information, etc., usually derogatory) differs somewhat from the truth - i.e. it's basically lies. One corollary of this - recall also that "All politicians lie!" - is that all politicians must therefore lie, just to compete - so's to say (the alternative would be to get some spine). Also, we can now better understand the main complaint about Conned-a-sleazer; that she's 'a bad liar.' This is what makes any election campaign such a pain, the fools have to continually manoeuvre in a fake-space of lies. Think about that, i.e. lies, for a while (take your time), and whether that'd be your 'preferred world,' presuming you had a (meaningful) choice, that is...
A final tut-tut: all those who realise what is really going on, but do not resist to the very best of their ability - well, they will have 'deserved' their fate; and ignorance, in this case, won't be bliss either - Oh no, not at all.
Once again (looping, as usual), what a bloody mess, what of the (lost!) Enlightenment, where are the adults?
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] betray v. 1 be disloyal or treacherous to (a friend, one's country, a person's trust, etc.). 2 reveal involuntarily or treacherously; be evidence of. 3 lead astray. betrayal n. [from *be-, obsolete tray from Latin trado hand over] [POD]
[2] élite n. 1 (prec. by the) the best (of a group). 2 select group or class. 3 a size of letters in typewriting (12 per inch). [French: related to *elect] [ibid.]
[3] propaganda n. 1 organized propagation of a doctrine by use of publicity, selected information, etc. 2 usu. derog. ideas etc. so propagated. propagandist n. & adj. propagandize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing). [Latin: related to *propagate] [ibid.]
2008/09/11
the obesity epidemic can be solved ...
.. by putting them all on a (forced!) diet
-=*=-
Nobody forces those horrible fatties to stuff themselves; they gorge themselves, apparently quite willingly, to the point where lots become overweight-sick. I'm not suggesting forcing these particular fatties onto any diet - that might be a violation of some sort'a 'human' rights, but at the same time, since any resulting illness is entirely self-caused, they should have to pay any associated medical bills entirely un-assisted.
-=*=-
A few obese people might be one (disgusting) thing, but an entire obese country is quite another. The US, with about 5% of the world's population, consumes approximately 25% of the world's resources, and so is 'responsible' for at least the same proportion of pollution, including CO2. Note: that's consuming/polluting at a rate over 6 times the remainders' average! ((25 / 5) / (75 / 95) = 6.3') Why that? Why should they? Simply put, daaarlings, they have no right. Since excess CO2 is killing our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere, CO2 discharges *must* be returned to a long-term sustainable rate, and may actually have to dip below that rate for a while - and v.soon, in order to get CO2 down then stabilise it at some 'life-friendly' level.
As we can see with individuals, so countries; few go voluntarily onto effective diets (see the Rudd/Garnaut carbon trading travesty - boo! Hiss!) The US and Aus compete for the worst per capita CO2 pollution, China may be a competitor for the worst polluting country. Whatever; since none of them or any others are likely to effectively reduce CO2 pollution to sustainable rates on their own, they all should be put onto a (forced!) diet.
Australia is a 'strange' case, it is both a heavy CO2 polluter and an important exporter of coal, the most important CO2 source, after which comes oil. Q: What will happen, after all the coal/oil is exhausted - in both senses of the word? A: When it's gone, it's over; both the burning and the earning. It only makes sense to string both out as long as possible, and in any case, the digging-up (or pumping-out) *must* be reduced to at or below the sustainable CO2 carrying capacity of our atmosphere - which we *absolutely need to do* - or we'll all die, taking most the world's worthwhile life with us.
Fazit: that's the diet I'm talking about; stop diggin' it all up, or pumpin' it all out. One could call this "Phil's supply-side save-the-planet solution." Of course, big-oil and the miners won't like it - but stuff them - before they stuff the world.
Save the planet! (Or we'll lose our liveable environment - idiots.)
-=*end*=-
PS Big-oil and the coal miners must go the way of the dinosaurs, whose remains they violate. But not just them, (mainly) US capitalism has morphed into a grotesque cancer on the planet. Sillinesses such as privatisation, deregulation and globalisation et al. have failed; here's an article that partly explains:
August 29, 2008
An Interview with Michael Hudson
How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy
By MIKE WHITNEY
«MW: Economist Henry Liu said in his article "Dollar hegemony enables the US to own indirectly but essentially the entire global economy by requiring its wealth to be denominated in fiat dollars that the US can print at will with little in the way of monetary penalties.....World trade is now a game in which the US produces fiat dollars of uncertain exchange value and zero intrinsic value, and the rest of the world produces goods and services that fiat dollars can buy at "market prices" quoted in dollars." Is Liu overstating the case or have the Federal Reserve and western banking elites really figured out how to maintain imperial control over the global economy simply by ensuring that most energy, commodities, and manufactured goods are denominated in dollars? If that's the case, then it would seem that the actual "face-value" of the dollar does not matter as much as long as it continues to be used in the purchase of commodities. Is this right?
Michael Hudson: Henry Liu and I have been discussing this for many years now. We are in full agreement. The paragraph you quote is quite right. His Asia Times articles provide a running analysis of dollar hegemony.»
My comment: The US prints $s, and the world chokes on the US deficit - just as our ecosphere is choking on excess CO2. There's more, but one needn't to take my word for it - the evidence of the US failure is all around and especially anywhere it 'dumps' its steel-jacketed, depleted-uranium encased HE. Bastards! Then: Why should we allow the world to be run by lying, cheating crooks - and murderers?
2008/09/05
Imperial Reach - A basic resource guide.
Here it is, as simply as I can put it: In the course of any year, there must be relatively few countries on this planet on which U.S. soldiers do not set foot, whether with guns blazing, humanitarian aid in hand, or just for a friendly visit. In startling numbers of countries, our soldiers not only arrive, but stay interminably, if not indefinitely. Sometimes they live on military bases built to the tune of billions of dollars that amount to sizeable American towns (with accompanying amenities), sometimes on stripped down forward operating bases that may not even have showers. When those troops don't stay, often American equipment does -- carefully stored for further use at tiny "cooperative security locations," known informally as "lily pads" (from which U.S. troops, like so many frogs, could assumedly leap quickly into a region in crisis).
At the height of the Roman Empire, the Romans had an estimated 37 major military bases scattered around their dominions. At the height of the British Empire, the British had 36 of them planetwide. Depending on just who you listen to and how you count, we have hundreds of bases. According to Pentagon records, in fact, there are 761 active military "sites" abroad.
The fact is: We garrison the planet north to south, east to west, and even on the seven seas, thanks to our various fleets and our massive aircraft carriers which, with 5,000-6,000 personnel aboard -- that is, the population of an American town -- are functionally floating bases.
And here's the other half of that simple truth: We don't care to know about it. We, the American people, aided and abetted by our politicians, the Pentagon, and the mainstream media, are knee-deep in base denial.
Now, that's the gist of it. If, like most Americans, that's more than you care to know, stop here.
But do not "stop here". There's more and a link to a resource being developed by Mother Jones. Here is the front page:
Introduction: Mission Creep
Bush and Rumsfeld may be history but America's new global footprint lives on.
By Michael Mechanic
Mapping the Pentagon's Global Footprint
Exclusive: In a yearlong project, the Mother Jones editorial team investigated US military activity around the globe, country by country. Presenting our new primer of the post-Bush world order.
America's Unwelcome Advances
The US military's foreign overtures are running into a world of public opposition. Plus: Hot buys at the PX!
By Chalmers Johnson
US Troops Retake the Dragon's Lair
Filipinos thought they'd sent the GIs packing, but the Pentagon found a way in through the back door.
By Herbert Docena
Homesick for Camp Justice
Exiled to make way for a US military base, the islanders of Diego Garcia have convinced the British courts of their right to return. But the UK is fighting tooth and nail to keep them from coming back.
By David Vine
How to Stay in Iraq for 1,000 Years
Is there a way for US negotiators to finagle permanent bases without permission from Congress? Yep. It's called a SOFA.
By Frida Berrigan
What Permanent Iraq Presence?
What the Beltway crowd said way back when about how long we'd be in Baghdad.
Brzezinski Talks Bases
The former national security adviser on the Bush Pentagon's spending binge: "Do we really need that for our security?"
Interview by Michael Mechanic
My Bases Are Bigger Than Your Country
Our roundup of the Pentagon's latest basing stats—plus a few we dug up ourselves.
By Celia Perry
More From the Experts
Additional articles on the Pentagon's overseas strategy, plus, coming soon, a series of related dispatches from more than a dozen US military thinkers and authors.
A large and growing resource but appropriate for analyzing a voracious monster which seems likely to implode.
Managing such a vast enterprise is a challenge, so how have the present overseers done? A retrospective of "highlights" of the Bush years. The opening quote:
"You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you’re gone." —W.
Hardly an auspicious start. But what will the end be like?