SO, AT LEAST, 9/11 RESULTED IN FREEDOM FOR IRAQ, RIGHT?

Does anybody even seriously believe that anymore?

From Firedoglake via AlterNet:

WikiLeaks Cable: Iraqi Interrogators Rape Juveniles to Get Confessions

A US State Embassy cable marked “confidential” and published by WikiLeaks reveals details on the detention of juveniles held in “Site 4″ in a Iraq Interior Ministry (MOI) detention complex. The juveniles allege sexual abuse by Iraqi interrogators, specifically that rapes were being used in the prison to induce confessions. The discovery of widespread abuse and torture, according to the diplomat who wrote the cable, is the worst since the infamous Jadriyah “Bunker” facility was discovered in 2005.

On May 30, 2006, a “joint US-Iraqi inspection” of the detention facility took place. The facility, located in central Baghdad, was found to have 1,400 detainees. They were in “two separate facilities” and “held in squalid, cramped conditions not uncommon in MOI (Ministry of Interior) Commando detention facilities.” Inspectors interviewed forty-one detainees, who had “bruising and lash-marks consistent with violent physical abuse.” And, thirty-seven juveniles, who had been “illegally detained,” were found in the facility, “many alleging sexual abuse.”

More here.

Really, the Iraq war was the reason I started blogging. I needed to vent about it all, and felt like doing so in my capacity as a high school teacher would get me fired, given the way the popular consensus was that you were filthy anti-American trash if you opposed the invasion. So I started blogging. My opposition was based on the fact that it appeared to be an extraordinarily bad idea at the time--I mean, if Islamic terrorism is tied with an anti-American ideology roused by US economic exploitation of Islamic nations and our support for brutal despots in the region, then killing masses of Muslims seemed, and still seems, amazingly counterproductive. That, and the justifications offered by the Bush administration were demonstrably untrue, which you knew if you were reading anything beyond the mainstream corporate produced US press. So it was a stupid idea that had absolutely no good rationale.

Little did I know how badly the Bush administration would botch the occupation.

Despite my extreme skepticism, I didn't really doubt that there was a chance that something good might come out of the invasion. Get rid of a dictator; have free elections. Okay sure. That might be a good thing. If it happens. I just assumed that the problem was that the American establishment was totally hankering for war. I never thought in any to way factor in extreme incompetence on the part of Bush and his cadre. I figured that they knew what they were doing. I figured that they were straight-up lying about weapons of mass destruction, instead of believing in spite of the evidence, which now appears is what happened. I figured we would win and the Republicans would have a shiny new toy in the Middle East to play with.

Boy was I wrong.

We now know that the hawks were wrong about everything. Okay, they were right about how easily we would take down Saddam Hussein's army, but that's only one of many factors in winning a war. Sure, it's probably the most important factor, but it's not the only one. Creating stability, installing the institutions necessary for having a civil society, finding capable and ethical men to run those institutions, getting the people on board for it all, these are the kind of things that the US occupation not only failed to do, but simply didn't even try to do. Rank incompetence, pure and simple.

The US public eventually figured it out in the days and weeks after Katrina devastated New Orleans. But up until that point, Bush was still getting the benefit of the doubt. Now days, however, people just don't even think about Iraq. The mainstream media barely even cover it, and when they do, it's not part of an ongoing narrative that would provide some sort of understanding of what's going on over there. Out of sight, out of mind. Our biggest national fuck up, and we don't even talk about it.

And it continues to be our biggest national fuck up. These rape chambers are only part of the picture. The big picture is arguably worse. Indeed, it's safe to say at this point that the Iraqi people had it better under Saddam Hussein. I mean, it wasn't Nirvana or anything, but it was better. We blew it big time. It's just fucking horrible in Iraq, and it's all our fault. And now it's a bipartisan disaster.

Hopey-Changey ain't doing nothing to fix it. Will we ever acknowledge our shame? Probably not.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FROM THE REAL ART SPORTS DESK
TEXAS WINS A TOUGH ONE, LSU BEATS FRESHMAN B TEAM

From the AP via ESPN:

Backup QBs help Texas edge BYU after Garrett Gilbert pulled

From 2006-2009 it was Colt McCoy, who won an NCAA record 45 games. On Saturday night, it was Colt's younger brother Case coming off the bench to help spark the No. 24 Longhorns to a 17-16 win over BYU.

Texas (2-0) pulled ineffective starter Garrett Gilbert in the second quarter and handed the offense to sophomore McCoy and freshman quarterback David Ash in a rotation that flipped a game the Cougars (1-1) were dominating.

McCoy and Ash combined to hit 9 of 11 passes for 92 yards and Ash also rushed for 39 yards. McCoy carried the load on Texas' winning drive, twice connecting with Jaxon Shipley for big gains before Cody Johnson punched in his second touchdown for the lead with 8:46 to play.

"When Case came in, he played a real leadership role for us," said Shipley, a freshman who is the younger brother of Texas' career receptions leader Jordan Shipley.

More here.

And again from the AP via ESPN:

Spencer Ware, Michael Ford combine for 4 TDs as LSU romps

The LSU coach demanded that his team take Northwestern State seriously and hoped they'd win impressively enough that he could rest starters who will be playing a tougher opponent in less than a week.

The second-ranked Tigers didn't disappoint him, rolling to a 49-3 victory on Saturday night that included two touchdowns apiece by Michael Ford and Spencer Ware.

"I like how our team approached this game," Miles said. "It's nice. It means that your starters were not taxed. It means you should be fresh, and as we go into a short week, that's key."

LSU (2-0) led 28-3 by halftime, allowing Miles to give a number of starters some rest in advance of the Tigers' Southeastern Conference opener at Mississippi State on Thursday night.

Junior college transfer quarterback Zach Mettenberger made his debut in relief of LSU starter Jarrett Lee to open the second half.

More here.

So, of course, I didn't watch the LSU game because, as far as I can tell, it wasn't televised. I mean, duh. Who really wanted to watch a big time national championship contender beat up on what is, relatively speaking, a high school freshman b team? Not me. I didn't even track the stats on ESPN. This one was in the bag the moment the schedule was announced. Nonetheless, after watching the highlights and reading the article, I saw a couple of things I liked: Lee continued his solid work, no interceptions; and this new backup guy Mettenberger seems very promising, indeed. Fuck Jordan Jefferson--he's a criminal. Who needs him?

The Texas game I did watch, and for so many reasons it was a thing of beauty. Obviously, the first half was no fun. Texas couldn't do shit, and Gilbert was looking like it was last season all over. The Mormons were having their way with the Longhorns and it just sucked--I think I even posted on facebook that the Law and Order marathon was preferable, not that there was a Law and Order marathon, mind you, just that it would be preferable. And then they pulled Gilbert, which was when the fun started. I guess "you've got to go through hell before you get to heaven"--all apologies to Texan rocker Steve Miller for stealing one of his best lines. But that's kind of what happened on the field, stealing lines from great songs of yore, especially that utterly fantastic moment when Colt McCoy's younger brother hooked up with Jordan Shipley's younger brother for a big yardage gain. It really did look like the glory days of just a couple of years ago.

I mean, Texas looked like a totally different team in the second half. They looked like, well, Texas. God I love it. Personally, I'm done with Gilbert, and I hope Coach Brown is, too. We're keeping the more talented QBs on the sidelines and we need to get them out there on the field.

This might be a really good season for Texas. Keeping my fingers crossed.


AUSTIN, TX - SEPTEMBER 10: Backup quarterback Case McCoy #6 of the Texas
Longhorns signals victory over BYU Cougars as time runs out on September 10, 2011 at
Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium in Austin, Texas. Texas defeated BYU 17-16.
Photo: Getty, Erich Schlegel / 2011 Getty Images


LSU wide receiver Odell Beckham (33) breaks a tackle by Northwestern
State linebacker Derek Rose (56) during the second half of an NCAA college
football game in Baton Rouge, La., Saturday, Sept. 10, 2011. LSU won 49-3.
Photo: Gerald Herbert / AP

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

AN EYE FOR AN EYE MAKES EVERYBODY BLIND...









...or dead.

That's the lesson we should have learned. I don't really think we did.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

Sammy



Frankie



Be sure to check out Modulator's Friday Ark for more cat blogging pics!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Cheering death: A pathetic new low in American politics

From the Philadelphia Daily News courtesy of Eschaton:

I watched all of last night's rather predictable and not particularly game changing GOP presidential last night. As the dust settles, I honestly couldn't tell you who the "winner" was. I can tell you who lost, though:

Basic human decency. Not to mention America's reputation as a nation built on virtues like justice and fairness.

This shocking new low came near the end of the debate when moderator Brian Williams of NBC News asked Texas Gov. Rick Perry to defend his record of executions -- 234, more than any other governor in modern history -- during his tenure in Austin.

The mere mention that Perry had made what was once considered a solemn decision to sign off on the state-sanction deaths of 234 human beings caused the audience to break into sustained applause. Just watch the video below.

It was utterly sickening to watch. When Perry -- who recently vetoed a bill that would halt the execution of the mentally ill -- told the audience that anyone convicted of murder in the Lone Star State faces "the ultimate justice," the applause grew even louder.

More here.

It is sickening.

I touched on this a couple of weeks ago, on how the state kills in the name of the people, and just how awful that is. This essay is a bit different: it opines on what I believe is a minority, people who don't simply support the death penalty out of a sense of justice, but rather people who cheer it on, people who fucking love it when the state kills in their name.

And I just don't get it. I mean, I understand the deterrence argument, that capital punishment makes potential murderers think twice before taking another person's life, and while I disagree, I think there is, at least, some logic behind it. But what's with all the Nancy Grace style hate, the Nuremberg style glorification of, the hootin' and hollerin' for, state sanctioned killing? I mean, shouldn't taking a human life in the name of the people always be a solemn occasion? It is, after all, murder, even if it's legal. I mean, you know, "Thou shalt not kill."

These people who fucking love the death penalty, who have no problem with killing children, with killing the mentally ill, with killing those who are innocent in spite of their conviction status, are sick, sick, sick fucks. And it just so happens that these people are all die-hard members of the GOP.

I've been calling Republicans psychopaths for years. I haven't been joking or exaggerating.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Right-Wing Media Advise Obama To Use Jobs Speech To Resign

From Media Matters for America courtesy of Eschaton:

Rush Limbaugh: "The Only Thing Obama Could Do That Would Be Convincing" During His Jobs Speech "Is To Resign." From Limbaugh's radio show:

LIMBAUGH: I think the only thing that Obama could do -- speaking now to Frank Rich -- Frank, the only Obama could do that would be convincing -- that big speech next week -- is to resign. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/2/11]

And

Newsmax's Root: "Only Two Words Need To Be Uttered By President Obama's Lips: 'I Resign.'" From Wayne Allyn Root's Newsmax column, headlined "Obama's Two-Word Speech That Would Save America":

President Barack Obama has the most important speech of his presidency on Thursday. A speech built around creating jobs and inspiring economic recovery. You want an economic recovery? You want jobs? Two magical words are needed to change the course of history.

Two words change the future for millions of desperate unemployed Americans. Two words transform a depression into a boom. Two words motivate and inspire every business owner in America to create jobs. Two words free the U.S. economy from the current doom, despair, debt, depression, misery, and malaise.

Only two words need to be uttered by President Obama's lips: "I resign."

Imagine an Obama-Free America.

Overnight 2 1/2 years of pain are erased. Trillions of dollars and millions of jobs are brought back into the USA. Millions of business owners breathe a sigh of relief and begin to plan their recovery. Investors begin investing again, unleashing a torrent of buying and business expansion. [Newsmax, 9/7/11]

More here.

So about a week ago I posted an excerpt from a Paul Krugman essay on how the GOP has become anti-science, and therefore insanely unreasonable. My reaction was something along the lines of this: the Republicans are essentially destroying the public discourse, and the only sane reaction is to call them out on it; don't "debate" that which cannot be debated: instead, tell them to go fuck themselves.

This bizarre slew of right-wing pundits asserting that the only way the President can create jobs is to resign is in the same category. That is, it doesn't have anything at all to do with creating jobs. I mean, they're full of shit, of course, but there are definitely stock answers most conservatives can give you for what they believe is the best way to create jobs, you know, cut more taxes, deregulation, small government, yadda yadda. But saying job creation is about Obama stepping down is like answering "piano" when somebody asks you how old you are. It's not just bullshit, either. It is a deliberate attempt to destroy the national conversation on the topic. Confuse and misinform, that's conservative rhetorical strategy these days.

And the Democrats are fools for not saying anything but "God damn you lying assholes. Fuck off and die. When you act like this all you're doing is exposing the fact that you have absolutely no answers at all. You're a bunch of fucking asshole retards who shouldn't even be in the room, let alone have a place at the table. Sick fucks. Go to hell."

I have no idea why the Democrats tolerate this. You'd think they'd call bullshit on this crap if only to preserve their self-respect. But I guess you can't preserve something you don't have in the first place.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

ALL AROUND THE WORLD, EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW FUCKED UP THE U.S. IS

From Al Jazeera courtesy of Digg:

America's self-inflicted decline

The United States’ current fiscal problems are rooted in a long period of unfunded spending. Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the manner in which he conducted the “global war on terror” made matters much worse, contributing to a totally unsustainable situation. Indeed, Obama inherited an almost impossible legacy.

In the weeks since the debt ceiling agreement, it has become increasingly clear that good government might be impossible in the US. The coming months of campaigning for the US presidency will be spent in petty brawling over what should be cut. The example of recent weeks gives us no cause for optimism that US legislators will rise above partisan politics and ask themselves what is best for America.

And

US leadership in world affairs began to weaken with the unilateralism of Bush, and today’s economic problems are reinforcing this tendency. To reverse the United States’ decline, Obama needs bipartisan support for his (quite mainstream) policies, but so far the US congress has shown no stomach for a principled approach to its legislative duties.

More here.

What's most fascinating to me about this Al Jazeera piece is how it handles Obama with such kid gloves: the President's policies are not "quite mainstream;" rather, his policies are thinly veiled corporatism, aimed at enabling the plutocrats' ongoing Third World America Project, and I've written about that at length elsewhere on this blog. I can only speculate as to why the Arab language news organization is so friendly toward a leader who continues to use our vast military might to kill Muslims worldwide, but I think it might have something to do with how our current president continues to be totally kickass, but only because he's not Bush.

But no matter. The essay is dead-on in that it presents a picture of America as a rudderless behemoth sailing adrift in treacherous waters: the US is completely fucked up, and the whole world knows it. The American Century lasted only fifty years, and it is now over. All the world can do is wait to see what's going to happen next. They know that there is very likely no chance in hell that we're going to be able to pull ourselves out of this slump, and are watching events very closely so as to make sure they don't end up with the short end of the stick when the new order finally establishes itself. The Chinese Century? The European Union Century? Better start saving those Yuans and Euros right now, 'cause the dollar is on its way out--you don't want to be left holding the bag.

This is all very depressing.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

From TruthOut courtesy of one of my facebook friends:

It is this broad and ever-widening gulf between the traditional Republicanism of an Eisenhower and the quasi-totalitarian cult of a Michele Bachmann that impelled my departure from Capitol Hill. It is not in my pragmatic nature to make a heroic gesture of self-immolation, or to make lurid revelations of personal martyrdom in the manner of David Brock. And I will leave a more detailed dissection of failed Republican economic policies to my fellow apostate Bruce Bartlett.

I left because I was appalled at the headlong rush of Republicans, like Gadarene swine, to embrace policies that are deeply damaging to this country's future; and contemptuous of the feckless, craven incompetence of Democrats in their half-hearted attempts to stop them. And, in truth, I left as an act of rational self-interest. Having gutted private-sector pensions and health benefits as a result of their embrace of outsourcing, union busting and "shareholder value," the GOP now thinks it is only fair that public-sector workers give up their pensions and benefits, too. Hence the intensification of the GOP's decades-long campaign of scorn against government workers. Under the circumstances, it is simply safer to be a current retiree rather than a prospective one.

If you think Paul Ryan and his Ayn Rand-worshipping colleagues aren't after your Social Security and Medicare, I am here to disabuse you of your naiveté. They will move heaven and earth to force through tax cuts that will so starve the government of revenue that they will be "forced" to make "hard choices" - and that doesn't mean repealing those very same tax cuts, it means cutting the benefits for which you worked.

During the week that this piece was written, the debt ceiling fiasco reached its conclusion. The economy was already weak, but the GOP's disgraceful game of chicken roiled the markets even further. Foreigners could hardly believe it: Americans' own crazy political actions were destabilizing the safe-haven status of the dollar. Accordingly, during that same week, over one trillion dollars worth of assets evaporated on financial markets. Russia and China have stepped up their advocating that the dollar be replaced as the global reserve currency - a move as consequential and disastrous for US interests as any that can be imagined.

If Republicans have perfected a new form of politics that is successful electorally at the same time that it unleashes major policy disasters, it means twilight both for the democratic process and America's status as the world's leading power.

More here.

Long excerpt, I know, but it's a long essay. And worth every word.

There's often a certain unseemly sense of triumphalism present whenever anybody hauls out the confessional statements of a former political enemy. I mean, just look at right-wing psycho David Horowitz, who flashes his former radicalism like a born-again gleefully talking about the sex, drugs, and murder of his rejected lifestyle. But all these conservatives coming out lately to blast where the movement is today aren't really the same thing: there is a sadness embedded in their words, a sense of loss and grief for the degradation their lifelong ideological identities have suffered in the post Reagan era.

And it makes me a bit sad, too. Obviously, I'm no conservative, but I used to think of myself as one, and my family and many friends continue to self-identify as conservative. Once upon a time in this country, conservatism was a noble and intellectually sound point of view. I mean, like I said, I don't agree with the overall conservative understanding of human affairs, but it used to be reasonable, a fair balance against liberal excess. Sometimes, conservatism even got it right and the liberals got it wrong. One thing was for sure: back in the day liberals and conservatives alike wanted what was best for the country, and this was acknowledged by both sides. But not anymore.

Anyway, you most definitely should read the entire essay. It's pretty great. What struck me is that the public discourse has been driven so far to the right in the last couple of decades that the article comes off like one of those excruciatingly reasonable essays in the liberal Nation magazine. If things hadn't gone so off-the-rails in this country, liberals and conservatives might actually be able to work together and get some shit done. An alternate reality, I suppose.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FROM THE REAL ART SPORTS DESK
TEXAS, LSU BOTH POST SOLID WINS

From the AP via ESPN:

Texas shakes off slow start in win against Rice

Freshman Jaxon Shipley caught a touchdown pass on a trick play and Fozzy Whittaker scored twice in the fourth quarter as Texas shook off a slow start for a 34-9 season-opening win over Rice on Saturday night.

Shipley, the younger brother of Texas career receptions leader Jordan Shipley, put the Longhorns ahead 20-9 in the third on a pass from wide receiver John Harris.

And

Gilbert, scorned by many Texas fans after throwing 17 interceptions last season, did not have a turnover and showed a deft touch on his deep passes and his 26-yard fourth-quarter TD pass to Whittaker.

The Longhorns also unveiled a new wildcat formation that kept the Owls off guard near the end zone, and a tougher running game that was able to grind out 229 yards. Freshman tailback Malcolm Brown came on late and finished with a game-high 86 yards on 16 carries.

More here.

Again from the AP via ESPN:

LSU takes advantage of miscues to best Oregon

In a rare opening matchup of top-five teams, both missing key players, Jarrett Lee admirably directed LSU's offense in place of suspended quarterback Jordan Jefferson.

Being without standout cornerback-punt returner Cliff Harris was more than mistake-prone and third-ranked Oregon could overcome.

The Ducks' fill-in punt returner had a fumble that led directly to an LSU touchdown and Lee's touchdown pass came against the defensive back playing in Harris' spot in the fourth-ranked Tigers' 40-27 victory Saturday night.

And

Lee's 10th career start, his first since a win over Louisiana Tech in 2009, was far from spectacular. The senior completed only 10 of 22 passes for 98 yards, but didn't have an interception and appeared steady throughout the game.

More here.

Okay, good football day for me on Saturday. Both my teams won, and won convincingly. I mean, Texas played lowly Rice while LSU played the number three team in the nation, but my Longhorns are coming back from a miserable 5-7 season--I'm content to watch them crawl before they run.

Of course, I didn't get to see Texas play. Indeed, most people didn't get to see the game because of the mostly unavailable Longhorn Network. I settled for streaming updates of game stats on ESPN.com while I watched LSU/Oregon on television. But from what I could tell, Texas looked solid. Actually, I was very pleased that there seems to be something of a running game in the works for the Longhorns, and as a bit of a purist, I think the running game is absolutely necessary if you want to win championships. I mean, sure, Texas has had a running game over the last few years, but it was mostly Colt McCoy, so it wasn't much of a running game. This is promising. We probably won't beat OU, but I feel pretty good about a winning record and some kind of bowl berth.

LSU, however, has me seriously hoping for a national championship. They really looked fucking great, and I'm very pleased that the off-field drama didn't spill onto the gridiron; this means Les Miles has his guys focused and disciplined. The Tigers always have masses of great talent, but to successfully navigate the SEC, you can't fuck up. I'm particularly pleased with Jarrett Lee's performance. No, it wasn't spectacular, but I've watched this guy on and off over the last couple of years, and all the nausea-inducing bullshit was gone. No interceptions, good leadership.

Also, I totally dug Mathieu's forced fumble/fumble recovery/TD return. It was so weird and cool that I was reminded of Vince Young versus USC. One of Professor Xavier's mutants playing football.

It's going to be a good year.


Texas' Jaxon Shipley (8) pulls in a touchdown pass as Rice's
Paul Porras, right, defends during the third quarter of an NCAA
college football game, Saturday, Sept. 3, 2011, in Austin, Texas.
(AP Photo/Eric Gay)


LSU defensive end Barkevious Mingo (49) and Eric Reid (1) look on as
Tyrann Mathieu (7) picks up a fumbled kick off return by Oregon and runs
it in for a touchdown in the first half of the Cowboys Classic NCAA college
football game Saturday, Sept. 3, 2011, in Arlington, Texas.
(AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

HEY! I'M IN A PODCAST!

Anybody remember this?

Here's the short version: fabulous former student has had a fabulous web presence for years, all through high school, through college, and now in the academic afterlife, with a nifty and irreverent sports and politics oriented site called The Warzone. And he recently invited me to be a part time aspect of his podcast, TW Radio. We hooked up via Skype a couple of weeks ago, talked life, politics, culture, you know, stuff I like to talk about, and my young pal's finally got the first installment up for your listening pleasure.

Actually, Matt's way better at this than I am, which is something because my gift for gab is, by and large, unrivaled. But I could listen to this guy go on for hours. I mean, he makes a trip to the sawbones into edge-of-the-seat stuff. So it's well worth checking out his regular podcasts, the ones without me, just because they're so much fun.

But I figured I'd celebrate my own contribution here at Real Art. So here you go. Audio gets a bit sketchy here and there due to Skype and a finicky wireless router, but you get the gist, anyway, when it's dropping out. Have fun. I know I did. It's about forty five minutes.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

Roi



Be sure to check out Modulator's Friday Ark for more cat blogging pics!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE RELIGION

Or can you? Well, yes, you can. I mean, obviously.

From Crooks and Liars courtesy of one of my facebook friends:

Santorum: I Stand By My 'Man on Dog' Comment

"I have to say that your views you espoused on this issue are bordering on bigotry, aren't they?" Morgan asked.

"No. I think just because we disagree on public policy, which is what the debate has been about which is marriage, doesn't mean that it's bigotry," Santorum opined. "Just because you follow a moral code that teaches something wrong doesn't mean that -- are you suggesting that the Bible and that the Catholic Church is bigoted?"

"I think that is -- that's contrary to both what we've seen in 2,000 years of human history and Western civilization and trying to redefine something that has been -- that is seen as wrong from the standpoint of the church and saying a church is bigoted because it holds that opinion that is biblically based I think is in itself an act of bigotry."

More here, with video.

To be fair to Man-on-Dog Santorum, I've got to say that he's always very pleasant. I mean, he's always ramming his foot down his throat, but he's very personable about it. So that's, at least, a start.

The problem here, as always, is that, while religion, as culture and identity, deserves a fair amount of tolerance and respect simply for what it is, culture and identity, it necessarily gives up some of that protection the moment it begins to assert itself into the wider secular world. That is, it's one thing to require believers or parishioners, whatever, to behave in a particular way: it's quite another to insist that the government require everybody to behave that way. So when guys like Santorum start to say things like this publicly, the kid gloves are off. He's now competing in the marketplace of ideas, and competition there is fierce. Consequently, ideas and statements that may very well be the greatest ever within the confines of a particular religious point of view can very easily be considered bigoted elsewhere.

This is actually a pretty simple concept: say and do whatever crazy shit you want among your brethren, but be ready for stiff resistance from others when you start talking shit out on the street. You don't get a free pass just because you're religious. This is a democracy, not your church. Why is this so tough to understand?

And it's not like Christians, some Christians, anyway, have a problem with criticizing religion. Muslims, for instance, and Mormons, too, for that matter, have faced scathing and sometimes vicious rhetorical attacks from fundamentalist Christians for decades. Isn't that bigoted, too? Well, no, of course not. In the public realm, most ideas are fair game. It's just that it would be nice if these whiny Christians could take it as well as they dish it out.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

AMERICA CONTINUES TO OFFICIALLY SUPPORT TORTURE

From Current TV, via Democratic Underground, courtesy of BuzzFlash, Keith Olbermann interviews former Ambassador Joe Wilson, you know, the guy whose wife was outed as a CIA agent in retaliation for his trashing the Bush administration, on former VP Dick Cheney's continual celebration and admission of the fact that he ordered the torture of countless POWs in US captivity:

WILSON: "He (Cheney) has taken something, particularly torture and 'enhanced interrogation,' which has been basically outlawed in the United States since George Washington was a general in the Revolutionary War, and he has taken that, fundamentally unacceptable, not just in the United States, but thanks to American leadership, unacceptable in all but the most roque nations - Qaddafi's Libya comes immediately to mind - and he's made it a subject of political discussion, as if it were just a policy option. It wasn't and it isn't.

And he really should be held to account for what he openly admits were war crimes and crimes against humanity."

Click here to watch the video.

This serves as simply yet another reminder among many that during the Bush years, and maybe even still now under Obama, torture was an official policy of the United States. This is yet another reminder that this was decided at the very top; both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have openly admitted on multiple occasions that they ordered it. Indeed, they've strongly asserted multiple times their righteousness in doing so. The fact that Cheney is still free to write books and hit the talk show circuit to endorse those books serves as yet another reminder that the Obama administration is in deep collusion with these war criminals in its refusal to prosecute them.

This is also yet another reminder that, as a nation practicing torture as official policy, we are in the company some of the most notorious regimes in history, Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, the Soviet Union, Red China, Iran under the Shah, Iran under the Ayatollahs, Libya under Gaddafi, and on and on. We are just like those evil nations in that it is our official policy to torture captives.

We need such reminders. It is too easy to sit back and forget this horror that has afflicted our nation. We are no longer a nation of good people. Indeed, we are a nation of evil. Only by keeping this evil fresh in our minds will we ever be able to repent our sins.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

How Corporate and Political Forces Have Almost
Neutralized All Avenues of Resistance in US Culture

From AlterNet, my favorite journalist with a master's in divinity from Harvard Chris Hedges on a depressing but real strategy for the left:

All conventional forms of dissent, from electoral politics to open debates, have been denied us. We cannot rely on the institutions that once made piecemeal and incremental reform possible. The only route left is to disconnect as thoroughly as possible from the consumer society and engage in acts of civil disobedience and obstruction. The more we sever ourselves from the addictions of fossil fuel and the consumer society, the more we begin to create a new paradigm for community. The more we engage in physical acts of defiance—as Bill McKibben and others did recently in front of the White House to protest the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would increase the flow of “dirty” tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico—the more we can keep alive a new, better way of relating to each other and the ecosystem.

Most important, we must stop being afraid. We have to turn our backs for good on the Democrats, no matter what ghoulish candidate the Republicans offer up for president. We have to defy all formal systems of power. We have to listen closely to the moral voices in our society, from McKibben to Noam Chomsky to Wendell Berry to Ralph Nader, and ignore feckless liberals who have been one of the most effective tools of our disempowerment. We have to create monastic enclaves where we can retain and nurture the values being rapidly destroyed by the wider corporate culture and build the mechanisms of self-sufficiency that will allow us to survive. The corporate coup is over. We have lost. The trolls have won. We have to face our banishment.

More here.

Of course, Hedges is riffing on his most recent book, Death of the Liberal Class, which strongly and, I think, successfully, establishes that traditional American liberal institutions, like the Democratic Party, labor unions, the news and entertainment media, the arts, and the universities, are all now effectively controlled by corporate ideology and influence, rendering them useless to actual liberals, while at the same time bending their function toward legitimizing and advancing the goals of the corporate state. That leaves the American left now lost in a wilderness the likes of which they have never faced.

That is, in spite of the non-stop ranting of right-wing demagogues to the contrary, the left has virtually no influence over the affairs of this country. But what to do?

I wholeheartedly agree with the notion of disengaging with the consumer culture and resisting all "formal systems of power." Whatever that may mean. Actually, I'm sure it means resisting traditional "liberal" institutions because they now stand against liberalism, but resistance to power more generally, and pulling out of consumerism, have yet to be defined--I know that Hedges, for instance, no longer owns a television, if only to evade the constant barrage of materialism and pro-capitalist messages. I guess this is up to liberals to determine for themselves.

This notion of creating liberal monastic enclaves, however, appears to be, at first glance, kind of silly. But if you think for like two seconds about how the right wing came to power, it becomes a much more compelling thought. That is, go back to the late 1940s and you'll see that conservatism, at that point, was very much in the same position that liberalism is in today, something of an ideological wilderness, albeit with the latent power of big business waiting in the wings. This was when concerned conservatives began several grass roots efforts that most watchers believed hadn't a chance in hell of succeeding. They established conservative journals like William Buckley's National Review. They established conservative universities like Pepperdine. They found ways to join together fundamentalist Christians with anti-communist businessmen. Eventually, they established right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. This all came to a head when they found their perfect spokesman, Ronald Reagan, and ran him for president, and, amazingly, he won. The rest we already know.

In short, these liberal "enclaves" for which Hedges calls are in essence the creation of an alternate ideological infrastructure, insulated from the propaganda and influence of the corporate state, laying in wait for the day when the plutocracy has so utterly squeezed the life out of the American citizenry that fresh ideas will be like manna from Heaven.

I think I can get behind that.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Republicans Against Science

From the New York Times, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman on the GOP war against reality:

To see what Mr. Huntsman means, consider recent statements by the two men who actually are serious contenders for the G.O.P. nomination: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

The second part of Mr. Perry’s statement is, as it happens, just false: the scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.

More here.

I've been wondering for some years what a rational response to all this ought to be. I mean, Democrats and liberals love to argue, but when people start bringing obvious bullshit into the debate, the argument's effectively over. There is no way to persuade people who aren't in touch with reality. No way to have a serious discussion when the conversation keeps drifting into demonstrably false information--indeed, I have no doubt in my mind that many conservatives actually know what the truth is, but use these popular lies simply to eradicate discussion, clearing the way for demagoguery; it's a cheap way to "win" a debate.

Thought experiment:

You're having a talk with some friends about, say, how to fight hunger and poverty. It's a good discussion, lots of ideas bouncing around, and everybody seems serious about the topic. Suddenly, one of them says that we ought to hire a hundred wizards who would cast spells to magically create food, clothing, and shelter for the poor. Everybody laughs at first, but the guy persists. Slowly, it dawns on you that this guy really means it. Then, amazingly, a couple of his friends take his side. They seem serious, too.

What was only moments ago a great exercise in democracy, a rousing discussion among citizens on an important issue, is now a fucking joke. Of course, you can walk away, now wise to the fact that some of your friends just aren't worth it in as much as political discussion goes, and try to find better conversation partners. I mean, that's life: people are often full of shit. But our leaders really ought not to do such a thing. They are, after all, our leaders and such debate matters greatly in terms of how public policy affects people's lives.

So let us add to our thought experiment the limiting factor that you can't walk away. You have to try to win this debate that has been hopelessly sabotaged by assholes. What do you do?

Here's my answer. The wizard faction has behaved in a reprehensible manner. They have literally destroyed a good conversation on an important topic. You can't disprove a notion that is already false. You can't treat their words as though they have any merit at face value. Instead, you should treat their words for what they are, an aggressive and hostile act designed to confuse and conceal accurate information. That is, these people are being big douche bags.

I say, call bullshit on that. Chastise for irresponsibility. Do not in any way behave as though they have a point even worth addressing. The wizard proposal is only worth a "fuck you." It's only worth "How dare you pull this crap? How dare you just fucking destroy a good conversation? Go fuck yourselves, assholes. I'm not in any way going to entertain such fairy tale horse shit, and your head zips up the back if you think I ever will. Fuck you, assholes. I'm only going to talk about reality, and I don't give a shit how you interpret Harry Potter or the Bible or the National Review. Just fuck off, you retarded pieces of shit."

This is essentially what the entire Democratic Party would be doing if they had big dicks.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

WOODSTOCK

From Wikipedia:

Woodstock Music & Art Fair (informally, Woodstock or The Woodstock Festival) was a music festival, billed as "An Aquarian Exposition: 3 Days of Peace & Music". It was held at Max Yasgur's 600-acre dairy farm in the Catskills near the hamlet of White Lake in the town of Bethel, New York, from August 15 to August 18, 1969. Bethel, in Sullivan County, is 43 miles southwest of the town of Woodstock, New York, in adjoining Ulster County.

During the sometimes rainy weekend, thirty-two acts performed outdoors in front of 500,000 concert-goers. It is widely regarded as one of the most pivotal moments in popular music history and was listed among Rolling Stone's 50 Moments That Changed the History of Rock and Roll.

The event was captured in the 1970 documentary movie Woodstock, an accompanying soundtrack album, and Joni Mitchell's song "Woodstock" which commemorated the event and became a major hit for Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young.

More here.

It's funny how the above paragraphs do, indeed, describe Woodstock accurately, but just don't get across at all what it was really about. Heh. As if I was there and actually know what it was all about. But I certainly came of age in the post-Woodstock era, when the event was spoken of as legendary, the rock and roll event of all events, the pure essence of the 60s and hippies and free love and acid and pot and peace and on and on. My brother had the album when I was a kid and I've known many of the performances for most of my life. And I finally got to see the documentary movie in the late 80s when MTV aired it countless times: by that point, I had come to understand that, yeah, Woodstock really was something incredible and weird, uplifting and visionary.

You know, they had half a million people there, almost all of them fucked up, and not one fight broke out. Not a single fight. That, in itself, is worth a mention in the history books.

Anyway, the twenty second anniversary of Woodstock was a couple of weeks ago. So I figured I'd celebrate by posting the movie here. Check it out:



Peace, brother.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

What would Martin Luther King Jr. say to President Obama?

From the Washington Post, Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis chimes in:

As a minister, never elected to any public office, Dr. King would tell this young leader that it is his moral obligation to use his power and influence to help those who have been left out and left behind. He would encourage him to get out of Washington, to break away from handlers and advisers and go visit the people where they live. He would urge him to meet the coal miners of West Virginia; to shake the hands of the working poor in our large urban centers, juggling multiple jobs to try to make ends meet; to go to the barrios of the Southwest; and to visit native Americans on their reservations. He would urge Obama to feel the hurt and pain of those without work, of mothers and their children who go to bed hungry at night, of the families living in shelters after losing their homes, and of the elderly who chose between buying medicine and paying the rent.

Dr. King would say that a Nobel Peace Prize winner can and must find a way to demonstrate that he is a man of peace, a man of love and non-violence. He would say it is time to bring an end to war and get our young men and women out of harm’s way. Dr. King would assert without hesi­ta­tion that war is obsolete, that it destroys the very soul of a nation, that it wastes human lives and natural resources.

And

He would say that righteous work makes its own way. There is no need to put a finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. There is no need to match each step to the latest opinion poll. The people of this country recognize when a leader is trying to do what is right. Take a stand, he would say. Go with your gut. Let the people of this country see that you are fighting for them and they will have your back.

More here.

Lewis nails it, of course. Indeed, these assumed suggestions are simply culled from MLK's rhetoric, that is, from the speeches and writings that don't get much airplay in January because they don't fit into the establishment's narrative. Actually, the stuff we hear and see in the mass media on MLK day is fairly sanitized, good vibes stuff about getting along, but none of the severe criticisms of our economic system, none of the scathing indictments of the American war machine. In this respect, and only this respect, is our President like the venerated civil rights leader: Obama's all about neutral positivity lacking teeth.

The really sad thing is that such recommendations are, by and large, impossible for most politicians today. They're too beholden to the wealthy organizations and citizens that fund their campaigns. They're too guided by consultants and strategists, who are always risk-averse. They watch too much cable news to really know what's going on out there. They're poll watchers. They're most concerned with being reelected, far, far, far more concerned than they are with doing the right thing.

I mean, it doesn't have to be that way. There are no rules that preclude our leaders from actually leading. But virtually all of them do it the way everybody else does. They follow, and the people our leaders follow are most definitely not the people of the United States.

So Obama, if he actually wanted, could do everything Lewis suggests above. He could throw caution to the wind and take this country in bold new directions. He could use the Oval Office's bully pulpit power and start a media war against the corporations which dominate the political system. He could appeal directly to the voters, standing with them, instead of with the special interests and the wealthy. He could change our culture. If he wanted.

Of course, that's not going to happen because President Obama's not a leader. He's a manager. And managers don't change the world. They keep it the same.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING
Canine Edition!

Kuzco



Be sure to check out Modulator's Friday Ark for more cat blogging pics!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

GOP MAJORITY WHIP TO HOME STATE: FUCK YOU

From Think Progress courtesy of Eschaton:

This week, Virginia experienced a magnitude 5.8 earthquake, one of the most powerful tremors on the east coast since 1897. As Virginians scramble to assess the damage, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) quickly returned from his trip in Israel to survey the damage done to his congressional district.

“There is an appropriate federal role in incidents like this,” Cantor said. That role? The bare minimum. According to Cantor, Congress’s traditional practice of providing disaster relief without strings attached — a policy its followed for years — is going way beyond the call of duty. If Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) asks for federal aid, Cantor insists that the relief be offset elsewhere in the federal budget

And

While touring the damage in his district, Cantor surmised, “Obviously, the problem is that people in Virginia don’t have earthquake insurance.”

More here.

What an asshole. But that's what we're dealing with here: the GOP has been seized by a weird ideology that really does insist that government is the wellspring of all evil, and can only make problems worse, never better. So when an earthquake comes along, you're on your own--better go get some of that earthquake insurance, buddy; one comes along every couple centuries or so! And if you don't have any of that earthquake insurance, too fucking bad.

I don't think I even need to offer any serious argument in rebuttal to such a selfish and immoral attitude. This is just psychotic. Leaving everything to the private sector means nothing will ever get done. Suffice it to say, the market-driven utopia in which these guys believe is an impossibility. Massive disasters are far beyond the capabilities of private business. In Market America, when an earthquake or hurricane comes along, everything gets obliterated, and then lies in ruins forever.

This is what you want if you vote Republican, whether you understand it or not. Same thing with the Libertarians. All these "small government" cretins. There is an infinite number of activities and services that all modern nations absolutely need in order to exist and function, and many of these can only be performed by the government. You go after government the way these people are, and you destroy your country.

I hope a few of these Tea Partiers had their homes destroyed in the earthquake. I hope they have to go through the process of reaching out for government aid. I hope they get to see their homes rebuilt with taxpayer money. Even then, I wonder if they would get it, if they would take off their stupid fucking tricorn hats and reevaluate everything.

On the other hand, the Democrats, who still believe the government has a vital role to play in the nation's affairs, thank god, would prefer to give the majority of government aid to corporations and the wealthy. Some choice: support the party of "fuck you, victim" or support the party that will rebuild your community, but have no problem at all with your inability to pay your rent or health care bills. I mean, I guess I'm thankful that the Dems are still into the concept of disaster relief, but with friends like these...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Killing in Our Name

From CounterPunch:

We make a bargain with our governments. We pay taxes and expect a set of government services in return. And in return for a guarantee of some measure of security, we grant the government a monopoly on legitimate violence. In theory, then, we forswear mob rule and paramilitary organizations, we occasionally accept the death penalty as an appropriate punishment, we delegate the responsibility to declare and prosecute war to our legislative and executive branches, and we put guns into the hands of the army and the police.

Governments, in other words, kill on our behalf. This arrangement is a form of social contract, which means that governments are basically contract killers. Some states, like Nazi Germany, use the tremendous power of arms and bureaucracy to transform their territories into slaughterhouses. Regimes that are merely authoritarian can be equally brutal but display a greater selectivity in their tyranny. In our more decorous democracies, meanwhile, we perfume our conversations with words like “justice” and “national security” to mask the odor of death.

And

Rather than view these acts as some unfortunate stage in the evolution of democracy, I prefer to think that democracy consistently attempts to obscure its relationship to violence. Wars are not put to a vote. Indeed, here in the United States, Congress has been largely shunted to the side when it comes to war, and it generally weighs in only after the fact. The militarism of the Bush administration required a concentration of power in the executive branch and a flouting of international law (such as the Geneva Conventions). The Obama administration, with its policies on drones and extrajudicial killing, has not relinquished much of that executive power or shown much greater sensitivity to international law. More troubling, perhaps, is the fact that leaders don’t necessarily hijack the political process in order to use violence. Swayed by fear and nationalism, a democratic society can agree, albeit with significant minority dissent, to a rollback of democracy (such as the USA PATRIOT Act) or a full-scale military invasion (into Afghanistan, for instance).

More here.

The essay concludes with a call for civilization to find ways to restrict state violence as much as possible, a notion with which I wholeheartedly agree, but what's fascinating here is the reminder that when the government kills, it does so in the name of the people of the United States--it kills for us.

As much as I'd like to be a pacifist, I just cannot be so absolute. What happens, in some ideal social reality, when the collective farm over the hill runs out of water, and comes with guns for ours? If the situation is dire enough, you've got to fight. I mean, sure, try to find a way to coexist if you can, but if your attacker or oppressor has his mind made up, and your own existence is on the line, you've got to fight. Or die. Personally, I prefer fighting to death.

But in this day and age, especially in fortress America, such existential situations are extraordinarily rare. So even though I'm not a pacifist, it seems pretty clear that most wars are avoidable. And as far as the death penalty goes, there is no justifiable reason at all, at all, to kill a person who is behind bars and no longer a threat to society. Capital punishment is barbaric and wrong. Nonetheless, we continue to fight wars and to kill criminals who have been rendered harmless. All for the people of the United States. For me. For you.

The reality, of course, is that the government doesn't really kill for the people. It only uses our name for false justification. The reality is that the government kills for the special interests, the wealthy, and the massive corporations that actually run the government. Not us. Sure, there are voters who support the wars, voters who support the death penalty, but all that strikes me as the result of these interests owning or having access to the mass media. That is, most media portrayals of victims of US state violence strongly assert that they had it coming; conversely, innocent victims of capital punishment and the so-called "collateral damage" of war are, by and large, invisible.

I think that if most Americans had a crystal clear picture of what it literally means to have the government kill on their behalf, to see the corpses, to hear the sobbing and weeping of victims' families, to have wet and warm blood on their hands, there would be a lot less state sanctioned killing. Perhaps this is the direction we ought to go if we're serious about restricting the state's ability to rain down death on whomever it wants.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Corporate Power Decried By Former Lawmaker

From the Huffington Post courtesy of AlterNet:

Lawmakers rarely speak candidly about the relationship between large corporations and government, avoiding the ugly realities surrounding campaign contributions and legalized corruption. But occasionally when lawmakers leave office, they're more frank about the intersection of business and politics. In an interview with The Huffington Post, former Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) issued a stark warning about the government's inability to rein in the growing power of multinational corporations.

"Because [corporations] have become so international and global in nature, it's highly questionable whether governments can actually control corporations to a sufficient degree to prevent them from controlling governments," said Kanjorski, who served for 26 years in the House of Representatives until he was ousted last year amid a swarm of Republican congressional victories.

Two of the most worrying examples of the increasing ungovernability of corporations, Kanjorksi argued, are the current push to bestow tax breaks on American firms for stashing capital overseas and the failure to implement a new rule breaking up too-big-to-fail banks.

And

Kanjorski said his proposal did not imply that the U.S. government needs to micromanage corporate affairs. There's a difference, he said, between limiting corporate power in order to preserve a viable economic architecture and dictating how every aspect of a business ought to operate.

"I'm not saying we should get involved in capital in all things, but where it's abusive, you damn well should."

More here.

I love it when you get such honesty. Usually, outgoing Congressmen keep their mouths shut about all the corruption because they're absolutely depending on corporate largess so they can make the big bucks in the private sector after their years of public service have come to an end. But not this guy. He's speaking his mind, and damn the traditional hush money. I particularly like this because whenever I talk about how the corporations control everything it's very easy to dismiss my assertions because I'm just some guy with long hair--I mean, of course the hippies are always talking about the evil corporations. But when a Congressman says it, he's speaking from first hand experience. It bears a lot more weight, more ethos as they call it in public speaking classes.

Of course, Kanjorski isn't quite saying the same thing I am. I go all the way. I say that democracy is over, that the corporations bought it cheap, and all that's left is the void-of-substance formal theater we call "voting" and "debate." But the former representative hedges a bit, talking about it being "questionable" as to whether corporations can now control the government. For me, it's the same difference. That is, if we really have to sit down and seriously question who actually runs the country, its people or the vastly wealthy and highly influential economic organizations known as corporations, we're already in a big heap of trouble.

I mean, if there's any doubt at all that the government is not of, by, and for the people, then we're definitely headed down the wrong track.

I also like how Kanjorski heads off the usual establishment retort to such rhetoric: regulating corporate ability to subvert the people's will is not the same thing as socialistic state control of industry. I mean, if you listen to the GOP, hell, if you listen to Obama, pushing the corporations out of the Capitol is tantamount to joining the Communist Party. But that's just corporate propaganda designed to stop this much needed discussion in its tracks before it actually gets people thinking.

That is, if you're going to have big business, you must necessarily have big government. I mean, if you're cool with democracy. If you're all for rule by the wealthy, small government is the way to go.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Gallup National Poll: Obama In Dead Heat With GOP Challengers

From Talking Points Memo courtesy of Digg:

President Obama's national approval rating has never been lower, and it's starting to drag him down in head-to-head matchups against his potential GOP rivals in the 2012 election. Gallup polled the President against former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, Tex. Gov. Rick Perry, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). Each trial heat produced a statistical tie among registered voters.

By the numbers, Obama is only bested by Romney, 48 percent to 46. He ties Perry at 47 percent, and outpolls Paul 47 - 45 and Bachmann 48 - 44. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus four percent, meaning that in each case, the race is a dead heat.

More here.

A year ago if you'd asked me about this I would have said that voters still remember how fucked up it was the last time we had a psycho Republican in the White House. No way could Obama lose in 2012. I mean, even with Democrats losing the House in 2010, I still thought the President had it wrapped up. After all, the GOP primary field is chock full of nuts. Who's going to beat him?

But joblessness has been stuck between nine and ten percent for what seems like forever, and Obama's done nothing but windmill tilting disguised as deficit negotiating. Screw the people; let's fix this deficit! I hadn't counted on Obama's sabotaging himself so thoroughly that the lunatic fringe doesn't look half bad. Indeed, the lunatic fringe is nothing more than a purified version of the vomit the President's been spewing on America since he took office. Virtually every policy he's proposed was first formulated by a Republican. Almost all his rhetoric is GOP lite. If conservative ideas and legislation are all he has to offer, why not just go for the real thing?

I'd say Obama can save himself with a radical 180 degree turnaround, admitting that he'd been a fool to try to "triangulate," as the strategists say, apologizing again and again for going in the absolute worst direction he could take the country, while at the same time putting on his boxing gloves, jumping into the ring, and bloodying as many conservative noses as he can hit, spending as much federal money as he can get together in order to get some demand going so as to match the massive supply businesses have been sitting on for a several years now.

But it's too late. Obama's fucked himself. He's going to have to pull a massive rabbit out of his ass if he wants another four years. Frankly, I don't think his ass has enough room to hold such an animal. Too much corn cob.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"UNNATURAL HAIR COLOR"

This is why I keep my last name off here for the most part: I'm about to rail away on my employer.

To be fair, my job here in the NOLA area at a corporate chain restaurant that serves decent Italian food has been good to me for the most part. I make decent money and have good relationships with my bosses and most of my co-workers. But this isn't about me. It's not any petty bitching about any sort of job dissatisfaction, or even about some sort of Marxist analysis of labor/capital relations, although I could just as easily go there if I wanted.

No, this is about what I consider to be a pretty clear cut case of racism, and it has me so infuriated that I don't know what to do. Except go to my blog and scream at the universe. So here I am.

A black guy I work with recently dyed his hair blond. He wore it well for a couple of days. It wasn't some trashy tacky something or other; it was pretty stylish, a high dollar professional job. He looked like something from a fashion magazine cover. When I walked into work last Wednesday or Thursday, I saw his new dye job and didn't think anything of it. I just said, "nice," as I walked by, and he thanked me for the compliment.

A couple of days later I started hearing that the company made him get rid of it, insisting that he cut it all off and dye the remaining roots black, his "natural" color. I asked my comrades why this happened and they told me about an obscure provision in the front-of-house dress code that forbids "unnatural" hair color: apparently, this rule, which was obviously intended to keep punk rockers and their ilk from strutting their rebellious attitudes by way of shocking pink, or green, or purple dye jobs, was interpreted to mean "unnatural" according to race. That is, at my restaurant, and presumably all others in the chain, a black man cannot dye his hair blond because the color is "unnatural" for black men.

Of course, this necessarily means that I, a white man, am totally free to dye my hair blond. Blond is "natural" for white people. So I get to have blond hair if I choose it. Or red. Or brown. Or black. But not black people; they can only have black hair because it is the only "natural" color that grows out of their heads.

You see the problem? My company has gotten into the business of telling the various races what hair color is appropriate for them. And it just so happens that white people get to have any "natural" hair color they want. Non-white people, well, fuck non-white people. You wear the hair you were born with.

I understand dress codes. Generally, especially in the schools, I don't like them. But in the business world, it is completely reasonable to tell employees what to wear. I mean, we're getting paid, after all, and the kind of image a business projects is important in terms of its success. I get it, and accept it, even if I prefer more freedom of individual expression in my ideal world. But I'm not bitching about dress codes here. Rather, I'm shocked and appalled that any American business would develop standards for its employees which are race specific, standards that allow white people more freedom than black people.

Really, I'm still having trouble believing that this has happened.

And it's not even some Southern dumb-shit latent racist cultural thing, either. When I finally got to talk to my buddy about the incident, he told me that it came down from one of the company's top executives, who had come down last week for a visit from the corporate headquarters in the Midwest. Apparently, this guy saw it and immediately told the general manager to do something about it.

I'm totally infuriated by this. I feel ethically bound to do something. But I have no idea what to do. Also, I fear for my job: waiting tables is low skilled stuff, or, at least, that's how it's perceived; people in this business who start making waves tend to be unceremoniously tossed out. My buddy, the one who is directly suffering this blatant discrimination, essentially has the same attitude--don't make waves. Before I found out this came down from the top I was considering an anonymous letter to the HR department, but now I think that would just be a dead end.

How can a company do something like this in 2011? Does the executive who creatively interpreted the "unnatural hair color" clause in this racist way even understand what he has done? What are my options?

I really don't want to just sit on my ass and say "That's just the way it is." I'm deeply disturbed.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FACT CHECK: Recession is culprit in high US debt

From CNBC courtesy of Digg:

It's the loud and clear consensus of Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail: Runaway government spending is the problem, not taxes.

But the math isn't so simple.

The number at the heart of the battle cry of the Republicans and their tea party allies — that federal spending has risen to an alarming 25 percent of the economy — is skewed by recession dynamics.

In recessions, federal spending always goes up and tax revenues go down. And the economy contracts in recessions, shrinking the gross domestic product, which is the total output of goods and services and the broadest measure of the economy's health.

And

But it also reflects the mathematical reality that during recessions, tax revenues go down sharply because people and companies make less money and so pay less in taxes. Federal spending goes up, even before stimulus programs, with an increasing demand for government help from food stamps and unemployment compensation and other safety-net programs.

And

Economist Bruce Bartlett, who worked in the administrations of both Reagan and President George H.W. Bush, said some of the statements by Republicans make him cringe. "And what sometimes makes me cringe more is the silence from their competitors."

More here.

Keep in mind that CNBC, unlike its sister cable news network MSNBC, is fairly right-wing, and definitely pro-business.

So what we have here is a situation where the entire US political establishment either doesn't understand the actual economics underlying current deficit spending, or simply doesn't care--it's very likely a combination of both. In the end, it doesn't really matter: the Washington zeitgeist is all about cutting spending in order to improve the economy, even though we're spending more relative to GDP because of the shitty economy. That is, the way out of this is not by contracting the economy with Draconian spending cuts, which is obvious, but rather by improving the economy with more spending, lots more spending, which will eventually pay off by shrinking the federal deficit while at the same time increasing tax revenues, which will also shrink the deficit.

But none of our leaders are interested in this. The Republicans talk about business "uncertainty," which keeps businesses from expanding and hiring more people. I'm not really sure what businesses are supposed to be uncertain about, federal regulations perhaps, or inflation, which deficit spending might cause some years down the road, even though it is nowhere on the horizon right now, what with the inflation rate currently hovering around 3.5%. It is far more likely, and rational, to boot, that businesses aren't expanding because people aren't buying their products--after all, it isn't as though businesses don't have the capital on hand to expand; indeed, US business is sitting on buttloads of cash at the moment, waiting for demand to pick up so they can increase production.

In other words, it's a demand problem, not an "uncertainty" problem, whatever that means. And you know what else a demand problem is? An unemployment problem. Or, if you prefer, a shitty economy problem. Whatever. The point is that the Republican rationale for their preferred package of economic policies, embraced as well by President Obama and most of his party, totally falls apart with even the vaguest scrutiny. Indeed, such scrutiny also mandates heavy federal stimulus spending so as to increase unemployment and therefore demand. Do that, and the deficit, by and large, takes care of itself. I mean, it would be nice to get rid of those Bush era tax cuts for the rich, but my optimism can only go so far.

At any rate, our leaders and their fucktardedness are literally destroying our great nation. I'm getting tired of hearing myself saying this.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$