|
|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
| (slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix | |||||||
| Home | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
 |
 |
 |
Apr 15, 2015 | antiwar.com
Former Washington insider and four-star General Wesley Clark spilled the beans several years ago on how Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us."As I recently reviewed a YouTube eight-minute clip of General Clark's October 2007 speech, what leaped out at me was that the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia had become neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East.
While Clark's public exposι largely escaped attention in the neocon-friendly "mainstream media" (surprise, surprise!), he recounted being told by a senior general at the Pentagon shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 about the Donald Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz-led plan for "regime change" in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
This was startling enough, I grant you, since officially the United States presents itself as a nation that respects international law, frowns upon other powerful nations overthrowing the governments of weaker states, and in the aftermath of World War II condemned past aggressions by Nazi Germany and decried Soviet "subversion" of pro-U.S. nations.
But what caught my eye this time was the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us."
That remark directly addresses a question that has troubled me since March 2003 when George W. Bush attacked Iraq. Would the neocons widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991?
The question is not an idle one. Despite the debacle in Iraq and elsewhere, the neocon "crazies" still exercise huge influence in Establishment Washington. Thus, the question now becomes whether, with Russia far more stable and much stronger, the "crazies" are prepared to risk military escalation with Russia over Ukraine, what retired U.S. diplomat William R. Polk deemed a potentially dangerous nuclear confrontation, a "Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse."
Putin's Comment
The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe.
But, commenting two years after the Iraq invasion, Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States.
If one takes a step back and attempts an unbiased look at the spread of violence in the Middle East over the past quarter-century, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Putin's comment was on the mark. With Russia a much-weakened military power in the 1990s and early 2000s, there was nothing to deter U.S. policymakers from the kind of adventurism at Russia's soft underbelly that, in earlier years, would have carried considerable risk of armed U.S.-USSR confrontation.
I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Visiting Wolfowitz
In his 2007 speech, General Clark related how in early 1991 he dropped in on Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (and later, from 2001 to 2005, Deputy Secretary of Defense). It was just after a major Shia uprising in Iraq in March 1991. President George H.W. Bush's administration had provoked it, but then did nothing to rescue the Shia from brutal retaliation by Saddam Hussein, who had just survived his Persian Gulf defeat.
According to Clark, Wolfowitz said: "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."
It's now been more than 10 years, of course. But do not be deceived into thinking Wolfowitz and his neocon colleagues believe they have failed in any major way. The unrest they initiated keeps mounting in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon not to mention fresh violence now in full swing in Yemen and the crisis in Ukraine. Yet, the Teflon coating painted on the neocons continues to cover and protect them in the "mainstream media."
True, one neocon disappointment is Iran. It is more stable and less isolated than before; it is playing a sophisticated role in Iraq; and it is on the verge of concluding a major nuclear agreement with the West barring the throwing of a neocon/Israeli monkey wrench into the works to thwart it, as has been done in the past.
An earlier setback for the neocons came at the end of August 2013 when President Barack Obama decided not to let himself be mouse-trapped by the neocons into ordering U.S. forces to attack Syria. Wolfowitz et al. were on the threshold of having the U.S. formally join the war against Bashar al-Assad's government of Syria when there was the proverbial slip between cup and lip. With the aid of the neocons' new devil-incarnate Vladimir Putin, Obama faced them down and avoided war.
A week after it became clear that the neocons were not going to get their war in Syria, I found myself at the main CNN studio in Washington together with Paul Wolfowitz and former Sen. Joe Lieberman, another important neocon. As I reported in "How War on Syria Lost Its Way," the scene was surreal funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth, behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl.
Israeli/Neocon Preferences
But the neocons are nothing if not resilient. Despite their grotesque disasters, like the Iraq War, and their disappointments, like not getting their war on Syria, they neither learn lessons nor change goals. They just readjust their aim, shooting now at Putin over Ukraine as a way to clear the path again for "regime change" in Syria and Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
The neocons also can take some solace from their "success" at enflaming the Middle East with Shia and Sunni now at each other's throats a bad thing for many people of the world and certainly for the many innocent victims in the region, but not so bad for the neocons. After all, it is the view of Israeli leaders and their neocon bedfellows (and women) that the internecine wars among Muslims provide at least some short-term advantages for Israel as it consolidates control over the Palestinian West Bank.
In a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity memorandum for President Obama on Sept. 6, 2013, we called attention to an uncommonly candid report about Israeli/neocon motivation, written by none other than the Israel-friendly New York Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem Jodi Rudoren on Sept. 2, 2013, just two days after Obama took advantage of Putin's success in persuading the Syrians to allow their chemical weapons to be destroyed and called off the planned attack on Syria, causing consternation among neocons in Washington.
Rudoren can perhaps be excused for her naοve lack of "political correctness." She had been barely a year on the job, had very little prior experience with reporting on the Middle East, and in the excitement about the almost-attack on Syria she apparently forgot the strictures normally imposed on the Times' reporting from Jerusalem. In any case, Israel's priorities became crystal clear in what Rudoren wrote.
In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ½-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome:
"For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad's government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.
"'This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don't want one to win - we'll settle for a tie,' said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. 'Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that's the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.'"
Clear enough? If this is the way Israel's leaders continue to regard the situation in Syria, then they look on deeper U.S. involvement overt or covert as likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict there. The longer Sunni and Shia are killing each other, not only in Syria but also across the region as a whole, the safer Tel Aviv's leaders calculate Israel is.
Favoring Jihadis
But Israeli leaders have also made clear that if one side must win, they would prefer the Sunni side, despite its bloody extremists from Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad.
"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in an interview. "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
In June 2014, Oren then speaking as a former ambassador said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said.
Netanyahu sounded a similar theme in his March 3, 2015 speech to the U.S. Congress in which he trivialized the threat from the Islamic State with its "butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube" when compared to Iran, which he accused of "gobbling up the nations" of the Middle East.
That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out.
As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress.
Corker Uncorked
Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, divulged some details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented) with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons.
Corker complained, "In essence I'm sorry to be slightly rhetorical we jumped into Putin's lap." A big No-No, of course especially in Congress to "jump into Putin's lap" even though Obama was able to achieve the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons without the United States jumping into another Middle East war.
It would have been nice, of course, if General Clark had thought to share his inside-Pentagon information earlier with the rest of us. In no way should he be seen as a whistleblower.
At the time of his September 2007 speech, he was deep into his quixotic attempt to win the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. In other words, Clark broke the omerta code of silence observed by virtually all U.S. generals, even post-retirement, merely to put some distance between himself and the debacle in Iraq and win some favor among anti-war Democrats. It didn't work, so he endorsed Hillary Clinton; that didn't work, so he endorsed Barack Obama.
Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam?"
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
Reprinted with permission from Consortium News.
|
|
|
www.mrconservative.com
https://www.mrconservative.com/2014/10/51732-hillary-clintons-lesbian-past-is-exposed/
One of the worst kept secrets in Washington circles is that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian. Rumors have swirled in the past about the former First Lady's gay ways, and with a potential presidential run coming in 2016, they have come back to haunt her.
Back in 2004, a Washington Times columnist reviewing Bill Clinton's memoir My Life concluded that Hillary and Bill, "have had a pact for decades. Their sexy, sexy pact is this: "He gets to fool around with women and she gets to fool around with women (plus the occasional man) yes, she's bisexual."
The lesbian rumors resurfaced a year later in Edward Klein's book The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, And How Far She'll Go To Become President. In it, Klein claimed that Hillary "wasn't maternal" "had no wifely instincts," and "many of her closest friends were lesbians."
Klein asserted that Hillary was obsessed with lesbianism, but not in a normal way. Instead, she was "much more interested in lesbianism as a political statement than a sexual practice Hillary talked about it a lot, read lesbian literature, and embraced it as a revolutionary concept."
In the end, Klein concluded that though she has experimented with lesbianism, Hillary is ultimately asexual.
The rumors were fired up once again in 2007, when Huma Abedin, Hillary's top aide, stumbled into the national spotlight with her husband Anthony Wiener's sex scandal. Many accused Hillary and Huma of being lesbian lovers, with Hillary hiding her "in plain sight" by hiring her as her top aide.
The lesbian rumors got so bad that year that Hillary addressed them personally. "It's not true, but it is something that I have no control over. People will say what they want to say," she told top gay magazine Advocate.
In 2013, when Hillary came out as pro-gay to the country, American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios claimed to know for a fact that Hillary is a lesbian:
"[Hillary] has always, as far as I know back to college, endorsed and embraced all things lesbian and gay, that is her history on this so that shouldn't be too shocking. She has played the role of wife and cookie-making mother, I'm sorry but this is just the reality of things. We are being caught in this vortex of homosexual advocacy, it's just amazing."
Finally, Bill Clinton's former mistress Gennifer Flowers spoke out last year about the former first couple's sex life, and what she had to say was shocking.
Flowers claimed that Bill told her repeatedly that Hillary was "bisexual," and that he was fine with it. He also told her that Hillary had "eaten more p*ssy than he had," a statement which shocked the nation.
In the end, if God-forbid Hillary becomes President in 2016, she will not only be the first female President, but also the first gay President.
Is America really ready for a lesbian to be running the free world? What do you think about all this? Sound off in the comments below!
|
|
|
www.nakedcapitalism.com
CaroliniancwaltzCruzTrump's mini-mehas apparently also been claiming lately that Hillary was a foreign policy disaster who killed thousands. This is what Sanders hasn't been saying forever. Libertarian Raimondo gives his take on the debate and says Rand Paul had a big night.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/12/16/gop-debate-triumph-isolationism/
BTW Pat Buchanan says that if the R establishment tries to coalesce around Rubio or Cruz then Trump will simply choose one of them as his running mate and end of story. That's assuming Trump does in fact maintain his poll lead with actual votes.
Steven D.Sanders doesn't mention Hillary by name (probably because she isn't the primary problem. It wasn't like Condeleeza Rice was a stellar Secretary of State or there weren't indictments under the Reagan Secretary of State.) However, he has been saying that our foreign policy is part of the problem which is the REAL problem. Clinton is just a symptom.
cwaltzI thought you were going pin the blame on Barry O since he was Hillary's boss. The system doesn't cut it as a target. It excuses the actors. Nobody has agency? Clinton had and has a lot of power. She has had options. She has chosen her path.
Steven D.Clinton's behavior was similar to her predecessors which was similar to her predecessors and so on and so on.
It's our foreign policy that is fubar and it's been fubar for awhile. This idea that Clinton somehow was the worst Secretary of State is revisionism. Was she bad? Yes. Was she worse than Condeleeza "I ignored a memo that said AQ was determined to attack" Rice? That is incredibly debatable. I'm all for Hillary being held accountable.
I'm less for her being the fall guy for ME policies that have been a disaster for at least as long as I've been alive(and let's face it installing the Shah, trading hostages for arms, etc, etc there's been ALOT of mistakes there)
hunkerdownWho makes foreign policy? People do. There are institutional prerogatives but she didn't have to be so damned good at being so bad.
Lambert Strether Post authorAs soon as one subordinates themselves, they become the agent to a principal, whether that principal be a natural person, a class, an identity group, or an old piece of paper with happy horse dung written all over it. Given the choice between downward mobility and schizophrenia, most choose compartmentalization as an imperfect but effective coping mechanism to help workers stay sane and maintain their identity in the ever more grueling workplace.
So who's the principal?
different clueHmm. You're saying that split consciousness screws up principal-agent relationships, not metaphoricallly, but literally? That's a really interesting argument, a new way to think about elites ("know your enemy").
I said something similar - OK, "interesting" could mean confirming my priors - here:
Does anybody really believe that the Clinton who takes off the Secretary of State hat and puts on the Clinton Foundation hat, or who takes off the Clinton Foundation hat and puts on the Campaign hat, is not the same Hillary Clinton? She'd have to be a sociopath to keep her mind and heart that compartmentalized, no? But if we accept the Clinton Dynasty's "attitude toward public service," as we put it, that's what we'd have to believe. I don't believe it.
So, either Clinton is a sociopath (the "compartmentalization") or deeply corrupt. Which is it to be?
Nose- or rather brain-bleeds at the commanding heights .
hunkerdownSociocorruptopath.
CarolinianSplit attribution enables screwed-up principal-agent relationships. Think sex workers, used-car salesmen, fresh-out-of-Harvard Democratic strategists, other agents who loyally if resignedly carry out what the mainstream deems inhospitable and/or dirty work to the benefit of their principals, yet share no interest apart from the engaged work.
Cultivating a straw self-identity or group-identity, or maybe role, for the purpose of attribution is an effective though problematic way to keep the evil from sticking to one's self-definition.
If you're saying that split consciousness makes for split loyalties, I'd agree. It's part of what makes that compartmentalized "workaday me" role slightly corrosive to community and citizenship.
Lambert Strether Post authorAccording to people who were there it was Clinton who pushed for regime change in Libya while Obama was reluctant. The French were pushing for it as well but within the administration she was the advocate. She also favored regime change in Syria although US actions there are murkier.
So Trump and Cruz were quite justified in what they said. She also favored the surge in Afghanistan while Biden opposed. She has compared Putin to Hitler and presumably fully supports the confrontation with Russia.
In Honduras she covertly supported the coup government at the urging of her crony Lanny Davis and the Honduran children who are fleeing to the United States can be chalked up as another of HIllary's little missteps. Whether or not she was the worst Sec State ever she's up there.
Condi on the other hand was just a functionary for policies being made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocons. It was a very different situation.
Whatever one thinks of Trump it's quite possible he'd be a less dangerous choice than Hillary when it comes to foreign policy. The Dems don't see it this way because so many of them agree with herparticularly the Democrats' wealthy backers.
Steven D.Clinton really believes that stuff. She's not pandering. Well, I mean, she's pandering too, of course, but from a base of conviction, not political posturing.
different clueYou give her too much credit. Like Lyndon Johnson, she's afraid of the Republicans getting too much to her right on foreign policy. It's purely reactive. If she believes anything, it's probably that Democrats need to be hawkish to avoid being portrayed as pansies. A fruit of her McGovern experience in 1972.
CarolinianThen she may be misreading that experience. My brain keeps circling back to Hunter S. Thompson's argument that McGovern didn't start falling badly until he was seen visibly seeking to appease the Establishment Democrats that his campaign had just beaten. If Thompson't analysis is correct, McGovern betrayed his own campaign and everyone who worked in it.
But of course the Clintons just saw "evil workers supporting Nixon against our beloved McGovern". I still wonder how much of Clinton's support for NAFTA was driven by a desire for revenge against the working class which voted against his beloved McGovern? Revenge being a dish best served cold, and so forth.
Steven D.You are probably right, which just makes it worse. No dissuading a fanatic.Hillary doesn't seem like the type who is inclined to admit to mistakes.
Ted Rall says that for once Trump's "s-bombs" are justified.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/15/in-defense-of-trumps-name-calling/
The Honduran coup was a crime that disqualifies her.
|
|
|
www.theguardian.com
the first reaction to ... Donald Trump criticizing Bill Clinton's scuzzy personal record with women should be, Good luck with that. But Trump is waging political war the way that Patriots coach Bill Belichick wins football games: take away the opponent's best weapon, then play to your strengths.
It just happens that playing to Trump's strengths involves sounding like an abusive comment thread with the long-term memory of a mosquito.
On Monday, Trump tweeted: "If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!" It's more pointed than his general, aimless displays of boorishness and chauvinism but, like using Megyn Kelly's alleged menses to explain her justifiably holding him to account in the first Republican debate, Trump was taking a tactical approach.
The Clinton campaign does plans to "unleash" Bill Clinton on the stump, and people really like Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton be it her demeanor in front of a crowd or the manufactured scandals and mischaracterizations by conservative media and officials just doesn't connect with audiences as well as Bill does; but then, Bill's probably the most charismatic politician of the last two generations.
Mihai Filip, 30 Dec 2015 23:43
I don't have a dog in this fight, nevertheless I've read on Breitbart the accusations for wich Bill Clinton settled out of court for 850k and that lady claimed he came on to her with his errect penis asking her to kiss it. I think the liberal media must start planning some sort of retreat on this issue before going on the suicidal path shown in this article, because this becomes an indefensible political position. Bill knew that already, that's why he paid the 850.000 dollars.
Martin Joseph -> lefthalfback2, 30 Dec 2015 23:56
You forgot to mention her corruption. Which makes her the perfect Clinton candidate.
Todd Owens, 30 Dec 2015 19:02
This article is peak identity politics. However negatively you feel about Trump the simple fact of the matter is President Clinton has a horrible record with women.
SemperTi Todd Owens, 30 Dec 2015 19:11
Yes he does and his wife is the hypocrite for her stance on women's rights and enlisting the support of her husband who has the deserved label of being a womanizer and when outed directly or indirectly attacked those women in the press.
|
|
|
www.nakedcapitalism.com
nycTerrieristtongoradNot a bad bumper sticker: Hillary for Endless War
It seems that some racism-botherers are not that concerned about Hilary's perpetual war against social services, either. Priorities, priorities.
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2015 | Economist's View
'The Fed and Financial Reform Reflections on Sen. Sanders op-Ed'
This is the beginning of a long response from Larry Summers to an op-ed by Bernie Sanders:JohnH said...The Fed and Financial Reform Reflections on Sen. Sanders op-Ed : Bernie Sanders had an op Ed in the New York Times on Fed reform last week that provides an opportunity to reflect on the Fed and financial reform more generally. I think that Sanders is right in his central point that financial policy is overly influenced by financial interests to its detriment and that it is essential that this be repaired.At the same time, reform requires careful reflection if it is not to be counterproductive. And it is important in approaching issues of reform not to give ammunition to right wing critics of the Fed who would deny it the capacity to engage in the kind of crisis responses that have judged in their totality been successful in responding to the financial crisis.
The most important policy priority with respect to the Fed is protecting it from stone age monetary ideas like a return to the gold standard, or turning policymaking over to a formula, or removing the dual mandate commanding the Fed to worry about unemployment as well as inflation. ...
Disagree!!! There is more to this than just interest rates. There is the matter of how the policy gets implemented--who gets low rates. Currently the low rates serve mostly the 1%, who profit enormously from them. Case in point: Mort Zuckerberg's 1% mortgage!JohnH said in reply to JohnH..."The obvious candidate for this dark force [correlation between (rising) inequality and (low) growth] is crony capitalism. When a country succumbs to cronyism, friends of the rulers are able to appropriate large amounts of wealth for themselves -- for example, by being awarded government-protected monopolies over certain markets, as in Russia after the fall of communism. That will obviously lead to inequality of income and wealth. It will also make the economy inefficient, since money is flowing to unproductive cronies. Cronyism may also reduce growth by allowing the wealthy to exert greater influence on political policy, creating inefficient subsidies for themselves and unfair penalties for their rivals."
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-24/cronyism-causes-the-worst-kind-of-inequality
As we know (although most here steadfastly ignore it) the Fed is rife with crony capitalism. As Bernie pointed out, 4 of the regional governors are from Goldman Sachs. Other examples are abundant. Quite simply, the system is rigged to benefit the few, minimizing any potential trickle down.
If a broad economic recovery is the goal, ending cronyism at the Fed is likely to be far more effective that low interest rates channeled only to the 1%.
Stiglitz:Peter K. said in reply to JohnH...The real problem is that money does not go to where it should go, as we see for example in the United States. The money does not flow into the real economy, because the transmission mechanism is broken. That is why we have a bubble in the financial system. The answer is not to tighten monetary policy, but to reform monetary policy so as to ensure that the money gets to the right place...
Small and medium enterprises cannot borrow money at zero interest rates - not even a private person, I wish I could do that (laughs). I'm more worried about the loan interest rates, which are still too high. Access for small and medium enterprises to credit is too expensive. That's why it is so important that the transmission mechanism work..."
http://www.cash.ch/news/alle/stiglitz-billiggeld-lost-kein-problem-3393853-448And let's not forget consumer credit rates, which barely dropped during the Great Recession and are still well above 10%. Even mortgage lending, which primarily benefits the affluent, have been stagnant for years despite historically low rates.
As Stiglitz notes, the transmission mechanisms are broken. Economists' trickle down monetary policy might work in theory, but not in practice, as we have seen for the last seven years, when low rates don't trickle down and were wasted instead on asset speculation by the 1%.
Reform of the Fed, and the end of cronyism are essential to making sure that the stimulus of low rates gets to Main Street, to ordinary people, and not primarily to asset speculators.
EMichael said in reply to Peter K....Bernie Sanders:
"The recent decision by the Fed to raise interest rates is the latest example of the rigged economic system. Big bankers and their supporters in Congress have been telling us for years that runaway inflation is just around the corner. They have been dead wrong each time. Raising interest rates now is a disaster for small business owners who need loans to hire more workers and Americans who need more jobs and higher wages. As a rule, the Fed should not raise interest rates until unemployment is lower than 4 percent. Raising rates must be done only as a last resort - not to fight phantom inflation. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/opinion/bernie-sanders-to-rein-in-wall-street-fix-the-fed.html
JF said...It is hilarious.
"He's right! But his policies are wrong!"
You couldn't make this up......
The financial system reform legislation in 2017 will also need to include these matters:BillB said...1. Licensure fees and higher and more differential income taxation rates based on the type of financial trading ratios the entities have (in order to direct more emphasis to real-economy lending and away from speculative and leveraged positions used in the financial asset trading marketplaces, so hedge funds probably would face the highest rates in income taxation). For a certain period after enactment these added taxes would be payable by the banks using their excess reserves, which will simply be eliminated until the reserve accounts return to the historically normal period when excess reserves were very small (there would no longer be a need for IOER, as the excess would be eliminated by operation of the taxation statutes). Attaching added ways & means statutes to all the financial service entities also serves to 'cover' some more of huge financial risk held by society and produced by them while the success of this huge sector actually contributes to the financing of self-government - which is also an indirect way to attach high Net Worth being used).
2. New statutory provisions need to reach any and all entities in the financial community regardless of definitions based on the functions they serve or provide (or the way they are named - so yes, the prior separation for deposit-management banking from investing activities can still happen, but this only helps to define which of the differential provisions apply, not help the entity escape them). Perhaps as a result Bank Holding Companies and other large entities won't use a complex network of hundreds of subsidiaries as these would not then serve as a way to avoid taxation, regulatory standards on what are prudent expectations, or supervision; or be used simply to obfuscate -- so investors and regulators can't see the truth of matters.
3. The newly named central bank needs to hold the discretion to buy Treasury bonds directly from the Treasury. This would discipline these fundamental asset-trading marketplaces and the huge primary dealer group of entities, and weaken the fox-and-hen-house influence on public finance.
4. New accounting approaches for the central bank would clarify what happens should the Congress direct redemption amounts or asset sales for the public's purposes. A good portion of the current FRB's book of owned assets can be redeemed or sold without affecting the 'power' of the central bank, and the proceeds used then, for example, to lower payroll taxes via a direct transfer to the social security trust fund's set of accounts).
Senator Sanders, good stuff. Bring out the vote, let us get others in Congress with whom you can work.
Summers: "The most important policy priority with respect to the Fed is protecting it from stone age monetary ideas like a return to the gold standard, or turning policymaking over to a formula, or removing the dual mandate commanding the Fed to worry about unemployment as well as inflation."pgl said in reply to pgl...And in one sentence Summers illustrates exactly why we dodged a bullet in not appointing Summers to be Fed Chair. Preserving the power of the Fed is not the most important policy. Changing the Fed composition so that it is more consumer friendly and not dominated by Wall Street interests is the most important policy change needed.
Summers argument is the same we always hear from so-called "centrists." "You hippies should shut up because you are helping the opposition."
You hear the same sort of argument with respect to Black Lives Matter.
On financial regulation - Summers is spot on here:
"the Balkanized character of US banking regulation is indefensible and would be ended. The worst regulatory idea of the 20th century-the dual banking system-persists into the 21st. The idea is that we have two systems one regulated by the States and the Fed and the other regulated by the OCC so banks have choice. With ambitious regulators eager to expand their reach, the inevitable result is a race to the bottom."
It is called regulatory capture.
Summers is also calling for higher capital requirements. Excellent stuff!
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs said... December 26, 2015 at 07:53 PM(All GOP prez wannabees have tax plans featuring drastically lower top-tier rates (except for Rubio), much lower corporate rates, and some appealing breaks for the middle class.pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs...Also jacking up deficits & nat'l debt yet again.)
The GOP Candidates' Tax Plans - WSJ - Nov 9
http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/gop-candidates-tax-plans/PolitiFact's guide to the Republican tax plans (so far) - Nov 5
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/05/politifacts-guide-republican-tax-plans-so-far/ Reply Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 07:53 PM"Calls for a single-rate system based on Biblical principle of tithing." - Carson is a lunatic.Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl...Then there's CARLY and her 3 page tax code. What a dope.
Rubio & Cruz offer nothing less crazy.Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...Marco Rubio's Tax Plan Gives Top 1% An
Average Tax Cut of More than $220,000 a Year
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/11/marco_rubios_tax_plan_gives_top_1_an_average_tax_cut_of_more_than_220000_a_year.phpTed Cruz's 'crazy' tax plan would
cost US at least $16 trillion: analysts http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/ted-cruzs-crazy-tax-plan-would-cost-us-at-least-16-trillion-analysts/Kasich?
John Kasich unveils tax plan, vows to balance budget within eight years http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kasich-tax-plan_561fce63e4b028dd7ea6ee15 via @HuffPostPol
NASHUA, N.H. (AP) - Republican presidential candidate John Kasich vowed Thursday to balance the federal budget within eight years as part of a domestic agenda led by broad tax cuts and a yearslong freeze on all spending except the military.
The Ohio governor's budget framework would focus tax cuts on businesses and the wealthy - though at least one provision is aimed at lower-income people - and dramatically scale back the federal government's role in administering education and transportation funding. It's an agenda for the first 100 days that is not as aggressive of some of his more conservative rivals, but one he predicts will prompt criticism from opponents in both parties.
"I will immediately put us on a path to a balanced budget and I will get it done within eight years," Kasich said Thursday at Nashua Community College. "It starts by setting your priorities and then having the courage to make choices that might be unpopular."
The policy rollout comes as Kasich fights to stand out in a packed 2016 GOP field. In an election season celebrating political outsiders, the 63-year-old Republican has an insider resume that includes 18 years in Congress and two terms as governor in one of the nation's key swing states. Yet his blunt style resonates with some voters, particularly in New Hampshire, the unofficial staging ground for his campaign.
Kasich called for broad tax cuts that would grow the budget deficit in the first few years, according to projections his campaign shared with The Associated Press. His advisers predict that economic growth sparked by the tax cuts, backed by cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and an eight-year freeze on all non-defense discretionary spending, would eventually offset lost tax revenue to balance the federal budget for the first time since Bill Clinton was president.
Kasich's tax plan would lower the top individual tax rate from 39.6 percent to 28 percent, reduce long-term capital gains tax rates to 15 percent and eliminate the estate tax, lower the top business tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent and double the research and development tax credit for small businesses.
"This looks like a pretty big tax cut for the top end and a little bit at the bottom," said Robertson Williams, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "There's not much going to the middle class."
While most of the cuts benefit the wealthy, Kasich would increases by 10 percent the earned income tax credit, a measure designed to help lower-income taxpayers.
"If you are a person that thinks you ought to pound the rich into submission, I guess you won't like the plan," Kasich said in an AP interview before the speech. ...
As for Christie, he's still pollingpgl -> Fred C. Dobbs...
ok in NH, in the 2nd tier, but hasn't
said much about tax schemes lately?Christie as governor of NJ has a fiscal track record. A really bad one. He claims he has balanced the budget but the Volcker report says NJ's fiscal situation is worse than ever. And this is mainly because he rewards his rich buddies as he screws the compensation packages of public employees. He has underfunded the department of transportation so NJ's roads and bridges are crumbling even as he steals money from the Port Authority.Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...But hey Christie yells a lot so he must be a great guy.
(!Trump)pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs...A Trillion Here or There: The Details Aren't What
Matter in Trump's Tax Plan http://nyti.ms/1ObzPAo via @UpshotNYT
NYT - Josh Barro- Dec 23On Tuesday, another think tank issued another analysis of Donald Trump's tax plan, which calls for a very large tax cut that mostly benefits the wealthiest Americans. The new report, from the Tax Policy Center, found the plan would lose $9.5 trillion in revenue over a decade.
(AN ANALYSIS OF DONALD TRUMP'S TAX PLAN
Tax Policy Center - December 22, 2015
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000560-an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tax-plan.pdf )That's $2.5 trillion less than two other think tanks estimated in the fall. In some sense, $2.5 trillion is a lot of money. But in this case, the difference between $9.5 trillion and $12 trillion doesn't really matter - and the reason it doesn't matter has implications for how we think about candidates' "tax plans," especially when they come from a candidate who invents Civil War battles and whose own book promotes the virtue of "truthful hyperbole," a practice known to normal people as "exaggerating."
Mr. Trump's plan is purely theoretical. Even if he is elected president, the plan will never become law in its current form, whatever that current form is. Estimates of the plan's effects are therefore useful only as broad statements of his intentions about taxes - and a proposal for a $9.5 trillion tax cut makes essentially the same broad statement as a proposal for a $12 trillion tax cut. ...
Analysis of Donald Trump Tax Plan Sees
a Boon for Wealthy and Trillions in Debt http://nyti.ms/1OlD4at via @NYTPolitics
NYT - Alan Rappeport - Dec 22Tax Policy Center scored Trump's plan. Big tax cuts for rich people and less government spending for the rest of us.pgl said...W and the clowns believes only the little people pay taxes.ilsm -> pgl...Tax cuts and trillions of bucks for carpet bombing extreme Islamists in Terroristan*.There is no limit to the suffering required to assure the billionaires' security.
*Bloom County comics. http://www.gocomics.com/bloom-county/2015/12/23
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs said... December 27, 2015 at 06:32 AMFred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...One suspects that the GOPsters are astonished by what they hear from Bernie Sanders & to a slightly lesser extent Hillary, and are assuming that this presents great opportunities for a GOP victory in 2016.
Peter K. said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... December 27, 2015 at 07:46 AMPrice tag of Bernie Sanders's proposals: $18 trillion http://on.wsj.com/1UQtsaK
via @WSJ - Sept. 14, 2015WASHINGTON-Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose liberal call to action has propelled his long-shot presidential campaign, is proposing an array of new programs that would amount to the largest peacetime expansion of government in modern American history.
In all, he backs at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade, according to a tally by The Wall Street Journal, a sum that alarms conservatives and gives even many Democrats pause. Mr. Sanders sees the money as going to essential government services at a time of increasing strain on the middle class.
His agenda includes an estimated $15 trillion for a government-run health-care program that covers every American, plus large sums to rebuild roads and bridges, expand Social Security and make tuition free at public colleges.
To pay for it, Mr. Sanders, a Vermont independent running for the Democratic nomination, has so far detailed tax increases that could bring in as much as $6.5 trillion over 10 years, according to his staff. ...
Bernie Sanders just slammed a report that claimed his proposals would cost a monstrous $18 trillion http://read.bi/1JazBlK via @Business Insider
"In all, he backs at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade, according to a tally by The Wall Street Journal, a sum that alarms conservatives and gives even many Democrats pause."
Fred is repeating the Republican-Hillary lie. Maybe if we hear it enough we'll think it's true.
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/bernie-sanders-and-the-wall-street-journal-s-18-trillion
Bernie Sanders and the Wall Street Journal's $18 Trillion
by Dean Baker
Published: 16 September 2015The Wall Street Journal decided to take Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign seriously enough to calculate the cost of the programs that he proposed. Their price tag was $18 trillion over the next decade. This is presumably supposed to scare people because, let's face it $18 trillion is a really big number.
Much of the fright factor disappears when we realize that $15 trillion of this $18 trillion comes from the WSJ's estimate of the cost of Sanders' universal Medicare program. That is a considerable chunk of change, but as Kevin Drum and others have pointed out this will not be new money out of people's pockets. For the most part this is money that employers are now paying for their workers' health care insurance. Instead, under a universal Medicare system the government would get this money in tax revenue. Since Canada and the other wealthy countries with universal Medicare-type systems all have much lower per capita health care costs than the United States (the average is less than half the cost), in all probability we would be paying less for our health care under the Sanders' system than we do now.
This still leaves $3 trillion for us to get frightened over, and this still looks like a really big number. As a point of reference, GDP over the next decade is projected at roughly $240 trillion. This makes the cost of the rest of Sanders' plans equal to less than 1.3 percent of GDP.
Should we worry about that? The increase in annual military spending from 2000 to the peaks of Iraq/Afghanistan wars was roughly 1.8 percent of GDP. This was also the size of military buildup that took place under President Reagan. Jeb Bush is proposing to cut taxes by roughly this amount if he gets elected.
In short, the additional spending that Senator Sanders has proposed is not trivial, but we have seen comparable increases in the past for other purposes. We can clearly afford the tab, the question is whether free college, rebuilding the infrastructure, early childhood education and the other items on the list are worth the price.
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Peter K.... December 27, 2015 at 08:10 AM
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Peter K....'Fred is repeating the Republican-Hillary lie. Maybe if we hear it enough we'll think it's true.'
My only interest is in suggesting how GOPsters are thinking & strategizing.
Robert Reich - 4 Reasons Why The Wall Street Journal's Attack on Bernie is Bogus - Sep 17
http://robertreich.org/post/129306966350... The Journal's number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread the truth:
1. Bernie's proposals would cost less than what we'd spend without them. Most of the "cost" the Journal comes up with-$15 trillion-would pay for opening Medicare to everyone.
This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices.
Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, whom the Journal relies on for some of its data, actually estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years.
(An Open Letter to the Wall Street
Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html
via @HuffPostPol)2. The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie's agenda-tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.
3. Many of these other "costs" would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn't be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.
4. Finally, Bernie's proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren't really "spending" at all, but investments in the nation's future productivity. If we don't make them, we're all poorer. ...
|
|
|
www.theguardian.com
Trump is currently the overwhelming favorite in national polls for the Republican nomination and leading in the key early states of New Hampshire and South Carolina.
|
|
|
marknesop.wordpress.com
et Al, December 19, 2015 at 11:02 amButnits Insider: Donald Trump left Joe Scarborough stunned after being asked about Vladimir Putin killing journalistsLyttenburgh, December 19, 2015 at 11:50 am
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-praises-vladimir-putin-125622048.htmlScarborough pointed to Putin's status as a notorious strongman.
"Well, I mean, it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. Obviously that would be a concern, would it not?" Scarborough asked.
"He's running his country, and at least he's a leader," Trump replied. "Unlike what we have in this country."
"But again: He kills journalists that don't agree with him," Scarborough said.
The Republican presidential front-runner said there was "a lot of killing going on" around the world and then suggested that Scarborough had asked him a different question.
"I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know," Trump replied. "There's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that's the way it is. But you didn't ask me [that] question, you asked me a different question. So that's fine."
Scarborough was left visibly stunned.
"I'm confused," the MSNBC host said. "So I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing journalists and political opponents, right?"
"Oh sure, absolutely," Trump said
But Friday during his "Morning Joe" interview, Trump said he always "felt fine" about Putin and touted the Russian president's poll numbers. Putin's position in his country is bolstered by the Russian government's control over much of the Russian news media.
"I always felt fine about Putin," Trump said. "I think that he's a strong leader. He's a powerful leader He's actually got a popularity within his country. They respect him as a leader."
Trump contrasted Putin's numbers with President Obama's.
"I think he's up in the 80s. You see where Obama's in the 30s and low 40s. And he's up in the 80s," Trump said. "And I don't know who does the polls. Maybe he does the polls, but I think they're done by American companies, actually."
####When I read stuff like this, I'm so glad the US is so far away. Damn modern technology.
" it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries"It's okay to bullshit if the Culturally Superior Westerner is dissing with libelious claims Inferior Non-Westerner. See, who needs any proof that "Putin kills journalists"? No one! Not even trump or their auditory They Know It For Fact .
P.S. "Ignorance is Strength"
|
|
|
marknesop.wordpress.com
Tim Owen, December 20, 2015 at 1:53 pm
Sy Hersh's latest via M of A:marknesop, December 20, 2015 at 7:58 pmhttp://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military
Washington does not care who assumes power in Syria whether it be feuding warlords or an Islamic mullah or Assad's cat. Washington knows that Islamic State needs money to survive and keep power, as does any individual or group who will rule, and that to remain in power, it will sell oil. Good enough, as far as Washington is concerned. If the place remains a seething cauldron of destabilizing hatreds, so much the better.Tim Owen, December 20, 2015 at 8:50 pmI read this carefully earlier today and wish I had made some notes.Tim Owen, December 20, 2015 at 9:08 pmIt's an interesting article just in what it says about the politics of American journalism at this point in time almost regardless of the subject matter in a kind of Kremlinology vein. It almost reads like a ransom note. My impression is that Hersh is pulling punches at some key points in order not to overplay his hand.
My suggestion: don't get bogged down in the details. From my recollection of the piece from earlier today Hersh is basically championing a few figures and most importantly their perspectives here:
- Michael Flynn, who led the DIA revolt against Syria policy
- Dempsey, a pragmatic cold warrior who is allergic to making the enemy into a cardboard super-villan (good enough for this Putinista)
- Patrick Lang (more below)
- and that wonderfully clear-headed Hawaiin congress-critter (can't be arsed to look her up)
It's worth remembering that Hersh's articles on the Ghoutta attack immediately predated the great stand-down by Obama from all out air-war to destroy Syria.
Given that it's axiomatic that journalists are really mouthpieces for political factions within their own government power structure and that the BEST journalists like Hersh actually embrace this reality, what does the appearance of this article augur?
I especially like the sign off:
"The Joint Chiefs and the DIA were constantly telling Washington's leadership of the jihadist threat in Syria, and of Turkey's support for it. The message was never listened to. Why not?"
That sounds kind of threatening. In a good way.
* Regarding Patrick Lang, I noticed that he posted a quite vehement attack against conspiracy theorists postings on his blog who were if I recall correctly claiming that the military were involved in the subterfuge to arm extremists in Syria. (Probably cocked up the details but too tired to check.) It struck me as noteworthy as it suggested an internecine intra-Washington struggle between Military / CIA who was going to "own" the debacle in Syria at the very least. It is utterly reminiscent of the struggle between Dulles / CIA power structure (think: institutional group think) and the incoming JFK administration / New Frontiersman during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In other words: we, the west, have basically made no progress fighting for reform of our leadership and political structures. Meanwhile the Russians seem to have gone "right round the horn" as the dinosaur in Toy Story might put it.
Of course it's worth noting that Hersh had to revert to publishing this "intimate" conversation between American power structures in a foreign publication. What does that tell you about the "freedom index"? Samizdat here we come!
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
pgl said... December 20, 2015 at 03:14 AMBernie Sanders starts the Democratic debate by apologizing to everyone for the data breach and Hillary Clinton accepted the apology:ilsm said in reply to pgl...http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-apologizes-to-clinton-on-data-breach
Then the Democrats had an adult debate. Not something you'd see from those Republican clowns.
ilsm said in reply to ilsm...Why no one talks regime change in Egypt?
Silary went all GW lies for selling regime change in Syria. Her foreign policy advisors are all PNAC, Cheney, Wolfowitz....
Wants to work with Sunnis, she thinks like W that Iran and Shi'a are the axis of evil.
She blames Maliki for Sunni treason and defecting en masse to ISIS in Iraq and sees Iran as the enemy. Must have had a crush on the Shah.
No fly zones so Assad cannot drop fearsome drums of napalm!! Drone strike and all indeed! And with Russia deploying a theater air defense it is up to Putin!
Then Hizbolah are THE big terrorists, only to her AIPAC sponsors.
While she knows how many Syrians are dead in the civil war she ignores 2000 Gaza Arabs killed by IDF in 10 days.
Bernie: US is not policeman.
Martin: Gotta go away from cold war.
Both said you 'gotta look at what you have after you break Syria like Libya'!
She had nothing to say about what Syria would look like when she gave to to the less extremist Sunnis terrorists and how many Shi'a and other non Sunnis would be slaughtered.
Feel the Bern!
Silary laid out the entire thuggee regimen for the middle east without drooling over carpet bombing or screeching she would be tougher than Obomber.ken melvin said in reply to ilsm...First, the Neocons will go with the republicans.Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to ken melvin...Not necessarily.Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to ilsm...Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton? http://nyti.ms/1qJ4eLN
NYT - July 5... It's not as outlandish as it may sound. Consider the historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clinton's time at the State Department. ...
Superpowers Don't Get to Retire
https://newrepublic.com/article/117859/allure-normalcy-what-america-still-owes-world(There's always !Trump, who maybe is on the Right Side in the Middle East?)Donald Trump's bromance with Vladimir Putin
http://www.wmur.com/politics/donald-trumps-bromance-with-vladimir-putin/37036676 via @wmur9... For months, Trump has embraced Putin as a world leader he would "get along very well with," a relationship that would be rooted in the two men's similar outlook, personas and, in some cases, overlapping policy goals. It's an international bromance that's driving GOP establishment figures to call out Trump's ideological incompatibility with the Republican Party in yet another arena.
After Putin praised Trump on Thursday as "bright and talented" and "the absolute leader of the presidential race," the billionaire trumpeted Putin's praise as a "great honor" and even shrugged off widespread allegations that the Russian president has ordered the killing of journalists and political dissidents.
"He's running his country and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country," Trump said Friday morning on MSNBC. "I think our country does plenty of killing also." ...
John Kasich's campaign went so far as to release a mock press release Saturday announcing that Trump named Putin as his running mate, dubbing the two a "dictatorial duo." ...
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
anne, December 17, 2015 at 11:50 AMhttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/world/asia/navy-seal-team-2-afghanistan-beating-death.htmlilsm said in reply to anne...December 16, 2015
Navy SEALs, a Beating Death and Complaints of a Cover-Up
By NICHOLAS KULISH, CHRISTOPHER DREW and MATTHEW ROSENBERGU.S. soldiers accused Afghan police and Navy SEALs of abusing detainees. But the SEAL command opted against a court-martial and cleared its men of wrongdoing.
Too much training to send to jail.
While E-4 Bergdahl does in captivity what several hundred officers did in Hanoi and gets life!
US militarism is Alice's Wonderland!
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
bakho said in reply to pgl, December 16, 2015 at 06:06 PMCould have been worse. Could have been shutdown or new round of austerity. GOP intransigence is coming back to bite them. The Rubes are mad at the state of the economy and blame Obama first but also believe that the GOP establishment has sold them down river. The squishy economy has caused the GOP elites to lose out to Trump and his antiestablishment "we are not winning" pitchfork toting mob.The Dems need to get in front of this parade before the General.
Billy Joe said...
I am hearing, adding on to Bakho's point above, this was a 2 way deal. The Fed begins its modest tightening schedule with Congress beginning a modest fiscal loosening.
This is not a accident. It comes from a second hand source related to a Republican Congressmen. Basically, Yellen told Congress, if they loosen fiscal policy, they will raise rates. That is what happened.......on a small scale.
Ben Bernanke was and is a big supporter.
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
anne, December 17, 2015 at 11:50 AMhttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/world/asia/navy-seal-team-2-afghanistan-beating-death.htmlilsm said in reply to anne...December 16, 2015
Navy SEALs, a Beating Death and Complaints of a Cover-Up
By NICHOLAS KULISH, CHRISTOPHER DREW and MATTHEW ROSENBERGU.S. soldiers accused Afghan police and Navy SEALs of abusing detainees. But the SEAL command opted against a court-martial and cleared its men of wrongdoing.
Too much training to send to jail.
While E-4 Bergdahl does in captivity what several hundred officers did in Hanoi and gets life!
US militarism is Alice's Wonderland!
|
|
|
December 15, 2015 |
Robert Reich's Facebook Page
"I don't see much difference between Bernie and Hillary," a friend said this morning over breakfast.
"Wrong," said my other friend, also at breakfast. She then went through the list:
- "Bernie wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Hillary wants to raise it to $12 an hour.
- Bernie wants a single-payer health insurance system. Hillary wants to strengthen Obamacare.
- Bernie wants all public higher education to be tuition free. Hillary wants community colleges to be tuition free.
- Bernie wants to bust up the biggest banks. Hillary wants to make it more expensive for banks to be very big.
- Bernie wants to resurrect the Glass-Staegall Act that separated commercial from investment banking before Bill Clinton joined Republicans in repealing it. Hillary doesn't think it's necessary to go that far.
- Bernie wants to tax speculative trading on Wall Street. Hillary doesn't think that's necessary, either.
- Bernie wants to expand Social Security by raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. Hillary wants to protect Social Security as is.
- Bernie wants to allow states to legalize marijuana. Hillary wants to put marijuana on a lower drug enforcement classification but doesn't want it legalized.
- Bernie isn't taking money from corporate PACs or Super PACs. Hillary is."
"See?" she said. "The difference is huge. Bernie is leading a movement for fundamental change. That's why he's generating so much enthusiasm, and why he'll win the primaries."
"Wrong" he said. "Bernie's too radical. He doesn't stand a chance."
What do you think?
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs, December 16, 2015 at 09:57 AM
On Mideast, GOP Rivals Offer Simple Answer: Bombsilsm said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...The candidates took strong positions on the need to use force, but at times seemed uncertain about America's past military and diplomatic interventions in the region.
At Republican Debate, Straying Into Mideast,
and Getting Lost http://nyti.ms/1m7DUuE
NYT - DAVID E. SANGER - DEC. 16WASHINGTON - In a surprisingly substantive debate on foreign policy Tuesday night, the upheaval in the Middle East gave Republican presidential candidates a chance to show off alternatives to what they portrayed as President Obama's failed approach, but at many moments, the politics and history of the region eluded them as they tried to demonstrate their skills at analysis and leadership.
At times during the two-hour debate, several of the candidates seemed uncertain about America's past military and diplomatic interventions in the region, and did not acknowledge Mr. Obama's continuing attempts to negotiate a cease-fire in Syria. And for most of them Jeb Bush seemed an exception the strategy to defeat the Islamic State largely seemed to boil down to this: Drop your bombs first and figure out the diplomacy later, if at all.
In their efforts to show that they were skilled at realpolitik, putting national interests ahead of ideals, almost all of them dismissed the stated goal of Mr. Bush's brother, the last Republican president. It was George W. Bush who declared in his second inaugural address that "the calling of our time" was to support "the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
But to some in this generation of Republicans, democracy building is out; supporting dictators, perhaps including Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who are willing to fight the Islamic State, is in.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the debate was long on the need to use military force, and short on the question of how one gets at the roots of radical Muslim jihadism or engages the Muslim community in the United States and abroad in that effort. That discussion began with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas defending, and expanding on, his recent vow to carpet-bomb the Islamic State, wherever it may be.
"What it means is using overwhelming air power to utterly and completely destroy ISIS," said Mr. Cruz, using an acronym for the Islamic State. He argued that in "the first Persian Gulf War, we launched roughly 1,100 air attacks a day. We carpet-bombed them for 36 days, saturation bombing," and then sent in troops to mop up "what was left of the Iraqi army."
In fact, the Persian Gulf war was the first big testing ground for precision-guided munitions. The last big "carpet bombing" was in the Vietnam War; military officials, including Britain's defense minister, have noted recently that any such technique used in Syria would kill thousands of innocent civilians living in places like Raqqa, the Islamic State's de facto capital.
But Mr. Cruz pressed on when challenged by Wolf Blitzer of CNN, the moderator. "The object isn't to level a city," he said. "The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists." He never said how that is possible without tremendous civilian casualties, which is why carpet bombing is often considered a war crime.
In some ways the debate was remarkable for the fact that it delved into the politics of the Middle East at all; many of the candidates on the stage Tuesday night in Las Vegas did not appear interested in that discussion even a few months ago. But the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino left them no choice: They had to pass the commander-in-chief test, and the first step in that process is to be able piece together something that sounds like a strategy.
The result was that a few of them were testing out their thinking about longtime questions like regime-change and whether it is better to press for democracy, even if it creates chaos and openings for terrorist groups, or to back reliable dictators.
Syria poses the most urgent test, and there was disagreement over whether Mr. Assad had to go first, or whether the United States and its partners should focus first on defeating the Islamic State, even if that means leaving in power a dictator under whom upward of a quarter-of-a-million of his own people have been killed.
The argument began with Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, alone among the candidates a consistent voice against American intervention in the Mideast, who said the "majority" of his competitors for the nomination "want to topple Assad. And then there will be chaos, and I think ISIS will then be in charge."
Though administration officials will not say so in public, they largely agree which is why getting rid of Mr. Assad has been pushed down the road, though Secretary of State John Kerry says Mr. Assad's removal must be the eventual outcome if Sunni rebel groups are going to be enticed into fighting the Islamic State.
Mr. Cruz made the case for keeping dictators like Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt close. "Qaddafi was a bad man," he said., "Mubarak had a terrible human rights record. But they were assisting us" in the cause of "fighting radical Islamic terrorists." He argued that this was far better than "being a Woodrow Wilson democracy promoter."
Mr. Cruz's argument was meant to differentiate him from Marco Rubio, the Florida senator who had supported the ouster of Mr. Qaddafi and Mr. Mubarak, and whose campaign has attracted some veterans of the George W. Bush White House. But along the way it exposed a significant rift in Republican thinking, and puts him in a much different place than where his party was a decade ago. ...
Thuggee debates:If your bombing (questionable whether it worked in WW II, utter failure against VC/NVA) is failing eliminating "rules of engagement" and increasing civilian casualties is not going to change the outcome. If the Germans had won WW II Bomber Harris would have been hanged, and for Japan Le May would have been beheaded.
Hizbolah is only a "terrorist" to IDF when they enter Lebanon, the Israelis cannot do in South Lebanon what they get way with in Gaza and the West Bank. Too many GOP playing for AIPAC.
Replacing a brutal dictator with a bunch of terrorists is insanity, the GOP has no other answer. The mess in Lebanon and Iraq was caused by Reagan and worsened by GW.
If you don't like Assad why do you like al Sisi? Aside from the Egyptian military dictator has promised not to use the $3B annual bribe from the US to attack Israel......
While Rubio wants to arm al Qaeda so they can run Syria to do more 9/11's.
Trump is right the media lies all the time and his thuggee opponents take them up on their lies.
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
RGC said..., December 16, 2015 at 05:55 PM
anne said in reply to RGC...Bernie says his campaign has received 2,003,243 individual contributions as of 8:38 pm Dec. 16, 2015. For reference, President Obama's historic campaign in 2008 only reached one million contributions on the day of the Iowa caucuses.
anne said in reply to RGC...Bernie says his campaign has received 2,003,243 individual contributions as of 8:38 pm Dec. 16, 2015.
[ Wonderful and remarkable considering the stark and dismaying absence of network news coverage of the Sanders campaign. ]
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428December 11m 2015
ABC World News Tonight Has Devoted 81 Minutes To Trump, One Minute To Sanders
By ERIC BOEHLERTDoes that ratio seem out of whack? That's the ratio of TV airtime that ABC World News Tonight has devoted to Donald Trump's campaign (81 minutes) versus the amount of TV time World News Tonight has devoted to Bernie Sanders' campaign this year. And even that one minute for Sanders is misleading because the actual number is closer to 20 seconds.
For the entire year.
That's the rather stunning revelation from the Tyndall Report, which tracks the various flagship nightly news programs on NBC, CBS and ABC. The Report's campaign findings cover the network evening newscasts from January 1 through the end of November....
|
|
|
naked capitalism
Many people are cheering now that yesterday Marine Le Pen and her Front National (FN) party didn't get to take over government in any regions in the France regional elections. They should think again. FN did get a lot more votes than the last time around, and, though she will be a little disappointed after last weekend's results, it's exactly as Le Pen herself said: "Nothing can stop us".
And instead of bemoaning this, or even not believing it, it might be much better to try and understand why she's right. And that has little to do with any comparisons to Donald Trump. Or perhaps it does, in that in the same way that Trump profits from -people's perception of- the systemic failures of Washington, Le Pen is being helped into the saddle by Brussels.
The only -remaining- politicians in Europe who are critical of the EU are on the -extreme- right wing. The entire spectrum of politics other than them don't even question Brussels anymore. Which is at least a little strange, because support for the EU on the street is not nearly as strong as among politicians, as referendum after referendum keeps on showing.
James Levy, December 15, 2015 at 8:25 am
Since Reagan and Thatcher, it is very hard for elites anywhere to think of "the national interest" as anything more than the bottom lines of the larger banks, brokerage houses, and corporations based in their respective countries. Where the statement made in 1959 that what was good for General Motors is good for America was met with disdain or distrust, today it is an unshakeable article of faith for almost all national politicians in the major Western countries (substituting Mitsui, or Deutsche Bank, or AXA, or Royal Dutch Shell for GM). The axiom is if you take care of the corporations, they will take care of the economy, and that it turn will take care of the people.
Thus we have the corporate neoliberal state. The fact that millions are unsure of that formula, or simply dismiss it out of hand as self-serving on the part of both the corporations and the politicians who suck at their teats, is dismissed as naοve or irrational by the elites and their intellectual shills (virtually everyone being educated at elite institutions).
This leads to the societal disconnect you so ably set before us in your post. I see no way the two sides can stop talking past one another and wallowing in their mutual contempt. In the end, one side will win and one will lose, or the system will collapse and both will be thrown into the darkness. My money is on the last of those options.
lylo, December 15, 2015 at 9:27 amI agree about the pull rightward being basically the fault of the europhiles filling every other party. The really sad part is how many of them are ostensibly more nationalist while campaigning. No one is ever put in office promising to put Brussels first, yet they all seem to once elected. As put so succinctly, what choice is left?
By the way, one of the first rules of diplomacy (and any interactions really, even with animals) is don't force anyone into a corner; it doesn't end well. That's basically what the EU did to the European populations by not ever letting them say no to expansions. (As an addendum, one could easily draw parallels here with Trump.)
But I do have to mention, as it often comes up in these discussions, my issue with the article's take on the Euro. I agree completely, by the way, and think most here would say it goes without even saying. Right?
Now, what about the poor Southern US? Isn't it actually all so-and-so's fault or if only they weren't so dumb or had instituted such-and-such policy or whatever the complaint is today?
It couldn't possibly be that it's a huge geographic area with different industries and culture than the Northern US and always ends up with the short side of the currency stick as the decision makers are all decidedly northern
Taken in this context, doesn't that reasoning sound an awful lot like the crazies in Germany sipping champagne complaining about the lazy Mediterraneans, and how it's all their fault?
Yeahthat is what it actually sounds like to southerners, fyi. Please remember that next time you hear an anti-Southern diatribe. (Also, bear in mind the first point about forcing people to pick crazy and how it may relate.)
samhill, December 15, 2015 at 9:41 amAnd that's before you get to the fact that the European elites have so deeply drunken the neoliberal Kool Aid that it doubtful they'd be willing to take aggressive enough action even if they weren't hemmed in by Germany and Brussels. As one wag put it, "They have changed their minds, but they have not changed their hearts."
We should be so lucky if it was simply a Germany plus heart vs mind battle, which would offer some chance for some switch in consciousness of leaders. Unfortunately the politicians in charge across the EU are lightweight halfwits. The real power elites that run them don't want statesmen of whatever ilk, no more Churhills, de Gaulles, Adenauers, etc, even mafiosi like Andreotti, people you can suggest to but can't simply command. Saddest truth possible is that people like Cameron, Holland, Renzi etc are put there exclusively to not cause any trouble, right or left, and any expectations of any sort are a delusion like expecting a chimp to start driving a car. There is no heart/mind struggle, there just a low IQ resonate drone like a bad fluorescent light in the room.
The only -remaining- politicians in Europe who are critical of the EU are on the -extreme- right wing.
Not true, to Italy's surprising credit and to Beppe Grillo's foresight (since 2009) M5S has managed to channel a good part of the dissatisfaction in Italy to the left denying the right a monopoly on the discourse like in more virtuously democratic France. So far M5S has managed to keep an open, honest, intelligent anti-EU discourse going, about all that can be asked for given the relentless and monolithic media mud machine they face, not to mention the envious, bristling hatred of the traditional tribal left, and they have pretty much managed to keep a solid hold on ~20% of the vote. They are completely nonexistent in the anglophone press and commentariat (Grillo's a clown in as much as Lenny Bruce or George Carlin were) but they are the are the only significant leftist block outside the mainstream left in a significant country giving voice to the no global, occupy, mmt movement in the EU.
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
anne said...
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/in-paris-talks-rich-countries-pledged-0-25-percent-of-gdp-to-help-poor-countriesanne said in reply to anne...December 13, 2015
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment, it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 6 percent of what the U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent of GDP.
* http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/climate-change-accord-paris.html
-- Dean Baker
"...about 6 percent of what the U.S. spends on the military...."I do not understand this figure since currently defense spending is running at $738.3 billion yearly or which 6% would be $44.3 billion:
anne said in reply to anne...Correcting Dean Baker:December 13, 2015
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment, it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 7.4 percent ** of what the U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent of GDP.
* http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/climate-change-accord-paris.html
-- Dean Baker
anne said in reply to anne...Dean Baker clarifies:December 13, 2015
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment, it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 6 percent of what the U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent of GDP.
(I see my comment on military spending here created a bit of confusion. I was looking at the U.S. share of the commitment, 0.25 percent of its GDP and comparing it to the roughly 4.0 percent of GDP it spends on the military. That comes to 6 percent. I was not referring to the whole $100 billion.)
* http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/climate-change-accord-paris.html
-- Dean Baker
djb said in reply to anne...100,000,000,000/0.06 = 1.67 trillionanne said in reply to djb...$100 billion a year, ........about 6 percent of what the U.S. spends on the military100,000,000,000/0.06 = 1.67 trillion
[ This is incorrect, military spending is currently $738.3 billion. ]
anne said in reply to djb...http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=2014&903=5&906=q&905=2015&910=x&911=0January 15, 2015
Defense spending was 60.3% of federal government consumption and investment in July through September 2015.
(Billions of dollars)
$738.3 / $1,224.4 = 60.3%
Defense spending was 23.1% of all government consumption and investment in July through September 2015.
$738.3 / $3,200.4 = 23.1%
Defense spending was 4.1% of Gross Domestic Product in July through September 2015.
$738.3 / $18,064.7 = 4.1%
djb said in reply to djb...oh never mind I get it.25 % is 6 percent of the percent us spends on military
the 40 trillion is the gdp of all the countries
got it
anne said in reply to djb..."I get it:.25 % is 6 percent of the percent US spends on military."
So .25 percent of United States GDP for climate change assistance to poor countries is 6 percent of the amount the US spends on the military.
.0025 x $18,064.7 billion GDP = $45.16 billion on climate change
$45.16 billion on climate change / $738.3 billion on the military = 0.61 or 6.1 percent of military spending
anne said in reply to anne...United States climate change assistance to poor countries will be .25 percent of GDP or 6% of US military spending.anne said in reply to anne...What the United States commitment to climate change assistance for poor countries means is spending about $45.2 billion yearly or .25 percent of GDP. Whether the President can convince Congress to spend the $45 billion yearly will now have to be answered.anne said in reply to djb..."I get it:anne said in reply to djb....25 % is 6 percent of the [amount] US spends on military."
[ This is correct. ]
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/in-paris-talks-rich-countries-pledged-0-25-percent-of-gdp-to-help-poor-countriesDecember 13, 2015
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment, it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 6 percent of what the U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent of GDP.
(I see my comment on military spending here created a bit of confusion. I was looking at the U.S. share of the commitment, 0.25 percent of its GDP and comparing it to the roughly 4.0 percent of GDP it spends on the military. ** That comes to 6 percent. I was not referring to the whole $100 billion.)
* http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/climate-change-accord-paris.html
-- Dean Baker
anne said in reply to djb...http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=2007&903=5&906=q&905=2015&910=x&911=0January 15, 2015
Defense spending was 4.1% of Gross Domestic Product in July through September 2015.
$738.3 / $18,064.7 = 4.1%
ilsm said in reply to anne...UK is the only NATO nation beside the US that spend the suggested 2% of GDP. The rest run about 1.2%.Small wonder they need US to run their wars of convenience.
More telling US pentagon spending is around 50% of world military spending and has not won anything in 60 years.
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2015 | Economist's View
RGC said...
Peter K. said in reply to EMichael...Hillary Clinton Is Whitewashing the Financial Catastrophe
She has a plan that she claims will reform Wall Street-but she's deflecting responsibility from old friends and donors in the industry.
By William Greider
Yesterday 3:11 pmHillary Clinton's recent op-ed in The New York Times, "How I'd Rein In Wall Street," was intended to reassure nervous Democrats who fear she is still in thrall to those mega-bankers of New York who crashed the American economy. Clinton's brisk recital of plausible reform ideas might convince wishful thinkers who are not familiar with the complexities of banking. But informed skeptics, myself included, see a disturbing message in her argument that ought to alarm innocent supporters.
Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the financial catastrophe. She has produced a clumsy rewrite of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently leaves her husband out of the story. He was the president who legislated the predicate for Wall Street's meltdown. Hillary Clinton's redefinition of the reform problem deflects the blame from Wall Street's most powerful institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, and instead fingers less celebrated players that failed. In roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is assuring old friends and donors in the financial sector that, if she becomes president, she will not come after them.
The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the repeal of the New Deal's Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which had separated banking into different realms: investment banks, which organize capital investors for risk-taking ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as borrowers and lenders. That law's repeal, a great victory for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton in 1999, assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sector's armies of lobbyists. The "universal banking model" was saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional banks to participate directly and indirectly in long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.
Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and credit-default swaps flourished, enabling old-line bankers to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale. The banks invented "guarantees" against loss and sold them to both companies and market players. The fast-expanding financial sector claimed a larger and larger share of the economy (and still does) at the expense of the real economy of producers and consumers. The interconnectedness across market sectors created the illusion of safety. When illusions failed, these connected guarantees became the dragnet that drove panic in every direction. Ultimately, the federal government had to rescue everyone, foreign and domestic, to stop the bleeding.
Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it. She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her argument amounts to facile evasion that ignores the interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180 billion bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadn't acted and had allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.
These sound like esoteric questions of bank regulation (and they are), but the consequences of pretending they do not matter are enormous. The federal government and Federal Reserve would remain on the hook for rescuing losers in a future crisis. The largest and most adventurous banks would remain free to experiment, inventing fictitious guarantees and selling them to eager suckers. If things go wrong, Uncle Sam cleans up the mess.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and other reformers are pushing a simpler remedy-restore the Glass-Steagall principles and give citizens a safe, government-insured place to store their money. "Banking should be boring," Warren explains (her co-sponsor is GOP Senator John McCain).
That's a hard sell in politics, given the banking sector's bear hug of Congress and the White House, its callous manipulation of both political parties. Of course, it is more complicated than that. But recreating a safe, stable banking system-a place where ordinary people can keep their money-ought to be the first benchmark for Democrats who claim to be reformers.Actually, the most compelling witnesses for Senator Warren's argument are the two bankers who introduced this adventure in "universal banking" back in the 1990s. They used their political savvy and relentless muscle to seduce Bill Clinton and his so-called New Democrats. John Reed was CEO of Citicorp and led the charge. He has since apologized to the nation. Sandy Weill was chairman of the board and a brilliant financier who envisioned the possibilities of a single, all-purpose financial house, freed of government's narrow-minded regulations. They won politically, but at staggering cost to the country.
Weill confessed error back in 2012: "What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking. Have banks do something that's not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that's not going to be too big to fail."
John Reed's confession explained explicitly why their modernizing crusade failed for two fundamental business reasons. "One was the belief that combining all types of finance into one institution would drive costs down-and the larger institution the more efficient it would be," Reed wrote in the Financial Times in November. Reed said, "We now know that there are very few cost efficiencies that come from the merger of functions-indeed, there may be none at all. It is possible that combining so much in a single bank makes services more expensive than if they were instead offered by smaller, specialised players."
The second grave error, Reed said, was trying to mix the two conflicting cultures in banking-bankers who are pulling in opposite directions. That tension helps explain the competitive greed displayed by the modernized banking system. This disorder speaks to the current political crisis in ways that neither Dems nor Republicans wish to confront. It would require the politicians to critique the bankers (often their funders) in terms of human failure.
"Mixing incompatible cultures is a problem all by itself," Reed wrote. "It makes the entire finance industry more fragile . As is now clear, traditional banking attracts one kind of talent, which is entirely different from the kinds drawn towards investment banking and trading. Traditional bankers tend to be extroverts, sociable people who are focused on longer term relationships. They are, in many important respects, risk averse. Investment bankers and their traders are more short termist. They are comfortable with, and many even seek out, risk and are more focused on immediate reward."
Reed concludes, "As I have reflected about the years since 1999, I think the lessons of Glass-Steagall and its repeal suggest that the universal banking model is inherently unstable and unworkable. No amount of restructuring, management change or regulation is ever likely to change that."
This might sound hopelessly naive, but the Democratic Party might do better in politics if it told more of the truth more often: what they tried do and why it failed, and what they think they may have gotten wrong. People already know they haven't gotten a straight story from politicians. They might be favorably impressed by a little more candor in the plain-spoken manner of John Reed.
Of course it's unfair to pick on the Dems. Republicans have been lying about their big stuff for so long and so relentlessly that their voters are now staging a wrathful rebellion. Who knows, maybe a little honest talk might lead to honest debate. Think about it. Do the people want to hear the truth about our national condition? Could they stand it?
http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-is-whitewashing-the-financial-catastrophe/
Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street "reforms" and actions Bill Clinton performed as President including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator? Cutting the capital gains tax? Are you aware of Greenspan's record?sanjait said in reply to Peter K....Yes Hillary isn't Bill but she hasn't criticized her husband specifically about his record and seems to want to have her cake and eat it too.
Of course Hillary is much better than the Republicans, pace Rustbucket and the Green Lantern Lefty club. Still, critics have a point.
I won't be surprised if she doesn't do much to rein in Wall Street besides some window dressing.
"Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street "reforms" and actions Bill Clinton performed..."That, right there, is what's wrong with Bernie and his fans. They measure everything by whether it is "pro- or anti- Wall Street". Glass Steagall is anti-Wall Street. A financial transactions tax is anti-Wall Street. But neither has any hope of controlling systemic financial risk in this country. None.
You guys want to punish Wall Street but not even bother trying to think of how to achieve useful policy goals. Some people, like Paine here, are actually open about this vacuity, as if the only thing that were important were winning a power struggle.
Hillary's plan is flat out better. It's more comprehensive and more effective at reining in the financial system to limit systemic risk. Period.
You guys want to make this a character melodrama rather than a policy debate, and I fear the result of that will be that the candidate who actually has the best plan won't get to enact it.
likbez said in reply to sanjait...
RGC said in reply to EMichael..."You guys want to make this a character melodrama rather than a policy debate, and I fear the result of that will be that the candidate who actually has the best plan won't get to enact it."
You are misrepresenting the positions. It's actually pro-neoliberalism crowd vs anti-neoliberalism crowd. In no way anti-neoliberalism commenters here view this is a character melodrama, although psychologically Hillary probably does has certain problems as her reaction to the death of Gadhafi attests.
The key problem with anti-neoliberalism crowd is the question "What is a realistic alternative?" That's where differences and policy debate starts.
"Her argument amounts to facile evasion"Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to RGC...
'The majority favors policies
to the left of Hillary.'Nah. I don't think so.
No, Liberals Don't Control the Democratic Party http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/no-liberals-dont-control-the-democratic-party/283653/
The Atlantic - Feb 7, 2014... The Democrats' liberal faction has been greatly overestimated by pundits who mistake noisiness for clout or assume that the left functions like the right. In fact, liberals hold nowhere near the power in the Democratic Party that conservatives hold in the Republican Party. And while they may well be gaining, they're still far from being in charge. ...
Paine said in reply to RGC...
What's not confronted ? Suggest what a System like the pre repeal system would have done in the 00's. My guess we'd have ended in a crisis anyway. Yes we can segregate the depository system. But credit is elastic enough to build bubbles without the depository system involved
Peter K. said...
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-and-cracking-down-on-wall-streetHillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Cracking Down on Wall Street
by Dean BakerPublished: 12 December 2015
The New Yorker ran a rather confused piece on Gary Sernovitz, a managing director at the investment firm Lime Rock Partners, on whether Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton would be more effective in reining in Wall Street. The piece assures us that Secretary Clinton has a better understanding of Wall Street and that her plan would be more effective in cracking down on the industry. The piece is bizarre both because it essentially dismisses the concern with too big to fail banks and completely ignores Sanders' proposal for a financial transactions tax which is by far the most important mechanism for reining in the financial industry.
The piece assures us that too big to fail banks are no longer a problem, noting their drop in profitability from bubble peaks and telling readers:
"not only are Sanders's bogeybanks just one part of Wall Street but they are getting less powerful and less problematic by the year."
This argument is strange for a couple of reasons. First, the peak of the subprime bubble frenzy is hardly a good base of comparison. The real question is should we anticipate declining profits going forward. That hardly seems clear. For example, Citigroup recently reported surging profits, while Wells Fargo's third quarter profits were up 8 percent from 2014 levels.
If Sernovitz is predicting that the big banks are about to shrivel up to nothingness, the market does not agree with him. Citigroup has a market capitalization of $152 billion, JPMorgan has a market cap of $236 billion, and Bank of America has a market cap of $174 billion. Clearly investors agree with Sanders in thinking that these huge banks will have sizable profits for some time to come.
The real question on too big to fail is whether the government would sit by and let a Goldman Sachs or Citigroup go bankrupt. Perhaps some people think that it is now the case, but I've never met anyone in that group.
Sernovitz is also dismissive on Sanders call for bringing back the Glass-Steagall separation between commercial banking and investment banking. He makes the comparison to the battle over the Keystone XL pipeline, which is actually quite appropriate. The Keystone battle did take on exaggerated importance in the climate debate. There was never a zero/one proposition in which no tar sands oil would be pumped without the pipeline, while all of it would be pumped if the pipeline was constructed. Nonetheless, if the Obama administration was committed to restricting greenhouse gas emissions, it is difficult to see why it would support the building of a pipeline that would facilitate bringing some of the world's dirtiest oil to market.
In the same vein, Sernovitz is right that it is difficult to see how anything about the growth of the housing bubble and its subsequent collapse would have been very different if Glass-Steagall were still in place. And, it is possible in principle to regulate bank's risky practices without Glass-Steagall, as the Volcker rule is doing. However, enforcement tends to weaken over time under industry pressure, which is a reason why the clear lines of Glass-Steagall can be beneficial. Furthermore, as with Keystone, if we want to restrict banks' power, what is the advantage of letting them get bigger and more complex?
The repeal of Glass-Steagall was sold in large part by boasting of the potential synergies from combining investment and commercial banking under one roof. But if the operations are kept completely separate, as is supposed to be the case, where are the synergies?
But the strangest part of Sernovitz's story is that he leaves out Sanders' financial transactions tax (FTT) altogether. This is bizarre, because the FTT is essentially a hatchet blow to the waste and exorbitant salaries in the industry.
Most research shows that trading volume is very responsive to the cost of trading, with most estimates putting the elasticity close to one. This means that if trading costs rise by 50 percent, then trading volume declines by 50 percent. (In its recent analysis of FTTs, the Tax Policy Center assumed that the elasticity was 1.5, meaning that trading volume decline by 150 percent of the increase in trading costs.) The implication of this finding is that the financial industry would pay the full cost of a financial transactions tax in the form of reduced trading revenue.
The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 0.1 percent tax on stock trades, scaled with lower taxes on other assets, would raise $50 billion a year in tax revenue. The implied reduction in trading revenue was even larger. Senator Sanders has proposed a tax of 0.5 percent on equities (also with a scaled tax on other assets). This would lead to an even larger reduction in revenue for the financial industry.
It is incredible that Sernovitz would ignore a policy with such enormous consequences for the financial sector in his assessment of which candidate would be tougher on Wall Street. Sanders FTT would almost certainly do more to change behavior on Wall Street then everything that Clinton has proposed taken together by a rather large margin. It's sort of like evaluating the New England Patriots' Super Bowl prospects without discussing their quarterback.
Syaloch said in reply to Peter K....
Great to see Baker's acknowledgement that an updated Glass-Steagall is just one component of the progressive wing's plan to rein in Wall Street, not the sum total of it. Besides, if Wall Street types don't think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful effects, why do they expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too much.Peter K. said in reply to Syaloch...
Yes that's a good way to look it. Wall Street gave the Democrats and Clinton a lot of campaign cash so that they would dismantle Glass-Steagall. If they want it done, it's probably not a good idea.EMichael said in reply to Syaloch...
Slippery slope. Ya' gotta find me a business of any type that does not protest any kind of regulation on their business.Syaloch said in reply to EMichael...
Yeah, but usually because of all the bad things they say will happen because of the regulation. The question is, what do they think of Clinton's plan? I've heard surprisingly little about that, and what I have heard is along these lines: http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-plan/"Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Street's excesses on Thursday. The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief."
pgl said in reply to Syaloch...
Two excellent points!!!sanjait said in reply to Syaloch...
"Besides, if Wall Street types don't think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful effects, why do they expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too much."It has an effect of shrinking the size of a few firms, and that has a detrimental effect on the top managers of those firms, who get paid more money if they have larger firms to manage. But it has little to no meaningful effect on systemic risk.
So if your main policy goal is to shrink the compensation for a small number of powerful Wall Street managers, G-S is great. But if you actually want to accomplish something useful to the American people, like limiting systemic risk in the financial sector, then a plan like Hillary's is much much better. She explained this fairly well in her recent NYT piece.
Paine said in reply to Peter K....
There is absolutely NO question Bernie is for real. Wall Street does not want Bernie. So they'll let Hillary talk as big as she needs to . Why should we believe her when an honest guy like Barry caved once in powerPaine said in reply to Paine ...
Bernie has been anti Wall Street his whole career . He's on a crusade. Hillary is pulling a sham bolaPaine said in reply to Paine ...
Perhaps too often we look at Wall Street as monolithic whether consciously or not. Obviously we know it's no monolithic: there are serious differences When the street is riding high especially. Right now the street is probably not united but too cautious to display profound differences in public. They're sitting on their hands waiting to see how high the anti Wall Street tide runs this election cycle. Trump gives them cover and I really fear secretly Hillary gives them comfortThis all coiled change if Bernie surges. How that happens depends crucially on New Hampshire. Not Iowa
EMichael said in reply to Paine ...
If Bernie surges and wins the nomination, we will all get to watch the death of the Progressive movement for a decade or two. Congress will become more GOP dominated, and we will have a President in office who will make Hoover look like a Socialist.Syaloch said in reply to EMichael...
Of course. In politics, as they say in the service, one must always choose the lesser of two evils. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4PzpxOj5Ccpgl said in reply to EMichael...
You should like the moderate Democrats after George McGovern ran in 1972. I'm hoping we have another 1964 with Bernie leading a united Democratic Congress.EMichael said in reply to pgl...
Not a chance in the world. And I like Sanders much more than anyone else. It just simply cannot, and will not, happen. He is a communist. Not to me, not to you, but to the vast majority of American voters.pgl said in reply to EMichael...
He is not a communist. But I agree - Hillary is winning the Democratic nomination. I have only one vote and in New York, I'm badly outnumbered.ilsm said in reply to Paine ...
I believe Hillary will be to liberal causes after she is elected as LBJ was to peace in Vietnam. Like Bill and Obomber.pgl said in reply to ilsm...
By 1968, LBJ finally realized it was time to end that stupid war. But it seems certain members in the State Department undermined his efforts in a cynical ploy to get Nixon to be President. The Republican Party has had more slime than substance of most of my life time.pgl said in reply to Peter K....
Gary Sernovitz, a managing director at the investment firm Lime Rock Partners? Why are we listening to this guy too. It's like letting the fox guard the hen house.
|
|
|
Economist's View
Tom aka Rusty -> Peter K....
If memory serves me correctly the last time CNBC did a "millionaires poll" Hillary won. She is not a populist, barely a liberal. Two political parties, zero candidates I can vote for. Yuck.
Syaloch -> Tom aka Rusty...
Your memory serves you correctly:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/10/marco-rubio-the-top-gop-choice-among-rich-cnbc-survey.html
(Rubio was the top GOP choice, but Clinton still beat Rubio by a 21% margin.)
Syaloch -> EMichael...
Well, here are the issues millionaires indicated as being most important to them, and presumably candidates of choice are based on their positions on these issues. Make of it what you will.
Fred C. Dobbs -> Tom aka Rusty...
HRC proclaims herself a progressive occasionally, but when pressed states she is a moderate/centrist.
Clinton Finally Admits She Is A Moderate-Centrist! https://youtu.be/LTL767hKxHo - Sep 11
Since she intends to be the Dem nominee, progressives expect she must be one of them. Only when necessary. As someone has said, 'Run from
the left, rule from the center.' Always, always, run from the left.ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs...
likbez -> ilsm...Rubinite neo liberal.
She is also popular with PNAC and "the Kagan's" neocon favorite she would hire Wolfowitz and spend more trillions protecting the Saudis from their rising victims.
Clinton has said: Iran is the enemy.
She will keep fighting Iran while Sunni terrorists fund ISIS!
Trump is merely less nuanced in insanity.
Management in big war profiteer firms is not afraid of Hillary as they suspect the Donald.
"Rubinite neo liberal. She is also popular with PNAC and "the Kagan's" neocon favorite she would hire Wolfowitz ... Management in big war profiteer firms is not afraid of Hillary as they suspect the Donald."Exactly --
"Rubinite neoliberal" is a very good definition of what Hillary actually represent politically. Third Way is another term close in meaning to your "Rubinite neoliberal" term.
But unlike the "Third Way" term your term captures an additional important quality of Hillary as a politician: On foreign policy issues she is a typical neocon and would feel pretty comfortable with most of Republican candidates foreign policy platforms. Her protιgι in the Department of State Victoria Nuland was a close associate of Dick Cheney.
She is probably more warmongering candidate then Jeb! and a couple of other republican candidates.
But at the same time she does not look like completely out of place as an establishment candidate from Dems, which are actually are "Democrats only by name" -- a typical "Third Way" party. From Wikipedia
=== quote ===
In politics, the Third Way is a position akin to centrism that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.[1][2] The Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for economic liberalism and the New Right.[3] The Third Way is promoted by some social democratic and social liberal movements.[4]
Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism. Blair said "My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice ... Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly".[5] Blair referred to it as "social-ism" that involves politics that recognized individuals as socially interdependent, and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen, and equal opportunity.[6] Third Way social democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the traditional conception of socialism, and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other policies, and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxian claim for the need of the abolition of capitalism.[7] Blair in 2009 publicly declared support for a "new capitalism".[8]
It supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution of skills, capacities, and productive endowments, while rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve this.[9] It emphasizes commitment to balanced budgets, providing equal opportunity combined with an emphasis on personal responsibility, decentralization of government power to the lowest level possible, encouragement of public-private partnerships, improving labour supply, investment in human development, protection of social capital, and protection of the environment.[10]
=== end of quote ===ilsm -> likbez...
H. Clinton is as likely to keep US out of the wrong quagmire as LBJ in 1964. Except, LBJ may have actually changed his mind after he was elected.
Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...
(Yes, There Will Be Triangulating. This is not a great example of it.)
Hillary Is Already Triangulating Against Liberals
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/hillary_clinton_triangulates_against_bernie_sanders.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top
via @slate - Nov 18The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign has begun using an odd new line of attack against upstart Democratic primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders: He's too liberal on taxes and universal health insurance. Why is she doing this? After returning to the position in which she entered the race-as the near-certain nominee-she seems to be setting herself up for the general election. But it's strange to see her now, after the previously shaky ship has been steadied, attacking a candidate whose supporters she'll need in any general election campaign over an issue that his supporters care about very deeply.
Triangulating against Sanders (and, by proxy, the left wing of the Democratic Party) with conservative attacks does make some sense. For one, she is a Clinton, and this is what they do.
At issue is Sanders' support for a single-payer universal health care system, which he and others brand as "Medicare for all." A single-payer bill he introduced in 2013 would have levied a 2.2 percent tax on individuals making up to $200,000 or couples making up to $250,000, and progressively increased that rate to 5.2 percent for income beyond $600,000. It also would have tacked an extra 6.7 percent payroll tax on the employer side, at least some of which employers would likely pass on to workers.
The Clinton campaign is suddenly quite upset about that proposal and wants everyone to know. She has committed to the same (policy-constricting) pledge that President Obama took in 2008 and 2012, ruling out tax increases on individuals making less than $200,000 per year or joint filers making less than $250,000. This neatly positions her camp to say, by contrast, that the bug-eyed socialist Bernie Sanders wants to take all of your money. ...
(Where HRC will get a lot of votes & contributions will be among those in the $250K & below set, so no need to antagonize THEM. Not when she can
practically smell the nomination.)Paine -> Peter K....
Very true. Brad has been moving left for a couple years or more. It's now obvious. He lets krugman lead the way but he follows. Notice Summers too has moved left . Is this for real or just to cut the wind out of Bernie sails ?
One thing is certain: the old Rubinite toxic line is no longer dominant in the. big D party top circles. We can call that progress if we need to
Peter K. -> Paine ...
"Is this for real or just to cut the wind out of Bernie sails ?" Even if it's the second, it legitimates Bernie's views and critique. Also DeLong here is criticizing Brookings and other "centrist" organizations specifically for working with AEI.
Syaloch -> Paine ...
RGC said...Just as the revolution within the Republican party was the result of the undue influence of an out-of-touch elite, the Democratic coalition has been threatened by the influence of the Brookings-Third Way wing which seems, for example, to imagine that they can sell to the base cuts to Social Security, an elite priority that has nothing to do with the reasons working-class people vote Democrat.
http://www.thirdway.org/case-study/entitlement-reform
"We supported and helped pass into law the Simpson-Bowles commission that came close to securing the bipartisan grand bargain budget agreement for which we fought. We proposed our own Social Security fix plan that combined tax increases on upper income earners with benefit cuts on well-to-do seniors and benefit increases to poor seniors. We first proposed then brought Democrats and Republicans together on a Social Security Commission plan that remains the only bipartisan legislation to fix Social Security. We became the lead center-left organization to promote chain weighted CPI and eventually counted President Obama as one of our supporters."
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/198815-obama-abandons-cut-to-social-security
"Yielding to pressure from congressional Democrats, President Obama is abandoning a proposed cut to Social Security benefits in his election-year budget...
"Democrats on Capitol Hill had pleaded with Obama to reverse course on the chained consumer price index (CPI), fearing it could become a liability for the party in the upcoming midterm elections, which typically bring high turnout among older voters.
"More than 100 House Democrats wrote to Obama on Wednesday urging him to drop the chained CPI proposal, following a similar letter from 16 Senate Democrats that was led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)."
Hillary Clinton Is Whitewashing the Financial CatastropheEMichael -> RGC...She has a plan that she claims will reform Wall Street-but she's deflecting responsibility from old friends and donors in the industry.
By William Greider
Yesterday 3:11 pmHillary Clinton's recent op-ed in The New York Times, "How I'd Rein In Wall Street," was intended to reassure nervous Democrats who fear she is still in thrall to those mega-bankers of New York who crashed the American economy. Clinton's brisk recital of plausible reform ideas might convince wishful thinkers who are not familiar with the complexities of banking. But informed skeptics, myself included, see a disturbing message in her argument that ought to alarm innocent supporters.
Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the financial catastrophe. She has produced a clumsy rewrite of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently leaves her husband out of the story. He was the president who legislated the predicate for Wall Street's meltdown. Hillary Clinton's redefinition of the reform problem deflects the blame from Wall Street's most powerful institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, and instead fingers less celebrated players that failed. In roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is assuring old friends and donors in the financial sector that, if she becomes president, she will not come after them.
The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the repeal of the New Deal's Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which had separated banking into different realms: investment banks, which organize capital investors for risk-taking ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as borrowers and lenders. That law's repeal, a great victory for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton in 1999, assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sector's armies of lobbyists. The "universal banking model" was saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional banks to participate directly and indirectly in long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.
Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and credit-default swaps flourished, enabling old-line bankers to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale. The banks invented "guarantees" against loss and sold them to both companies and market players. The fast-expanding financial sector claimed a larger and larger share of the economy (and still does) at the expense of the real economy of producers and consumers. The interconnectedness across market sectors created the illusion of safety. When illusions failed, these connected guarantees became the dragnet that drove panic in every direction. Ultimately, the federal government had to rescue everyone, foreign and domestic, to stop the bleeding.
Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it. She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her argument amounts to facile evasion that ignores the interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180 billion bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadn't acted and had allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.
These sound like esoteric questions of bank regulation (and they are), but the consequences of pretending they do not matter are enormous. The federal government and Federal Reserve would remain on the hook for rescuing losers in a future crisis. The largest and most adventurous banks would remain free to experiment, inventing fictitious guarantees and selling them to eager suckers. If things go wrong, Uncle Sam cleans up the mess.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and other reformers are pushing a simpler remedy-restore the Glass-Steagall principles and give citizens a safe, government-insured place to store their money. "Banking should be boring," Warren explains (her co-sponsor is GOP Senator John McCain).
That's a hard sell in politics, given the banking sector's bear hug of Congress and the White House, its callous manipulation of both political parties. Of course, it is more complicated than that. But recreating a safe, stable banking system-a place where ordinary people can keep their money-ought to be the first benchmark for Democrats who claim to be reformers.Actually, the most compelling witnesses for Senator Warren's argument are the two bankers who introduced this adventure in "universal banking" back in the 1990s. They used their political savvy and relentless muscle to seduce Bill Clinton and his so-called New Democrats. John Reed was CEO of Citicorp and led the charge. He has since apologized to the nation. Sandy Weill was chairman of the board and a brilliant financier who envisioned the possibilities of a single, all-purpose financial house, freed of government's narrow-minded regulations. They won politically, but at staggering cost to the country.
Weill confessed error back in 2012: "What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking. Have banks do something that's not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that's not going to be too big to fail."
John Reed's confession explained explicitly why their modernizing crusade failed for two fundamental business reasons. "One was the belief that combining all types of finance into one institution would drive costs down-and the larger institution the more efficient it would be," Reed wrote in the Financial Times in November. Reed said, "We now know that there are very few cost efficiencies that come from the merger of functions-indeed, there may be none at all. It is possible that combining so much in a single bank makes services more expensive than if they were instead offered by smaller, specialised players."
The second grave error, Reed said, was trying to mix the two conflicting cultures in banking-bankers who are pulling in opposite directions. That tension helps explain the competitive greed displayed by the modernized banking system. This disorder speaks to the current political crisis in ways that neither Dems nor Republicans wish to confront. It would require the politicians to critique the bankers (often their funders) in terms of human failure.
"Mixing incompatible cultures is a problem all by itself," Reed wrote. "It makes the entire finance industry more fragile . As is now clear, traditional banking attracts one kind of talent, which is entirely different from the kinds drawn towards investment banking and trading. Traditional bankers tend to be extroverts, sociable people who are focused on longer term relationships. They are, in many important respects, risk averse. Investment bankers and their traders are more short termist. They are comfortable with, and many even seek out, risk and are more focused on immediate reward."
Reed concludes, "As I have reflected about the years since 1999, I think the lessons of Glass-Steagall and its repeal suggest that the universal banking model is inherently unstable and unworkable. No amount of restructuring, management change or regulation is ever likely to change that."
This might sound hopelessly naive, but the Democratic Party might do better in politics if it told more of the truth more often: what they tried do and why it failed, and what they think they may have gotten wrong. People already know they haven't gotten a straight story from politicians. They might be favorably impressed by a little more candor in the plain-spoken manner of John Reed.
Of course it's unfair to pick on the Dems. Republicans have been lying about their big stuff for so long and so relentlessly that their voters are now staging a wrathful rebellion. Who knows, maybe a little honest talk might lead to honest debate. Think about it. Do the people want to hear the truth about our national condition? Could they stand it?
http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-is-whitewashing-the-financial-catastrophe/
Peter K. -> EMichael..."She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks."Of course this claim is absolutely true. Just like GS would not have affected the other investment banks, whatever their name was. And just like we would have had to bail out those other banks whatever their name was.
Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street "reforms" and actions Bill Clinton performed as President including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator? Cutting the capital gains tax? Are you aware of Greenspan's record?Yes Hillary isn't Bill but she hasn't criticized her husband specifically about his record and seems to want to have her cake and eat it too.
Of course Hillary is much better than the Republicans, pace Rustbucket and the Green Lantern Lefty club. Still, critics have a point.
I won't be surprised if she doesn't do much to rein in Wall Street besides some window dressing.
|
|
|
December 13, 2015 | bostonglobe.com
Conventional political wisdom says that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, however popular in certain corners, can't possibly win election to the White House. Too radical, goes the thinking. Inspiring, common-sense ideas, perhaps, but come Election Day, a majority of American voters won't back the redistribution of wealth implicit in his proposals. Why is that?
Believe it or not, one place to look for an answer is the Constitution, crafted by the richest and most powerful Americans of their day to perpetuate their own control over the government and economy.
Sanders says he is for "having a government which represents all people, rather than just the wealthiest people, which is most often the case right now in this country." But what that misses is the extent to which that has always been the case, and not by happenstance.
In late 1786, a farmer and veteran of the Revolution named Daniel Shays led an armed insurrection of debtors and veterans in the hills of Western Massachusetts. Objecting to an onerous regime of taxes and confiscations the state imposed to pay its creditors, the rebels marched through the countryside, threatening the new federal arsenal at Springfield and shutting down courthouses to stop foreclosure proceedings. Bankers and merchants in Boston - the same parties who owned the state's debt - lent Massachusetts more money to put the insurrection down.
In October of that year, General Henry Knox, secretary of war, summarized the rebels' philosophy: "Their creed is 'That the property of the United States has been protected from the confiscations of Britain by the joint exertions of all, and therefore ought to be the common property of all. And he that attempts opposition to this creed is an enemy to equity and justice, and ought to be swept off the face of the earth.' "
Mortified by the threat to their wealth and power, the elite sought to reconfigure the government more to their liking, and to ensure that such an outburst of popular sentiment couldn't happen again.
As schoolchildren learn - and adults often forget - the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was only tasked with amending the Articles of Confederation, the document that had governed the breakaway Colonies since 1781. The convention wasn't supposed to rewrite them entirely. The progressive historian Charles Beard, whose influential "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution" was the first work to reveal the class-based nature of our founding charter, stated the matter plainly when he called it a coup d'etat.
Contrary to what many assume, the Constitution was never subjected to a popular referendum, but to the votes of state ratifying conventions that were themselves largely elected by only white propertied males; indeed, only about 150,000 Americans elected delegates, out of a population of some 4 million. With the goal of persuading New Yorkers to elect pro-Constitution delegates to the state's convention, James Madison, with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, wrote a series of 85 essays under the pseudonym Publius that were published in local papers between November 1787 and August 1788 under the title, The Federalist. Madison's most famous contribution, Federalist No. 10, is widely acclaimed for its idea that factions of citizens with disparate interests should be balanced against one another in order to create a republic that would neither succumb to what John Adams called "tyranny of the majority" nor lose its responsiveness to the people as it grew larger in stature and scale.
Yet despite the attention Federalist No. 10 has received from political scientists, it ought to be much better known among all who favor a more equal distribution of wealth, because it explains how our political system, often described as rigged, has in fact been rigged from the start.
"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens," Madison writes near the beginning of the essay, gesturing, as he does throughout The Federalist, to the fallout from Shays' Rebellion, "that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
That majority, it slowly becomes clear, are the debtors and small landowners, those more recently designated the 99 percent. "The diversity in the faculties of men," Madison explains, leads to different "rights of property," and this difference represents "an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests" in the political community. "The protection of these faculties is the first object of government," he adds.
The main purpose of the new Constitution, then, was to preserve inequalities among individuals and the inequalities in the distribution of property among them. "Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society," Madison observes. Ever had it been, and ever under the Constitution would it be. The division of wealth and political power, between the haves and the have-nots, between (as the new Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan has put it) the makers and the takers, was to be carefully maintained. For Madison, in Federalist No. 10, the question was how to do so while at least nominally "preserv[ing] the spirit and the form of popular government." ...
(Richard Kreitner is the archivist of the The Nation magazine.)
|
|
|
YouTube
nomibe2911 2 weeks ago
What he failed to realize is how is she reaching these platforms to try and reach the highest office in the land. Did she get where she is in life simply because she was married to a President like he would like us to believe. If that was the case there would've been more first ladies running for office. She was a political animal from the start and was involved in every political decision her husband made and shaped his policies dating back to Arkansas. She came in as first lady and immediately announced she was not going to be like other first ladies. I think Hitchens is sort of being lazy with his analysis on how the Clintons attain power and how they've cultivated the path to their success in the political arena
juicer67 2 months ago
I'm sure Hitch would have some very colourful remarks to make about Mrs. Clinton's e-mail shenanigans were he still with us. He was irreplaceable.
michael davis 1 month ago
+juicer67 And a lot more to say about Benghazi as well. The woman is remarkably despicable and I hate to have such a jaded view of the average American voter but I'm afraid she is going to get the Presidency based in large part because of the potential for the first female President. From my experience with chatting with people before the 2008 election, many were voting for Obama in large part because he had a chance to be the first black President - people were excited about that regardless of his stances. I'm afraid the same will happen with Clinton and she likely knows it too. Its sad that people vote in that way.
|
|
|
The Spectator
The presidential campaign here in the land hymned by one of its earliest immigrants as a shining 'city on a hill' looks more and more likely to boil down to electing Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
It is of course possible that the party of Lincoln and Reagan will not go completely off its meds and nominate Mr Trump. It's possible, too, that the wretched FBI agents tasked with reading Mrs Clinton's 55,000 private emails will experience a Howard Carter/King Tut's tomb moment and find one instructing Sidney Blumenthal to offer Putin another 20 per cent of US uranium production in return for another $2.5 million donation to the Clinton Foundation, plus another $500,000 speech in Moscow. Absent such, Mrs Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. As we say here: deal with it.
Only last summer, her goose seemed all but cooked. Every day she offered another Hillary-ous explanation for why as Secretary of State she required two Blackberries linked to unclassified servers. Eventually this babbling brook of prevarication became so tedious that even her Marxist challenger, Comrade Bernie Sanders of the Vermont Soviet, was moved to thump the debate podium and proclaim: 'I'm sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!' (He has since backtracked, declaring himself now deeply interested in her damn emails.)
... ... ...
But never mind us - how does she manage? When you and your husband have banked $125 million in speaking fees from the odious malefactors of wealth, and you insist that you feel the pain of the middle class. How do you maintain the deadpan after you've cashed $300,000 for a half-hour speech at a state university - which fee comes from student dues - and then declaim against crippling student loans?
Small lies are often more revealing, especially when there was no need for them. Claiming, say, that you were named after Sir Edmund Hillary when you were born six years before he became a household name; or that you sought to enlist in the US Marines after years of protesting against the Vietnam War, graduating from Yale Law School and working on the campaigns of Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern; or that you dodged sniper fire on the tarmac in Bosnia, when TV footage shows you strolling across it, smiling.
... ... ...
Changing one's position on an issue isn't the same as lying, but along with the 'Which lie did I tell?' thought bubble permanently hovering over Mrs Clinton's head, one sees too the licked finger held aloft. The American lingo for this is 'flip-flop,' as in the rubber sandal thingies you wear on the beach before going inside to give a $200,000 speech to Goldman Sachs.
Mrs Clinton's flip-flop closet has reached Imelda Marcos levels. There's the Iraq War vote flip-flop; the gay marriage flip-flop; the Keystone Pipeline flip-flop; the legalising marijuana flip-flop; and most recently, the Trans-Pacific Partnership flip-flop.
And yet, as you work your way down this bill of attainder you feel like an old village scold. Another member of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. A tiresome ancient mariner, banging on at the wedding.
There's nothing new there. It's all been gone into, again and again. This election isn't about the past. It's about the future.
And before you know it, you too, like Comrade Bernie - the prior version, anyway - are sick and tired of hearing yourself whinge. Because it has all been gone into before. It's all 'damn' stuff now. Mrs and Mr Clinton have been with us since 1992, our political lares et penates - and after all this time, less than half the electorate think she's honest.
During one of the 2008 Democratic debates, the moderator asked her about the, er, 'likeability factor'. It was a cringey moment. One's heart (I say this sincerely) went out to the lady. The shellac deadpan mask melted. She smiled bravely, tears forming, and answered demurely with a hurt, girlish smile and said: 'Well, that hurts my feelings.'
Whereupon candidate Obama interjected, with the hauteur and sneer of cold command that we've come to know so well: 'You're likable enough, Hillary.'
The nervous laughter in the auditorium quickly curdled into chill disdain. How could he! But, lest we slip into sentimentality, let me quote Christopher Hitchens on this anniversary of his death, who in 2008 wrote: 'The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry.' Christopher, thou shouldst be living at this hour.
When the latest version of Hillary was rolled out like a new product by her campaign apparatus, she was rebranded as a doting granny. What's more 'likeable' than a granny? Unfortunately for her, the meme didn't stick. But then it's hard to look like a cooing old sweetie when you're swatting away snarling congressmen on Benghazi and explaining that you're suddenly against a trade treaty you promoted for years. None of this does much for the likeability or honesty factor.Mrs Clinton has her champions to be sure, but it's been a long slog for them, too, with an awful lot of heavy lifting. When her choir cranks up to sing her praise, one detects the note of obbligato, not genuine ardour.
If it does come down next November to Trump vs Clinton we will - all of us - be presented with a choice even the great Hobson could not have imagined. And those of us who would sooner leap into an active, bubbling volcano than vote for Mr Trump will have to try to convince ourselves that really, she's not that bad. Is she?
... ... ...
Christopher Buckley is an American novelist, essayist and critic, and a former speechwriter to George H.W. Bush.
Jack Rocks 19 minutes ago
What a coincidence. I was just watching Christopher Hitchens talk about Hilary Clinton
(no, he's not been resurrected, these are clips from a while ago).
sidor
Someone once placed Cherie Blair in between lady Macbeth and madam Clinton. I wonder if in this linearly ordered sequence Cherie was meant to be a nicer person than Hillary?
George > Toy Pupanbai
Considering Trump is the only candidate who has signaled any sort of desire to depart from the accelerating march toward globalist corporate totalitarianism, the vote is between Trump and Everyone Else.
Terry Field
She is a self-obsessed, me me me first totally political greaseball. Trump is uncouth, loud, but lacks smoothness as he TELLS IT AS IT BLUDDEE WELL IS. There IS a massive local Muslim worry and that is evidenced by the gore that ran through the transport system of London courtesy of home grown muslim (NOT islamist) killlers.
He SHOULD get the GOP nomination, since the rest are gutless and dissembling.
He could well win against that dreadful woman. Clinton supported Morsi in Egypt. Blood on her hands.
James Morgan
Ah yes. Christopher Hitchens. I do miss that man.
Randal > James Morgan
Yes, because yet another ageing neocon warmonger and "former communist" idiot is just what we are missing around here these days.
freddiethegreat
Just as Goofy would have been better than Obama, even Lady Macbeth would be better than Hilary
|
|
|
www.zerohedge.com
Clinton is also increasingly seen as the least honest in the field, with 46% of likely Democratic primary voters now saying she is least honest out of the three remaining candidates.
That's up from 33% in September and 28% back in June.
|
|
|
www.zerohedge.com
While Hillary Clinton may have had some entertaining problems when using her Blackberry (or was that iPad) as US Secretary of State, one thing she excelled at was nepotism.
According to the latest set of emails released by the State Department, and first reported by the Daily Caller, Hillary intervened in a request forwarded by her son-in-law, Marc Mezvisnky, on behalf of a deep-sea mining firm, Neptune Minerals, to meet with her or other State Department officials.
One of the firm's investors, Harry Siklas who was Mezvinsky's coworker at Goldman (which donated between $1 and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation) had asked Mezvinsky, who married Chelsea Clinton in 2010 and who currently runs his own hedge fund (in which Goldman CEO Blankfein is also an investor) for help setting up such contacts, an email from May 25, 2012 shows.
Siklas told Mezvinsky that Neptune Minerals (a company founded by one of Siklas' close friends) was poised for great things. He also touted an investment that Goldman Sachs - had made in the company, which had underwater tenements in the South Pacific.
Siklas said that he and Adam hoped to meet with State Department officials, including Clinton, to discuss deep sea mining "and the current legal issues and regulations" surrounding it.
"I introduced them to GS and the bankers took them on as a client," Siklas wrote.
"There is a favor I need to ask, and hopefully it will not put you out, as I'm not one to ask for favors typically," Siklas wrote to Mezvinsky. "I need a contact in Hillary's office."
"Siklas said that he and Adam hoped to meet with State Department officials, including Clinton, to discuss deep sea mining "and the current legal issues and regulations" surrounding it.
As AP adds, the lobbying effort on behalf of Neptune Minerals came while Hillary Clinton - now the leading Democratic presidential candidate - was advocating for an Obama administration push for Senate approval of a sweeping Law of the Sea Treaty. The pact would have aided U.S. mining companies scouring for minerals in international waters, but the Republican-dominated Senate blocked it.
Clinton then ordered a senior State Department official, Thomas Nides and now a vice chairman at Morgan Stanley, to look into the request in August 2012.
"Could you have someone follow up on this request, which was forwarded to me?" Clinton asked Nides.
Nides replied: "I'll get on it."
The emails do not show whether Clinton or other State Department officials met with Harry Siklas or with executives from the Florida-based firm. Clinton's official calendars, recently obtained by The Associated Press, also do not show any meetings between Clinton and Neptune representatives.
Clinton's campaign declined through a spokesman to discuss the issue, despite AP asking detailed questions about the matter since Nov. 30. The AP attempted to reach Siklas and a Neptune executive, Josh Adam, by phone, email and in-person visits to their homes last week but received no replies.
As noted above, Siklas had said in his email that his then-employer, Goldman Sachs, was representing Neptune.
Unperturbed by the State Department's stonewalling, AP then dug deeper into its quest to see just how extensive the nepotism ran:
A spokesman for Eaglevale said Mezvinsky would not comment on his role. Emails to a spokeswoman for Chelsea Clinton went unreturned. Morgan Stanley officials did not respond to an AP request to interview Nides. The AP also left three phone messages with Neptune Minerals' office in St. Petersburg, Florida, and also left several phone and email messages with Hans Smit, the firm's current president, also with no reply.
Federal ethics guidelines warn government employees to "not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual," but there are no specific provisions prohibiting officials from considering requests prompted by relatives.
As the AP then notes, "Clinton's willingness to intercede as a result of her son-in-law's involvement is the latest example of how the Clinton family's interests cut across intersecting spheres of influence in American politics, commerce and charity."
There's more:
A lawyer for an environmental group opposing deep-sea mining said Clinton's action was "cause for concern that the State Department might take any action that could encourage such activity." Emily Jeffers, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, a group opposing deep-sea mining, filed suit against Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last May, accusing the agencies of failing to conduct comprehensive environmental tests before licensing Lockheed Martin Corp. to mine for minerals in U.S. territorial waters in the Pacific Ocean.
Jeffers said her organization supports the Law of the Sea Treaty that Clinton championed during her tenure at the State Department. She said the proposal would give the U.S. and other countries roles in establishing standards to explore for oil, gas and minerals. Jeffers said her group worries that the U.S. and other commercial nations will encourage deep-sea mining once the treaty is adopted.
One provision of the treaty, backed by corporate interests, would allow nations, including the U.S., to sponsor mining companies seeking to scour deep seas for minerals. Clinton told senators in May 2012 that American mining firms would only be able to compete freely against foreign rivals under standards set by the treaty.
Seabed mining is "very expensive, and before any company will explore a mine site, it will naturally insist on having a secure title to the site and the minerals it will recover," she said.
Clinton's public push for a U.S. role in securing deep sea mining rights quickly hit home at Neptune Mining. Three days after her Senate appearance, Siklas, who described himself as a "passive investor" in Neptune, emailed Mezvinsky.
As Siklas explained to Clinton's son in law, Neptune was pursuing sea-floor massive sulfide (SMS) mining in the South Pacific and had just bought out two other mining firms. Siklas said that he and Adam needed "a contact in Hillary's office: someone my friend Josh (and I perhaps) can reach out via email or phone to discuss SMS mining and the current legal issues and regulations." Siklas, then registered as a stockbroker at Goldman Sachs in New York, had contributed $2,000 to Hillary Clinton's 2008 unsuccessful presidential bid.
Siklas said the State Department would be interested in the subject following Clinton's Senate testimony. He said he and Adam "would feel very fortunate to have someone's ear on this topical issue, with the hope that at some point we get in front of the secretary herself."
And since the emails do not show how Clinton became directly aware of Siklas' email to Mezvinsky or why it took three months for her to act after Mezvinsky became involved, it also raises questions how many emails in the chain had been illegally deleted, and what may be contained in them. As the Daily Caller observes:
... it is unclear why there is no record of Clinton being forwarded the email that Siklas sent to Mezvinsky. Clinton wrote in her email to Nides that she was forwarded the email from Siklas to her son-in-law. If Clinton had turned over all work-related emails that she has sent or received - as she has repeatedly claimed - it would be expected that she had an email sent directly to her inbox with Siklas's email attached.
The answer is simple: Clinton did not in fact produce all emails as had been demanded. But while the emails do not show a reply from Mezvinsky, Hillary Clinton eventually obtained a copy and sent it to Nides that August, ordering a follow-up.
Most importantly, as DC concludes, the email shows that people close to Clinton had the inside track in pushing her their pet projects - a pattern that has been on display with nearly every monthly release of Clinton emails.
For those who are shocked, feel free to read what little evidence Clinton did provide of just that, shown below.
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
Mr. Bill said... December 08, 2015 at 05:20 PM<Democratic Socialism. I sometimes wish that Bernie Sanders would have said "I am an FDR Democrat" , it would have been easier.Mr. Bill said...There is not one thing in Bernie's programs that are not an honest, intelligent expression of his life researching and quantifying the path of freedom in America.
Thomas Paine said:
"There is an unnatural unfitness in an aristocracy to be legislators for a nation. Their ideas of distributive justice are corrupted at the very source. They begin life trampling on all their younger brothers and sisters, and relations of every kind, and are taught and educated so to do. With what ideas of justice or honor can that man enter a house of legislation, who absorbs in his own person the inheritance of a whole family of children, or metes out some pitiful portion with the insolence of a gift?
likbez said...
"I sometimes wish that Bernie Sanders would have said "I am an FDR Democrat" , it would have been easier."Great point. I am not big believer in two party system as an example of democracy as typically the party oligarchy gets the candidate they want, but still in case when society goes downhill such outsiders as Sanders (like previously FDR) might have a chance.
That's actually would make Hillary camp (the party establishment) attacks on him slightly more difficult as implicitly they would be attacking FDR position on particular subject. Just repeating one of famous FDR speeches would have in the current economic conditions a great mobilizing effect on the electorate.
For example, the 1941 State of the Union address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
|
|
|
ourfiniteworld.com
Fast Eddy, December 6, 2015 at 1:11 am"If you don't read a newspaper every day, you are uninformed. If you do, you are misinformed." Mark TwainWe all like to know what's happening in the world, and for good reason understanding our surroundings is essential to survival. We instinctively seek information we need information. There is, however, a problem that we face:
No matter how much "news" you consume, you won't really know what's going on in the world.
We can't know, because 'the news' is half illusion, provided by government-dependent corporations that are paid to keep you watching and to keep you joined to the status quo.
Granted, they are quite good at providing pictures from disaster areas, but when it comes to explaining why the disaster happened, they mislead almost every time. Yes, some truth makes its way through the news machine, but most of it is wrapped in layers of manipulation. If, for example, you watch the news feeds all day, you'll find a good deal of truth, but you'll find it amongst a pile of half-truths. Do you really have enough time to analyze them all?
|
|
|
hoocoodanode.org
Dilbert_DohfenFound a new word to share with HCN
"My friend, a former Republican member of Congress, phoned me this morning.
HE: We're crumped.ME: Crumped?
HE: Cruz and Trump. They're in the lead. Worse yet, the crazies in the
Party are now talking about putting them together on one ticket -- a
"super-conservative" duo. My god. Trump is a bigoted moron. Cruz is
almost as nuts.ME: Can they be stopped?
HE: Been on the phone for days with folk who are going to run ads against each of them.
But it maybe too late. Everyone I know is apoplectic. Lots of are
talking about voting for Hillary. Even Bernie would have a chance
against these bozos.ME: You think they'd affect congressional races?
HE: Sure. Put an asshole at the head of the ticket and the shit falls everywhere.ME: This isn't bad news for the Democrats.
HE: It will be if one of these jerks becomes president. Then we're all crumped."Enjoy!!!
|
|
|
marknesop.wordpress.com
ucgsblog, December 4, 2015 at 1:28 pm
And in other news, Trump is favored to beat Clinton for the presidency via the Electoral College. Clinton still has the popular votes, but as Gore found out, popular vote doesn't mean a thing in US presidential elections.cartman, December 4, 2015 at 2:36 pmClinton and Rubio or Cruz would all be disasters war war war all the timemarknesop, December 4, 2015 at 3:08 pmI still don't think there is the slightest chance Trump is going to be President he's just too much of a loose cannon and too uncoupled from the political inside track. My money is still on Rubio. I'm not surprised that Trump could beat Hillary, though. Even if she were not a warhag nutjob, Barack Obama has poisoned the well for the Democrats for this election, and quite possibly the next as well depending on how the Republicans play their first term.
|
|
|
peakoilbarrel.com
Glenn Stehle, 12/05/2015 at 2:54 pmVes,There was an article in one of the Mexico City dailies today, written in response to the shootings in San Bernardino, that cited some numbers that were news to me:
1) The United States is the #1 small arms manufacturer in the world
2) 83% of small arms manufactured in the world are manufactured in the United States
3) The US's closest competitor is Russia, which manufactures 11% of the world's small arms
4) Small arms are the US's third largest export product, surpassed only by aircraft and agricultural products
5) The US market itself consumes 15 million small arms per year, and there are 300 million small arms currently in the posession of US private citizens
6) Saudi Arabia, however, is by far and away the largest small arms consumer in the world, and purchases 33.1% of all small arms produced in the world
7) Saudi Arabia then re-distributes these small arms to its allies in Syria, Lybia, etc.
8) So far in 2015, there have been 351 "mass shootings" in the United States in which 447 persons have been killed and another 290 wounded
9) The world's leading human rights organizations never speak of the bloodbath ocurring around the world due to the proliferation of small arms, much less the United Nations Security Council.
10) Both the United States and Russia seem quite content to keep any talk of small arms proliferation off the agenda.
|
|
|
naked capitalism
I mentioned near the end of a piece called "Blowback, Money & the Washington War Party" that I would compare Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton with respect to its main subject, America and its wars. For context, I'd like to repeat the start of that piece:In a provocative piece called, "Blowback - the Washington War Party's Folly Comes Home to Roost," David Stockman asks, in effect - "Does America have the wars it seeks and deserves?"
Whatever your answer might be, or mine, I think Stockman's answer is Yes, and he details that answer in an excellent looking-back and looking-forward essay about the U.S. and its Middle East "involvement." I have excerpted several sections below, but the whole is worth a full top-to-bottom read.
Before we turn to Stockman's points, though, I just want to highlight two semi-hidden ideas in his essay. One is about money. What Stockman calls the "War Party" in Washington is really the bipartisan Money Party, since the largest-by-far pile of cash looted from the federal budget (in other words, from taxpayers) goes to fund our military and its suppliers and enablers. Which means that most of it is stolen and diverted in some way. Which means that those who do the stealing have a lot of "skin in the game" - the game that keeps the money flowing in the first place.
Recall that what's now called the Money Party was what Gore Vidal called the "Property Party": "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat."
Which means the Washington War Party is a bipartisan gig. Thus our bipartisan wars, which for Stockman answers the first part of the imputed question above. Yes, America does have the wars it seeks.
It concludes with this:
How Will This End?
It's easy to see that this ends in either of two ways. It will end when we stop sending money and arms into the region - i.e., when we impoverish our wealth-drunk arms industry and starve the fighting - or it will not end.
Which means, it will lead to continuous tears, American ones. And when, again, you factor in the continuing spiral toward chaos guaranteed by continuing global warming, we may look back and say, "Paris was our generation's Sarajevo." It's hard to stop a war when only a nation's people don't want it. It's almost impossible to stop a war when the people unite with the wealthy to promote it.
Which brings me to Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, war, and speeches each gave recently. But that's for later.
Later is now. I'm providing this context because I don't want to leave the impression this piece is about Sanders and Clinton. It's not. This piece is about us, our future, and that of our children the future of all of us, in other words, who may choose to live in Washington's endless war-profiteering environment - until that war comes home with a vengeance.
Do we have I choice? I believe we do, for now. I don't think that choice will persist, will be available forever.
Sanders, Clinton & America's Endless War
In a piece by Tom Cahill in usuncut.com, which starts with a report of Bernie Sanders' "socialism" speech, we find this near the middle, a comparison of the foreign policy statements in Sanders' speech with a speech given at nearly the same time by Hillary Clinton.
First, about Sanders, Cahill writes:
Sanders Acknowledges Error of CIA-Sponsored Coups
Sanders' [socialism] speech also surprised many viewers with exhaustive foreign policy proposals aimed at reaching peace in the Middle East, while letting Muslim countries lead the fight against ISIS. the Vermont senator cautioned against using the military to force regime change, citing past CIA-sponsored coups in Latin America and the Middle East as examples of forced regime change gone wrong.
"Our response must begin with an understanding of past mistakes and missteps in our previous approaches to foreign policy," Sanders said. "It begins with the reflection that the failed policy decisions of the past rushing to war, regime change in Iraq, or toppling Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, or Guatemalan President Αrbenz in 1954, Brazilian President Goulart in 1964, Chilean President Allende in 1973. These are the sorts of policies do not work, do not make us safer, and must not be repeated."
To defeat ISIS, Sanders urged the US to form a new NATO-like coalition with Russia and enemies of ISIS in the Middle East, and force Muslim countries to lead the fight with support from the West.
"Saudi Arabia has the 3rd largest defense budget in the world, yet instead of fighting ISIS they have focused more on a campaign to oust Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen," Sanders said. "Kuwait, a country whose ruling family was restored to power by U.S. troops after the first Gulf War, has been a well-known source of financing for ISIS and other violent extremists. It has been reported that Qatar will spend $200 billion on the 2022 World Cup, including the construction of an enormous number of facilities to host that event $200 billion on hosting a soccer event, yet very little to fight against ISIS."
"All of this has got to change. Wealthy and powerful Muslim nations in the region can no longer sit on the sidelines and expect the United States to do their work for them," Sanders continued.
Not perfect if you're strongly pro-peace, but this would nonetheless represent a major shift in both policy and spending, if implemented - something that can be done, I remind you, by our commander-in-chief, acting alone. It may take Congress, or the illusion of congressional approval, to make war. It doesn't require a single Republican (or war-making Democratic) vote to make peace.
Now about Clinton, from the same piece (my emphasis):
Hillary Clinton: U.S. Should Lead War on ISIS
Sanders' Georgetown address was a stark contrast to Hillary Clinton's speech at the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York[.]
The former Secretary of State outlined her proposal to fight ISIS, which primarily consisted of the US military taking and maintaining a leading role for an undetermined period of time.
"It is time to begin a new phase and intensify and broaden our efforts to smash the would-be caliphate and deny ISIS control of territory in Iraq and Syria," Clinton said early in the speech. "That starts with a more effective coalition air campaign, with more allied planes, more strikes, and a broader target set."
"The Iraqi national army has struggled. It is going to take more work to get it up to fighting shape," Clinton continued. "As part of that process, we may have to give our own troops advising and training the Iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local units and helping target airstrikes."
Clinton's entire speech (about 30 minutes) is above.
Endless War or a Move Toward Peace - Last Chance to Decide?
I'm not suggesting to you what to want. If you really want to enrich billionaire arms manufacturers and their enablers in and out of office, that's up to you. If you want to give a well-organized foreign fighting force yet more reason to encourage the same acts in the U.S. as their local sympathizers perform in Europe, that's also up to you. If you want to remove American fingerprints - and national entanglement - from foreign feuds, that's also your choice as well.
I merely want to point out that for once, there is a choice, and you can make that choice by choosing between these two candidates, just as you can choose, using these two candidates, whether to aggressively reign in carbon use or continue to serve the wealthy who serve up global warming.
Withdraw from foreign wars, or expand into them? Sanders or Clinton? The day is coming soon when this will have mattered, and not just on late-night comedy shows. It's entirely likely that within the term of the next president, our foreign policy chickens will come home to roost.
Me, I'd prefer those chickens not be armed.
(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for President. If you'd like to help him, click here. This page also lists every progressive incumbent and candidate who has endorsed him. You can adjust the split in any way you wish.)
Jim Haygood, December 5, 2015 at 2:59 pm
'Sanders urged the US to form a new NATO-like coalition with Russia and enemies of ISIS in the Middle East, and force Muslim countries to lead the fight with support from the West.'
*yawn* Same old, same old yankee interventionism.
The sole reason for supporting Sanders is not for his tired old interventionist shtick, but to deprive the Sheldon Adelson Republiclown Party of across-the-board control of Kongress and the presidency (a disturbingly likely prospect).
No candidate, including Sanders, is going to confess that endless U.S. interventionism in the middle east serves the Lobby's objective of keeping Israel's enemies divided and destabilized.
susan the other, December 5, 2015 at 3:51 pm
When, why, and how did the brand of globalism we have now (supra national corporatism) become an article of faith for the global economy? Why can't we have a different form of globalism, not one based on profiteering which is just war in a different uniform, a suit and tie? The environment could unite us, Naomi Klein style. Equality could too because a global effort against inequality would eventually have to end the looting and aggression of international corporatism and feudalism. Isn't it an irony that all the great corporations and capitalist geniuses pretending to manage the world can't fix the mess they made without taxpayers?
And consumers? If citizens in every country stopped buying things we'd win the planet back in a month. The only thing we need besides dedication is local survival safety nets.
Brooklin Bridge, December 5, 2015 at 11:28 am
Agreed. It's one thing to observe -factually- that Sanders' momentum has halted, by some mix of his own devices and those of an antithetical MSM and a traitorous corporate centric DNC, it's another thing not to at least try to get him nominated. If that were to happen, no matter how unlikely, the national discussion would virtually have to deal with Sander's platform and it is hard to even imagine just how healthy that would be.
Of course, the fact that a nominated Sanders would not only drag the national dialog left, but almost certainly win the Presidency, is strong motivation for the corporate world to intervene vigorously in all the different ways it can. A Sanders candidacy frightens them far more than narcissistic neoliberal Trump who would have little to no chance of winning against a hyena and only slightly better prospects of winning against HIllary. A Sanders' nomination might even frighten them more than winning the Presidency itself, since the nomination would have the effect of opening the flood gates to actual alternatives to the status quo. Once opened, those would be very hard to close.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:00 pm
FWIW, I think Sanders numbers have plateaued for a very simple reason: He's not reaching enough voters. We'll see how that goes when we are nearer the caucuses, and after the Sanders campaign has made more attempts to peel away from some of Clinton's constituencies (which it's trying hard to do).
Again, my litmus test is this: Sanders has said it will take a movement to get his platform accomplished. So where is it? A movement implies staff, branding, events, etc. And professionals know how it's done; Dean 2004 and Obama 2008. So where is it?
Carla, December 5, 2015 at 1:30 pm
The Democrat Party will not nominate Bernie Sanders. Period. Not gonna happen so quit holding your breath.
In my state, we declare party membership by requesting a ballot of our chosen party in the primary. Obama cured me of ever - EVER - asking for a Democrat ballot again. I'm Green and clean for life - thanks, Barry!
Vatch, December 5, 2015 at 4:14 pm
If the Green party has a primary in your state, I understand why you wouldn't want to vote in the Democratic primary. But the Greens don't have primaries, so you're missing a chance to to have a very small influence over the choice of the Democratic candidate (or the Republican candidate). If enough leftists decide that it's not possible for the Democrats to choose Sanders, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
In 2008 I voted for Obama (a mistake, of course, but a vote for McCain would also have been a mistake). In 2012, I changed my ways, first by voting in the Republican primary, mostly so I could have a say in the nomination of candidates for some lesser offices. I voted for Huntsman in the primary, because he wasn't a total lunatic like Santorum. In the general election I voted for Green candidate Stein. In 2016, I will vote in the Democratic primary, and then I'll wait to see who's been nominated by the various parties.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:00 pm
Then if Sanders is strong enough, the party will split. That's a good thing.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:07 pm
Sanders:
To defeat ISIS, Sanders urged the US to form a new NATO-like coalition with Russia and enemies of ISIS in the Middle East, and force Muslim countries to lead the fight with support from the West.
If one accepts America's imperial role, that's a reasonable play. (If one imagines that our ruling class is long conflict investment, then all that matters is conflict, period; there's no policy reason for the conflict needed, except as window dressing.)
Of course, I don't accept that. Clinton v. Sanders reminds me of Freud's comment about psychotherapy turning hysterical misery into ordinary unhappiness. But even so, there's a lot of unhappiness to go around, and on a global, grandiose scale.
BEWARE: I may have to start moderating for outright endorsements. (Readers will note neither Yves nor I have endorsed anybody). I've seen blogs torn apart by battles over candidates, and I don't want that to happen to Naked Capitalism.
EoinW, December 5, 2015 at 8:32 am
Given the Obama experience, I'm not so sure there is a true choice. More like the illusion of a choice. heck even if Rand Paul became President I'd expect him to go against his promises, as Obama did and Sanders will do.
Now where there may still be a choice is in the American colonies. How long could Washington's endless wars last without the support of the Quisling leadership of its allies? I'm talking about a leader saying: "you stop attacking other countries or we impose a trade embargo." Maybe that's unrealistic but any moral leader of a western country would make this stand. Too bad we only vote in psychopaths. But, unlike America where it is too late, other countries still have the possibility of electing anti-war leaders like the UK Labour Party.
This in my opinion is the last chance to stop Washington democratically. An aggressive anti-American stance which creates costs that even the War Party can't sustain. After all, those who have started these wars going back to Yugoslavia have paid zero cost. Even in 2008 I thought that Obama's election would be a blow for peace chances. Bush and the Republicans were making it difficult for other leaders to obediently follow the Empire. Eight years of McCain might have succeeded in finally isolating Washington. Instead we got Obama and the illusion of change. That gave our Quislings the politcal cover to run back to the Empire. it's been full steam ahead ever since then.
tommy strange, December 5, 2015 at 9:11 am
Well written thoughtful piece. I do hope Bernie gets through the fixed primary, cuz he can win the general easily, especially since the economy is going to tank even deeper by then. I do know that the only real change can happen through a bottom up libertarian mass force (anarchist, democratic con federalist, etc), but we are NOT doing that now, and I am aghast we are not even organizing for 'it' and so . Clinton has the record of a completely right wing arrogant fool that would still even bomb Iran. Just imagine that one obvious possibility and what that would cause.
My one cynical add is that just because the 'law' says the president can do this or that, doesn't mean Bernie will be able to. Most of the democratic party will be against him. And an immediate impeachment process could very easily happen against him. No, he doesn't have to die in a plane crash, or be (JKF was not )assassinated by the CIA the powers that run this country could just impeach him.
Still, I really want him to win. My hate is pure for the neo liberal democrats. My compromise ideologically is easy for me to stomach. Go Bernie. Meanwhile, lets organize for a better world, outside of the corrupt political machine.
JTMcPhee, December 5, 2015 at 10:11 am
The body all the organs, fluids, nerves, hormones, etc. - of a person when some of whose cells have turned on the whole, gone destructively rogue and metastatic - well, even as those cells link and proliferate and multiply and trick the dying carcass into growing ever more and larger conduits to deliver blood to the tumors, the "person" searches for treatments and maintains hope and a grim determination and positive mental attitude, hoping for a cure that will restore homeostasis and return the tissues to their proper function. Bear in mind that cancers are cells that have shucked off the restraints on and regulation of growth, in favor of SIMPLY MORE, unconcerned about the death of the body that feeds them. And those cells usually have figured out how to hide from the body's regulatory processes. In the Actual World Battlespace, aircraft and "units" carry devices that let them (nominally) Interrogate Friend or Foe, so they won't or are at least less likely to be killed by "friendly fire." Somatic cells get identified a similar way, and the immune system cuts the psychopathic cells out and recycles them. "The Military" of course employs the same spoofing and fraud tricks that cancer cells use, in addition to the ever-growing diversion of life resources into tumor growth, so the immune system is suckered into thinking they are benign. The related disease processes, corporatization and financialization, have pulled the same trick. (Cancerous livers and pancreases and pituitaries keep sort of functioning, putting out hormones and converting nutrients and filtering and stuff, until they don't, or they die with the rest of the body as some other essential-to-life function fails and stops.)
There's what, maybe half a million "Troops" invested in the Imperial Project overseas and at home. Their expertise is in killing, destabilization, raising up Sepoy armies and "national police forces," on the idiotic assumption that the latter two will be under the orders of the High Command. Even if these sh_ts did not just "bowstring" a Bernie Sanders, a hugely brave man imo, if "we," whoever that is, speaking of agency, somehow arrange to "disengage" and demobilize, these creatures that exist at all levels of the chain of command will then do what? Get good paying jobs back home, become good citizens? Or go join up with the Eric Princes and other private mercenary or "national" armies, to keep a paycheck and benefits and keep doing what so many of the get off on? Let alone the other tumors like the rest of the Imperial and other-nation state security types? And of course the Elites that rule us and happily will kill us because "Apres nous le deluge "
Yah, "We" as agents have to try, to "reform" the aberrant cells. But looking at the patient's chart, the electrolytes are way out of whack, cachexia is well advanced, and the tumors are pressing on and colonizing the vital organs I personally don't think "we" can do better, but who knows?
TG, December 5, 2015 at 10:30 am
Speeches, schmeeches. Words are wind. Look at the record. Hillary Clinton is a monster. The issue is not Bernie vs. Hillary. The issue is how could any sane American even consider voting for Hillary Clinton, against any candidate, even Trump (yes really).
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made America de-facto allies of extremist groups including Al Qaeda. You know, the guys that blew up the trade center towers on 9/11? Yes really. No it's not in her speeches she just actually did it. And here was Libya, and it's leader wasn't a saint, but he mostly did good for his people highest standard of living in Africa! and he'd made nice with US the last few years, and helped against terrorism etc. And Hillary allied with extremist jihadist nut jobs and trashed the place, and now it's like something out of a Mad Max movie and the average Libyan sorely misses Gaddafi, and ISIS is spreading, and refugees are spilling out all over and there is no end in sight etc.
Somehow we have to get past the notion that anyone treated as 'serious' by the New York Times is actually serious, and look at their record. Press releases are not reality. Trump may be an arrogant loudmouth, and Bernie not a saint, etc., but Hillary should be beyond the pale.
roadrider, December 5, 2015 at 10:56 am
Yeah, Sanders sounds more reasonable but he's still endorsing the "War on Terrah!" and making it sound like we're engaged in some kind of noble effort but being undermined by our so-called allies. The part about being undermined is true but his overall stance ignores the elephant in the room not only did our our military/covert paramilitary misadventures lead to the emergence of Al-Qaeda an ISIS but our continued association with the repressive, oligarchic petro-states in the Gulf fuel the growth of Islamic extremism and sectarian violence in that region. Sanders recognizes part of that problem but his prescription is far from a cure.
This post encourages support for Sanders but count me out. I get that Sanders is better than Clinton on many issues but I can't support him in the primary because 1) I'm no longer a Democrat and can't vote in the primary even if I were so inclined (and no, I'm not going to re-register as a Democrat just to do that) and 2) Sanders has already endorsed Clinton (he'll support her if she wins the primary) so how seriously should we take their policy differences?
Carla, December 5, 2015 at 1:55 pm
I agree. The fact that Sanders has pledged to support Clinton fatally undermines his candidacy. Here in Ohio, arguably the most "progressive" member of the U.S. Senate, Sherrod Brown, endorsed Clinton several weeks ago.
I'm telling ya, the Democrats will never allow a Sanders win. Votes don't matter.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:23 pm
Again, there's no way to win running as a Democrat without pledging to support the Democratic candidate. There just isn't. (And nobody said the support couldn't turn out to be nothing more than a ritual pledge, right?)
And what's the better option? Creating a third party is not on*, and the Greens have their own candidate (and the Greens have also been ill-treated by star candidates parachuting in; if I were a Green, I don't think I'd support Sanders).
So IMNSHO the whole "ZOMG!!!! He pledged to support Clinton!!!!" is a test of ritual purity, nothing more. It has no relevance to electoral politics at all.
The more important issue is whether Sanders is building up a parallel structure to the Democrats. The small donations says yes. A real movement (my litmus test) would shout yes.
That would bypass the whole endorse/not endorse discussion, and totally f2ck the Democrats, too, a consummation devoutly to be wished.
* Start with ballot access.
Vatch, December 5, 2015 at 7:40 pm
Sanders has already endorsed Clinton (he'll support her if she wins the primary)
Bernie Sanders has been in the Congress for more than 2 decades as an Independent. This year, he suddenly starts campaigning in the Democratic primaries for the Presidency. Some Democrats, especially life long Democrats, view this with suspicion. "What's this carpet bagger doing in our primaries?", they think. To alleviate their fears of an outsider poaching on their territory, he pledges to support the ultimate Democratic candidate for President. This allows undecided Democratic primary voters to feel a little more comfortable about voting for Sanders. If he manages to win the nomination, the Clinton supporters will be more likely to vote for him in the general election.
Just because Sanders has pledged to support the Democratic candidate in the general election doesn't mean that his supporters are obligated to do so. If Sanders is not the Democratic nominee, I will very likely vote Third Party, as I did in 2012. And you can do the same.
Kurt Sperry, December 5, 2015 at 9:08 pm
I don't think his pledge to support the nominee undermines his candidacy at all. First, it's pro forma and carries no force. Besides, it was also absolutely required to even join the contest at a high level. If he wanted to have any impact on this election cycle, he had very literally no choice about it. To think otherwise seems more than a little naive, which seems to be an ongoing problem generally with the American left.
Sanders is *almost* everything one could realistically ever hope for in a legacy party candidate with a real shot, and yet a significant portion of the left inevitably goes straight into the back corner of the drawer looking for reasons not to support himor even to go further and declare him unfit. Worse yet, those saying this stuff offer no viable plans or alternatives at all. It's really astonishing to me and perhaps explains why the left is ever so easy to marginalize and push around.
TedWa, December 5, 2015 at 12:14 pm
Since Bernie has voted against pretty much all our involvement in the ME, I wonder if what he's saying is that if the ME doesn't care enough to get rid of ISIL, then why should we? For those doubting his character, please do read up on him more. He's not there for show, he gets things done and does it for the people. What more could you ask for than a candidate that refuses to take Wall St money and dark money fomr Super-Pacs? I mean, really what more could you ask? If he wins out goes citizens united. The TBTF banks will be broken up. SS will be solid for a 100 years and the things that matter to the people the most will be his goal. He's no phony and he's no psychopath like the past 2 Presidents or his adversary in this run up. I see no guile in the man. When he says he's going to do something he gets it done. No one in Congress has been able to cross party lines and get things done for "we the people" like Bernie Sanders. Look up his record.
I support Bernie on a monthly basis and will continue to do so. I voted Jill Stein last time and while that was a vote with a clear conscience, I knew there was no chance. Here we the people have a chance. Come on now, NO SUPER-PAC MONEY OR MONEY FROM WALL ST !! What does that say? Is he for you or against you? I'd say it screams that he is on our side. Jill Stein? Great. But there's no way she can win. The media and TPTB won't cover her and won't let her debate. I can vote for Bernie with a clear conscience because I took the time to see what the man is about.
3.14e-9, December 5, 2015 at 6:37 pm
Bernie Sanders was the first senator to announce that he would boycott Netanyahu's speech in Congress, and he is the only senator who does not take any money from the pro-Israel lobby. He was one of a small majority in the Senate who did not sign the resolution last summer to approve of Israel's bombing of Gaza - and he didn't vote for it (there was no vote) or otherwise agree to it. The "unanimous consent" thing that Chris Hedges jumps up and down about and others parrot as "proof" that Sanders is pro-Israel is a procedural rule in the Senate, and there was no way to "object" to it, other than not signing the resolution in the first place. That's what he did, even though more than three-fourths of this colleagues signed on. And he has criticized Israel. You'd just never know it by reading Hedges and the CounterPunch crowd.
As for endorsing Hillary, that remains to be seen. He said that in the beginning when he and everyone else thought maybe he'd get a few votes from the fringe. Circumstances have changed dramatically, and he's got millions of supporters who have said they will not vote for Clinton, period. So we'll see whether he sticks with the party - which, goddess knows, has done everything in its power to block him and to which he owes nothing - or whether he'll find another alternative.
Lambert Strether, December 5, 2015 at 11:39 pmOf course Obama and the Democrats have consistently betrayed their voters. Heck, go back to Pelosi in 2006 taking impeachment off the table, or the Democrats in 2000 rolling over when Bush was selected in Bush v. Gore. I mean, water is wet.
I just don't see any downside in Sanders running as a Democrat. No downside at all.
1) Sanders wins the nomination. Is that so bad?
2) The regulars screw Sanders over so badly that the Democrats split. Is that so bad?
3) Sanders actually starts a movement. Is that so bad?
4) Sanders puts single payer and free college on the national agenda. Socialism gets on the national agenda.* Is that so bad?
5) Sanders runs on small contributions ONLY, with no SuperPAC money, achieving unheard of success totally against conventional wisdom. Is that so bad?
To be fair, there's the sheepdog scenario (again, a terrible metaphor, put about by the Greens, which implies conscious collusion by Sanders, for which there's very little evidence). If that comes true, is that so bad? No, because we're not any worse off than we were before, and see #4 and #5 above.
I just don't see how Sanders running is anything other than a net positive. The left really does need to figure out how to take yes for an answer.
* Please name another politician who has or could have achieved this.
GlassHammer, December 5, 2015 at 1:57 pm
Are we assuming that the Pentagon, DoD, etc are just going to accept new guidance from the top? (That sounds like wishful thinking to me.)
And if they (Pentagon, DoD, etc ) resist new guidance, what is going to be done about it? Curretly more Americans trust the military than any institution or politician. I highly doubt anyone could swing public opinion against the Deep State at this point in time.
Daryl, December 5, 2015 at 2:55 pm
It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US Gov't happen with the approval of the executive branch. The military and intelligence services generally don't speak out or publicly act against the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit everywhere (the mysterious "high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever the president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with. It is a real problem, one that makes me nervous. We know exactly where corporations go when their iron grip on democracy loosens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
McPhee, December 5, 2015 at 3:29 pm
Any Agent of Actual Change has to fear the "bowstring "
http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=fate_of_roman_emperors
EndOfTheWorld, December 5, 2015 at 2:10 pm
I wonder if there is a real chance Jesse Ventura will be nominated by the Libertarian Party at their convention in May or June and put him on the ballot in about 48 states. He says he's interested and he's got my vote. I agree Bernie has no chance to win, partly because he's just too humble and polite. He was a great athlete in high school, but he never talks about it. That would get him some support in sports-minded Iowa.
|
|
|
finance.yahoo.com
This week, though, the media appeared curiously incurious about the latest tranche of e-mails from the Clinton server. In the largest release yet, State unveiled 7,800 pages of e-mails, of which 328 e-mails were redacted for containing classified information. ABC News dutifully reported on that addition to the refutation of Clinton's claims, and noted that the number of e-mails that contained classified information has reached 999 in total with about a third of the communications left unpublished for now.
Oddly, though, the media outlet that broke the story didn't seem interested in pursuing that aspect of it. The New York Times report on the latest tranche didn't bother to mention that any e-mails had been classified. Its lead on the release instead noted that one e-mail which had been previously considered classified had been declassified for this release which presumably kept Clinton from hitting 1,000 refutations to her claims.
The rest of the media didn't take much more of an interest in the implications of this development, either. Most of the focus fell on Philippe Reines' effort to get advice from the NFL for Clinton's "cracked head," as she self-effacingly described her concussion and its aftermath. Others found it amusing that Clinton was a fan of the TV series Homeland but didn't recall which channel to watch for it. Very few news outlets found it newsworthy that the number of classified messages had jumped nearly 50 percent with this release, and none pondered what that meant to Hillary Clinton's credibility.
This lack of interest seems to be of a piece with the narrative that emerged in late October, after the Democrats' first presidential debate and Clinton's testimony to the House Select Committee on Benghazi. They rushed to declare that time frame "the best ten days of the Clinton campaign," even though as Marco Rubio pointed out in a subsequent debate , the testimony actually demonstrated that Clinton lied about Benghazi.
In an e-mail uncovered in the scandal, she told her family within hours of the attack on the consulate that it was an organized terrorist operation, while insisting for the next two weeks that it was a spontaneous demonstration in response to an obscure YouTube video.
Still, ever since then the narrative has had Clinton recovering her bearings and moving past the e-mail scandal even as the FBI probe continues and more classified information is redacted. The collective yawn from the media after this week's release gives us an indication of the level of media interest we can expect, as Hillary Clinton gets closer to the nomination. They want to keep that narrative going rather than look at the thousand ways Clinton lied about her e-mail system and risked national security in order to thwart legitimate oversight into the State Department's performance.
|
|
|
naked capitalism
Policy"Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Thursday lashed out at Donald Trump's comments suggesting that Israel should offer 'sacrifices' to win a peace deal, telling a prominent Republican Jewish group that conflict is the Middle East amounts to more than "a real estate deal."" [The Hill]. Trump outflanks Clinton on Israel to the left. Hilarity ensues.
The Voters
Trump: "Think of it. Obama, your African-American youth - 51 percent unemployment, right? You guys our age, they have unemployment that's double or triple what other people have. What the hell has he done for the African-Americans? He's done nothing. He's done nothing. I don't think he cares about them. He's done nothing. It's all talk, it's all words with this guy" [The Hill]. Sadly, Trump is correct, on both counts. And he forgot to mention the foreclosure crisis, which disproportionately affected Blacks.
"73% of Republican voters say Trump would win the general [Quinippiac]. Rubio: 63%; Cruz: 59%; Carson: 55%. So, not only a gigantic upraised middle finger to their own party establishment and the entire political class, but pragmatic, too.
The Trail
"Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, broke with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday and called for a federal probe of the city police department following the release of a video last week showing the death of a black teen, who was shot by a white police officer" [Wall Street Journal, "Hillary Clinton Calls for Federal Probe of Chicago Police Department"]. Say, who is this "Rahm" character, anyhow? He just seemed to pop up one day, and now he's all over the news. What gives? Where the heck did he come from?
"In a seven-page confidential memo that imagines Trump as the party's presidential nominee, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee urges candidates to adopt many of Trump's tactics, issues and approaches - right down to adjusting the way they dress and how they use Twitter" [WaPo].
Trump's two talking points on Clinton [Business Insider].
"One thing with Hillary, she doesn't have the strength or the stamina to be president. She doesn't have it," Trump said at a Wednesday-night campaign rally in Manassas, Virginia.
Trump's other lines that Clinton shouldn't even be "allowed" to run for president because of her controversial email practices at the State Department. The FBI has said it is investigating whether any material was mishandled in connection to Clinton's email account, which was run using a private server in her home.
"Hillary shouldn't be allowed to run because what she did is illegal. What she did is illegal," Trump asserted Thursday.
I don't know if Clinton privatizing her email server is illegal. I do know it's corrupt to the bone.
"How Hillary Clinton can shake the one charge that sticks to her" [Harold Meyerson, WaPo].
However, the one line of attack that is substantial, and that she's had the most trouble dispelling, is her closeness to Wall Street.
So is there anything Clinton can do to rid herself of the Wall Street albatross? Of course there is. She should say that if elected president, she'd subject the Wall Streeters to a higher tax rate than anyone else. (I'd exclude venture capitalists from this penalty, since they primarily fund innovation.)
Oh, "innovation." Ka-ching.
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
RGC, December 02, 2015 at 05:55 AM
Bernie's latest pitch:pgl -> RGC, December 02, 2015 at 05:58 AMWhen it comes to Wall Street buying our democracy, you just need to follow the money. Let's compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72. Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, But Bernie has YOU! Bernie has received more than 1.5 million contributions from folks like you, at an average of $30 each.
$17,107.72? Jamie Dimon spends more than that on his morning cup of coffee. Go Bernie!EMichael -> RGC, December 02, 2015 at 06:03 AMTo be fair, don't you think we should count donations for this election cycle for Clinton?pgl -> EMichael,Y'know, she was the Senator from New York.
Some people think anyone from New York is in bed with Wall Street. Trust me on this one - not everyone here in Brooklyn is in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket. Of course those alleged liberals JohnH uses as his sources (e.g. William Cohan) are in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket.EMichael -> pgl,I hate things like this. No honesty whatsoever. This cycle.RGC -> EMichael,http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019
How is there no honesty whatsoever?EMichael -> RGC,The total for Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Bank of America is $326,000.
That leaves Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to contribute $169,000.I stand corrected, somewhat.reason said,Let me know how much comes from those organizations PACs.
The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough. We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity. An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance.ilsm -> reason,Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all "rules"!
von Neumann should have been censored.
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
bakhoSamwick points out that Hillary's infrastructure plan is a good start but too small.pgl said in reply to bakho...
The media portrays it as a bank buster.
Progressives need to start criticizing the Hillary plan as being too small, which it is. We should aim for a much larger plan and maybe we could get what Hillary has suggested. It's a problem if that is the starting point in the negotiation.I suggested the other day she should make it bigger. Andrew Samwick is one of the few honest Republican economists.pgl said in reply to bakho..."It was almost eight years ago that I started writing about spending on infrastructure as a means of countercyclical fiscal policy. There was an op-ed in The Washington Post, followed by an essay in The Ripon Forum, as the Great Recession was beginning. I returned to it occasionally as the weak recovery and inelegant policy discussions of economic stimulus continued the need for a sensible plan to boost economic activity. This op-ed at U.S. News Economic Intelligence blog is a good example."pgl said in reply to bakho...I used to read Andrew's blog regularly but then I stopped. Too bad as he has been all over the need for fiscal stimulus via infrastructure from the beginning. And Andrew is generally considered right of center. So liberal and conservative economists have both been making this argument.
Of course our resident gold bug troll JohnH insists that economists have not been calling for such stimulus. OK - JohnH is not one to read Andrew's blog as Andrew writes some really high quality posts which will not show up in JohnH's Google for Really Dumb Stuff program.
Check out this from Kevin Drum:Peter K. said in reply to pgl...http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/12/congress-has-agreed-highway-bill
Seems Congress has passed a highway bill financed by gimmicks rather than raising the gasoline tax. Speaker Ryan's dishonesty at its finest!
I agree with Drum's main point.Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....However as I understand it Ryan had to pass this with votes from Democrats and some Republicans. His supporters are framing it as continuing Boehner's parting deal to disgruntled Tea Partiers who won't vote for anything.
Drum writes:
""Among other things, the measure would raise revenue by selling oil from the nation's emergency stockpile and taking money from a Federal Reserve surplus account that works as a sort of cushion to help the bank pay for potential losses."
...
On the other hand, the revenue sources they're tapping in order to pass this bill are probably pretty ill considered. "The Fed can print up money so I don't understand why it has a "rainy day" fund. Sounds like a budgetary gimmick which Drum glosses over.
From the New York Times:
Bipartisan Talks Yield $300 Billion Highway Bill
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
DEC. 1, 2015...
Some of the money will come from the Federal Reserve. The bill cuts the Fed's annual dividend payments to large commercial banks, redirecting that money to highway construction. It also drains money from the Fed's rainy-day fund.
The banking industry opposed the dividend cut, but won only a partial victory. The Senate voted to replace the current 6 percent dividend with a 1.5 percent dividend. The final version instead ties the dividend to the interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds, currently 2.2 percent, up to a maximum of 6 percent.
The bill also requires the Fed to fork over $19 billion from a rainy-day fund that has ballooned to $29 billion in recent years. The size of the rainy-day fund also would be limited to $10 billion.
A Fed spokesman declined to comment, but Fed officials have previously criticized both the dividend cut and the draining of the rainy-day fund, arguing Congress should not use Fed funds to bankroll specific programs.
...."
It's slightly ironic that Paul Ryan and John Taylor wrote an op-ed criticizing the Fed for "easing the pressure" on fiscal policy with monetary policy, when that's exactly what the highway bill does.anne said in reply to bakho...Do all of these lefty critics of monetary policy not want it to "ease the pressure" of fiscal policy either?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/30/hillary-clinton-unveils-sprawling-and-expensive-infrastructure-investment-plan/pgl said in reply to anne...November 30, 2015
Hillary Clinton Unveils $275 Billion Infrastructure Investment Plan
By Amy ChozickEvoking the investment in American infrastructure by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, Hillary Clinton on Monday unveiled the most sprawling - and costliest - government program of her campaign to date.
Mrs. Clinton said her five-year, $275-billion federal infrastructure program was aimed at creating middle-class jobs while investing heavily in improving the country's highways, airports and ports....
[ That would be $275 / 5 = $55 billion per year spending on infrastructure.
That comes to $55 / $18,065 = .3% of GDP infrastructure spending. ]
Then let's double her proposal to make it 0.6% of GDP! Dean Baker would love this calculation.bakho said in reply to pgl...I say multiply it by 10 and let the GOP win by whittling away 80%.ilsm said in reply to anne...It is worth quoting Donald Trump on this:
""I'm going to put this plan in front of lots of different people. It's going to go through lots of scrutiny. There's room to negotiate. I'm a negotiator. There's room to negotiate.Other people don't have any room to negotiate. But there's always going to be room to negotiate. When I put something forward, I always have to leave something on the table, and if we have things on the table. We can give up certain things.
The pentagon is diverting $1,000B is resources into nuclear bombs to destroy the world.anne said in reply to ilsm...How about less militarist Keynesianism and some for the people?
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=2007&903=5&906=q&905=2015&910=x&911=0anne said in reply to anne...January 15, 2015
Defense spending was 60.3% of federal government consumption and investment in July through September 2015.
(Billions of dollars)
$738.3 / $1,224.4 = 60.3%
Defense spending was 23.1% of all government consumption and investment in July through September 2015.
$738.3 / $3,200.4 = 23.1%
Defense spending was 4.1% of Gross Domestic Product in July through September 2015.
$738.3 / $18,064.7 = 4.1%
Reference link to GDP and government spending:bakho said in reply to anne..."unveiled the most sprawling - and costliest - government program of her campaign to date"Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to bakho...[notice how a proposal that is too small gets treated by our media elites.]
Is Hillary Clinton's infrastructure proposal too modest?Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to bakho...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/hillary-clintons-modest-infrastructure-proposal/418068/
The Atlantic - Russell Berman - Dec 1, 2015It's hard to call a plan that spends $275 billion in taxpayer dollars over five years "modest" and keep a straight face. But that may be the best way to describe the proposal Hillary Clinton unveiled on Monday to upgrade the nation's ailing infrastructure.
Clinton's blueprint is certainly broad in scope: It aims to bolster not only roads and bridges but also public transit, freight rail, airports, broadband Internet, and water systems. It's the most expensive domestic policy proposal she's made to date. And when added to the nearly $300 billion Congress is poised to authorize in a new highway bill, the Clinton plan tops the $478 billion that President Obama sought for infrastructure earlier this year.
Yet the reaction from advocates of more robust infrastructure spending has been less than enthusiastic, a nod to the fact that the size of the Clinton plan falls well short of what studies have shown the country needs. "Secretary Clinton is exactly right to call her plan a 'down payment,'" said Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO's director of public policy. "The reality of our infrastructure deficit is in the trillions, not billions."
Specifically, that deficit has been pegged at $1.6 trillion-the amount of additional money governments at all levels would have to spend by 2020 to bring the nation's infrastructure up to date, according to a widely-cited report issued two years ago by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Even Bernie Sanders didn't make it that high, but he came a lot closer than Clinton by introducing legislation to spend $1 trillion over the next five years on infrastructure.
The Clinton campaign has tagged the Sanders agenda as overly expensive, requiring either a dramatic increase in the deficit or tax increases that hit not only the nation's wealthiest but millions of middle-class families as well. Politically, the Sanders plan is only achievable with the kind of the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate that Obama enjoyed briefly in 2009. Clinton's proposal, by contrast, is pegged to the reality that barring an electoral tsunami in 2016, she would have to work with at least one chamber of Congress controlled by Republicans, and maybe two. ...
(It could be larger if there were to be some aggressive financing, meaning not 'just' closing corporate loopholes, taxing offshore cash, etc. Like the suggested income tax increase on the top 3%. Unfortunately ALL of this is unlikely unless both House and Senate come under Dem control.)Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...Clinton Wants $275 Billion for Infrastructure,
but How Will She Pay for It? http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/30/Clinton-Wants-275-Billion-Infrastructure-How-Will-She-Pay-It
FT - Eric Pianin - November 30, 2015Hillary Clinton previewed her $275 billion infrastructure plan during a campaign event in Boston on Sunday with construction workers, labor leaders and Democratic Mayor Martin J. Walsh, who endorsed her candidacy. "Investing in infrastructure makes our economy more productive and competitive across the board," she said in kicking off a week of appearances and announcements geared to creating new jobs.
Clinton's proposal is two-pronged: It would rely on $250 billion of direct federal expenditures for highways, bridges, tunnels and other major projects, and $25 billion more for a national infrastructure bank designed to leverage public and private investments into billions of dollars of fresh low-interest loans and other incentives for construction projects.
The lion's share of this additional federal spending on infrastructure would be offset by closing pricey corporate tax loopholes, including tax inversion provisions that allow major corporations to avoid high U.S. tax rates by moving their headquarters overseas while retaining their material operations in this country. The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced last week that it was doing just that in a planned merger with Allergan to take advantage of much lower corporate taxes in Ireland.
The remainder of the financing for Clinton's infrastructure proposal would come from a new infrastructure bank that would put up federal dollars to attract private investments to help bankroll highway, bridge, mass transit and other construction projects to spur economic growth. ...
Any such proposal from Dems is seen as a gift to union labor, and calls from labor leaders to enlarge it only makes that seem more obvious.Dan Kervick said in reply to bakho...This is entirely the wrong way to sell such a plan.
But a larger (Trump-scale!) plan would raise further ire from GOPsters. So, must go with the timid version.
This could be a very dubious strategy, unless one is *extremely* confident of victory in Nov.
One issue that is raised by Samwick's piece is the degree to which infrastructure spending should be connected with countercyclical policy. Certainly, it makes sense to have mechanisms available for dialing infrastructure spending up in response to slumps. But it may be a mistake to build too close a political connection between infrastructure goals and macroeconomic stabilization goals.If the main pitch the public hears is is that we need to build infrastructure to boost the economy, then when the economy is no longer in need of a boost, the political pressure for infrastructure spending will flag. But it doesn't have to be that way at all - and shouldn't be that way. We are very far behind where we need to be as a nation in our public works, as is shown by that civil engineers scorecard. The various components of the infrastructure agenda need to be part of a long-term plan for national development. When the economy improves and revenues flow in to government coffers, great. The government then has more money to build stuff. The fact that the next president and congress needs to get really busy re-developing our country has little to do with whether job growth has "crested" or whether we will or will not be in a more of a slump in 2017.
Another potential drawback of yoking infrastructure policy too closely to countercyclical policy is that it risks casting the infrastructure development movement as economic ambulance chasers, secretly pining for recessions so they can push through the infrastructure spending, and constantly proclaiming recessions so they can trigger the countercyclical policy.
The infrastructure development agenda should be part of a broader agenda of re-commitment to goals for national development, national excellence or national greatness. People who read a lot about economic conditions - like the folks here - know how far America has slipped. But I think many Americans are still amazingly in the dark about how far the US has fallen behind in many standard measures of national prosperity and success. Politicians still don't have the nerve to tell the people that we ain't what we used to be.
|
|
|
November 14, 2015 | original.antiwar.com
US Secretary of State, John Kerry, is often perceived as one of the "good ones" the less hawkish of top American officials, who does not simply promote and defend his country's military adventurism but reaches out to others, beyond polarizing rhetoric.His unremitting efforts culminated partly in the Iran nuclear framework agreement in April, followed by a final deal, a few months later. Now, he is reportedly hard at work again to find some sort of consensus on a way out of the Syria war, a multi-party conflict that has killed over 300,000 people. His admirers see him as the diplomatic executor of a malleable and friendly US foreign policy agenda under President Obama.
In reality, this perception is misleading; not that Kerry is a warmonger on the level of George W. Bush's top staff, such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. The two were the very antithesis of any rational foreign policy such that even the elder George H. W. Bush described them with demeaning terminology, according to his biographer, quoted in the New York Times. Cheney was an "Iron-ass", who "had his own empire and marched to his own drummer," H.W. Bush said, while calling Rumsfeld "an arrogant fellow" who lacked empathy. Yet, considering that the elder Bush was rarely a peacemaker himself, one is left to ponder if the US foreign policy ailment is centered on failure to elect proper representatives and to enlist anyone other than psychopaths?
If one is to fairly examine US foreign policies in the Middle East, for example, comparing the conduct of the last three administrations, that of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, one would find that striking similarities are abundant. In principle, all three administrations' foreign policy agendas were predicated on strong militaries and military interventions, although they applied soft power differently.
In essence, Obama carried on with much of what W. Bush had started in the Middle East, although he supplanted his country's less active role in Iraq with new interventions in Libya and Syria. In fact, his Iraq policies were guided by Bush's final act in that shattered country, where he ordered a surge in troops to pacify the resistance, thus paving the way for an eventual withdrawal. Of course, none of that plotting worked in their favor, with the rise of ISIS among others, but that is for another discussion.
Obama has even gone a step further when he recently decided to keep thousands of US troops in Afghanistan well into 2017, thus breaking US commitment to withdraw next year. 2017 is Obama's last year in office, and the decision is partly motivated by his administration's concern that future turmoil in that country could cost his Democratic Party heavily in the upcoming presidential elections.
In other words, US foreign policy continues unabated, often guided by the preponderant norm that "might makes right", and by ill-advised personal ambitions and ideological illusions like those championed by neo-conservatives during W. Bush's era.
Nevertheless, much has changed as well, simply because American ambitions to police the world, politics and the excess of $600 billion a year US defense budget are not the only variables that control events in the Middle East and everywhere else. There are other undercurrents that cannot be wished away, and they too can dictate US foreign policy outlooks and behavior.
Indeed, an American decline has been noted for many years, and Middle Eastern nations have been more aware of this decline than others. One could even argue that the W. Bush administration's rush for war in Iraq in 2003 in an attempt at controlling the region's resources, was a belated effort at staving off that unmistakable decay whether in US ability to regulate rising global contenders or in its overall share of global economy.
The folly of W. Bush, Cheney and company is that they assumed that the Pentagon's over $1.5 billion-a-day budget was enough to acquire the US the needed leverage to control every aspect of global affairs, including a burgeoning share of world economy. That misconception carries on to this day, where military spending is already accounting for about 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, itself nearly a third of the country's overall budget.
However, those who are blaming Obama for failing to leverage US military strength for political currency refuse to accept that Obama's behavior hardly reflects a lack of appetite for war, but a pragmatic response to a situation that has largely spun out of US control.
The so-called "Arab Spring", for example, was a major defining factor in the changes of US fortunes. And it all came at a particularly interesting time.
First, the Iraq war has destroyed whatever little credibility the US had in the region, a sentiment that also reverberated around the world.
Second, it was becoming clear that the US foreign policy in Central and South America an obstinate continuation of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which laid the groundwork for US domination of that region has also been challenged by more assertive leaders, armed with democratic initiatives, not military coups.
Third, China's more forceful politics, at least around its immediate regional surroundings, signaled that the US traditional hegemony over most of East and South East Asia are also facing fierce competition.
Not only many Asian and other countries have flocked to China, lured by its constantly growing and seemingly more solid economic performance, if compared to the US, but others are also flocking to Russia, which is filling a political and, as of late, military vacuum left open.
The Russian military campaign in Syria, which was halfheartedly welcomed by the US. has signaled a historic shift in the Middle East. Even if Russia fails to turn its war into a major shift of political and economic clout, the mere fact that other contenders are now throwing their proverbial hats into the Middle East ring, is simply unprecedented since the British-French-Israeli Tripartite Aggression on Egypt in 1956.
The region's historians must fully understand the repercussions of all of these factors, and that simply analyzing the US decline based on the performance of individuals Condoleezza Rice's hawkishness vs. John Kerry's supposed sane diplomacy is a trivial approach to understanding current shifts in global powers.
It will take years before a new power paradigm fully emerges, during which time US clients are likely to seek the protection of more dependable powers. In fact, the shopping for a new power is already under way, which also means that new alliances will be formed while others fold.
For now, the Middle East will continue to pass through this incredibly difficult and violent transition, for which the US is partly responsible.
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is a media consultant, an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press).
|
|
|
www.rawstory.com
As Donald Trump continues to insist that he saw "thousands" of Muslims cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center - let's pause to remember that several Israelis were arrested and eventually deported for acting suspiciously on 9/11.
Trump has said he personally witnessed large numbers of Muslims holding "tailgate parties" in New Jersey on Sept. 11, 2001, and his campaign manager suggested that "special interests" who control the media have conspired to bury video footage to back the Republican candidate's claims.
The GOP frontrunner has dug himself in so deep defending those claims - which are not supported by law enforcement or media accounts - that he mocked a disabled reporter who questioned his recollection.
Police detained, questioned and eventually released a number of Muslims in the New York City area who were accused of behaving suspiciously following the terrorist attacks - but investigators found most of those claims to be unfounded.
A New Jersey woman, however, reported some suspicious men she saw recording video from a moving van that actually did result in arrests.
The woman, identified by police and news reports only as Maria, said she spotted three men kneeling on the roof of a white van outside her New Jersey apartment building as she watched the towers burn through binoculars.
She called police, who arrested five men - identified as Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel - later that day near Giants Stadium while driving in a van registered to Urban Moving.
Although it's never been confirmed, the company and the men are widely believed to have been part of an undercover operation set up by Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad, and they have been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks.
Their case was transferred out of the FBI's Criminal Division and into its Foreign Counterintelligence Section shortly after the men were jailed, and they were held ostensibly for overstaying their tourist visas.
An immigration judge ordered them deported two weeks later, but ABC News reported that FBI and CIA officials put a hold on their case.
The men were held in detention for more than two months and given multiple lie detector tests, and at least one of them spent 40 days in solitary confinement.
Intelligence experts suspect the men may have been conducting surveillance on radical Islamists in the U.S., but Israeli officials have denied the men were involved at all in intelligence operations.
Investigators determined the men had no advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks, and they were eventually sent back to Israel after 71 days.
One of the men denied Maria's claims that they had been laughing as they recorded video of the doomed World Trade Center towers.
"The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily," the man told investigators. "Our purpose was to document the event."
A lawyer for the men suggested at the time that Maria had exaggerated her claims because she mistook the men for Muslims.
"One of the neighbors who saw them called the police and claimed they were posing, dancing and laughing, against the background of the burning towers," said attorney Steve Gordon. "The five denied dancing. I presume the neighbor was not near them and does not understand Hebrew. Furthermore, the neighbor complained that the cheerful gang on the roof spoke Arabic."
|
|
|
November 28, 2015 | Antiwar.com
War tends to perpetuate itself. As soon as one brute gets killed, another takes his place; when the new guy falls, another materializes.Consider Richard Nixon's intensification of the American war on Cambodia. In hopes of maintaining an advantage over the Communists as he withdrew American troops from Southeast Asia, Nixon ravaged Vietnam's western neighbor with approximately 500,000 tons of bombs between 1969 and 1973. But instead of destroying the Communist menace, these attempts to buttress Nguyen Van Thieu's South Vietnamese government and then Lon Nol's Cambodian government only transformed it. The bombings led many of Nixon's early targets to desert the eastern region of the country in favor of Cambodia's interior where they organized with the Khmer Rouge.
As a CIA official noted in 1973, the Khmer Rouge started to "us[e] damage caused by B-52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda." By appealing to Cambodians who were affected by the bombing raids, this brutal Communist organization, a peripheral batch of 10,000 fighters in 1969, had expanded by 1973 into a formidable army with 20 times as many members. Two years later, they seized control of Phnom Penh and murdered more than one million of their compatriots in a grisly genocide.
The following decade, when war erupted between the forces of Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the United States hedged its bets by providing military assistance to both governments as they slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. But when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, ousted the emir, and ultimately assassinated about 1,000 Kuwaitis, the United States turned on its former ally with an incursion that directly killed 3,500 innocent Iraqis and suffocated 100,000 others through the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure. The US also maintained an embargo against Iraq throughout the 1990s, a program that contributed to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqis and that UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Dennis Halliday deemed "genocidal" when he explained his 1998 resignation.
The newly restored Kuwaiti government, for its part, retaliated against minority groups for their suspected "collaboration" with the Iraqi occupiers. The government threw Palestinians out of schools, fired its Palestinian employees, and threatened thousands with "arbitrary arrest, torture, rape, and murder." Beyond that, Kuwait interdicted the reentry of more than 150,000 Palestinians and tens of thousands of Bedoons who had evacuated Kuwait when the tyrant Saddam took over. Thus, years of American maneuvering to achieve peace and security by playing Iran and Iraq off of each other, by privileging Kuwaiti authoritarians over Iraqi authoritarians, by killing tens of thousands of innocent people who got in the way failed.
The chase continues today as the United States targets the savage "Islamic State," another monster that the West inadvertently helped create by assisting foreign militants. History suggests that this war against Islamism, if taken to its logical extreme, will prove to be an endless game of whack-a-mole. Yes, our government can assassinate some terrorists; what it cannot do is stop aggrieved civilian victims of Western bombings from replacing the dead by becoming terrorists themselves. Furthermore, even if ISIS disappeared tomorrow, there would still exist soldiers in Al-Qaeda, for instance prepared to fill the void. That will remain true no matter how many bombs the West drops, no matter how many weapons it tenders to foreign militias, no matter how many authoritarian governments it buttresses in pursuit of "national security."
So, what are we to do when foreign antagonists, whatever the source of their discontent, urge people to attack us? We should abandon the Sisyphean task of eradicating anti-American sentiments abroad and invest in security at home. Gathering foreign intelligence is important when it allows us to strengthen our defenses here, but bombing people in Iraq and Syria, enabling the Saudi murder of Yemenis, and deploying troops to Cameroon are futile steps when enemy organizations can constantly replenish their supply of fighters by propagandizing among natives who deplore Western intervention.
This understanding, though underappreciated in contemporary American government, reflects a noble American tradition. John Quincy Adams, for his part, loved an America that "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." Decades later, Jeannette Rankin doubted the benefits of American interventionism, contending that "you can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake." Martin Luther King Jr. warned that "violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." These leaders adamantly rejected an American politics of unending aggressive war. It is time for us to do the same.
Tommy Raskin is a contributor to the Good Men Project and Foreign Policy in Focus.
|
|
|
www.gazeta.ru
Suspiciously "well-equipped" group of militants was looking for a catapult of the Navigator the fallen in Syria bomber su-24, RIA "Novosti". This was stated by the VC commander-in-chief Viktor Bondarev.According to the military, the pilot was serach by a few "well-equipped" armed groups. Their origin is unknown.
November 24 in the Syrian province of Latakia has fallen downed Russian bomber su-24. This responsibility took on the Turkish authorities, accusing Russia of violating its airspace. Moscow claims that the plane was flying solely over the territory of Syria.
|
|
|
Bloomberg Business
Fred C. Dobbs said... November 25, 2015 at 10:50 AM
US Is the Most Unequal Developed Economy Outside
Southern Europe http://bloom.bg/1NrQVeT via @Bloomberg
Kasia Klimasinska - November 25, 2015The developed world's most unequal economies are in struggling southern Europe, closely followed by the U.S.
That's according to a new report from Morgan Stanley, where analysts looked at indicators including the gender pay gap, involuntary part-time employment and Internet access. The bank also found that the rise of economies such as China and India has helped drive down inequality between countries, even though inequality within many individual has grown. Since the mid-1980s, income inequality has risen the most in Sweden when looking at developed economies. Even after that increase, Sweden (along with the rest of Scandinavia) still had the lowest levels of inequality. ...
Peter K. said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
And yet Hillary mocked Bernie Sanders for wanting the U.S. to be more like Denmark.PPaine said in reply to Peter K....
Excellent example of her opportunism, unprincipled ambition and revolting sense of superiorityAmong her peers those dangerous broiled creatures of middle class strivers domestic brimstone
She makes fellow victim turned brute [to the extent that] Dick Nixon look sympathetic
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... November 25, 2015 at 08:33 AM
BTW, there IS an unpostable link to the Morgan Stanley report in
the Bloomberg article
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs said... Monday, November 23, 2015 at 08:21 AM
(Feel the Bern!)Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...For Bernie Sanders, it's New Hampshire or bust
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/11/20/for-bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-bust/U3TtOEsDMlJiDkthJ1CzOM/story.html?event=event25
via @BostonGlobe - James Pindell - November 20, 2015With less than 12 weeks to go before the New Hampshire primary, all Bernie Sanders has is New Hampshire.
In Iowa, Hillary Clinton leads him by 18 points. In South Carolina, Clinton is ahead of Sanders by 54 points. Nationally, the latest poll had Clinton's lead at 33 percentage points.
But in New Hampshire a poll this week showed the race tied. And last night, the state's largest union decided to endorse him, bucking the national union which announced it was with Clinton.
Over the past month it has become clear that New Hampshire is no longer Bernie Sanders's firewall, but it remains the only reason he has an argument that there is a contest at all. Should Clinton ever take a double-digit lead in the Granite State, there will be nothing for anyone to talk about in terms of the Democratic contest.
But so far Sanders is hanging on, even if there are some growing pains amid his campaign's quick attempt to scale up with new campaign cash. Sanders now has more than 60 staffers, and he opened his 14th campaign office, this one in Laconia, this week. ...
There is also a chance that Dems will go with the First Secular Jewish Major Party Candidate, if The Donald has his say.Peter K. said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-religion-and-beliefs/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/us/politics/hillary-clinton-looks-past-primaries-in-strategy-to-defeat-bernie-sanders.htmlanne said...Hillary Clinton Looks Past Primaries in Strategy to Defeat Bernie Sanders
By AMY CHOZICK
NOV. 23, 2015NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. - "Whenever Republicans get into the White House, they mess it up. They mess it up, folks," Hillary Rodham Clinton told a crowd gathered in a field lined with trees covered in Spanish moss here on Saturday.
At rallies these days, Mrs. Clinton criticizes the Republican presidential candidates for their economic policies ("Our economy does better with a Democrat in the White House"); she knocks their foreign policy approaches and says their positions on immigration and women's issues would set the country "backwards instead of forwards."
What she does not do is mention her main Democratic primary opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Mrs. Clinton has regained her footing in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, and she has locked in the support of major labor unions and over half the Democratic Party's superdelegates, party leaders and elected officials, needed to secure the nomination. She is now acting as if she were no longer running against one rival, Mr. Sanders, but 14: the Republicans who are still preoccupied with cutting down one another.
A substantial lead in the polls could prompt any candidate to look beyond the primary to try to get a head start on the general election, but in Mrs. Clinton's case, gazing past Mr. Sanders to next November is part of the intensified strategy to defeat him.
Even voters who support Mr. Sanders often say that Mrs. Clinton appears more electable when compared with a Republican nominee. And while her economic message, considering her ties to Wall Street and the "super PAC" supporting her, can seem muddled when contrasted with Mr. Sanders's, it sounds more forceful to Democratic voters compared with Republican proposals. And, as a campaign aide points out, the Republican candidates consistently criticize Mrs. Clinton, so it makes sense for her to punch back.
"I love Bernie, and I feel he'd get something done about the lopsided distribution of wealth in this country," said Siobhan Hansen, 58, an undecided voter in Charleston. "But," she added, "I hate to admit it but I just think Hillary has a better chance in the general election."
Even as Mrs. Clinton's campaign has invested heavily in Iowa and New Hampshire and her schedule revolves around visiting states with early primaries, her message has become a broader rejoinder reminding voters of the 2008 financial crisis and linking the Republican candidates to the foreclosures and joblessness that President Obama inherited. It is a strategy her campaign believes will be effective in a general election contest after having a dry run before the primaries.
"They are running on the same economic policies that have failed us before," Mrs. Clinton said at a rally in Memphis on Friday. She did not mention Mr. Sanders, but his stances on wealth and income have seemed to influence his rival's populist tone. "Trickledown economics, cut taxes on the wealthy, get out of the way of big corporations," she said. "Well, we know how that story ends, don't we?"
At a town-hall-style event in Grinnell, Iowa, this month, Mrs. Clinton, talking about the importance of voter participation, even seemed to forget, albeit briefly, that the short-term goal was to win the Iowa caucuses. "If not me, I hope you caucus for somebody," she said. She paused. "I hope more of you caucus for me."
Mrs. Clinton is focused on capturing the nomination and has been contrasting herself with the Republicans since she announced her candidacy in April, the campaign aide said.
Mr. Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said Mrs. Clinton's obsession with the Republican Party is a tactic to diminish her main Democratic primary opponent, whose economic message has attracted enormous crowds and enthusiasm.
As Mr. Sanders delivered his standard speech about inequality here on Saturday, Mr. Weaver closely watched the voters in the front row who wore blue "H" T-shirts, indicating their support for Mrs. Clinton, as they cheered for Mr. Sanders several times.
"We are much closer to Secretary Clinton today than Senator Obama was in 2008," Mr. Weaver said. "I don't think they think this is locked up."
Mrs. Clinton may have been helped by the campaign's shift to foreign policy, where Mr. Sanders is seen as weaker, in the aftermath of the Nov. 13 terrorist attack in Paris. Mrs. Clinton said in a speech in New York on Thursday that the Republicans' approach to fighting the Islamic State, compared with her own, amounted to "a choice between fear and resolve." She derided as un-American the Republicans who said they would either bar Syrian refugees from resettling in the United States or allow only Christian refugees.
"There are forces no candidate can control, and they can be detrimental," Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, said when asked about the newfound focus on defeating the Islamic State. "I believe in this case third-party forces are working in her favor."
Among Democrats, Mrs. Clinton holds a 25 percentage point lead against Mr. Sanders nationally, according to a Bloomberg Politics poll released on Friday, compared with a nine percentage point advantage in the same poll conducted in September that also included Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who later said he would not seek the nomination.
"By turning up the heat on Republicans, going after Trump, that's all part of the essence of saying, 'I am the leader of the Democratic Party,' " said Robert Shrum, a strategist for Democratic presidential candidates including John Kerry and Al Gore.
The primary is by no means determined. Polls in Iowa, in particular, tend to undercount Mr. Sanders's young supporters who do not have landline phones, his aides say. And he continues to lead in some polls in New Hampshire, a state that was supposed to be a stronghold for Mrs. Clinton.
Even as Mrs. Clinton focuses firmly on the Republicans, her campaign is increasing its indirect, if aggressive, moves to squeeze Mr. Sanders.
She has secured the backing of major labor unions, including most recently the Service Employees International Union, which has two million members. Her campaign has emphasized Mrs. Clinton's commitment to gun control, an issue that Mr. Sanders, as a senator from a hunting state, has been less vehement about, and she delivered a major foreign policy speech on Thursday in New York, the same day Mr. Sanders delivered a speech about Democratic socialism in Washington. ("Ah, the attempted bigfoot," Mr. Weaver said of the timing of the two speeches. The Clinton campaign announced its speech a day earlier than the Sanders team.)
Mrs. Clinton has also started to imply that Mr. Sanders's single-payer "Medicare for All" health care plan would amount to a middle-class tax increase.
In recent days, she has unveiled a plan to give Americans with unexpected medical costs a tax credit of $2,500 for an individual or $5,000 for a family. On Sunday in Iowa, she introduced another tax credit to cover up to $6,000 of medical expenses for middle-class families caring for ailing parents or grandparents. "I believe you deserve a raise, not a tax increase," she said in Memphis.
The Sanders campaign said that his plan would save the average family $5,000 a year through the elimination of premiums, deductibles and co-payments, and it called Mrs. Clinton's plan "Republican-lite" because it proposed short-term tax cuts over long-term benefits.
Mrs. Clinton's opponents point out that there is no more precarious place for her to be than when she seems inevitable, as she did in the early months of the 2008 Democratic primary before she finished third in the Iowa caucuses behind Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards.
This month, just after Mrs. Clinton had officially put her name on the ballot in New Hampshire, she sat down to take some questions from the local reporters who gathered around her in a cramped room at the State House in Concord. The first question: "How does it feel to once again be inevitable?"
Mrs. Clinton said she had put her name on the ballot in that very room in 2007. "I'm back again," she said. "I intend to do everything I can to work as hard as possible to be successful this time."
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/11/23/hillary-clinton-and-isis-messpgl said in reply to anne...November 23, 2015
Hillary Clinton and the ISIS Mess
By Jeffrey D. SachsHillary Clinton's speech on ISIS to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) showed clearly what to expect in a Clinton presidency: more of the same. In her speech, Clinton doubled down on the existing, failed U.S. approach in the Middle East, the one she pursued as Secretary of State.
The CIA-led policy in the Middle East works like this. If a regime is deemed to be unfriendly to the U.S., topple it. If a competitor like the Soviet Union or Russia has a foothold in the region, try to push it out. If this means arming violent insurgencies, including Sunni jihadists, and thereby creating mayhem: so be it. And if the result is terrorist blowback around the world by the forces created by the US, then double down on bombing and regime change.
In rare cases, great presidents learn to stand up to the CIA and the rest of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. JFK became one of the greatest presidents in American history when he came to realize the awful truth that his own military and CIA advisors had contributed to the onset of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The CIA-led Bay of Pigs fiasco and other CIA blunders had provoked a terrifying response from the Soviet Union. Recognizing that the U.S. approach had contributed to bringing the world to the brink, Kennedy bravely and successfully stood up to the warmongering pushed by so many of his advisors and pursued peace, both during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He thereby saved the world from nuclear annihilation and halted the unchecked proliferation of nuclear arms.
Clinton's speech shows that she and her advisors are good loyalists of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. Her speech included an impressive number of tactical elements: who should do the bombing and who should be the foot soldiers. Yet all of this tactical precision is nothing more than business as usual. Would Clinton ever have the courage and vision to push back against the U.S. security establishment, as did JFK, and thereby restore global diplomacy and reverse the upward spiral of war and terror?
Just as the CIA contributed to the downward slide to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and just as many of JFK's security chiefs urged war rather than negotiation during that crisis, so too today's Middle East terrorism, wars, and refugee crises have been stoked by misguided CIA-led interventions. Starting in 1979, the CIA began to build the modern Sunni jihadist movement, then known as the Mujahedeen, to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The CIA recruited young Sunni Muslim men to fight the Soviet infidel, and the CIA provided training, arms, and financing. Yet soon enough, this US-created jihadist army turned on the US, a classic and typical case of blowback.
The anti-U.S. and anti-Western blowback started with the first Gulf War in 1990, when the U.S. stationed troops throughout the region. It continued with the Second Gulf War, when the U.S. toppled a Sunni regime in Iraq and replaced it with a puppet Shia regime. In the process, it dismantled Saddam's Sunni-led army, which then regrouped as a core part of ISIS in Iraq.
Next the U.S. teamed up with Saudi Arabia to harass, and then to try to topple Bashir al-Assad. His main crime from the perspective of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia: being too close to Iran. Once again, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia turned to Sunni jihadists with arms and financing, and part of that fighting force morphed into ISIS in Syria. The evidence is that the covert U.S. actions against Assad pre-date the overt U.S. calls for Assad's overthrow in 2011 by at least a couple of years.
In a similar vein, the U.S. teamed up with France and the UK to bomb Libya and kill Muammar Qaddafi. The result has been an ongoing Libyan civil war, and the unleashing of violent jihadists across the African Sahel, including Mali, which suffered the terrorist blow last week at the hands of such marauders.
Thanks to America's misguided policies, we now have wars and violence raging across a 5,000-mile stretch from Bamako, Mali to Kabul, Afghanistan, with a U.S. hand in starting and stoking the violence. Libya, Sudan, the Sinai, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all cases where the U.S. has directly intervened with very adverse results. Mali, Chad, Central African Republic, Somalia are some of the many other countries indirectly caught up in turmoil unleashed by U.S. covert and overt operations....
Jeffrey D. Sachs is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.Jeff Sachs is right to praise Kennedy for not falling in line with the anti Castro nutcases. But he just skipped over Kennedy's blunder re Vietnam. It was the dumbest thing we had ever done. But then came March 2003 and Iraq. Hillary Clinton may be too eager for regime change but the Republicans want to redo the Crusades.ilsm said in reply to pgl...Lodge etc. were being lied to by the pentagon reps in RVN, but JFK kept the lid on advisors.pgl said in reply to ilsm...The big mistake on Vietnam was LBJ assuming Goldwater was right.
That said JFK helped usher in the concept of "flexible response" which moved US closer to fitting out US forces for the past 50 years' quagmires.
Keenan's containment strategy was ruined by NSC 68 which put pentagon responses senior to State.
The big mistake on Vietnam was listening to Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara. The Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld of the 1960's.RGC said in reply to anne...A Timeline of CIA Atrocitiespgl said in reply to RGC...By Steve Kangas
The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed by the CIA (1)
CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator's security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.
This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins." Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.
The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an "American Holocaust."
The CIA justifies these actions as part of its war against communism. But most coups do not involve a communist threat. Unlucky nations are targeted for a wide variety of reasons: not only threats to American business interests abroad, but also liberal or even moderate social reforms, political instability, the unwillingness of a leader to carry out Washington's dictates, and declarations of neutrality in the Cold War. Indeed, nothing has infuriated CIA Directors quite like a nation's desire to stay out of the Cold War.
The ironic thing about all this intervention is that it frequently fails to achieve American objectives. Often the newly installed dictator grows comfortable with the security apparatus the CIA has built for him. He becomes an expert at running a police state. And because the dictator knows he cannot be overthrown, he becomes independent and defiant of Washington's will. The CIA then finds it cannot overthrow him, because the police and military are under the dictator's control, afraid to cooperate with American spies for fear of torture and execution. The only two options for the U.S at this point are impotence or war. Examples of this "boomerang effect" include the Shah of Iran, General Noriega and Saddam Hussein. The boomerang effect also explains why the CIA has proven highly successful at overthrowing democracies, but a wretched failure at overthrowing dictatorships.
The following timeline should confirm that the CIA as we know it should be abolished and replaced by a true information-gathering and analysis organization. The CIA cannot be reformed - it is institutionally and culturally corrupt.
1929
The culture we lost - Secretary of State Henry Stimson refuses to endorse a code-breaking operation, saying, "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail."
1941
COI created - In preparation for World War II, President Roosevelt creates the Office of Coordinator of Information (COI). General William "Wild Bill" Donovan heads the new intelligence service.
1942
OSS created - Roosevelt restructures COI into something more suitable for covert action, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Donovan recruits so many of the nation's rich and powerful that eventually people joke that "OSS" stands for "Oh, so social!" or "Oh, such snobs!"
1943
Italy - Donovan recruits the Catholic Church in Rome to be the center of Anglo-American spy operations in Fascist Italy. This would prove to be one of America's most enduring intelligence alliances in the Cold War.
1945
OSS is abolished - The remaining American information agencies cease covert actions and return to harmless information gathering and analysis.
Operation PAPERCLIP While other American agencies are hunting down Nazi war criminals for arrest, the U.S. intelligence community is smuggling them into America, unpunished, for their use against the Soviets. The most important of these is Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's master spy who had built up an intelligence network in the Soviet Union. With full U.S. blessing, he creates the "Gehlen Organization," a band of refugee Nazi spies who reactivate their networks in Russia. These include SS intelligence officers Alfred Six and Emil Augsburg (who massacred Jews in the Holocaust), Klaus Barbie (the "Butcher of Lyon"), Otto von Bolschwing (the Holocaust mastermind who worked with Eichmann) and SS Colonel Otto Skorzeny (a personal friend of Hitler's). The Gehlen Organization supplies the U.S. with its only intelligence on the Soviet Union for the next ten years, serving as a bridge between the abolishment of the OSS and the creation of the CIA However, much of the "intelligence" the former Nazis provide is bogus. Gehlen inflates Soviet military capabilities at a time when Russia is still rebuilding its devastated society, in order to inflate his own importance to the Americans (who might otherwise punish him). In 1948, Gehlen almost convinces the Americans that war is imminent, and the West should make a preemptive strike. In the 50s he produces a fictitious "missile gap." To make matters worse, the Russians have thoroughly penetrated the Gehlen Organization with double agents, undermining the very American security that Gehlen was supposed to protect.
1947
Greece - President Truman requests military aid to Greece to support right-wing forces fighting communist rebels. For the rest of the Cold War, Washington and the CIA will back notorious Greek leaders with deplorable human rights records.
CIA created - President Truman signs the National Security Act of 1947, creating the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Council. The CIA is accountable to the president through the NSC - there is no democratic or congressional oversight. Its charter allows the CIA to "perform such other functions and duties as the National Security Council may from time to time direct." This loophole opens the door to covert action and dirty tricks.
1948
Covert-action wing created - The CIA recreates a covert action wing, innocuously called the Office of Policy Coordination, led by Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner. According to its secret charter, its responsibilities include "propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world."
Italy - The CIA corrupts democratic elections in Italy, where Italian communists threaten to win the elections. The CIA buys votes, broadcasts propaganda, threatens and beats up opposition leaders, and infiltrates and disrupts their organizations. It works -- the communists are defeated.
1949
Radio Free Europe - The CIA creates its first major propaganda outlet, Radio Free Europe. Over the next several decades, its broadcasts are so blatantly false that for a time it is considered illegal to publish transcripts of them in the U.S.
Late 40s
Operation MOCKINGBIRD - The CIA begins recruiting American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. The effort is headed by Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham is publisher of The Washington Post, which becomes a major CIA player. Eventually, the CIA's media assets will include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service and more. By the CIA's own admission, at least 25 organizations and 400 journalists will become CIA assets.
1953
Iran CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.
Operation MK-ULTRA - Inspired by North Korea's brainwashing program, the CIA begins experiments on mind control. The most notorious part of this project involves giving LSD and other drugs to American subjects without their knowledge or against their will, causing several to commit suicide. However, the operation involves far more than this. Funded in part by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, research includes propaganda, brainwashing, public relations, advertising, hypnosis, and other forms of suggestion.
1954
Guatemala - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.
1954-1958
North Vietnam - CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA's continuing failure results in escalating American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.
1956
Hungary - Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev's Secret Speech, in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight. This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.
1957-1973
Laos - The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos' democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA's army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.
1959
Haiti - The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.
1961
The Bay of Pigs - The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro's Cuba. But "Operation Mongoose" fails, due to poor planning, security and backing. The planners had imagined that the invasion will spark a popular uprising against Castro - which never happens. A promised American air strike also never occurs. This is the CIA's first public setback, causing President Kennedy to fire CIA Director Allen Dulles.
Dominican Republic - The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington has supported since 1930. Trujillo's business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.
Ecuador - The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency with its own man.
Congo (Zaire) - The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public support for Lumumba's politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.
1963
Dominican Republic - The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta.
Ecuador - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.
1964
Brazil - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America's first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these "communists" are no more than Branco's political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death squads.
1965
Indonesia - The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist." The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.
Dominican Republic - A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country's elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.
Greece - With the CIA's backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.
Congo (Zaire) - A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. The hated and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.
1966
The Ramparts Affair - The radical magazine Ramparts begins a series of unprecedented anti-CIA articles. Among their scoops: the CIA has paid the University of Michigan $25 million dollars to hire "professors" to train South Vietnamese students in covert police methods. MIT and other universities have received similar payments. Ramparts also reveals that the National Students' Association is a CIA front. Students are sometimes recruited through blackmail and bribery, including draft deferments.
1967
Greece - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections. The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years, the "reign of the colonels" - backed by the CIA - will usher in the widespread use of torture and murder against political opponents. When a Greek ambassador objects to President Johnson about U.S. plans for Cypress, Johnson tells him: "Fuck your parliament and your constitution."
Operation PHEONIX - The CIA helps South Vietnamese agents identify and then murder alleged Viet Cong leaders operating in South Vietnamese villages. According to a 1971 congressional report, this operation killed about 20,000 "Viet Cong."
1968
Operation CHAOS - The CIA has been illegally spying on American citizens since 1959, but with Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosts the effort. CIA agents go undercover as student radicals to spy on and disrupt campus organizations protesting the Vietnam War. They are searching for Russian instigators, which they never find. CHAOS will eventually spy on 7,000 individuals and 1,000 organizations.
Bolivia - A CIA-organized military operation captures legendary guerilla Che Guevara. The CIA wants to keep him alive for interrogation, but the Bolivian government executes him to prevent worldwide calls for clemency.
1969
Uruguay - The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces them to use it as a routine, widespread practice. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," is his motto. The torture techniques he teaches to the death squads rival the Nazis'. He eventually becomes so feared that revolutionaries will kidnap and murder him a year later.
1970
Cambodia - The CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.
1971
Bolivia - After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.
Haiti - "Papa Doc" Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son "Baby Doc" Duvalier the dictator of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA
1972
The Case-Zablocki Act - Congress passes an act requiring congressional review of executive agreements. In theory, this should make CIA operations more accountable. In fact, it is only marginally effective.
Cambodia - Congress votes to cut off CIA funds for its secret war in Cambodia.
Wagergate Break-in - President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon's illegal campaign contributions. CREEP's activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.
1973
Chile - The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America's first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.
CIA begins internal investigations - William Colby, the Deputy Director for Operations, orders all CIA personnel to report any and all illegal activities they know about. This information is later reported to Congress.
Watergate Scandal - The CIA's main collaborating newspaper in America, The Washington Post, reports Nixon's crimes long before any other newspaper takes up the subject. The two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, make almost no mention of the CIA's many fingerprints all over the scandal. It is later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House, and knows many important intelligence figures, including General Alexander Haig. His main source, "Deep Throat," is probably one of those.
CIA Director Helms Fired - President Nixon fires CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to help cover up the Watergate scandal. Helms and Nixon have always disliked each other. The new CIA director is William Colby, who is relatively more open to CIA reform.
1974
CHAOS exposed - Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S. The story sparks national outrage.
Angleton fired - Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus Angleton, the CIA's chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA
House clears CIA in Watergate - The House of Representatives clears the CIA of any complicity in Nixon's Watergate break-in.
The Hughes Ryan Act - Congress passes an amendment requiring the president to report nonintelligence CIA operations to the relevant congressional committees in a timely fashion.
1975
Australia - The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.
Angola - Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger's assertions, Angola is a country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.
"The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" - Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an intelligence official in the State Department.
"Inside the Company" - Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA Agee has worked in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took part.
Congress investigates CIA wrong-doing - Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation ("The Church Committee"), and Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite a 98 percent incumbency reelection rate, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number of reforms intended to increase the CIA's accountability to Congress, including the creation of a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.
The Rockefeller Commission - In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee, President Ford creates the "Rockefeller Commission" to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless reforms. The commission's namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA figure. Five of the commission's eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a CIA-dominated organization.
1979
Iran - The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA's backing of SAVAK, the Shah's bloodthirsty secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
Afghanistan - The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the World Trade Center bombing in New York.
El Salvador - An idealistic group of young military officers, repulsed by the massacre of the poor, overthrows the right-wing government. However, the U.S. compels the inexperienced officers to include many of the old guard in key positions in their new government. Soon, things are back to "normal" - the military government is repressing and killing poor civilian protesters. Many of the young military and civilian reformers, finding themselves powerless, resign in disgust.
Nicaragua - Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s.
1980
El Salvador - The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D'Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.
1981
Iran/Contra Begins - The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say 'uncle.'" The CIA's Freedom Fighter's Manual disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination.
1983
Honduras - The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras' notorious "Battalion 316" then uses these techniques, with the CIA's full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least 184 are murdered.
1984
The Boland Amendment - The last of a series of Boland Amendments is passed. These amendments have reduced CIA aid to the Contras; the last one cuts it off completely. However, CIA Director William Casey is already prepared to "hand off" the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally continues supplying the Contras through the CIA's informal, secret, and self-financing network. This includes "humanitarian aid" donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon, and military aid funded by Iranian arms sales.
1986
Eugene Hasenfus - Nicaragua shoots down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies to the Contras. The lone survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, turns out to be a CIA employee, as are the two dead pilots. The airplane belongs to Southern Air Transport, a CIA front. The incident makes a mockery of President Reagan's claims that the CIA is not illegally arming the Contras.
Iran/Contra Scandal - Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally captures the media's attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community. CIA Director William Casey dies of brain cancer before Congress can question him. All reforms enacted by Congress after the scandal are purely cosmetic.
Haiti - Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President for Life" only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and assassination.
1989
Panama - The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA's payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA's knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega's growing independence and intransigence have angered Washington so out he goes.
1990
Haiti - Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country, as thousands of Haitian refugees escape the turmoil in barely seaworthy boats. As popular opinion calls for Aristide's return, the CIA begins a disinformation campaign painting the courageous priest as mentally unstable.
1991
The Gulf War - The U.S. liberates Kuwait from Iraq. But Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, is another creature of the CIA With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. During this costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein's forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence, training and financial backing. This cemented Hussein's power at home, allowing him to crush the many internal rebellions that erupted from time to time, sometimes with poison gas. It also gave him all the military might he needed to conduct further adventurism - in Kuwait, for example.
The Fall of the Soviet Union - The CIA fails to predict this most important event of the Cold War. This suggests that it has been so busy undermining governments that it hasn't been doing its primary job: gathering and analyzing information. The fall of the Soviet Union also robs the CIA of its reason for existence: fighting communism. This leads some to accuse the CIA of intentionally failing to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union. Curiously, the intelligence community's budget is not significantly reduced after the demise of communism.
1992
Economic Espionage - In the years following the end of the Cold War, the CIA is increasingly used for economic espionage. This involves stealing the technological secrets of competing foreign companies and giving them to American ones. Given the CIA's clear preference for dirty tricks over mere information gathering, the possibility of serious criminal behavior is very great indeed.
1993
Haiti - The chaos in Haiti grows so bad that President Clinton has no choice but to remove the Haitian military dictator, Raoul Cedras, on threat of U.S. invasion. The U.S. occupiers do not arrest Haiti's military leaders for crimes against humanity, but instead ensure their safety and rich retirements. Aristide is returned to power only after being forced to accept an agenda favorable to the country's ruling class.
EPILOGUE
In a speech before the CIA celebrating its 50th anniversary, President Clinton said: "By necessity, the American people will never know the full story of your courage."
Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked.
Furthermore, Clinton's statement is simply untrue. The history of the agency is growing painfully clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not know the details of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA These facts began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today we have a remarkably accurate and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different directions.
The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern. (Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners. (See Philip Agee's On the Run for an example of early harassment.) However, over the last two decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the CIA has found that it does not have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is especially true in the age of the Internet, where information flows freely among millions of people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency must now defend itself with apologetics. Clinton's "Americans will never know" defense is a prime example.
Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants. The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.
Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: "Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. The second begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?"
The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity. Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal of collecting and analyzing information. As for covert action, there are two moral options. The first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about the Adolf Hitlers of the world. So a second option is that we can place covert action under extensive and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members could review and veto all aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote. Which of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear: like dictatorship, like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs they are.
Wow - that's a list. My focus:RGC said in reply to pgl..."1954-1958
North Vietnam - CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA's continuing failure results in escalating American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War."
We should have let the elections of 1956 go forward. Had we - we could have avoided the entire Vietnam disaster.
When you look at that list and you realize that it was done in our name and we were funding it, it might piss you off a little.Fred C. Dobbs said...'Thinking About the Trumpthinkable' - Paul KrugmanFred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...Alan Abramowitz reads the latest WaPo poll and emails:
'Read these results and tell me how Trump doesn't win the Republican nomination? I've been very skeptical about this all along, but I'm starting to change my mind. I think there's at least a pretty decent chance that Trump will be the nominee.' ...
Related:
Is Hillary Clinton Any Good at Running for President? http://nym.ag/1DwluuR via @NYmag - Jazon Zengerle - April 5
... The election model that's most in vogue - that scored the highest when applied to presidential elections since World War II, correctly predicting every outcome since 1992 - is one created by Emory political scientist Alan Abramowitz called "Time for a Change." Abramowitz argues that the fundamentals in a presidential election are bedevilingly simple: the incumbent president's approval rating in late June or early July, the rate of real GDP growth in the second quarter, and how many terms the party has been in the White House.
In 2012, for instance, Obama's relatively lopsided victory may have shocked Republicans on Election Night, but by Abramowitz's reckoning it was practically preordained. Although second-quarter real GDP growth was a relatively unimpressive 1.5 percent and Obama's approval rating was a good-but-not-great 46 percent that June, he was seeking reelection, and, according to Abramowitz, "first-term incumbents rarely lose." In fact, he believes that being a first-term incumbent is worth 4 percentage points. There was nothing in the Abramowitz model that looked good for John McCain in 2008 (bad economy, bad approval ratings of a second-term president from McCain's party). In 1988, by contrast, George H.W. Bush was also running to give his party a third term, but Q2 real GDP growth that year was a booming 5.24 percent and Ronald Reagan's approval rating was above 50 percent.
Sound familiar? "If Obama's approval rating is close to 50 percent and the economy is growing at a decent rate in the fall of 2016 - both of which seem quite possible, maybe even likely - then I think Hillary Clinton would have a decent chance of winning," Abramowitz says. But then there's the "Time for a Change" factor and those four extra points Obama enjoyed in 2012 that Hillary won't have this time around. In other words, it would be an extremely close race.
Which brings us full circle. "What determines the outcome in 2016," Abramowitz says, "could very well be the quality of the candidates." ...
Tweet: @AlanIAbramowitzpgl said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
Trump exploits a crack
in the GOP's foundation
http://wpo.st/ZHHn0Fareed Zakaria - Washington Post - November 12
Today's conventional wisdom is that Donald Trump's best days are behind him and that his poll numbers will soon descend. Maybe. But Trump has come to represent something fundamental about the Republican Party: the growing gap between its leaders and its political constituency. Even if he disappears, this gap is reshaping the GOP.
At the start, Trump's campaign was based largely on his personality. On the issues, he had a grab bag of positions and lacked coherence and consistency. But like a good businessman, he seems to have studied his customers - the Republican electorate - and decided to give them what they want. And what they want is not what their party leaders stand for. ...
"On the issues, he had a grab bag of positions and lacked coherence and consistency. But like a good businessman, he seems to have studied his customers - the Republican electorate - and decided to give them what they want. And what they want is not what their party leaders stand for"What his customers want is racism. And guess what - the alleged party leaders are racing to the front to see who can be the most racist. This party has become a dysfunctional disgrace.
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
RGC said... November 23, 2015 at 07:52 AM
Wall St. Ties Linger as Image Issue for Hillary ClintonBy Patrick Healy
Saturday, 21 Nov 2015 | 2:52 PM ET
The New York TimesJohn Wittneben simmered as he listened to Hillary Rodham Clinton defend her ties to Wall Street during last weekend's Democratic debate. He lost 40 percent of his savings in individual retirement accounts during the Great Recession, while Mrs. Clinton has received millions of dollars from the kinds of executives he believes should be in jail.
"People knew what they were doing back then, because of greed, and it caused me harm," said Mr. Wittneben, the Democratic chairman in Emmet County, Iowa. "We were raised a certain way here. Fairness is a big deal."The next day he endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders in the presidential race.
Mrs. Clinton's windfalls from Wall Street banks and other financial services firms - $3 million in paid speeches and $17 million in campaign contributions over the years - have become a major vulnerability in states with early nomination contests. Some party officials who remain undecided in the 2016 presidential race see her as overly cozy with big banks and other special interests. At a time when liberals are ascendant in the party, many Democrats believe her merely having "represented Wall Street as a senator from New York," as Mrs. Clinton reminded viewers in an October debate, is bad enough.
It is an image problem that she cannot seem to shake.
Though she criticizes the American economy as being "rigged" for the rich, Mrs. Clinton has lost some support recently from party members who think she would go easy on Wall Street excess if elected. Even as she promises greater regulation of hedge funds and private equity firms, liberals deride her for refusing to support reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, a law that separated commercial and investment banks until its repeal under President Bill Clinton. (Mr. Sanders favors its restoration.) And for many Democrats, her strong support from wealthy donors and a big-money "super PAC" undercuts her increasingly progressive rhetoric on free trade and other economic issues.
Her advisers say most Democrats like her economic policies and believe she would fight for middle-class and low-income Americans. Most opinion polls put Mrs. Clinton well ahead of Mr. Sanders nationally and in Iowa, and they are running even in New Hampshire, but she fares worse than him on questions about taking on Wall Street and special interests. And even if Mrs. Clinton sews up the nomination quickly, subdued enthusiasm among the party's liberal base could complicate efforts to energize Democratic turnout for the general election.
In the primaries, Mrs. Clinton's advisers privately concede that she will lose some votes over her Wall Street connections. They declined to share specific findings from internal polls, but predicted the issue could resonate in Democratic contests in Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Michigan, where many have lost homes and businesses to bank foreclosures.
Mr. Sanders zeros in on Wall Street donations to Mrs. Clinton in an aggressive new television commercial that started running in Iowa and New Hampshire on Saturday: "The truth is, you can't change a corrupt system by taking its money," he warns.
One of Mrs. Clinton's most prominent supporters in Ohio, former State Senator Nina Turner, defected to Mr. Sanders this month in part, she said, because she felt he would be tougher on special interests. And some Democratic superdelegates, whose backing is crucial, said Mrs. Clinton's ties to big banks, and her invocation of 9/11 to defend her ties to Wall Street at the Nov. 14 debate, only made them further question her independence from the financial industry.
"My parents had a saying in Spanish - 'Dime con quiιn andas y te dirι quiιn eres' - which means, 'Tell me who you're hanging with and I'll tell you who you are,'" said Alma R. Gonzalez, an uncommitted superdelegate from Florida. "A lot of my Democratic friends feel that way about Hillary and Wall Street.
"Are the working people in this country going to be able to count on hard decisions being made by President Hillary Clinton with regard to her Wall Street chums?" Ms. Gonzalez continued. "Will she be another President Clinton who appoints a Treasury secretary from Wall Street? These are major concerns."
Indeed, Mr. Clinton's close relationships with Wall Street executives like Robert E. Rubin of Goldman Sachs, whom he named his Treasury secretary, and his support for undoing parts of Glass-Steagall have contributed to misgivings about Mrs. Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton has proposed imposing risk fees on unwieldy big banks and empowering regulators to break them up if necessary - though this is not the wholesale breakup that Mr. Sanders favors under a return of Glass-Steagall. She also proposes to make sure fines for corporate wrongdoing hit executive bonuses, and to pursue criminal prosecutions when justified.
Yet even though she has taken tough stands in the past, such as chastising banks for widespread foreclosures in 2007 and 2008, some Democrats are skeptical that she would ever crack down hard on the executives in her social circles in Manhattan, the Hamptons and Washington.
Jake Quinn, an uncommitted Democratic superdelegate from North Carolina, said he was concerned about Mrs. Clinton's willingness to clamp down on Wall Street malfeasance. "The financial sector's ongoing relative lack of accountability makes me suspicious of any candidate who sources it for significant support," he said.
Mrs. Clinton's advisers say that she has advanced the strongest regulatory proposals of any candidate, putting the lie to claims that she would protect Wall Street's interests as president. Any political harm resulting from her Wall Street ties would be minimal, they maintain, because she never took action in exchange for donations. They also play down the possibility that Mrs. Clinton will face voter turnout and enthusiasm problems if she wins the nomination.
While Mr. Sanders and another candidate for the Democratic nomination, former Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland, have argued that big donors inevitably had influence with her, her campaign has pushed back against suggestions that the financial services industry has bankrolled her campaign. Her aides also said ads by a new group, Future 45, attacking Mrs. Clinton would only underscore her independence, because the group's major donors include Wall Street magnates like Paul Singer.
"When billionaire hedge fund managers are forming super PACs to run ads attacking her, it's clear they fear she will take action as president to crack down on the industry's abuses," said Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman.
Bashing Wall Street is not an automatic win for Mr. Sanders, however. Ms. Gonzalez, the Florida superdelegate, and some other undecided Democrats said they viewed Mr. Sanders as too hostile to banks and corporations and too divisive in his remarks about American wealth.
But others said they were more concerned that Mrs. Clinton had not broken with Wall Street in a clear way, noting the lengths she went to at the debate to explain the relationship.
"She was waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 to defend herself, which we're accustomed to seeing with demagogues on the right, and it just didn't feel quite right," said Kurt Meyer, a co-chairman of the Mitchell County Democrats in Iowa, who has not endorsed a candidate. "She connected two things, 9/11 and her ties to Wall Street, that I didn't like her sewing together."
Ms. Turner, the former Ohio lawmaker, said the blocks of foreclosed homes in Cleveland were a painful reminder that banks prioritize their own corporate interests. Mr. Sanders has been criticizing "the corrupt economy symbolized by Wall Street greed" for decades, she said.
"He shows righteous indignation and speaks for the common woman and man in saying they have a right to be outraged at Wall Street," Ms. Turner said. "He doesn't just talk the talk. He walks the talk."
And Mrs. Clinton? "Her ties are her ties," Ms. Turner said.
|
|
|
Nov. 20, 2015 | WSJ
...Europe was not in great shape before the refugee crisis and the terrorist attacks. The prolonged Eurozone crisis eroded the legitimacy of European political institutions and the centrist parties that run them, while weakening the economies of key European powers. The old troika-Britain, France and Germany-that used to provide leadership on the continent and with whom the U.S. worked most closely to set the global agenda is no more. Britain is a pale shadow of its former self. Once the indispensable partner for the U.S., influential in both Washington and Brussels, the mediator between America and Europe, Britain is now unmoored, drifting away from both. The Labor Party, once led by Tony Blair, is now headed by an anti-American pacifist, while the ruling Conservative government boasts of its "very special relationship" with China.
... ... ...
There is a Russian angle, too. Many of these parties, and even some mainstream political movements across the continent, are funded by Russia and make little secret of their affinity for Moscow. Thus Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary has praised "illiberalism" and made common ideological cause with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In Germany, a whole class of businesspeople, politicians, and current and former government officials, led by former Chancellor Gerhard Schrφder, presses constantly for normalized relations with Moscow. It sometimes seems, in Germany and perhaps in all of Europe, as if the only person standing in the way of full alliance with Russia is German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Now the Syrian crisis has further bolstered Russia's position. Although Europeans generally share Washington's discomfort with Moscow's support for Mr. Assad and Russia's bombing of moderate Syrian rebels, in the wake of the Paris attacks, any plausible partner in the fight against Islamic State seems worth enlisting. In France, former President Nicolas Sarkozy has long been an advocate for Russia, but now his calls for partnership with Moscow are echoed by President Franηois Hollande, who seeks a "grand coalition" with Russia to fight Islamic State.
Where does the U.S. fit into all this? The Europeans no longer know, any more than American allies in the Middle East do. Most Europeans still like Mr. Obama. After President George W. Bush and the Iraq war, Europeans have gotten the kind of American president they wanted. But in the current crisis, this new, more restrained and intensely cautious post-Iraq America has less to offer than the old superpower, with all its arrogance and belligerence.
The flip side of European pleasure at America's newfound Venusian outlook is the perception, widely shared around the world, that the U.S. is a declining superpower, and that even if it is not objectively weaker than it once was, its leaders' willingness to deploy power on behalf of its interests, and on behalf of the West, has greatly diminished. As former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer recently put it, the U.S. "quite obviously, is no longer willing-or able-to play its old role."
Mr. Fischer was referring specifically to America's role as the dominant power in the Middle East, but since the refugee crisis and the attacks in Paris, America's unwillingness to play that role has reverberations and implications well beyond the Middle East. What the U.S. now does or doesn't do in Syria will affect the future stability of Europe, the strength of trans-Atlantic relations and therefore the well-being of the liberal world order.
This is no doubt the last thing that Mr. Obama wants to hear, and possibly to believe. Certainly he would not deny that the stakes have gone up since the refugee crisis and especially since Paris. At the very least, Islamic State has proven both its desire and its ability to carry out massive, coordinated attacks in a major European city. It is not unthinkable that it could carry out a similar attack in an American city. This is new.
... ... ...
In 2002, a British statesman-scholar issued a quiet warning. "The challenge to the postmodern world," the diplomat Robert Cooper argued, was that while Europeans might operate within their borders as if power no longer mattered, in the world outside Europe, they needed to be prepared to use force just as in earlier eras. "Among ourselves, we keep the law, but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle," he wrote. Europeans didn't heed this warning, or at least didn't heed it sufficiently. They failed to arm themselves for the jungle, materially and spiritually, and now that the jungle has entered the European garden, they are at a loss.
With the exercise of power barely an option, despite what Mr. Hollande promises, Europeans are likely to feel their only choice is to build fences, both within Europe and along its periphery-even if in the process they destroy the very essence of the European project. It is this sentiment that has the Le Pens of Europe soaring in the polls.
What would such an effort look like? First, it would require establishing a safe zone in Syria, providing the millions of would-be refugees still in the country a place to stay and the hundreds of thousands who have fled to Europe a place to which to return. To establish such a zone, American military officials estimate, would require not only U.S. air power but ground forces numbering up to 30,000. Once the safe zone was established, many of those troops could be replaced by forces from Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, but the initial force would have to be largely American.
In addition, a further 10,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops would be required to uproot Islamic State from the haven it has created in Syria and to help local forces uproot it in Iraq. Many of those troops could then be replaced by NATO and other international forces to hold the territory and provide a safe zone for rebuilding the areas shattered by Islamic State rule.
At the same time, an internationally negotiated and blessed process of transition in Syria should take place, ushering the bloodstained Mr. Assad from power and establishing a new provisional government to hold nationwide elections. The heretofore immovable Mr. Assad would face an entirely new set of military facts on the ground, with the Syrian opposition now backed by U.S. forces and air power, the Syrian air force grounded and Russian bombing halted. Throughout the transition period, and probably beyond even the first rounds of elections, an international peacekeeping force-made up of French, Turkish, American and other NATO forces as well as Arab troops-would have to remain in Syria until a reasonable level of stability, security and inter-sectarian trust was achieved.
Is such a plan so unthinkable? In recent years, the mere mention of U.S. ground troops has been enough to stop any conversation. Americans, or at least the intelligentsia and political class, remain traumatized by Iraq, and all calculations about what to do in Syria have been driven by that trauma. Mr. Obama's advisers have been reluctant to present him with options that include even smaller numbers of ground forces, assuming that he would reject them. And Mr. Obama has, in turn, rejected his advisers' less ambitious proposals on the reasonable grounds that they would probably be insufficient.
This dynamic has kept the president sneering at those who have wanted to do more but have been reluctant to be honest about how much more. But it has also allowed him to be comfortable settling for minimal, pressure-relieving approaches that he must know cannot succeed but which at least have the virtue of avoiding the much larger commitment that he has so far refused to make.
The president has also been inclined to reject options that don't promise to "solve" the problems of Syria, Iraq and the Middle East. He doesn't want to send troops only to put "a lid on things."
In this respect, he is entranced, like most Americans, by the image of the decisive engagement followed by the victorious return home. But that happy picture is a myth. Even after the iconic American victory in World War II, the U.S. didn't come home. Keeping a lid on things is exactly what the U.S. has done these past 70 years. That is how the U.S. created this liberal world order.
In Asia, American forces have kept a lid on what had been, and would likely be again, a dangerous multisided conflict involving China, Japan, Korea, India and who knows who else. In Europe, American forces put a lid on what had been a chronic state of insecurity and war, making it possible to lay the foundations of the European Union. In the Balkans, the presence of U.S. and European troops has kept a lid on what had been an escalating cycle of ethnic conflict. In Libya, a similar international force, with even a small American contingent, could have kept the lid on that country's boiling caldron, perhaps long enough to give a new, more inclusive government a chance.
Preserving a liberal world order and international security is all about placing lids on regions of turmoil. In any case, as my Brookings Institution colleague Thomas Wright observes, whether or not you want to keep a lid on something really ought to depend on what's under the lid.
At practically any other time in the last 70 years, the idea of dispatching even 50,000 troops to fight an organization of Islamic State's description would not have seemed too risky or too costly to most Americans. In 1990-91, President George H.W. Bush, now revered as a judicious and prudent leader, sent half a million troops across the globe to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, a country that not one American in a million could find on a map and which the U.S. had no obligation to defend. In 1989, he sent 30,000 troops to invade Panama to topple an illegitimate, drug-peddling dictator. During the Cold War, when presidents sent more than 300,000 troops to Korea and more than 500,000 troops to Vietnam, the idea of sending 50,000 troops to fight a large and virulently anti-American terrorist organization that had seized territory in the Middle East, and from that territory had already launched a murderous attack on a major Western city, would have seemed barely worth an argument.
Not today. Americans remain paralyzed by Iraq, Republicans almost as much as Democrats, and Mr. Obama is both the political beneficiary and the living symbol of this paralysis. Whether he has the desire or capacity to adjust to changing circumstances is an open question. Other presidents have-from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton-each of whom was forced to recalibrate what the loss or fracturing of Europe would mean to American interests. In Mr. Obama's case, however, such a late-in-the-game recalculation seems less likely. He may be the first president since the end of World War II who simply doesn't care what happens to Europe.
If so, it is, again, a great irony for Europe, and perhaps a tragic one. Having excoriated the U.S. for invading Iraq, Europeans played no small part in bringing on the crisis of confidence and conscience that today prevents Americans from doing what may be necessary to meet the Middle Eastern crisis that has Europe reeling. Perhaps there are Europeans today wishing that the U.S. will not compound its error of commission in Iraq by making an equally unfortunate error of omission in Syria. They can certainly hope.
Mr. Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of "Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order" and, most recently, "The World America Made."
Selected Skeptical Comments
anne said... , November 22, 2015 at 05:50 AMhttps://twitter.com/BrankoMilanBranko Milanovic @BrankoMilan
From the man who brought you the Iraq war and the rise of ISIS--how to solve the ISIS crisis.
Strobe Talbott @strobetalbott
A clarion call by @BrookingsFP's Bob Kagan. Hope (& bet) POTUS has read it. Would-be successors should as well. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-crisis-of-world-order-1448052095
9:03 AM - 21 Nov 2015
anne said in reply to anne... , November 22, 2015 at 05:50 AM
https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/668114578866221056
Branko Milanovic @BrankoMilan
You'd think ppl who brought the Iraq war, the best recruiters of ISIS, would be nowhere to be seen; but no, are telling how to deal w/ISIS.
ilsm said in reply to anne...
Narrative is the foundation of their skewed analysis. Their object is to sell perpetual war using super high tech, exquisitely expensive, contractor maintained versions of WW II formations to expired resources eternally for the profits they deliver. They starve the safety net to pay for their income security.
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to anne...Neoconservativism Is Down But Not Out of the 2016 Race
http://bloom.bg/1EpwSou
via @Bloomberg - February 18, 2015... In July of last year, the New York Times ran two pieces tying Clinton to the neoconservative movement. In "The Next Act of the Neocons," (*) Jacob Heilbrunn argued that neocons like historian Robert Kagan are putting their lot in with Clinton in an effort to stay relevant while the GOP shies away from its past interventionism and embraces politicians like Senator Rand Paul:
'Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan's careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in the New Republic this year that "it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya."
And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.
It's easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton's making room for the neocons in her administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board.'
(The story also notes, prematurely, that the careers of older neocons like Wolfowitz are "permanently buried in the sands of Iraq.")
Kagan served on Clinton's bipartisan foreign policy advisory board when she was Secretary of State, has deep neocon roots. He was part of the Project for a New American Century, a now-defunct think tank that spanned much of the second Bush presidency and supported a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity." PNAC counted Kagan, Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol, and Jeb Bush among its members. In 1998, some of its members-including Wolfowitz, Kagan, and Rumsfeld-signed an open letter to President Bill Clinton asking him to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
A month before the Heilbrunn piece, the Times profiled Kagan (#), who was critical of Obama's foreign policy, but supported Clinton. "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Kagan told the Times. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that." ...
*- Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton? http://nyti.ms/1qJ4eLN
#- Robert Kagan Strikes a Nerve With Article on Obama Policy http://nyti.ms/UEuqtB
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
(I may be a HRC supporter but Neocons still make me anxious.)
'doublethink has become synonymous with relieving cognitive dissonance by ignoring the contradiction between two world views or even of deliberately seeking to relieve cognitive dissonance.' (Wikipedia)
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2015 | Economist's View
mrrunangun:
Given that honesty in politics and government is relative, I wonder if relatively honest politics and relatively honest regulation of financial systems prevents financial crises.
pgl
Hillary Clinton hedges on a key issue:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/hillary-clinton-break-up-big-banks
She says she would break up the mega banks ... if needed. It is needed - so no hedging on this issue.
JohnH -> pgl...
Once again pgl shows how gullible he is...believing what Hillary says not what she has done. What has she done? Well, Wall Street made her a millionaire.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/13/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street/
Second, she announced her run for Senator from New York (Wall Street) immediately after Bill did Wall Street the mother of all favors...ending Glass-Steagall. In his naivete, pgl certainly believes that there was no quid pro quo!!!
Third, lots of people doubt whether she can be trusted to rein in Wall Street.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/us/politics/wall-st-ties-linger-as-image-issue-for-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0Of course, pgl believes lots of silly things...like his claim that Obama never proposed and signed off on austerity in 2011...or that he has proposed cutting Social Security...or that trickle down monetary policy hasn't overwhelmingly benefited the 1%.
I wonder when somebody will finally get to sell him the Brooklyn Bridge [better act now, pgl, get a really cheap loan while you still can!!!]
JohnH -> JohnH...
pgl thinks that Obama NEVER proposed cutting Social Security's! What a rube!
anne:
http://www.voxeu.org/article/political-aftermath-financial-crises-going-extremes
November 21, 2015
The political aftermath of financial crises: Going to extremes
By Manuel Funke, Moritz Schularick, and Christoph TrebeschImplications
The typical political reaction to financial crises is as follows: votes for far-right parties increase strongly, government majorities shrink, the fractionalisation of parliaments rises and the overall number of parties represented in parliament jumps. These developments likely hinder crisis resolution and contribute to political gridlock. The resulting policy uncertainty may contribute to the much-debated slow economic recoveries from financial crises.
In the light of modern history, political radicalization, declining government majorities and increasing street protests appear to be the hallmark of financial crises. As a consequence, regulators and central bankers carry a big responsibility for political stability when overseeing financial markets. Preventing financial crises also means reducing the probability of a political disaster.
anne -> anne...
What strikes me, is that the political response to the short-lived international financial crisis but longer lived recession was quite restrained in developed countries. Leadership changes struck me as moderate, even moderate in beset Greece as the political stance of Syriza which looked to be confrontational with regard to the other eurozone countries quickly became accepting.
European developed country governments have been and are remarkably stable. Japan has been stable. There is political division in the United States, but I do not attribute that to the financial crisis or recession but rather to social divisions.
The essay is just not convincing.
likbez said...
"What strikes me, is that the political response to the short-lived international financial crisis but longer lived recession was quite restrained in developed countries"If you mean that the goal of the state is providing unconditional welfare for financial oligarchy (which actually is true for neoliberalism), then I would agree.
But if you use any common sense definition of "restrained" this is a joke. Instead of sending criminals to jail they were awarded with oversized bonuses.
I think the authors are way too late to the show. There is no much left of the New Deal anyway, so radicalization of the US society was a fait accompli long before crisis of 2008.
If you look at the Republican Party and, especially, Republican candidates, now it is not the question of radicalization, but the question of sanity that arises. They are so completely detached from reality that Marxists look like "hard core" realists in comparison with them.
The whole party looks like an extreme and bizarre cult that intends to take over the country: another analogy with Marxists. Like Marx quipped: History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
Democrats are not that different either. With Sanders representing probably the only candidates which can be classified as "center-left" in European terms. For all practical reasons Hillary is a center-right, if not far-right (and as for foreign policy agenda she is definitely far right) candidate.
So the key question is about sanity of the US society under neoliberalism, not some form of "radicalization".
|
|
|
November 16, 2015 | naked capitalism
RedHope November 16, 2015 at 3:20 amcrittermom November 16, 2015 at 6:34 amShe will say anything to win and not care about meaning bc she knows the Democratic base will accept anything.
If you read, at least anecdotally, about the responses of base voters, it seems to be similar to what the GOP does: brush off the discussion as boring, irrelevant, a conspiracy or some combo.
The Democratic base is solely focused on Denial, delusion and hating the Republicans. She will survive this and will likely win with people defending her bat shit extremism.
I completely agree with you in that she will say anything to win. Like a pinball, she will take to whatever side necessary to keep from falling into that hole of defeat.
But please, please let's not give any energy toward thoughts of her winning!
She showed her true colors during the debate, & I still wanna believedespite being continuously proven wrong, that most folks are smarter than that & were able to see through her. (Probably the only transparency in this current govt?)
oho, November 16, 2015 at 8:53 am
she knows the Democratic base will accept anything.
If you read, at least anecdotally, about the responses of base voters, it seems to be similar to what the GOP does: brush off the discussion as boring, irrelevant, a conspiracy or some combo.
just because the GOP 'accept anything' doesn't make it right if the 'good guys' are dogmatic too.
and my hunch is that right now everyone on in the Democratic Beltway is feeling smug cuz of the GOP clown car. But my gut is that in 2016 if HRC wins the nomination, HRC's load of manure is gonna stink a lot more than the GOP clown car's.
on election night I'll be sitting at home cheering on the makers of humble pie.
Crazy Horse, November 16, 2015 at 11:40 am
Come on people, what is the point of wasting energy and time talking about the two political parties participating in the charade that is called Democracy in the US? In reality there is only one political party - the Oligarch Fascist Party - and the National Election Circus is played out to keep people who mistake it for democracy divided and confused.
Hellary or Chump- do you really believe the choice of figurehead will change the machinery of permanent warfare or diversion of wealth to the favored few?
Malcolm MacLeod, MD , November 16, 2015 at 7:21 pm
Crazy Horse: You speak the unvarnished truth, which is always rather confusing in this day and age.
jgordon , November 16, 2015 at 4:29 am
Any serious analysis of the central drivers of the crisis necessarily lead you to the largest banks as the focal point for the interconnection and risk buildup.
Well if we're concerned about serious analysis it seems a bit odd that we aren't starting with the largest bank of all: the Federal Reserve. If not for the deliberate policy of the Fed to inflate the housing bubble in the early 2000s after the dotcom crash, certainly 2007/2008 wouldn't have been such a mess. Though admittedly government corruption (and for all intents and purposes the Fed is a government appendage) certainly played a part.
The main problem is that there are just way too many zombies and criminals infesting the financial system right now, and they are all being lovingly coddled by the Fed with ZIRP and QE. The only way to slay these undead legions is to end the ceaseless Fed-facilitated blood transfusions from the exhausted living to the dead parasites.
Well I suppose one could claim that its thanks to the zombies that our economy is able to function at all. But come on, is it really a good idea to live in a world ruled by zombies? They eat brains you know.
crittermom, November 16, 2015 at 6:01 am
Excellent article. I watched the debate. I found it very telling that when Wall St was mentioned, the only thing she could seem to equate to it was 9/11.
I found it disgusting that she even brought up 9/11 in an obvious attempt to steer the debate away from the corruption by 'her friends' on Wall St while trying to encourage the voters to give her a pat on the back for 'all she did' after 9/11. Pathetic, cheap, transparent tactic IMO.I found it sad, however, as mentioned in the article "Only when mentioned by a Twitter user later in the debate did the full recognition of the strangeness of that comment shine through." Far too many "trained seals" outside the convention center, as well?
IMO she "put the last nail in her coffin", so to speak, when she brought up AIG & Lehman, showing her ignorance to what really happened. (Or was she just "playing dumb" in an attempt to distance herself from her big contributors on Wall St?)
fresno dan, November 16, 2015 at 8:42 am
I agree. The tendentious quibbling about the definition of "banks" when everyone uses that as shorthand for "excessively large under regulated, corrupt, and stupid financial institutions who have completed co-opted the regulators and politicians who are suppose to oversee them and enforce the rules, regulations and laws" is just deflection from the real issue.
As Bernie said in response: NOT GOOD ENOUGH
dk, November 16, 2015 at 9:05 am
I think you underestimate "most" voters. Don't mistake them for the political media echo chamber that pretends to articulate their subconscious (via absurd polling). Except for the extremes, voters tend to be a taciturn bunch, it's true. One ends up having to pick from an imperfect selection, that's representative democracy; a fact of the circumstance, and voters know it. They play along, don't kid yourself that they actually like it that much.
Comforting stories play well for the comfortable, and when no other stories are being told. The wage disparity issue was almost non-existent in 2008 and got small play in 2012. The BLM narrative is in part a counter-shock to the (granted, naive) assumption that having a black president would have (or indicated) a significant impact on day-to-day racism. The street-level economy has kept sputtering for too many years for that to be passed off as "normal". Too many cats got out of the bag this time around.
Take a look here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-october-fec-filings/charts/In the last quarter, Hillary collected 5.19 mil from under-$200 donors, Bernie collected 20.19 mil. That's just shy of four times as much money, and arguably on the order of four times as many people. Whether Hillary is changing these people's minds at any appreciable rate remains to be seen, but this many people backing a Dem candidate in this way is a new thing (not so new for the Tea Party brand).
Not saying Bernie is a slam dunk by any means, but numerically, in dollars and voters, he can't be dismissed as an impossibility (see also, Corbyn). Political media hacks hate voters, they still can't predict them (and they know it too). Sometimes elections occur in a near vacuum of clear indicators and issues (2012), sometimes the indicators and issues are bigger than even a "big" candidate (2008, Obama would not have won without the financial collapse, which suppressed and fractured Rep voting).
Voters aren't smarter than anybody else, but they're not dumber either. What they are is shy (especially the Dems). But think of Bernie's small donor base as a bunch of wallflowers reacting to something they haven't seen before. That wasn't in anybody's narrative.
Ulysses, November 16, 2015 at 9:09 am
You provide a very astute description, of how the MSM Wurlitzer works to concoct narratives that disempower people. Yet I think that Chris Hedges is also on to something when he observes:
"The frustration, mounting across the country, is bringing with it a new radicalism."
http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/pray_with_your_feet_20151115
We teeter on a knife's edge, close to societal collapse. My hope is that we will shake off our chains and begin to replace systematic oppression and exploitation with a more humane society. My fear is that the people, who currently benefit from the status quo, will go full-bore totalitarian/repressive in a desperate attempt to cling to their ill-gotten wealth and power.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 12:00 pm
I'm afraid that the impetus is more towards the latter than the former. The PTB haven't spent decades/centuries brainwashing the masses to be good little authoritarians wanting Big Daddy/Momma to "take care" of them for nothing.
Dino Reno, November 16, 2015 at 8:18 am
Yeah, that 9/11 rift was bad, but the "60% of my contributors are women" was worse. I'd love to see this claim fact checked. What a tidy number. Not too big to make her campaign a women's movement, but big enough to throw the guys off their game and make her nomination a foregone conclusion. Meanwhile, corporations make up probably 90% of her actual contributions.
JaaaaayCeeeee, November 16, 2015 at 11:52 am
WaPo fact checked Hillary Clinton's claim that most of her donors are small donors. Only 17% donated less than $200 (she did donation drives asking for a dollar even to get to 17% and most of her donations from women were big donations, too):
Code Name D, November 16, 2015 at 12:41 pm
So corporations have genders now?
nigelk, November 16, 2015 at 1:49 pm
We had one neoliberal Trojan horse get elected twice and if you questioned his policies you were at best a "bad Democrat" and at worst some version of racist why not try it again? Anyone who questions her bought-and-paid for corruption will be painted as a card-carrying member of the he-man woman-haters club.
Some of us, however, just dislike her since she's an enemy of the working class: http://mattbruenig.com/2015/11/06/my-beef-with-hillary-is-mainly-that-she-is-an-enemy-of-the-poor/
Pat, November 16, 2015 at 9:47 am
Vatch November 16, 2015 at 10:10 amI agree that the remark was cynical and false and typical of Clinton's disdain for both facts and the intelligence of the voters. (And knowledgable in that she knew she would not get fact checked on this in any manner that would make her look like Ben Carson talking about pyramids.) I truly do not think it is as important as you do, as she had already lost that battle.
The people know the great never ending bank bailout of 2008 did not translate to bailing out the economy. There are still foreclosed homes in neighborhoods across America rotting. If they didn't lose a job and are still looking for a decent one they have a parent, a kid, another family member, or multiple friends who are still un or underemployed. They know their bills are going up but their paychecks aren't. And they get to hear about Jamie Dimon becoming a billionaire. They may not know which bank he heads, but they know a whole lot of those billions came from their taxes while they are still struggling. None of this may get into the details of what happened or what went wrong, but they know they got taken. And her response tells them she would take them again. The only people who don't hear that, are the ones who think 60% of my donations are from women makes Clinton a feminist and tribal loyalists. You know the Democratic equivalent of the Bush supporters who never wavered.
Trying to understand the ins and outs of the financial industry shenanigans is deep, dense, and takes way too much time for most folk. I happened to be out on workmen's comp when it went down. This is not my area, I read and read and read and got deeply angry. I still don't understand it all, and I have more facts at my fingertips then probably at least 75% of the population. My point on this, is that sometimes you don't need to know the details to smell the bullshit. And it reeked of manure.
Today is November 16, which is a deadline for the Clinton Foundation to refile some documents, according to this article to which Water Cooler linked on Oct. 28:
https://100r.org/2015/10/clinton-foundation-faces-revisions-and-possible-reckoning/
Here's an article published today about this, although nothing has been resolved yet:
Still, the Clintons have not defined how they decide to designate their speaking fees as income versus charity work. Earlier this year, the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation admitted collecting $26.4 million in previously unreported speaking fees from foreign governments and foreign and U.S. corporations. For tax purposes, who should be treated as the recipient of that money? It is not a silly question.
Jerry Denim, November 16, 2015 at 11:46 am
I couldn't believe my eyes and ears during the debate when Sanders impugned Clinton's integrity for taking Wall Street super PAC money and she seemed to successfully deflect the accusation by going full-bore star-spangled sparkle eagle. She played the vagina card then quickly blurted out "9/11 New York" for applause while attempting conflate aiding and abetting Wall Street with the 9/11 attacks and patriotism. I couldn't believe people were clapping and I couldn't believe Clinton had the audacity to pull such a illogical and juvenile stunt on live television, but yet CBS reported her highest approval scores of the debate were registered during her confusing but emotionally rousing (for some people apparently) "vagina, 9/11" defense.
I loved that Bernie Sanders was willing to drop the "F-bomb" (fraud) on Wall Street but he needs to swing much harder at Clinton. Clinton was quick to zing O'Malley as a hypocrite by noting he appointed a former hedge-fund manager to some state regulatory position when given the chance, but yet neither Sanders or O'Malley hit back with the fact that her only child and Clinton Foundation board member, Chelsea Clinton, worked for the hedge fund of a Clinton family pal and mega-donor in 2006. Neither candidate mentioned that her son-in-law and the father of her grandchild who she is so fond of mentioning, just so happens to be an extremely rich hedge fund manager who benefits handsomely from the Clinton's political connections and prestige. This isn't mud, this is extremely germane, factual material already on the public record. It gets to the core of who Hillary is and where her loyalties lie. Hillary herself chose to identify unregulated derivatives and the repeal of Glass-Steagall as the primary causes of the financial crisis. She either claimed directly or insinuated that she would address these issues as President, but surprisingly no one pointed out that it was her husband's administration that blocked Brooksley Born from regulating derivatives in the 1990's and it was her husband's administration that effectively repealed Glass-Steagal with the signing of Gramm-Leach-Billey act in 1999. It's not a stretch to say the Clinton's deregulation of Wall Street paved the way for the crisis of 2008 and the extreme income inequality of today. Wall Street is deeply unpopular and Bernie Sanders has built a candidacy on two main issues: attacking Wall Street and addressing income inequality. These are punches he can't afford not to throw at his rival when she holds a commanding lead in the polls plus the support of the DNC and media establishment. Clinton is deeply corrupt and beholden to Wall Street. She needs to be beaten with this stick hard and often. Attempting to deflect this very accurate, very damaging criticism by wrapping herself in the flag and invoking feminism is a cheap stunt that will only work so many times before people notice what she is doing. Bernie needs to swing harder and keep at it, he already has the right message and Clinton is highly vulnerable on his pet topics.
I thought O'Malley had one of the best lines of the night when he said "I think it may be time for us to quit taking advice from economists" but it seemed to go mostly unnoticed and unappreciated. I would have loved a frontal assault on the validity and integrity of economists when the bespectacled lady in blue attempted to nail down Sanders with a 'gotcha' question implying raising the minimum wage would be catastrophic for the economy because "such-and-such economist" said so. There is so much disdain for science and academic credentials in the heartland right now, it seems crazy not to harness this anti-academic populist energy and redirect it to a deserving target like neo-liberal economists instead of climate scientists. " How's that Laffer curve working out for ya Iowa? Are you feeling the prosperity 'trickle down' yet?" Sanders did a relatively good job of deflecting and not getting zinged by the 'gotcha' question but a full-frontal assault would have been much better. Stronger, more Presidential and with the added bonus of giving neo-liberal economists under the pay of plutocrats a black eye. Another missed opportunity. The questioner set it up perfectly for him. I would have loved to see the expression on her corn-fed face when Bernie turned her 'gotcha' question that she had spent so much time and thought crafting into the home-run answer of the evening. Perhaps it could happen in a debate in the near future.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 11:58 am
I think what happened there is that Bernie is showing his true colors, unfortunately. While I'm more than OK with Bernie's attitude towards Benghazi & the emails, he really does not confront HRC on her egregious attitudes towards unfettered War, Inc, and most esp not on Wall St and the Banks.
I have no serious expectations of Sanders, however, and never did.
Jerry Denim, November 16, 2015 at 12:15 pm
Perhaps you are correct but Sanders did say Wall Street's business model is greed and fraud. Strong language for a Presidential candidate and unmistakably clear terms. When it comes to attacking Clinton I feel like something is holding Sanders back. Maybe it's his campaign advisors because he's been told his anger scares voters and people don't like negative attacks. Maybe the DNC and Clinton are holding some threat over his head regarding ballot access, debate cancellation or some other punishment if he doesn't play by certain rules. Perhaps he's been warned certain topics are off limits during debates. Seems fishy to me, but maybe it's just as simple as you say.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 1:27 pm
Yes, Sanders has been outspoken about Wall St, greed, fraud and tightening up regulations, etc. That's why it's disappointing and beyond annoying when he clams up vis Clinton and her relationship with and money from Wall St.
The GOP engages in phony baloney food fights much to the tingling excitement of their base. I'd like to see some REAL debate from the Dems. Not just make nice phony baloney bullshit.
Again, I've never expected Sanders to be anything more than someone who'll sound populist and then tell his followers to vote for Clinton as he's already SAID anyway.
We're told allegedly that "poll after poll" shows Clinton in a double digit lead. I really question that, as well, but clearly no one's showing me the factual data. It is what is. HRC is the anointed one, so get used to it.
To me, Sanders is just window dressing & a distraction, even though, clearly, he's the pick of "both" (or the combined, if you will) litters. Whatever
JerryDenim, November 16, 2015 at 2:51 pm
"Again, I've never expected Sanders to be anything more than someone who'll sound populist and then tell his followers to vote for Clinton as he's already SAID anyway"
Yeah maybe, but I believe that was the price of admission to the Clinton / Wasserman-Shultz ball for a life-long socialist who sometimes caucuses with Democrats. The more damage Sanders inflicts on Clinton in the primaries the less sincere and effective any possible Sanders endorsement of Clinton will be later. I too share your distrust of polls and given that distrust it's hard for me to write off a guy who has had every disadvantage in his Presidential bid but is still polling pretty darn well against a extremely well-known political juggernaut early in the primary season.
Sanders has the right message, the right record and popular support on his side in a year when people are fed-up with the entire Washington establishment and sick of pedigreed, legacy politicians like Clinton. Look at how poorly Bush has fared so far against outsider, blow-hard Donald Trump and unknown-nobody Ben Carson. Even conservatives are sick of dynasties.
If there's ever been a moment when Bernie Sanders could win the nomination this is it. If you really think Sanders is the "pick of liter" as you say perhaps you could stop calling him things like "window dressing" and "a distraction". While it may protect your feelings from future disappointment to speak confidently of Clinton as the inevitable nominee it clearly helps her campaign objectives, so . maybe just try tempering your cynicism just a wee bit unless you are out to help Hillary win the nomination. If you are out to help Hillary then carry on, you're doing a fine job of tarring and feathering Sanders as a loser on behalf of her campaign.
3.14e-9, November 16, 2015 at 2:53 pm
Bernie's campaign never in a million years thought he would get this far. In the beginning, it was calculated to draw attention to income inequality, big money in politics, and other issues that likely would get ignored if the coronation went ahead unopposed. Within that context, it would have been very easy for him to promise the few votes he thought he would get to Clinton.
I have a feeling that his campaign is regretting he ever said that as much as we are. He has a huge number of supporters who, like jgordon above, would write in "Dog Turd" before voting for Hillary (although I don't know why we couldn't write in Bernie). These people are going to be extremely angry if he throws his support behind her, and they have demonstrated well already that they are very vocal. I've commented on NC before that I think there will be hell to pay if and when that happens.
I also suspect that the DNC didn't make a big fuss about his running as a Democrat because no one there thought he'd get this far, either, and they probably thought he would be useful. For all we know, he agreed to that. And then, suddenly, all the unexpected crowds.
Sanders is the ranking minority member on the Senate Budget Committee, which means he definitely could challenge Clinton on economic issues, and competently. So I agree that something has to be holding him back. Yet another consideration is that he might be keeping the most damaging counts against her until later in the campaign. If he showed his hand now, the Clinton machine would kick into gear overtime, get her off the hook, and drag him down into the mud.
Cassandra, November 16, 2015 at 4:10 pm
No need to think of conspiracies, etc. As you point out, Sanders is a senator. He never expected to get this far. He won't win the nomination. He has to think of his post-2016 career. If he goes after Clinton hammer and tongs, he will be (more of) a pariah in the Senate, effectively ruining any chance for him to accomplish anything. As he said in the debate, the VA bill wasn't all he wanted, but it was something. Many think incrementalism is a fool's game, but I believe Sanders is willing to fight for crumbs.
Lambert Strether, November 16, 2015 at 4:14 pm
I think Sanders did pretty well, especially considering the primaries haven't started. He pushed Clinton into two horrible responses, at least: (1) 9/11 and Wall Street and (2) Sanders single payer vs. ObamaCare. Both will be gifts that keep on giving. My thought would is that the opportunity cost of spending a lot of time reverse engineering whatever number of dimensions of chess Sanders is playing failing to use the very powerful ammo he gave - both of which are about policy.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 4:17 pm
I'm willing to be wrong about Sanders, and in fact, hope I am. Time will tell. I agree that he's done better than the odds called for. Willing to listen to him but wish he'd speak up more about HRC's bs. But he is a politician after all and is playing a long game.
3.14e-9, November 16, 2015 at 6:14 pm
Well, he has to be very careful about that. Clinton's people immediately jump on the least bit of truth from Sanders as "negative campaigning" and then call up their friends in the MSM to back them up:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/05/clinton-campaign-fires-back-at-bernie-/bernie_sanders.
Anyway, thanks for being open.
Jim Haygood, November 16, 2015 at 12:10 pm
'AIG's largest counter-party was Goldman Sachs.'
Thus, the Federal Reserve's "Sunday night special" waiver of the 30-day application period for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to become bank holding companies, and to get their sticky mitts (or tentacles, as the case may be) into "free money" at the discount window. News story from 22 Sep 2008:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26828495
Having essentially zero consumer deposit-taking business, then or now, these two investment banks resemble ordinary commercial banks like mangy wolves dressed in ill-fitting sheep costumes.
Investment banking is a high-risk, high-reward business with some of the most highly compensated employees in the country. Subsidizing GS and MS with Federal Reserve free money is a rank disgrace. It vexeth me greatly, comrades. But changing it is not even on the menu.
TimmyB, November 16, 2015 at 12:35 pm
What really hasn't been discussed is Sander's motivation for breaking up too big to fail financial institutions. Sanders on his website states he wants to break them up because they have too much economic and political power. Sanders says that breaking them up, in and by itself, will provide a benefit.
So when Clinton starts discussing how her plan will be more effective in preventing another financial collapse, she has changed the subject from how breaking up our banks will benefit our democratcy to whether or not breaking them up will prevent another 2008 crisis.
What Sanders needs to do is bring the discussion on breaking up TBTF banks back around to their having too much economic and political power. For example, he could say he wants to break them up because they have too much power and that Clinton want them to continue to hold that power. Clinton has no real response to that claim.
Michael, November 17, 2015 at 11:44 am
Bernie is not running to win. I'm not sure why he is running. If he does not start to hit Hillary then I think it is primarily to keep the left wing of the Democratic Party inside the party instead of seeking a new home elsewhere. The Justice Party is interesting but a third party has no chance unless the Democrats implode.
Honestly I can see the Democrats collapsing before the Republicans. The South and Midwest are just batshit crazy and they'll stick with the Republicans as long as the evangelicals dominate their culture. Does anyone here know anything about previous "great awakenings" in American culture?
MojaveWolf , November 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
For all her vomit-inducing disingenuousness about how she would be the toughest on the financial industry as a whole (really, how does she say that with a straight face?), and her basically sounding like a smarter, saner business as usual neocon on the middle east, I thought her worst moment by far was when she tried to describe single payer as "dismantling" Medicare, Medicaid, etc and letting Republican administrations decide who gets health care, and playing up that the ACA as better and more comprehensive. She is not stupid. She is one of the smartest people in politics from a pure short term IQ standpoint. And she has studied and once advocated for single payer so she KNOWS what it does. Think about this for a minute.
Hillary KNOWS single payer EXPANDS on what Medicaid and Medicare provide.
Hillary KNOWS Bernie's single payer plan would not allow states to opt out, unlike the ACA she is touting, while she was claiming the exact opposite. She knowingly bald-faced lied on national TV & radio (I was driving and listening, not watching) in a way to equal anything Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell or Newt Gingrich ever did, and she lied about a matter she KNOWS will result in millions of people NOT getting adequate medical care with ripple effects ranging from constant illness and misery to job performance to not seeking treatment until emergency to actual death. People can't pay 3k or 5k deductibles. We already have news reports of people not going for this reason. We paid the penalty on our taxes last year because the only affordable plans that were actually usable required us to make a 2 hr one way drive (over 90% hwy, this is a long way) to the closest hospital/doctor that was included in it. One of my acquaintances who is covered took a taxi to what was supposedly the only local doctor who took her plan (after calling everyone in town), waited over an hr, and was told that whoever she spoke to on the phone made a mistake and she is not covered, and they have no idea where she should go, plus she's out the time and a r/t taxi ride. You think Hillary hasn't studied this and doesn't know things like this happen? You think she doesn't know Bernie's single payer plan (and probably all single payer plans) wouldn't prevent these sorts of situations?
She KNOWS we could cut out the insurance companies, have free single payer, pay for it by taxing the most well off, and people on the whole would get much better service, with much better outcomes, and without having to freak out if the ambulance took them to a hospital outside of their plan or a visiting specialist at the hospital their plan said go to was outside the plan and billed them five or six figures or what have.
But she clearly doesn't care. She just cares about people donating money to her campaign and getting elected as a resume stuffer. She doesn't want to change how things are done more than minor tinkering, even when she KNOWS the changes will make everything better off. She will be the same on climate change, even tho she isn't stupid and knows both what we are doing now and what she is recommending are leading us to a planet of the jellyfish in the long run and a state of neverending crises and mass extinction in the short and medium run.
(I am not saying she knows the misery her foreign policy position has and will cause because I actually fear she might believe in what she's saying there; tho whether she believes it or not she clearly intends to continue the same policies that have led us to destabilize the middle east and are starting to destabilize the entire world; the only reason I'm not thinking this is her worst moment is because she was more hinting at than saying things, and I'm less sure of her actual positions)
She is willing to sacrifice millions of lives to get herself elected and continue enriching her already rich family who doesn't need any more money. She is, basically, a Republican on everything but social issues (yes, these matter, and good for her, tho past cowardly statements on abortion and votes on marriage equality should not be disregarded when compared with her opponents).
i guess people think nothing of this, just as they think nothing of her lies on regulating the financial industry, because they think that sort of flat out lie and distortion is just politics as usual, and more important to be good at lying than good on substance?
And that is why really do need a political revolution. Almost all of the current political class, including the political media, really need to go.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 1:37 pm
AKA, there's very little difference bet HRC and whomever barking lunatic the GOP coughs up other than HRC isn't such a barking lunatic. She's just mired in pure unfettered greed and imperialistic hubris.
Actually the GOP should be kissing the ground that HRC walks on bc she's probably the biggest War Hawk in the whole amalgamated group, and she's way more for BigIns getting their hugely giant sucking cut out of "health" insurance scams than almost any other candidate.
The GOP puts on a dog 'n pony show constantly wasting time and all taxpayer money on voting against ACA. They do that bc they know their phony baloney bills will never ever pass. The GOP doesn't want ACA to ever go away bc the politicians are getting rich rich rich off of it as much as the Dems are. They just have to play a Kabuki show to appease their utterly stupid base.
Such a waste of time all of this is. Such a monumental waste of money. ugh.
nothing will change. authoritarian USians like Big Daddy/Mommy too much to let ever let go of this system.
Vatch, November 16, 2015 at 3:33 pm
There are at least two advantages to breaking up the giant banks:
1. If one of the fragments gets into financial trouble, we won't have to fear a complete economic collapse.
2. Sure, the owners of the banks will continue to own as much as before (and some of their stock might even rise in value). But the CEOs of the big banks will lose influence, because they will suddenly be the bosses of much smaller corporations. Currently, people like Jamie Dimon have far too much power.
Bob Stapp, November 16, 2015 at 2:17 pm
I'm at a complete loss to understand why Dems, the media, and in fact anyone with two brain cells to rub together, can fail to see or acknowledge that HRC is a liar, a crook, and a generally mean-spirited individual who's only in it for herself and will do and say anything and accept money from anyone as long as it helps her to win.
Sadly, the only difference between Hillary and Obama, is that Barack is a better shape-shifter and, when he lies, he can do so with greater eloquence and charm. Hillary can never manage to completely hide her forked tongue and her poisonous lizard personality.
Our country and, in fact, the entire world is at a crossroads and yet there has never been such a lack of selfless, skilled leadership stepping up to help us get to some version of the common good. Meanwhile, Bernie Saunders and Jeremy Corbyn get pilloried daily for even suggesting that we are all in this together and had better get to fixing things right quick. I guess it's the fate of truth-tellers.
I plan to attend my state's caucus and when I say that if we insist on pursuing the political process as we have always done, we are condemning ourselves to disaster. Going out and working for a person, a personality, or a hoped-for savior, is merely repeating the same kind of insanity that has produced the rotten system we have today. Bernie's right. It's going to take all of us standing up together, not to get Bernie or anybody else elected, but for what we know is right. And we'd better do it soon. Then, when I'm shut down by the party operatives, I'll go home and continue to watch the slow-motion train-wreck.
Lambert Strether, November 16, 2015 at 3:21 pm
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'bank' is."
cassandra, November 16, 2015 at 7:11 pm
After Obama's behavior, and the documentation of Gilens & Page, can anyone believe that campaign speeches have anything to do with post-electoral policies? The nomination process is beyond dysfunctional: everyone knows Hillarity's positions are synthetic, yet she successfully campaigns with the grossest political impunity and she is taken seriously enough for analysis. I don't understand why. The only political power remaining to democracy is resistance, either by voting for a third party, or else by total abstinence. I personally prefer the former, as it's a bit harder to sweep under the media carpet. This keeps me outside the grasp of helplessness.
Telee, November 16, 2015 at 7:38 pm
The refusal of HRC to be for reinstating Glass-Steagall to separate investment banks and commercial banks is a sure sign that she will be a lap dog for the fraudsters on Wall Street. More of the same or worse.
Another point. My readings has lead me to believe that she played a large role in the destabilization o Libya. In her 11 hours before the Benghazi committee she was never asked why she was so hell-bent for a military solution when there were negotiations which would have led to a more peaceful solution.
1 kings, November 16, 2015 at 9:39 pm
"We came, we saw, he died". HRC
aliteralmind, November 16, 2015 at 10:21 pm
Family Guy *exactly* predicted Hillary's 9/11 tragedy-distraction strategy way back in 2008: Life imitating art: http://youtu.be/Rm3d43HLyTI
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Last month, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard went on CNN and laid bare Washington's Syria strategy.In a remarkably candid interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gabbard calls Washington's effort to oust Assad "counterproductive" and "illegal" before taking it a step further and accusing the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "sworn enemies."
In short, Gabbard all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."
For those who missed it, here's the clip:
|
|
|
jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
"The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power as well. Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them.People are discouraged and disillusioned after almost thirty years of distorted governance, specially in the aftermath of the 'Hope and Change' which quickly became 'Vain Hope for Change.' Most cannot admit that their guys were in the pockets of Big Defense, Big Pharma, Big Energy, and Wall Street.Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery, rape, and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
Tacitus, Agricola
The real question about Hillary comes down to this. Can you trust her to do what she says she will do, the right things for her putative constituents and not her big money donors and paymasters, once she takes office?
Or will that poor family who left the White House 'broke' and then mysteriously obtained a fortune of over $100 million in the following years, thanks to enormous payments for 'speeches' from large financial firms and huge donations to their Trust once again take care of the hand that pays them the most?
This is not to say that there is a better alternative amongst the leading Republican candidates, who have been and are still under the same types of payment arrangements, only with different people signing the checks.
Or we could skip the middlemen entirely and just directly elect one of New York's most prominent of their narcissist class directly, instead of another witless stooge of big money, and hope for something different? And how will that likely work out for us?
It is an exceptionally hard time to be a human being in this great nation of ours.
And so what ought we to do? Wallow in cynicism and the sweet sickness of misanthropy and despair? Vote strictly on the hope of our own narrow self-interest no matter the broader and longer term consequences, and then face the inevitable blowback from injustice and repression?
Give up on our grandchildren and children because we are too tired and interested in our own short term comfort? Too filled with selfishness, anger and hate to see straight, and do anything but turn ourselves into mindless animals to escape the pain of being truly human? Do no thinking, and just follow orders? This latter impulse has taken whole nations of desperate people into the abyss.
Or do we stop wallowing in our specialness and self-pity, and 'stand on the shoulders of giants' and confront what virtually every generation and every individual has had to wrestle with since the beginning of recorded time?
Do we fall, finally stricken with grief in our blindness, on the road to Damascus and say at long last, 'Lord, what then wilt thou have me to do?'
This is the question that circumstance is posing to us. And hopefully we will we heed the answer that has been already given, to be 'steadfast, unshaken, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in Him our labor is not in vain.'
And the touchstone of the alloy of our actions is love.
And so we have before us what Franklin Roosevelt so aptly characterized as our own 'rendezvous with destiny.'
Related:
Wall Street Is Running the World's Central Banks
Wall Street's Favorite Presidential Candidates
|
|
|
10/21/15 | Observer
A lesson from Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on scientific method and the value of newsScience, circa 1955 (Photo: Orlando /Three Lions/Getty Images)
Our biggest challenge in journalism is not ad blockers or declining print circulation or Silicon Valley. It is value. What are we worth to the public we serve? Are we reliable? Trustworthy? Useful? We are not as liked as we would like to believe.
Last week, I had the fun privilege of interviewing Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson-astrophysicist, podcaster, tweeter, TV star, and debunker of stupidity-when he received the Knight Innovation Award at CUNY's Graduate School of Journalism.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/SJbhl_OO-nk
As I wrote in these pages recently, we decided to give the award to Mr. Tyson precisely because he is not a journalist, because he brings explanation, fact, and discipline to the process of informing and educating the public. We saw him as an example to journalists as they innovate in their own craft.
... ... ...
That goal-an informed society-does not mesh with our methods, business models, and metrics. So long as we earn our money attracting as many people as possible to our content, then wholesaling their eyeballs by the ton to advertisers, then we are motivated to grab attention with stories and headlines that report just the latest, not necessarily the preponderance, of facts relating to any given question or dispute. We measure our success on the basis of how much audience attention we grabbed, not by measuring how much we informed and educated the public-not in our impact, our utility, our value.
We must shift our business toward value, toward proving our worth in people's lives. We must measure our success on whether the public ends up better informed through our efforts-not whether they merely gave us their attention and certainly not when they only calcify their previously held and uninformed beliefs. We in journalism-like Mr. Tyson-need to act and judge ourselves more as scientists trafficking in evidence and as educators making impact. Or else, why bother?
|
|
|
www.nakedcapitalism.com
Mussolini-Style Corporatism, aka Fascism, on the Rise in the US naked capitalism
Uahsenaa, November 3, 2015 at 11:26 am
I want to expand on the point about feudalism, since it's even more apt than the article lets on. It was not "rule by the rich," which implies an oligarchic class whose members are more or less free agents in cahoots with one another. Rather, feudalism is a hierarchical system of distributed administration. A king is nominally in charge or "owns" a kingdom, but he has lords who administer its first primary division, the fiefdom. Lords in turn have vassals, who administer further subdivisions or, in the cases of smaller fiefs, different aspects of governance. Vassals may have their own captains and middle managers, typically knights but also clerks and priests, who in turn employ apprentices/novices/pages who train under them so as to one day move up to middle management. If this is starting to resemble modern corporate structure, then bonus points to you.
This means feudalism found a way to render complicit in a larger system of administration people who had no direct and often no real stake in the produce of its mass mobilization of labor. Anyone in a position of vassalage was dependent upon the largess of his immediate patron/lord/whatever for both his status and nominal wealth. The lowest rungs of the administrative ladder were responsible for keeping the peasants, the pool of labor, in line either through force or through the very same system of dependence upon largess that frames the lord/vassal relationship. Occasionally, the peasants recognize that no one is below them in this pyramid scheme, and so they revolt, but for the most part they were resigned to the status quo, because there seemed to be no locus of power to topple. Sure, you could overthrow the king, but that would do nothing to deter the power of the lords. You could overthrow your local lord, but the king could just install a new one.
Transpose to the modern day. A CEO may resign in disgrace over some scandal, but that does little to challenge the underlings who carried out his orders. You might get your terrible boss fired for his tendency to sexually harass anyone who walks in the door, but what's to stop the regional manager from hiring someone who works you to the bone. Sometimes the peaserr, employees revolt and form a union, but we all know what means have been employed over the years to do away with that.
tl;dr Feudalism: it's about the structure, not the classes
Lambert Strether, November 3, 2015 at 2:19 pmHmm. I don't think a serf can be a vassal. The vassals sound a lot like the 20%. The serfs would be the 80%. I'm guessing class is alive and well.
James Levy, November 3, 2015 at 2:38 pm
You wouldn't be a vassal (that was a very small percentage of the population) but you could have ties of patronage with the people above you, and in fact that was critical to all societies until the Victorians made nepotism a bad word and the ethic of meritocracy (however bastardized today) took shape. If you wanted your physical labor obligation converted into a money payment so you could spend more time and effort on your own holding, or you needed help in tough times, or the 99 year lease on your leasehold was coming due, or you wanted to get your son into the local priory, etc. you needed a friend or friends in higher places. The granting or refusal of favors counted for everything, and kept many on the straight and narrow, actively or passively supporting the system as it was.
Uahsenaa, November 3, 2015 at 2:39 pm
It's not that peasants can be vassals in the overall order so much as they are in the subject position, but without the attendant capacity to then lord it over someone beneath them. Lord/vassal in feudalism are also generic terms to describe members of a fixed relationship of patronage. It's confusing, because those terms are also used for levels of the overall hierarchy.
The true outliers here are the contemporaneous merchants, craftsmen, and freeholders (yeomen) who are necessary for things to run properly but are not satisfactorily accounted for by the overall system of governance, in part because it was land based. Merchants and craftsmen in particular tended not to be tied to any one place, since their services were often needed all over and only for limited periods of time. The primary administrative apparatus for craftsmen were the guilds. Merchants fell into any number of systems of organization and often into none at all, thus, according to the old Marxist genealogy, capitalism overthrows feudalism.
Peasants may have had something like a class consciousness on occasion, but I'm not entirely convinced it's useful to think of them in that way. In Japan, for instance, peasants were of a much higher social status than merchants and craftsmen, technically, yet their lives were substantially more miserable by any modern economic measure.
visitor, November 3, 2015 at 4:01 pm
I think that the article gets it seriously wrong about feudalism - an example of what Yves calls "stripping words of their meaning".
First of all, feudalism was actually an invention of an older, powerful, even more hierarchical organization: the Catholic Church.
The Church realized early on that imposing its ideal of a theocratic State ("city of God") led by the Pope upon the strong-headed barbarian chiefs (Lombards, Franks, Wisigoths and others) that set up various kingdoms in Europe was impossible.
Hence the second best approach, feudalism: a double hierarchy (worldly and spiritual). The populations of Europe were subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation, judicial and other economic powers (such as the right to determine when and for whom to work).
Second, there was a class of wealthy people which did not quite fit in the feudal hierarchy - in particular, they had no vassals, nor, despite their wealth, any fiefdom: merchants, financiers, the emerging burger class in cities. They were the ones actually lending money to feudal lords.
Third, the problem for underlings was never to overthrow the king (this was a hobby for princely families), and extremely rarely the local lord (which inevitably brought the full brunt of the feudal hierarchy to bear on the seditious populace).
Historically, what cities and rural communities struggled for was to be placed directly under the authority of the king or (Holy Roman Germanic) emperor. This entailed the rights to self-administration, freedom from most egregious taxes and corvιes from feudal seigneurs, recognition of local laws and customs, and the possibility to render justice without deferring to local lords.
The king/emperor was happy to receive taxes directly from the city/community without them seeping away in the pockets of members of the inextricable feudal hierarchy; he would from time to time require troops for his host, hence reducing the dependency on troops from his vassal lords; and he would rarely be called to intervene in major legal disputes. Overall, he was way too busy to have time micromanaging those who swore direct allegiance to him - which was exactly what Basque communities, German towns and Swiss peasants wanted.
Therefore, an equivalence between feudalism and the current organizational make-up of society dominated by for-profit entities does not make sense.
Lambert Strether, November 3, 2015 at 4:11 pm
"the problem for underlings was never to overthrow the King"
Not even in the peasant revolts?
visitor, November 3, 2015 at 5:15 pm
If you look at this list, it appears that they were revolts directed against the local nobility (or church) because of its exorbitant taxation, oppressive judiciary, rampaging mercenaries and incompetent leadership in war against foreign invasions.
The French Jacquerie took place when there was no king - he had been taken prisoner by the English and the populace blamed the nobility for the military defeats and the massive tax increases that ensued.
During the Spanish Guerra de los Remensas, the revolted peasants actually appealed to the king and he in turn allied with them to fight the nobles.
During the Budai Nagy Antal revolt, the peasants actually asked the Hungarian king to arbitrate.
In other cases, even when the king/emperor/sultan ultimately intervened to squash the revolt, the insurrection was directed against some local elite.
Peasants revolts in 16th century Scandinavia were against the king's rule, but they were linked to reformation and took place when feudalism was on the wane and the evolution towards a centralized monarchical state well advanced.
Apparently, only the John and William Merfold's revolt explicitly called for the overthrow of the English king.
Jim Haygood, November 3, 2015 at 4:51 pm
'The populations of Europe were subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation, judicial and other economic powers (such as the right to determine when and for whom to work).'
Just as Americans are subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation and judicial powers, the states and the fedgov.
Before 1914, federal criminal laws were few, and direct federal income taxation of individuals was nonexistent. Today one needs federal authorization (E-verify) to get a job.
Now that the Fifth Amendment prohibition on double jeopardy has been interpreted away, notorious defendants face both federal and state prosecution. Thus the reason why America has the world's largest Gulag, with its slam-dunk conviction machine.
Uahsenaa, November 3, 2015 at 4:58 pmExcept, first off, there were non-Christian societies that made use of the system of warrior vassalage, and the manorial system that undergirded feudal distribution of land and resources, as least as far as Bloch is concerned, is a fairly clear outgrowth of the Roman villa system of the late empire. Insofar as the Late Roman empire was nominallyvery nominallyChristian, I suppose your point stands, but according to Bloch, the earliest manorial structures were the result of the dissolution of the larger, older empire into smaller pieces, many of which were beyond meaningful administrative control by Rome itself. Second, bishoprics and monasteries, the primary land holdings of the clergy, were of the same order as manors, so they fit within the overall feudal system, not parallel to it.
If Bloch is not right about this, I'm open to reading other sources, but that's what my understanding was based on. Moreover, the basic system of patronage and fealty that made the manor economy function certainly seems to have survived the historical phenomenon we call feudalism, and that parallel was what I was trying to draw attention to. Lord/vassal relationships are fundamentally contractual, not just quid pro quo but organized around favors and reputation, and maybe the analogy is a bit strained, but it does point to the ways in which modern white collar work especially is about more than fixed pay for a fixed sum of labor output.
Thure Meyer, November 4, 2015 at 7:30 am
Isn't this rather off-topic?
This is not a discussion about the true and correct history of European feudalism or whether or not it applies to the situation at hand, but a dialogue about Global fascism and how it expresses itself in this Nation.
HarrySnapperOrgans, November 4, 2015 at 4:46 am
I suspect that the similarity of medeavil fuedalism with the relationship between a large modern corporation and its employees is not properly appreciated because the latter, unlike the former, does not necessarily include direct control over living conditions (housing, land, rent), even though in the end there may be a similar degree of effective servitude (lack of mobility and alternatives, and so effective entrapment at low wages) .
|
|
|
November 3, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. Confucius
One of the distressing things about politics in the US is the way words have either been stripped of their meaning or become so contested as to undermine the ability to communicate and analyze. It's hard to get to a conversation when you and your interlocutors don't have the same understanding of basic terms.
And that is no accident. The muddying of meaning is a neo-Orwellian device to influence perceptions by redefining core concepts. And a major vector has been by targeting narrow interest groups on their hot-button topics. Thus, if you are an evangelical or otherwise strongly opposed to women having reproductive control, anyone who favors womens' rights in this area is in your vein of thinking, to the left of you, hence a "liberal". Allowing the Overton Window to be framed around pet interests, as opposed to a view of what societal norms are, has allowed for the media to depict the center of the political spectrum as being well to the right of where it actually is as measured by decades of polling, particularly on economic issues.
Another way of limiting discourse is to relegate certain terms or ideas to what Daniel Hallin called the "sphere of deviance." Thus, until roughly two years ago, calling an idea "Marxist" in the US was tantamount to deeming it to be the political equivalent of taboo. That shows how powerful the long shadow of the Communist purges of the McCarthy era were, more than a generation after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Similarly, even as authoritarianism is rapidly rising in the US and citizens are losing their rights (see a reminder from last weekend, a major New York Times story on how widespread use of arbitration clauses is stripping citizens of access to the court system*), one runs the risk of having one's hair on fire if one dares suggest that America is moving in a fascist, or perhaps more accurately, a Mussolini-style corporatist direction. Yet we used that very expression, "Mussolini-style corporatism," to describe the the post-crisis bank bailouts. Former chief economist of the IMF, Simon Johnson, was more stark in his choice of terms, famously calling the rescues a "quiet coup" by financial oligarchs.
Now admittedly, the new neoliberal economic order is not a replay of fascism, so there is reason not to apply the "f" word wholesale. Nevertheless, there is a remarkable amount of inhibition in calling out the similarities where they exist. For instance, the article by Thom Hartmann below, which we've reposted from Alternet, is bold enough to use the "fascist" word in the opening paragraph (but not the headline!). But it then retreats from making a hard-headed analysis by focusing on warnings about the risks of fascism in America from the 1940s. While historical analysis is always enlightening, you'll see the article only selectively interjects contemporary examples. Readers no doubt can help fill out, as well as qualify, this picture.
By Thom Hartmann, an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host. His newest book is "The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America -- and What We Can Do to Stop It." Originally published at Alternet
Ben Carson's feeble attempt to equate Hitler and pro-gun control Democrats was short-lived, but along with the announcement that Marco Rubio has brought in his second big supporting billionaire, it brings to mind the first American vice-president to point out the "American fascists" among us.
Although most Americans remember that Harry Truman was Franklin D. Roosevelt's vice-president when Roosevelt died in 1945 (making Truman president), Roosevelt had two previous vice-presidents: John N. Garner (1933-1941) and Henry A. Wallace (1941-1945).
In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice-President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"
Vice-President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in the New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.
"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information.
"With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."
In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" -- the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)
As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is, "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled "The Doctrine of Fascism" he wrote, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." But not a government of, by, and for We The People; instead, it would be a government of, by, and for the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.
In 1938, Mussolini brought his vision of fascism into full reality when he dissolved Parliament and replaced it with the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni -- the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations. Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to folks like Tom DeLay and covertly write legislation, they were openly in charge of the government.
Vice-President Wallace bluntly laid out in his 1944 Times article his concern about the same happening here in America:
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.
Nonetheless, at that time there were few corporate heads who'd run for political office, and in Wallace's view, most politicians still felt it was their obligation to represent We The People instead of corporate cartels.
"American fascism will not be really dangerous," he added in the next paragraph, "until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information ."
Noting that, "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggest that fascism's "greatest threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States itself."
In Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel It Can't Happen Here a conservative southern politician is helped to the presidency by a nationally syndicated radio talk show host. The politician, Buzz Windrip, runs his campaign on family values, the flag and patriotism. Windrip and the talk show host portray advocates of traditional American democracy as anti-American.
When Windrip becomes president, he opens a Guantanamo-style detention center, and the viewpoint character of the book, Vermont newspaper editor Doremus Jessup, flees to Canada to avoid prosecution under new "patriotic" laws that make it illegal to criticize the President.
As Lewis noted in his novel, "the President, with something of his former good-humor [said]: 'There are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don't belong to any party at all, and so, to use a common phrase, are just out of luck!' The idea of the Corporate or Corporative State, Secretary [of State] Sarason had more or less taken from Italy."
And, President "Windrip's partisans called themselves the Corporatists, or, familiarly, the 'Corpos,' which nickname was generally used."
Lewis, the first American writer to win a Nobel Prize, was world famous by 1944, as was his book. And several well-known and powerful Americans, including Prescott Bush, had lost businesses in the early 1940s because of charges by Roosevelt that they were doing business with Hitler.
These events all, no doubt, colored Vice-President Wallace's thinking when he wrote:
Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness' ceases.
Fascists have an agenda that is primarily economic. As the Free Dictionary (www.thefreedictionary.com) notes, fascism/corporatism is "an attempt to create a 'modern' version of feudalism by merging the 'corporate' interests with those of the state."
Feudalism, of course, is one of the most stable of the three historic tyrannies (kingdoms, theocracies, feudalism) that ruled nations prior to the rise of American republican democracy, and can be roughly defined as "rule by the rich."
Thus, the neo-feudal/fascistic rich get richer (and more powerful) on the backs of the poor and the middle class, an irony not lost on author Thomas Frank, who notes in his book What's The Matter With Kansas that, "You can see the paradox first-hand on nearly any Main Street in middle America -- 'going out of business' signs side by side with placards supporting George W. Bush."
The businesses "going out of business" are, in fascist administrations, usually those of locally owned small and medium-sized companies. As Wallace wrote, some in big business "are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage."
He added:
Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise [companies]. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself.
But American fascists who would want former CEOs as president, vice-president, House Majority Whip, and Senate Majority Leader, and write legislation with corporate interests in mind, don't generally talk to We The People about their real agenda, or the harm it does to small businesses and working people.
Instead, as Hitler did with the trade union leaders and the Jews, they point to a "them" to pin with blame and distract people from the harms of their economic policies.
In a comment prescient of Alabama's recent closing of every drivers' license office in every Alabama county with more than 75% black residents (while recently passing a law requiring a drivers' license or similar ID to vote), Wallace continued:
The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination
But even at this, Wallace noted, American fascists would have to lie to the people in order to gain power. And, because they were in bed with the nation's largest corporations who could gain control of newspapers and broadcast media -- they could promote their lies with ease.
"The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact," Wallace wrote. "Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy."
In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism, the vice-president of the United States saw rising in America, he added:
They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.
This liberal vision of an egalitarian America in which very large businesses and media monopolies are broken up under the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act (which Reagan stopped enforcing, leading to the mergers & acquisitions frenzy that continues to this day) was the driving vision of the New Deal (and of "Trust Buster" Teddy Roosevelt a generation earlier).
As Wallace's president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said when he accepted his party's renomination in 1936 in Philadelphia, " out of this modern civilization, economic royalists [have] carved new dynasties . It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction . And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man ."
Speaking indirectly of the fascists Wallace would directly name almost a decade later, Roosevelt brought the issue to its core:
These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power." But, he thundered, "Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power!
In the election of 2016, we again stand at the same crossroad Roosevelt and Wallace confronted during the Great Depression and World War II.
Fascism is again rising in America, this time calling itself "conservativism." The Republican candidates' and their billionaire donors' behavior today eerily parallels that day in 1936 when Roosevelt said, "In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for."
It's particularly ironic that the "big news" is which billionaire is supporting which Republican candidate. Like Eisenhower's farewell address, President Roosevelt and Vice-President Wallace's warnings are more urgent now than ever before.
_____
* In trying to find the New York Times story again, I simply Googled "arbitration," on the assumption that given that the article was both high traffic and recent that it would come up high in a search. Not only did the story not come up on the first page, although a reference to it in Consumerist did, but when I clicked on "in the news" link, it was again not in the first page in Google. If this isn't censorship, I don't know what is. The story was widely referenced on the Web and got far more traffic than the "news" story that Google gave preference (such as, of all things, a Cato study and "Arbitration Eligible BrewersBrew Crew Ball-19 hours ago"). In fact, the NYT article does not appear on the first five pages of the Google news search, even though older and clearly lower traffic stories do. And when you find the first reference to the story on the news page, which is a Cato piece mentioning it, and you click through to the "explore in depth" page, again the New York Times story is not the prominent placement it warrants, and is listed fifth. Consider how many clicks it took to find it.
Crazy Horse, November 3, 2015 at 10:49 amAmen -- I've always detested the weasel words "neoliberal" and "neoconservative". Lets just be honest enough to call ideologies and political behaviors by their proper name.
timbers, November 3, 2015 at 11:17 am
I agree!
Telling my friends Obama is "neoliberal" means nothing to 99% of them, they couldn't care less, it does not compute. So instead I tell them Obama is the most right wing President in history who's every bit un-hinged as Sarah Palin and at least as bat shit insame as John McCain, but you think that's totally OK because you're a Dem and Dems think that because Obama speaks with better grammar than Sarah Palin and is more temperate than John McCain. Them I tell them to vote Green instead of the utlra right wing Dems
Call Dems what they are corrupt right wingers, ultra conservatives.
Barmitt O'Bamney, November 3, 2015 at 11:01 am
LOL. You get to take your pick between TWO fascist parties in 2016. Just like you did for the last several elections. I wonder if the outcome will be different this time will Fascism grab the prize again, or will it be Fascism coming out ahead at the last minute to save the day?
David, November 3, 2015 at 11:04 am
washunate November 3, 2015 at 11:28 amWhy didn't Wallace become President when Roosevelt died? From the St. Petersburg Times,
The Gallup Poll said 65 percent of the voting Democrats wanted Wallace and that 2 percent wanted Senator Truman. But the party bosses could not boss Wallace. They made a coalition with the Roosevelt-haters and skillfully and cynically mowed down the unorganized Wallace forces.
Take note Bernie fans.
With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power
Such a concise and cogent explanation. The go-to policy advice of the fascist is to do moar of whatever he's selling.
susan the other November 3, 2015 at 12:18 pm
I was just going to say something like this too. There is a logical end to fascism and if it is blocked and prolonged then when it finally runs its course it ends in a huge mess. And even the fascists don't know what to do. Because everything they were doing becomes pure poison. Moar money and power have an Achilles Heel there is an actual limit to their usefulness. So this is where we find ourselves today imo not at the beginning of a fascist-feudal empire, but at the bitter and confused end. Our implosion took far longer than Germany's, but the writing was on the wall from 1970 on. And then toss in the wages of prolonged sin neoliberalism's excesses, the planet, global warming.
TarheelDem November 3, 2015 at 1:02 pm
Yes. This.
One would think that Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the killing of 1000 people by cops would be a clue. As would an understanding of the counter-New Deal that began to unfold in 1944, gained power in 1946, and institutionalized itself as a military and secret government in 1947. Or the rush to war after every peace, the rush to debt after every surplus, and perpetual inability of the IRS to collect taxes from the wealthiest.
Maybe not even a Franco-level fascist state or a fascist state with a single dictator, more like the state capitalism of the Soviet Union and current China without the public infrastructure. Just the oligarchs.
And yet it is in a state of failure, and inability to do anything but feather then nests of those who rule, all those King Midases.
participant-observer-observed November 3, 2015 at 1:49 pm
Also, the increase of censorship (GMO labels or fracking chemicals), and persecution of whistleblowers and political prisoners, incarceration of whole swathes of black population, along w execution w no due process, continuous wars abroad w no apparent tbreat to domestic security and the state of the nation is apparent.
participant-observer-observed November 3, 2015 at 2:56 pm
Whoops, almost forgot to include: mass surveillance.
Jim November 3, 2015 at 3:27 pm
Isn't it important to keep in mind that fascism, as it developed in Italy and Germany, were authentic mass based movements generating great popular enthusiasm and not merely a clever manipulation of of populist emotions by the reactionary Right or by capitalism in crisis.
The orthodox left made this mistake in the 1920s and early 1930s and in 2015 still appears wedded to this erroneous assumption.
washunate November 3, 2015 at 8:17 pm
Authentic augmented by the generous application of force, I'd say. That I think is a very interesting discussion about just how freely fascism develops. I don't think Italy and especially Germany developed with a particularly genuine popular enthusiasm. Very early on, the national socialists were arresting internal political opposition through parallel courts with explicit references to things like state security. Dachau, for example, was originally for German political prisoners. Jews and foreign nationals came later.
And of course there's the ultimate in false flags, the Reichstag Fire Decree. The whole point of that and the Enabling Act was to circumvent the checks and balances of democratic governance; Hitler himself certainly did not trust the German people to maintain the power he wanted of their own accord and discernment.
Or to put it differently, I'd say the appearance of popular enthusiasm from a mass movement was the result of fascist control as much as the cause. That's what's so unnverving about the American context of 21st century fascism. It does not require a mass movement to implement this kind of totalitarianism. It merely requires the professional class to keep their heads down long enough for a critical mass to be reached by the power structure in hollowing out the back-office guts of democratic governance.
Ishmael November 3, 2015 at 8:47 pm
Fascism was a counter revolution to Bolshevikism. The upper and upper-middle class was scared to death of what happen in Russia under Bolshevikism. They united with the military looking for someone to counter Bolshevikism and settled on Hitler and the Nazi's. The military thought they control him but they ended up being wrong.
You have to understand that after WW1 the allies kept a sea blockade on Germany and that resulted in over a million Germans starving to death. Then came depression followed by hyperinflation. Then there was the fear of Bolsheviks. The Nazi's showed up and things started working again. The Bolsheviks were driven from the street. The Nazi's started borrowing tons of money (yes they issued bonds) and started work programs. The economy started recovering. People had work and food and soon the Nazi's were furnishing free health care. After you had gone through hell this was heaven.
MathandPhysics November 3, 2015 at 10:18 pm
It's strange but 9/11 and the 3 steel frame buildings collapse into dust in few seconds isn't recognized by the masses as false flag Hitler style, then what do you expect ? Massmedia did what it could to confuse them all, only math and physics can help you to see the truth.
Jim November 3, 2015 at 11:23 pm
It would, indeed, be an extremely worthwhile discussion to analyze how freely fascism developed in Italy and Germany.
As a first step in that directkion, Washunate, you might take a look at studies like "Elections, Parties, and Political Traditions: Social Foundations of German parties and party systems.
In the July 1932 elections the SPD (Socialist Party) received 21.6 percent of the vote and was replaced by the NSDAP (Nazi party) as the countries largest political party (with 37.3% of the vote). with the KPD (the communists) capturing 14.5%of the vote.
It was at that time that the Nazi party become a true "people's party" with a support base that was more equally distributed among social and demographic categories than any other major party of the Weimar republic.
Tone November 3, 2015 at 11:42 am
The thing that troubles me most is that there are no leaders like Roosevelt or Wallace today. Where are the POPULAR politicians (Roosevelt was elected 4 times!) calling it like it is and publicly refuting conservative/fascist dogma? Sanders? Maybe. But he's trailing Clinton and certainly he's not a force in the Democratic party like Roosevelt was. At least not yet.
I agree with the "quiet coup" assessment, and I keep waiting for the next Roosevelt, the next Lincoln, the next Founding Father, to appear on the political stage and fight the battle against corporatist/fascist forces. Sadly, it hasn't happened yet.
Masonboro November 3, 2015 at 11:50 am
Unfortunately the next Founding Father to appear (or has appeared) will be John Jay (first Chief Justice among other roles) who was quoted as having said :
"Those who own America should govern it"
Jim
TarheelDem November 3, 2015 at 1:07 pm
Hank Paulson and George W. Bush prevented the situation in 2008 from forcing a Rooseveltian Congress. And the Congress went along with them. Then it was so easy for the do-nothings to argue for less and continue the austerity. And as in Roosevelt's era, racism helped prevent full change, which allowed the post-war rollback.
participant-observer-observed November 3, 2015 at 1:52 pm
Even among the corporatists in govt or business, there are no distinctive shining exemplars of leadership or competence !
Massinissa November 3, 2015 at 2:12 pm
Founding fathers?
Who do you think put the basis of rule by the rich into practice in the first place? A series of 'popular movements' like Shays Rebellion was what forced the founding fathers to make voting rights not dependent on owning land, not because the Founding Fathers were really nice people who luvved 'Democracy'.
Oregoncharles November 4, 2015 at 1:57 am
We just might have to be that "leader" ourselves.
Masonboro November 3, 2015 at 11:46 am
"on the rise" or firmly entrenched ? We already have Homeland Security, Justice Thomas, Donald Trump ,Ted Cruz, and the Koch Brothers (who are running ads in NC extolling recently passed changes in the tax code to continue shifting from income to consumption taxes). What is missing?
Jim
susan the other November 3, 2015 at 12:32 pm
I always think of the Kochs when the word fascist is used. They are ostensibly great environmentalists. Never mind that they operate some of the filthiest industries on the planet. They sponsor NOVA; one brother is a raving environmentalist (that's fine with me) and the other two tone it down. But their brand of conservative politix is as pointless as it is ignorant. That's an interesting topic the hypocrisy of rich corporatist environmentalists. They are living a contradiction that will tear them apart. But at least they are agonizing over the problem.
lou strong November 3, 2015 at 11:56 am
Maybe my English is too bad, but it seems there's a misunderstanding about "corporatism" meaning, which is unfortunately reflected, as it seems again, in some American dictionaries. Corporation in Italian has approximately the meaning of guild and has nothing to do with big enterprises.
So, while there is no doubt that fascists took power in Italy as the armed wing of big capital, big finance and big landholders against the unrests of the low classes, the idea of corporatist state for them meant the refusal of the principle of class war in favor of the principle of class (guilds, "corporations" :both for employers and employees/trade unions) collaboration , and all of them as subservients to the superior interest of the state.Fascism agenda wasn't primarily economic. There wasn't either a specific agenda : until '29 the regime acted as deeply "neoliberal" with privatizations, deflationary policies to fix a strong lira smashing labor rights and purchase power etc etc , after the crisis it nationalized the failed enterprises and introduced some welfare state elements.
So at least the regime got the property of the failed banks/enterprises, much unlike current situation , where we see the mere socialization of losses and privatization of profits .
Massinissa November 3, 2015 at 2:23 pm
You are correct, I have read this before.
But English speakers either dont know or dont care. Ive seen people talk about "Mussolini Corporatism" like this for what, five years, and they never get corrected.
I dont think theres anything we can do to get people to stop using that term as if it means what they think it means.
visitor November 3, 2015 at 3:19 pm
Massinissa and lou strong are correct -- corporatism in Mussolini's Italy meant structuring the State and the legislative body around organizations representing specific professional or economic sectors.
By the way: we should not forget another fascist State, Portugal, which during the entire Salazar regime officially defined itself as a "corporatist republic".
Barmitt O'Bamney November 3, 2015 at 4:21 pm
You can direct them to the Wikipedia entry for corporatism, which is extensive, or to Michael Lind's 2014 article on the multiple historical meanings and recent misuse of this term. But the term has currency and traction today for reason neither article quite puts a finger on. Under Italian Fascism, the traditional meanings of corporative representation and bargaining were invoked but fused tightly under the auspices -or control- of the nation state, which of course was a single party state. The theoretical representativeness of corporatism was as a facade for political control of all institutions of Italian life by the Fascist Party. In the present time, with unions and guilds a fading memory, regions homogenized and classes atomized, with churches that are little more than money making enterprises as transparent as any multilevel marketing scheme, there are few non-government institutions in western life with any weight besides for-profit corporations. When people struggle to describe what seems wrong to them with our political life, the subservience of our government and therefore everything else to profit seeking corporations, they need a term that reflects neatly what has happened and where we are. Democracy of course is defunct both as a term and in reality. We don't have a state of decayed democracy (passive, negative), we have a state of corporate diktat (active, positive). "Corporatism" is an attractive and convenient verbal handle for the masses to latch onto, no matter how much this disappoints the learned. In English, when enough people "misuse" a term for a sufficiently long time, what happens is that the OED adds a new sub-entry for it reflecting its current usage.
Vatch November 3, 2015 at 4:46 pm
I've tried to correct people's misunderstanding of corporazione, but it's probably a losing battle:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/03/neo-liberalism-expressed-simple-rules.html#comment-1919832
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/tpp-fascism-issue.html#comment-2439813
run75441 November 4, 2015 at 7:47 am
Try "corpocracy"
Les Swift November 3, 2015 at 12:09 pm
Corporatism is indeed an old idea, feudalism re-branded as "fascism." After Hitler ruined the term, fascism remained, but underground, until it reemerged in the 1960s as what George Ball termed the "world company," which is better known as the system of global corporations. The same general idea, but under a new marketing slogan. Today we have globalization, the raft of "trade" treaties, the Austrian/Libertarian ideology, all of which ultimately push the world toward yet another replay of feudalism. The box says "new and improved," but inside it's the same old crap.
kevinearick November 3, 2015 at 1:01 pm
Clone Dreams
"The more people that transact with one another, the greater the division of labour and knowledge, the greater the ability to develop comparative advantage and the greater the productivity gains."
What could possibly go wrong?
In any empire, virtual or otherwise, you are always surrounded by communist thieves that think they are going to control your output with a competitive advantage illusion, which conveniently ignores opportunity cost. Government is just a derivative piece of paper, the latest fashion for communists, all assuming that the planet is here for their convenience, to exploit. Well, the critters have blown right through 45/5000/.75, and Canada was supposed to be the proving ground for the Silicon Valley Method. Now what?
"Don't panic : world trade is down .Don't bet against the Fed .BTFD." Expect something other than demographic variability, financial implosion, and war.
The communists are always running head first over the cliff, expecting you to follow. Labor has no use for cars that determine when, where and how you will travel, and the communists can't fix anything, because the 'fix' is already inside, embedded as a feature. America is just the latest communist gang believing it has commandeered the steamroller, rolling over other communist gangs.
The Bear isn't coming down from the North, China isn't selling Treasuries, and families are not moving away from the city by accident. Only the latest and greatest, new-world-order communists, replacing themselves with computers, are surprised that technology is always the solution for the problem, technology. Facebook, LinkedIn and Google are only the future for communists, which is always the same, a dead end, with a different name.
Remember that Honda of mine? I told the head communist thief not to touch that car while I was gone, told his fellow thieves and their dependents that I told him so, and even gave him the advantage of telling him what the problem was. How many hours do you suppose the fools spent trying to control that car, and my wife with it?
I don't care whether the communists on the other side of the hill or the communists on this side of the hill think they are going to control Grace, and through her my wife, and through her me. And there are all kinds of communist groups using pieces of my work to advance their AI weapons development, on the assumption that my work will not find itself in the end. Grace will decide whether she wants to be an individual or a communist.
The only way the communists can predict and control the future is to control children. That's what financialization is all about. And all communism can do is train automatons to follow each other, which is a problem-solution addressed by the planet every three generations. You don't have to do anything for communism to collapse, but get out of the way.
Technology is just a temporary tool, discarded by labor for the communists to steal, and stealing a hammer doesn't make anyone a carpenter, much less a King, which is why the Queen always walks through the wreckage, to a worthless throne. The story of Jesus was in fact the story of a king, who had no use for a worldly kingdom, other than as a counterweight, always surrounded by communists, like pigs at a trough. Jesus was no more and no less a child of God than you are.
Labor loses every battle because it doesn't participate, leaving the communists to label each other as labour and knowledge. And if you look, you will see that all their knowledge is real estate inflation, baked into everything, with oil as grease. The name, Robert Reich, didn't give you a hint; of course he knew all along, and like a good communist, changes sides on a regular basis.
You can't pick your parents or your children, or make choices for them, but you can love them without pissing your life away. Navy hasn't disappeared just because the US Navy chose to be a sunk cost, at the beck and call of Wall Street, trying to defend the status quo of communism, for communists on the other side of the pond. A marine is not always a Marine, and a flattop can be turned on a dime.
"The Muses doe attend upon your Throne, With all the Artists at your becke and call "
If you want to show up at WWIII with a communist and a dc computer as a weapon, that's your business, but I wouldn't recommend doing so. Labor can mobilize far quicker than the communists can imagine, which isn't saying much. Be about your business until the laws of physics have been overthrown, and that hasn't happened yet.
You can count on communists to be at an intersection, creating a traffic jam, building a bigger toll booth, and voting for more of the same, thinking that they are taking advantage of each other, doing the wrong thing at the wrong time at the wrong place. Any intersection of false assumptions will do.
alex morfesis November 3, 2015 at 1:12 pm
let the merry breezes blow synthetic winds
his name was hanz or so I was told we had acquired a lease from the NYC HPD from a parking lot/marina that was at the very north edge of Harlem River Drive at Dyckman (pronounced dikeman) .there is a school there now he "came" with the lease years later I would find out he was working with Carlos Lehder and helping arrange for cash payments to conveniently amnesiastic police officers who used the hardly functioning marina to go fishing in the east river & the hudson go figure the more I tried to get rid of him the more "problems" occurred my father begged me stop poking around and just "leave it alone" I don't think he ever really knew what "hanz" was doing or who he was oh well might explain how we lost a billion dollars in real estate (ok it was not worth a billion back then but it had not debt other than real estate taxes it was not lost for simply economic reasons)
we as a nation were "convinced" to allow 50 thousand former nazis to enter this country after ww2 under the foolish notion that "the russians" (who have never killed too many americans if my history serves me right) were a "new danger" and only the folks who LO$T to the russians had the knowledge needed to save us from those "evil communists" (evil communists who helped the Koch Family make their financial start details details )
those nazis, from my research have probably grown to a force of about 250 thousand who are the basic clowns (MIC see you real soon KEY why, because we like you ) Ike was talking about in January of 1961
but as Ike mentioned when talking about the Koch dad and his John Birch nonsense they are small and they are stupid
the use of "coup" in the context of some of the strange happenings in our history these last 55 years is probably not a reasonable term
I would say we have had "coupettes" where certain groups threatened MAD if they did not get their way or were not left alone and then those wimps in power decided better you than me and turned a blind eye for 30 pieces of silver coincidence and causality sometimes are not just mathematical anomalies
there is no need to "take back" our country it is ours and has always been ours the reason "the clowns that be" worry so much is that for all the use of bernaze sause they can hardly fake half the population into showing up to vote on "one of the chosen ones" and that 50% that are not fully mesmerized are the fear factor for the clowns that be
remember try as "they" might can "they" keep you watching the same tv show for ever or get you to buy their useless "branded" product without coupons or advertising
it is not as bad or scary as they would like you to believe they would not be working this hard if they were comfortable in their socks they do not sleep well at night you are the "zombie apocalypse" they are afraid off
pass the popcorn please
and may our freedom
"bloom again" at "the end of the century"
(or sooner )
happy trails
Les Swift November 3, 2015 at 1:24 pm
Huh? Many of the things you brand as "communist" existed long before Communism was created. To blame it all on "communists" is a serious error which blinds you to much older evils, some of which Communism was at least nominally intended to correct. It is important to recognize that the "Red scares" have been used by forces in the West to bolster their own power. One can both disagree with Communism and disagree with the "Red menace" propaganda at the same time. The people who scare you with the threat of Communism are more of a threat than the Communists themselves.
kevinearick November 3, 2015 at 1:33 pm
Funny thing about words under the law, they mean whatever the author intends them to mean.
kevinearick November 3, 2015 at 1:50 pm
not a big believer in evil, just stupid, willful ignorance, aggregated.
Gio Bruno November 3, 2015 at 10:37 pm
GWBush is evil and stupid. Dick Cheney is evil, stupid, and ignorant, aggregated.
Doug November 3, 2015 at 1:58 pm
Time to re-read The Moneysburg Address:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/the-moneysburg-address.html
Jim November 3, 2015 at 2:32 pm
When talking about the rise of fascism(especially if the US experiences another economic/financial meltdown in the next few years) it is so important to get the historical context as accurate as possible.
Mussolini began his political career as an exponent of a different type of socialism. One of his early followers was Antonio Gramsci and they both deplored the passivity of orthodox Marxists.
Mussolini was attracted to the theoretical framework of Sorel to offset traditional left passivity and the syndicalist focus on the importance of human will. He founded a journal in 1913 called Utopia and called for a revision of socialism in which he began referring to "the people" and not the proletariat, as well as stressing the importance of the nation. He attempted to bring nationalist and syndicalist streams of thought together.
After World War I Mussolini helped found a new political movement in Italy which brought together both nationalist and socialist themes. Its first program was anticapitalist, antimonarchical and called for an 8 hour day, minimum wages, the participation of workers' representatives in industrial management and a large progressive tax on capital.
By the early 1920s the Fasci of Mussolini gained a powerful base of support in rural Italian areas, advocating of program of peasant proprtietorship rather than endorsing the calls for the nationalization of property of the orthodox left.
By this time fascism presented itself as an opponent of "Bolshevism" and a guardian of private property while emphasizing the collective good and criticizing absentee landlords and "exploitative capitalists"
For an excellent discussion of the development of these ideas as well as the concrete steps toward corporatism that took place after 1922 see Sheri Berman "The Primacy of Politics"
A key point to keep in mind was that the fascism that eventually developed in Italy was willing to assert unconditionally the power of the state over the market.
participant-observer-observed November 3, 2015 at 2:37 pm
Relevant postbocer at Counterpunch too:
Not everybody just "wants what we have," as the common view here has it. In fact, from Bolivia, where the average person consumes perhaps 1/20th the total resources of her analogue in the US, comes the old-new idea of buen vivir (the good life): a life in which the health of your human community and its surrounding ecosystem are more important than the amount of money you make or things you own.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/03/the-browning-of-the-world-blame-the-greed-of-the-rich/
Jacob November 3, 2015 at 3:16 pm
"In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word fascist' -- the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word."
An Italian Jew by the name of Enrico Rocca is cited in "Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe Before the Holocaust" as the founder of Roman fascism. This name is completely unknown in the U.S. A large number of Italian Jews were founders and members of the Italian fascist party prior to 1938 when anti-Semitism became official. "Among Mussolini's earliest financial backers were three Jews: Giuseppe Toeplitz of the Banca Commerciale Italiana, Elio Jona [?], and the industrialist Gino Olivetti. . . ." The banker Toeplitz was the main financier behind Mussolini's blackshirts, which served as union busters for big business and land owners (also see "Fascism and Big Business" by Daniel Guerin). Undermining organized labor in order to drive down wages was a central aim of fascism in Italy and later under Hitler in Germany. In 1933, roughly ten percent of Italian Jews were members of the fascist party. These facts are important to know because moderns are led to believe that fascism is inherently anti-semitic, but that wasn't the case in the early years of fascism in Italy, where it was founded.
Jim November 3, 2015 at 3:58 pm
It is also important to keep in mind, as Sheri Berman has argued, that social democracy, the fascism of Mussolini and National Socialism in Germany agree on a set of key assumptions.
1. All assume the primary importance of politics and cross-class cooperation. Edward Bermstein at the turn of the 20th century began attacking the main pillars of orthodox Marxism, historical materialism and class struggle while arguing for an alternative vision based on state control of marketssocial democracy became the complete severing of socialism from Marxism.
2. For these same Social Democrats the primacy of the political meant using the democratic state to institutionalize policies and protect society from capitalism.
3. For fascists and national socialists using a tyrannical state to control markets was supposedly necessarybut, of course, this postion deteriorated into moves to ensure the hegemony of the modern State.
But is it the case, in 2015, taken the power of our contemporary Surveillance regime, that a democratic state still exists?
Do contemporary democratic socialists first have to first focus on how to restore democracy in the U.S. rather than assuming that the contemporary political structure just needs the right leadershipsomeone like Bernie Sandersand the right credit policy such as MMT?
hemeantwell November 3, 2015 at 4:31 pm
Hartmann draws from Mussolini the idea that the fascist state prioritizes and organizes corporate interests, but misses what Mussolini left out of his harmonistic definition, which was that in both Germany and Italy organized terror was to be used to destroy opposition to corporate interests. The systematic use of terror had major implications for the way the internal politics of the fascist state developed, for the weight given in its organizational structure and tactical options to the elimination of internal enemies. Along with this, both political orders were infused with a leadership ethos that, particularly in Nazi Germany, could attain strikingly absolute forms, demanding absolute obedience and sacrifice. This encouraged a strong tendency to subordinate any institution that might serve as a point of coalescence to interests opposed to the regime. The Fuhrer's picture had to be both on your wall and in your heart.
Hartmann misses this political knife edge of fascism and the leadership fascination that supports it. It is not wildly speculative to say that this is largely because the domestic enemies against which it was directed, primarily leftist trade unions, are not a threat in the US. No such organizations need to be wrecked, no such memberships need to be decimated, imprisoned, and dispersed. It is simply astonishing that Hartmann says nothing specifically about labor organizations as the prime instigating target of both fascists and the corporations who supported them. In this respect his analysis unwittingly incorporates the ideological suppression of the labor movement that mirrored the fascist onslaught.
It is also telling that although Hartmann references Wallace and Roosevelt he fails to note that they themselves have also been accused of corporatism, albeit one that involved the imposition of a Keynesian, welfarist orientation to capitalist interests that were, at least in some quarters, inclined to "liquidate, liquidate" their way into a revolution against themselves. Instead, he quotes Wallace and Roosevelt as they render fascism as a kind of power-hungry, antidemocratic urge on the part of some "royalists," thereby blurring out how the central issue was how to manage labor. He misses that Roosevelt offered the state as an organizer of conflict between capital and labor within a framework in which labor was guaranteed bargaining status. Roosevelt was thereby moved to attack capitalists who wanted to deny labor that status and risk both devastating hardship and insurrection. Hartmann falls for Roosevelt's broad democratic rhetoric against them, more exhortation than analysis, and so he himself ends up talking ethereally of threats to "freedom" and "American institutions."
We're not living under fascism and Hartmann, whose criticism is often very useful, is wrong in trying to use the term as a rallying orientation. I agree that the social order is corporatist, but its maintenance has not required the kind of direct oppression + totalitarian/personalized leadership cult that is a marker of fascism. Concepts the Frankfurt School have used such as "total administration" and the like are perhaps too anodyne, not to mention absolute in their own way, but they fit better with a situation in which explicit violence does not have to be generalized.
Robert Paxton's "The Anatomy of Fascism" is a useful backgrounder on this.
Jim November 3, 2015 at 6:30 pm
Heamtwell stated directly above that " We're not living under fascism "
Some concepts/ questions which may begin to get at our potential propensity for moving in that direction might include the following:
Paxton, mentioned by Heamtwell above, isolated five stages of fascism.
(1) the initial creation of fascist movements
(2) their rooting as parties in a political system
(3) the acquisition of power
(4) the exercise of power
(5) their radicalization or entropyPaxton has argued that Fascism can appear where democracy is sufficiently implanted to have aroused disillusiona society must have known political liberty.
In regards to Paxtons first 2 stages and our situation in the US.
Are political fascists becoming rooted in political parties that represent major interests and feelings and wield major influence on our political scene?
Is our constitutional system in a state of blockage increasingly insoluble by existing authorities?
Is rapid political mobilization taking place in our society which threatens to escape the control of traditional elites to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers in order to stay in charge?
hemeantwell November 3, 2015 at 7:16 pm
Is rapid political mobilization taking place in our society which threatens to escape the control of traditional elites to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers in order to stay in charge?
I think that's the primary question, and it helps to define what we're facing with the current party system.
It is apparent that both corporate parties are increasingly incapable of properly deflecting and channeling the interests of the electorate. Whether you think of 2007-08 as simply another business cycle, one that was exacerbated by toxic assets, a product of increasing income and wealth disparity, etc. it seems that portions of the electorate have been shocked out of their confidence in the system and the steering capacity of economic and political elites.
This might lead the parties, under the pressure of events, to might reformulate themselves as the political cover of a "government of national unity" that, depending on the extremity of the next downturn, impose a "solidarity from above," blocking the development of popular organizations in a variety of ways. I certainly see this as possible. But treating the parties, or the system itself, as fascist at this point in time is not only not helpful, it is fundamentally disorienting.
Ron November 3, 2015 at 8:05 pm
F* is an ugly word as is all its close relatives, but your definitions are very interesting, and so maybe I've learned some things by reading them. However; by what contrivance did you manage to get any of these pages past the f* who own the internet? It seems I must suspend my disbelief to believe, Freunde von Grund
todde November 3, 2015 at 8:20 pm
I disagree.
In Fascism, corporations were subservient to the State. What we have is the State subservient to Corporations. Also Italian corporatism was more than just business, as a.corporation in Italy can have.non business functions.
tommy strange November 3, 2015 at 8:23 pm
Great post and great comments. Though I wonder why no one has brought up the only way to stop fascism. A militant class based libertarian left. Outside of the ballot box. If a liberal party still 'exists' they will then at least respond to the larger non party real left, just to nullify it's demands. Fascism has never been defeated by the ballot, only by a militant anarchist/socialist left. Or at the least, that 'left' fought back. Liberals rarely have fought back, and most often conceded. How do you do form such? Urban face to face organizing. With direct action and occupation and even organization towards workers' control of manufacturing.
Ishmael November 3, 2015 at 8:53 pm
tommy -Fascism has never been defeated by the ballot, only by a militant anarchist/socialist left.
I believe you should go re-look at history. Fascism has always defeated socialist left. Three examples -- Italy, Germany and Argentina. I welcome an example other wise and if it did how did it end.
visitor November 4, 2015 at 10:57 am
The paramount example is of course Spain, where all left-wing movements (communists, trotskists, anarchists, socialists) were ultimately defeated by fascists despite ferocious fighting.
Synoia November 3, 2015 at 9:48 pm
Mussolini-Style Corporatism, aka Fascism, on the
RiseWell Established in the USSet to Dominate World after TPP, TTIP and TISA ratified.
Keynesian November 3, 2015 at 11:03 pm
Much of Robert Paxton's work has focused on models and definition of fascism.
In his 1998 paper "The Five Stages of Fascism", he suggests that fascism cannot be defined solely by its ideology, since fascism is a complex political phenomenon rather than a relatively coherent body of doctrine like communism or socialism. Instead, he focuses on fascism's political context and functional development. The article identifies five paradigmatic stages of a fascist movement, although he notes that only Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy have progressed through all five:
1.Intellectual exploration, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of lost national vigor
2.Rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
3.Arrival to power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite the movement to share power
4.Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
5.Radicalization or entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, as did Nazi Germany, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule, as did Fascist Italy.[4]In his 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism, Paxton refines his five-stage model and puts forward the following definition for fascism:
[quote]Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.[5][/quote]
Here is a more contemporary analysis of politics in America using Paxton's model.
[quote]Fascist America: Are We There Yet?
Friday, August 07, 2009 -- by SaraIn the second stage, fascist movements take root, turn into real political parties, and seize their seat at the table of power. Interestingly, in every case Paxton cites, the political base came from the rural, less-educated parts of the country; and almost all of them came to power very specifically by offering themselves as informal goon squads organized to intimidate farmworkers on behalf of the large landowners. The KKK disenfranchised black sharecroppers and set itself up as the enforcement wing of Jim Crow. The Italian Squadristi and the German Brownshirts made their bones breaking up farmers' strikes. And these days, GOP-sanctioned anti-immigrant groups make life hell for Hispanic agricultural workers in the US. As violence against random Hispanics (citizens and otherwise) increases, the right-wing goon squads are getting basic training that, if the pattern holds, they may eventually use to intimidate the rest of us.
Paxton wrote that succeeding at the second stage "depends on certain relatively precise conditions: the weakness of a liberal state, whose inadequacies condemn the nation to disorder, decline, or humiliation; and political deadlock because the Right, the heir to power but unable to continue to wield it alone, refuses to accept a growing Left as a legitimate governing partner." He further noted that Hitler and Mussolini both took power under these same circumstances: "deadlock of constitutional government (produced in part by the polarization that the fascists abetted); conservative leaders who felt threatened by the loss of their capacity to keep the population under control at a moment of massive popular mobilization; an advancing Left; and conservative leaders who refused to work with that Left and who felt unable to continue to govern against the Left without further reinforcement."
And more ominously: "The most important variables are the conservative elites' willingness to work with the fascists (along with a reciprocal flexibility on the part of the fascist leaders) and the depth of the crisis that induces them to cooperate."[/quote]
hermes November 4, 2015 at 12:10 am
I think there is something missing from this analysis, having to do with the definition of corporatism itself. I think our contemporary definition of corporatism is rooted in neoliberalism and is actually a far cry from the definition used by the Fascists in forming the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations. Because to them corporatism wasn't simply business interests (which is how we know it today), but (from Wikipedia):
'[was] the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests. It is theoretically based on the interpretation of a community as an organic body. The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural "corpora") meaning "body".'
In other words, corporatism was not only made up of business interests, but all major (and competing) interests within society.
This is not to downplay the importance and absolute seriousness of confronting the increasing absolutism of ruling business interests. It is also not to downplay the historical truth of who ultimately held power in Fascist Italy. But I think it is also important to place Fascism in it's own historical context, and not try to blur historical lines where doing so may be misleading. When Fascists spoke of corporatism they had something else in mind, and it does not help us to blur the distinction.
hemeantwell November 4, 2015 at 8:35 am
Good point, and it raises this question: how can institutional organicity, with its ideological aura of community, partnership, and good old Volkishness, develop when we're talking about corporations that are multinational in scope as well as financialized and thereby even more rootless and and community indifferent? How can organicity develop in the sort of institutional setup foreshadowed by the TPP?
sd November 4, 2015 at 1:09 am
My impression is that today Corporatism more closely represents the interests of multinational corporations and the people who hold executive leadership positions within those companies. What they have in common is a listing on NYSE.
Oregoncharles November 4, 2015 at 1:09 am
Anyone heard from Naomi Wolf lately? She was the most prominent author calling out fascism during the Bush administration, got wide coverage at least on the left. She re-emerged during the Occupy movement, for a little while.
I ask that because, at the time, she said she'd go silent if it looked like people like her (that is, writers/journalists) were being persecuted. Haven't heard from her, at least on this topic, since Obama started prosecuting whistleblowers. Didn't see a farewell, either.
And that leads to a personal question: how safe are our bloggers feeling? Arguably, this site is an exercise in personal courage. Any ugly straws in the wind?
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel
US Oil Production by State
Glenn Stehle,10/31/2015 at 9:15 am
So one is left wondering what is causing the downward mobility of most Americans. Is it caused by increasingly less abundant natural resources, making it more costly to exploit those that remain? Or is it caused by one group of humans which is more aggressively exploiting another group?Fred Magyar,10/31/2015 at 11:09 amMost Americans seem to believe it's the latter. The Economist reports that:
The country faces a crisis of mutual resentment Sharply-delineated voter blocs are alarmingly willing to believe that rival groups are up to no good or taking more than their fair share.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21591180-americas-political-divisions-have-deeper-social-consequences-why-americans-are-so-angrySo Americans are mad as hell. And as they descend into an orgy of victimization, even rich white straight protestant men can be heard bellowing for victim status.
Where will it all lead, and especially if the politicians are no longer able to bring the bacon home?
I'm reading Christopher Simpson's the Science of Coercion where he notes that Harold Lawswell, one of the seminal "scientific engineers of consent" in the United States, claimed that "successful social and political management often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion, violent or non-violent; economic inducement (including bribery); diplomatic negotiation; and other techniques."
So beginning around the turn of the century, the scientific engineers of consent unleashed a Weltanschauungskrieg ("worldview war") on an unsuspecting public, Simpson argues, in which they sought "a shift in which modern consumer culture displaced existing social forms."
"We have thought in terms of fighting dictatorships-by-force," Donald Slesinger noted of the new strategy and tactics, "through the establishment of dictatorship-by-manipulation."
As Simpson goes on to explain, for the scientific engineers of consent
the simple sale of products and services is not enough. Their commercial success in a mass market depends to an important degree on their ability to substitute their values and worldview for those previously held by their audience, typically through seduction and deflection of rival worldviews. Automobile marketers, for example, do not simply tout their products for their usefulness as transportation; they seek to convince their customers to define their personal goals, self-esteem, and values in terms of owning or using the product .
Ordinary people are to be kept voiceless, Simpson concludes, "voiceless in all fields other than selection of commodities."
So now, after a century of hammering the values and worldview of a mass consumer culture into the peoples' heads, how quickly can the public's worldview be turned around?
And if we remove "economic inducement" and "vocie in the selection of commodities" from the toolbox of the scientific engineers of consent, what's left? Propaganda; coercion (violent or non-violent); diplomatic negotiation; and "other techniques"?
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the I'm reading Christopher Simpson's the Science of Coercion where he notes that Harold Lawswell, one of the seminal "scientific engineers of consent" in the United States, claimed that "successful social and political management often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion, violent or non-violent; economic inducement (including bribery); diplomatic negotiation; and other techniques."Glenn Stehle, 11/01/2015 at 9:12 amThat sounds an awful lot like this crap!
organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."
― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda circa 1928There is no doubt that this way of thinking is the basis of the so called capitalist infinite growth paradigm. Which only has a chance of working up until the point that physical limits of our finite planet are reached. Then the shit tends to hit the fan for all concerned.
The interesting thing is that is also part and parcel of the cultural memes presently prevalent in the industrialized societies of wealthy western industrialized nations. These memes have been spreading throughout the world at a very rapid rate and it is MHO that this meme is spreading what amounts to a terminal cultural pathology. In other words it is a dead end with an expiration date.
The good news is, that it isn't written stone that the current culture itself can not be deeply disrupted and profoundly changed.
Technological shifts occurring now because of perfect storm of maturing technologies and the end of age of oil, are bringing us the Uberization of many facets of our civilization that we had taken for granted as almost eternal and immutable. "Like we all need a car to be free!"
Well, a lot of young people are no longer buying into that world view. So the old guard and power brokers of the linear consumer society such as the Oil Majors, Automobile manufactures, and producers of unnecessary useless consumer goods are losing their grip on economic power to the new crop of digital entrepreneurs who are ushering in a totally new economic, political and social paradigm.
Technology is changing the way we interact and form connections within society.
This video a the end of my post might seem a bit off topic but to me it underscores how different this new world has the potential to be. I especially love the example of an expensive commercial failure of a consumer product that suddenly became cheap enough for use as a musical instrument in a computer orchestra and the fact that a thousand people can suddenly come together in a show of support by singing together And If I could travel back in time, I'd murder Eduard Bernays.
Ge Wang:
The DIY orchestra of the futurehttps://www.ted.com/talks/ge_wang_the_diy_orchestra_of_the_future
We need to stop thinking linearly!
Fred Magyar said:The good news is, that it isn't written stone that the current culture itself can not be deeply disrupted and profoundly changed.
Technological shifts occurring now because of perfect storm of maturing technologies and the end of age of oil, are bringing us the Uberization of many facets of our civilization that we had taken for granted as almost eternal and immutable .
So the old guard and power brokers of the linear consumer society such as the Oil Majors, Automobile manufactures, and producers of unnecessary useless consumer goods are losing their grip on economic power to the new crop of digital entrepreneurs who are ushering in a totally new economic, political and social paradigm.
The idea of cultural transformation has been with us for a long time. It's very much part of the Christian evangelical tradition, and we can see how the idea played out in practice after Spain's and Portugal's conquest of the Americas.
Combining cultural revolution with technological transformation, however, seems to be a purely 20th-century innovation. And the idea has been no less appealing to left Hegelians than it has been to right Hegelians.
On the left, we see the notion of a combined cultural-technological revolution emerge first with the Russian nihilists. "Drawing heavily on the German materialists Jacob Moleschott, Karl Vogt, and Ludwig Buchner," Michael Allen Gillespie explains in Nihilism Before Nietzsche, "the nihilists argued that the natural sciences were preparing the way for the millennium."
"This turn to materialism was also bound up with the growth of atheism," Gillespie adds, which was "given a concrete reality by materialism, especially in combination with the Darwinism that became increasingly popular with the nihilists."
"We are witnesses of the greatest moment of summing-up in history, in the name of a new and unknown culture, which will be created by us, and which will also sweep us away," Sergey Diaghilev gushed in 1905.
This nihilist brand of Futurism, combining cultural revolution with technological revolution, was to prove highly attractive to the later Bolsheviks, even though the Russian avant-garde which occurred under Lennin would be quite different from the Socialist Realism which took place later under Stalin.
Anatoli Lunacharsky, Lennin's Commissar for Education and Enlightenment, wrote in 1917, "If the revolution can give art its soul, then art can endow the revolution with speech."
"There was a need to explain, encourage, teach and enthuse the masses," Victor Awars explains in The Great Russian Utopia. "Agit-Prop was to be the means."
In the catalogue for the Tenth State Exhibition organized by Lunacharsky in 1919, El Lissitzky wrote:
Technology was diverted by the war from the path of construction and forced on to the paths of death and destruction. Into this chaos came Suprematism We, on the last stage of the path to Suprematism blasted aside the old work of art The empty phrase 'art for art's sake' had already been wiped out and in Suprematism we have wiped out the phrase 'painting for painting's sake.'
In May 1924 Vladimir Tatlin in his lecture "Material Culture and Its Role in the Production of Life in the USSR" offered a synoptic statement of what was still the task at hand:
to shed light on the tasks of production in our country, and also to discover the place of the artist-constructor in production, in relation to improving the quality both of the manufactured product and of the organization of the new way of life in general."
The same sentiment is heard again a year later when Vladimir Maiakovskii declared that: "To build a new culture a clean sweep is needed. The sweep of the October revolution is needed."
What is happening is "the conversion of revolutionary effort into technological effort," is how Asja Lacis summed it up in 1927.
In this poster, one can see how the worker's revolution was melded with the technological revolution, all under the banner of the Russian Revolution.
Nikolai Dolgorukov
Transport Worker! Armed with a Knowledge of Technology.
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2015 | Zero Hedge
One point we've been particularly keen on driving home since the beginning of Russian airstrikes in Syria is that The Kremlin's move to step in on behalf of Bashar al-Assad along with Vladimir Putin's open "invitation" to Washington with regard to joining forces in the fight against terrorism effectively let the cat out of the proverbial bag.That is, it simply wasn't possible for the US to explain why the Pentagon refused to partner with the Russians without admitting that i) the government views Assad, Russia, and Iran as a greater threat than ISIS, and ii) Washington and its regional allies don't necessarily want to see Sunni extremism wiped out in Syria and Iraq.
Admitting either one of those points would be devastating from a PR perspective. No amount of Russophobic propaganda and/or looped video clips of the Ayatollah ranting against the US would be enough to convince the public that Moscow and Tehran are a greater threat than the black flag-waving jihadists beheading Westerners and burning Jordanian pilots alive in Hollywood-esque video clips, and so, The White House has been forced to scramble around in a desperate attempt to salvage the narrative.
Well, it hasn't worked.
With each passing week, more and more people are beginning to ask the kinds of questions the Pentagon and CIA most assuredly do not want to answer and now, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is out calling Washington's effort to oust Assad both "counterproductive" and "illegal." In the following priceless video clip, Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."
Enjoy:
https://youtu.be/IHkher6ceaAFor more on how Russia and Iran's efforts in Syria have cornered the US from a foreign policy perspective, see "ISIS In 'Retreat' As Russia Destroys 32 Targets While Putin Trolls Obama As 'Weak With No Strategy'"
aint no fortunate son's
This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol I've heard in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress.
Paveway IV
"...Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."..."
Oh, then you're saying that that's future PRESIDENT Gabbard...
Sergeiab
Damn, you might be right. Look: see the public opinion is totally shifting (Easy when you have access to all the comments of all medias, including the moderated ones). Find someone among the democrats who voice it. Give her/him "random" media exposure (she was on Bill Maher few days ago) "Sudden rise of an outsider". She's a soldier/veteran/surfer 32yo. "Incredible American story". And at some point, she says she's transgender. Instant POTUS. That fits. That fits the "change/let's do something wild for once" that everybody's craving for (Trump). And it can't be random that a dissident voice is given media exposure. And she's beyond democrat/gop... That's a lot.
Is there a closing date for the primaries?
If not, she/he might well be the 45th president.
Sergeiab
Actually she's gonna be 35 in 2016...
And she did it again:
G.O.O.D
Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists.
She left out Mossad, mI6, Saudis, Turkey and how many other zionist controlled CUNTries.
Dick Buttkiss
"Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists."
Backing terrorist? How about being terrorists?
dot_bust
I agree. Good point.
I'd like to add that President John F. Kennedy issued an NSAM forbidding the CIA from conducting an further paramilitary operations and turned those operations over to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
President Truman only intended the CIA to analyze data from the other U.S. intelligence agencies, not to engage in any field operations. Here's his original op-ed piece about that very subject: http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html
In the op-ed, Truman said that the CIA had begun making policy instead of simply analyzing data. He also emphasized his discomfort with the idea of the Agency participating in cloak-and-dagger operations.
SWRichmond
Thanks for the link. Truman says:
I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity-and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3271482/Did-CIA-Director-Allen-D...
Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFK's assassination because he was a 'threat to national security', a new book has claimed.
Bay of Pigs
Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well. People forget he was dumped after the Bay of Pigs fiasco with JFK saying at the time that he would "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds".
Author David Talbot interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.
km4
Lookout because Tulsi Gabbard has some impressive credentials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard
Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5]
Military service (2004present)
https://www.votetulsi.com/tulsi-gabbard
In 2004, when Tulsi's fellow soldiers from the 29th Brigade were called to war in Iraq, Tulsi volunteered to join them. She didn't need to put her life on the line. She could have stayed in the State House of Representatives, but in her heart, she felt it was more important to stand in solidarity with her fellow soldiers than to climb the political ladder.
Her two deployments to the war-torn and dangerous Middle East revealed both Tulsi's natural inclination to self-less service and her ability to perform well in situations demanding confidence, courage, and the ability to perform well as a member of a team. The same maturity and character that served Tulsi well in the Middle East makes her exceptionally effective in the political world.
Freddie
These banksters wars like all wars are total shit but I like her.
She is half Samoan and was a Catholic but became a Hindu.
She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens.
Graham is the quintessential chickenhawk.
JLee2027While I agreed with your overview, WTFRLY, at the 1:25 mark I think she is seriously mistaken about the priority being fighting against Islamic extremists. The real enemy of the American People has been the international bankers, who have almost totally captured control over the government of the USA, through POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS.
Her basic opinion regarding 9/11 deliberately ignores that 9/11 was an inside job, false flag attack, which was aided and abetted by the Deep State Shadow Government. Everything that the USA has been doing has been actually carrying out the international bankers' agenda. The countries targeted for regime change were obstacles to the consolidation of the globalized hegemony of the international bankers, who are the best organized gangsters, the banksters, that have already captured control over all NATO governments, as is painfully obvious to anyone who thinks critically about how and why those governments ENFORCE FRAUDS by privately controlled banks.
What the CIA, et alia, having been doing, since the overthrow of the government of Iran back in 1953, has been creating "Islamic extremist groups," as the responses of the various Islamic countries having been controlled by the European invasions, and later American invasions, which were always directed at capturing control over the development of the natural resources, through maintaining the control over the monetary systems through which that was done.
The whole of human history has been the exponential growth of social pyramid systems based upon being able to back up lies with violence, becoming more sophisticated and integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which have become globalized systems of electronic money frauds, backed by the threat of force from atomic bombs. There is indeed a serious risk of NATO countries, already almost totally controlled by the international bankers, getting into conflicts with the national interests of various countries which no longer are so easy for the banksters to continue to control.
The banksters have been pushing through their agenda of wars based on deceits, in order to back up their debt slavery systems, and those were primarily the reasons for the series of regime changes, which appear to have stalled with respect to Syria. That Russia has decided that it is geopolitically able, along with the propaganda cover of fighting "terrorism," to step in with significant military support of the Syrian regime is indeed in severe conflict with the agenda of the international banksters, who are collectively a group of trillionaire mass murderers.
Human history has become the excessive successfulness of the application of the methods of organized crime to control governments, through the vicious spirals of POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS, to develop to the point of runaway criminal insanities. While the Congresswoman above provided more penetrating analysis than one is used to be presented on the mainstream mass media, and she did that fairly well, she still is presenting the political problems only on very superficial levels ...
When a Hindu women who rides a surfboard starts making more sense than the President, and the entire Democratic Party I become speechless.
She is an example of integrity standing up for what is right. I see many people of heart doing the same as this unfolds. We are supposed to support the "Underdog" Remember?
UNDERDOG Cartoon IntroJustObservingWhite House, Media Silent One Year After Murder of US Reporter Who Exposed Western Links to ISIS October 20, 2015
MEFOBILLSHeroin production up only 3500% since US invaded:
AFGHAN OPIUM PRODUCTION INCREASES 35-FOLD SINCE U.S. INVASIONhttp://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/10/afghan-opium-produ...
"Hoisted on their own petard" is an apt aphorism.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoist_by_one%27s_own_petard
To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb"
The beautiful Tulsi Gabbard excerpt from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard
Her father is of Samoan/European heritage and is a practicing Catholic who is a lector at his church, but also enjoys practicing mantra meditation, including kirtan.[7] Her mother is of Euro-American descent and a practicing Hindu.[7] Tulsi fully embracedHinduism as a teenage
At 5 minutes in to video, Wolf B. mentions that Tulsi is a combat veteran. She is also on Senate Arms services committee.
The not so beautiful Wolf Blitzer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Blitzer
Blitzer was born in Augsburg, Germany] the son of Cesia Blitzer (nιe Zylberfuden), a homemaker, and David Blitzer, a home builder. His parents were Jewish refugees from O?wi?cim, Poland, and Holocaust survivors While at Johns Hopkins, Blitzer studied abroad at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he learned Hebrew.
Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal.
"Things that are being said right now about Assad, were said about Ghadaffi.., they were said about Saddam Hussein, by those who were advocating for the U.S. to intervene, to go overthrow those regimes and dictators. The fact is, if that happens here in Syria, .far worse situation, persecution of religious minorities and Christians."
Who advocated to start ME wars? Wolf then puts words in her mouth, suggesting that Hezbollah and Russians are doing the U.S. a favor.
To give Wolf full credit, he doesn't explode when Tulsi mentions persecution of the Christians, as said Christians MUST be his enemy and color Wolf's wordview, given his parents refugee history. Oh the web we weave, when we intend to deceive.
rejected
Well, she managed to get in the meme "We were attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11". They push that meme every chance they get.
The spooks at the CIA know how to push propaganda. She will get all kinds of credibility appearing to oppose the spooks and very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized and grow stronger.
ebear
"....very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized and grow stronger."
I beg to differ. That seed was already planted. Why are we supporting the people who attacked us? - keeps it nice and simple. Turns the entire narrative against them.
One dragon at a time.
Omega_Man
not a good interview for zio Wolfe ...
I didn't like this girl before, but starting to like her.
She needs a security team... to protect her from the US Gov... no joke
|
|
|
May 15, 2012 | YouTube
Qeis Kamran 1 year ago
I just love Prof. Bacevic. Nobody has more credit then him on the subject. Not only for his unmatched scholarship and laser sharp words, but moreover for the unimaginable personal loss. He is my hero!!!!
Boogie Knight 1 year ago
How many sons did the NeoCon-Gang sacrifice in their instigated Wars in foreign lands....? Not one. Bacevich lost his son who was fighting in Iraq in 2007 - for what?!
Yet the NeoCon warcriminals Billy Cristol, Wolfowitz and/or Elliott Abrams are all still highly respected people that the US media/political elite loves to consult - in 2014!
|
|
|
Nov 7, 2003 | YouTube
Phil AndersonExcellent as always. Lecture by Bacevich starts around 13:42.Wendell FitzgeraldWe need to reexamine what it means to be free. A moral reorientation of the country as Carter suggested in 1979. Bacevich says it isn't ever going to happen.
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2015 | Economist's View
Second Best, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 12:28 PM
a strong press is the best offense in support of crony capitalism since there is no good guy with a press to defend against a bad guy with a press
Ignacio, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 12:46 PM
Dan Kervick, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 01:58 PM"When the media outlets in any country fail to challenge power, not only are they not part of the solution, they become part of the problem."
That is the conclusion, unfortunately correct. Most media are part of the problem. Mary R marked another problem with media: Who are their clients? The advertisers or the readers/viewers?
likbez said in reply to Dan Kervick, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 02:56 PM"It is a corrupt form, in which incumbents and special-interest groups shape the rules of the game to their advantage, at the expense of everybody else: it is crony capitalism."
Well, maybe. But the alternative, idealized non-corrupt form has probably never existed in the actual world - ever.
Even if it did exist for a little while, it wouldn't last. You know what happens when people compete? Some people *win the competition*. And the winners acquire the power to make the rules, since there is no way of separating wealth from power. The tendency toward oligopoly, monopoly and the concentration of power is inherent in the normal functioning of capitalism. The ideal of maintaining some regulated perfect competition economy in which the playing field is perfectly level and none of the competitors has an institutional power advantage, is like trying to create a Monopoly game perpetually frozen in place at the first roll of the dice.
Even if we had a perfect, perpetual balanced competition economy, it wouldn't be great, because life is about more than the struggle for victory and domination. The laissez faire nostalgists are still working to fit a 18th and 19th century mentality and reality into a 21st century world. A society based on free-wheeling entrepreneurial innovation, competition and exploitation might have made sense in a world of a few hundred million people moving out into the open spaces to exploit a planet filled with resources that earlier technology had been unable to acquire or use. But in our tight, crowded and environmentally stressed world, that no longer makes sense. We're going to have to get more organized and less competitive.
Most intelligent people in the 20th century had gotten this. Then we in the US had a bit of a neoliberal holiday from history when we offshored industry elsewhere (along with its organized labor), and had a brief turbo period of high octane capitalism driven by financial games and services. But that era ended in 2008, and we're back to dealing with the inexorable crunch of history on a finite globe.
Julio said in reply to likbez...Great observation: "the alternative, idealized non-corrupt form has probably never existed in the actual world - ever."
In a way free press is an ideal which can temporary exists when there are two countervailing forces of equal political power. So in a way free press can exist temporary in a very unstable society. So some level of suppression of "free press" is a norm. That does not mean that it this suppression should not be challenged. But the political stability of society probably requires a certain level of brainwashing and thus "unfree press".
But existence of nation states with conflicting interests presuppose existence of some semblance, surrogate of "free press" coverage across the borders. like in court the testimony of each side should be given equal attention, for most people it can provide some minimal level of "alternative coverage" of major events.
I noticed that despite GB being a vassal of the USA, British press provides much better, more realistic picture of major problems in the USA society and even better, more realistic coverage of both foreign and some, less connected with GB geopolitical interests, internal events such as presidential elections. If you add to your menu the press from "less friendly" states such as Iran, China and Russia you probably can be dig out some real information about events despite for of disinformation of MSM. Coverage of MH17 tragedy is the most recent example were relying of the USA MSM coverage would be totally unwise. Even The Guardian is a better deal.
In the USSR Voice of America and BBC were great sources of information despite the fact people understand that they are government propaganda outlets. But since agenda of the USA and British government were different they still were valuable source of information about internal events and developments in the USSR.
And I would dare to say the level of propaganda in coverage of foreign events today that we see in the USA MSM would let Pravda propagandists blush.
Good observations. My own experience is that coverage in other countries often has a different perspective, and I feel more informed after viewing it. Even CNN in Spanish often provides somewhat different viewpoints!
My favorite example is the runup to the Iraq war. To my surprise, the most balanced and informed articles I could find were in English versions of Iranian newspapers.
pgl said...
cm said in reply to pgl, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 05:27 PMThe ideal:
"Inquisitive, daring and influential media outlets willing to take a strong stand against economic power are essential in a competitive capitalist society. They are our defense against crony capitalism."
Our sad current situation:
"When the media outlets in any country fail to challenge power, not only are they not part of the solution, they become part of the problem."
Yes - many of the current media outlets are bought and paid for by the elites. That was his point!
Larry, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 03:27 PMI suspect reliance on advertising revenue is the larger factor (and it is also a large factor in consolidation). Advertisers (and the corporate/business clients they represent) want to reach audiences likely to be convinced to buy the advertised products and services. This will work to suppress any "content" that is incompatible with ad placement or the ad's target audience, or not palatable to the ad client.
Even "progressive" outlets are subject to this and have to at least tone down the controversy, i.e. self-censorship.
anne said in reply to Larry... Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 04:34 PMA strong, independent press would be a fine thing. Looking at the huge crowd of journalists who are so far in the tank for Clinton, it isn't obvious to me that corporatism is that big an issue. Did you see that Cheryl Mills was working at State while negotiating a deal for NYU with Abu Dhabi?
Where is the press scrutiny/outrage over that? Journalism yawns!
likbezDo set down references:
October 12, 2015
While at State, Clinton chief of staff held job negotiating with Abu Dhabi
By Rosalind S. HeldermanThe first victim of war is truth. Similarly the first victim of neoliberalism (aka casino capitalism aka crony capitalism) is press.
This nice dream of "free press" is incompatible with reality of neoliberal society which, is its core is a flavor of corporatism. Under corporatism free press exists only for people who own it.
btg said... October 18, 2015 at 08:04 PMThe problem is the the media is no longer a variety of owners with integrity but an oligopoly of Wall Street conglomerates or mega-media corporations run by ideologues pushing the agenda (Murdock, talk radio, etc.) - so we get coverage that is either gutless because it tries to give equal time to patently absurd right wing ideas, is rabidly pro-business or actively pushing for the right.
Ben Groves said...
All capitalism is crony. From the beginning through the 400 years of dialectics since 1630's Amsterdam when the Iberian Sephardic Immigrants brought it there.
DeDude said... October 19, 2015 at 07:08 AMA strong press, in contrast to a corporate press, can indeed be a critical part of the defense of our democracy. But it can also be an enemy of democracy and a tool for the plutocrats - try to turn on Fox if you need an example.
reason said...
There is a crucial word missing - independent.
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 | naked capitalism
"I didn't think TTIP could get any scarier, but then I spoke to the EU official in charge of it" [Independent].When put to her, Malmstrφm acknowledged that a trade deal has never inspired such passionate and widespread opposition. Yet when I asked the trade commissioner how she could continue her persistent promotion of the deal in the face of such massive public opposition, her response came back icy cold: "I do not take my mandate from the European people."
Those honest, blunt Brussels bureaucrats! So different from our own political class!
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2015 | Daily Mail Online
Datto Inc has been revealed to have stored Hillary Clinton's emails - which contained national secrets - when it backed up her private server
- It claims it runs 'data fortresses' monitored by security 24 hours a day, where only a retinal or palm scan allows access to its facilities
- But its building in Bern Township, Pennsylvania, doesn't have a perimeter fence or security checkpoints and has two reception areas
- Dumpsters at the site were left open and unguarded, and loading bays have no security presence
- Clinton faces first Democratic debate tonight amid falling poll numbers and growing questions
The congressional committee is focusing on what happened to the server after she left office in a controversy that is dogging her presidential run and harming her trust with voters.
In the latest developments it emerged that hackers in China, South Korea and Germany tried to gain access to the server after she left office. It has also been reported that hackers tried to gain access to her personal email address by sending her emails disguised parking violations which were designed to gain access to her computer.
Daily Mail Online has previously revealed how a former senior executive at Datto was allegedly able to steal sensitive information from the company's systems after she was fired.
Hackers also managed to completely take over a Datto storage device, allowing them to steal whatever data they wanted.
Employees at the company, which is based in Norwalk, Connecticut, have a maverick attitude and see themselves as 'disrupters' of a staid industry.
On their Facebook page they have posed for pictures wearing ugly sweaters and in fancy dress including stereotypes of Mexicans.
Its founder, Austin McChord, has been called the 'Steve Jobs' of data storage and who likes to play in his offices with Nerf guns and crazy costumes.
Nobody from Datto was available for comment.
[Oct 13, 2015] Hillary Clintons private server was open to low-skilled-hackers
Notable quotes:
"... " That's total amateur hour. Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this" -- ..."
"... The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate attacks. ..."
"... Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas. ..."
"... The findings suggest Clinton's server 'violates the most basic network-perimeter security tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet,' said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer for Fidelis Cybersecurity. ..."
"... The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks. It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such as secure VPN connections. ..."
Daily Mail Online
Investigation by the Associated Press reveals that the clintonemail.com server lacked basic protections
- Microsoft remote desktop service she used was not intended for use without additional safety features - but had none
- Government and computer industry had warned at the time that such set-ups could be hacked - but nothing was done to make server safer
- President this weekend denied national security had been put at risk by his secretary of state but FBI probe is still under way
... ... ...
Clinton's server, which handled her personal and State Department correspondence, appeared to allow users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely, according to detailed records compiled in 2012.
Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn't intended for such use without additional protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over attacks from even low-skilled intruders.
.... ... ...
Records show that Clinton additionally operated two more devices on her home network in Chappaqua, New York, that also were directly accessible from the Internet.
" That's total amateur hour. Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this" -- Marc Maiffret, cyber security expert
- One contained similar remote-control software that also has suffered from security vulnerabilities, known as Virtual Network Computing, and the other appeared to be configured to run websites.
- The new details provide the first clues about how Clinton's computer, running Microsoft's server software, was set up and protected when she used it exclusively over four years as secretary of state for all work messages.
- Clinton's privately paid technology adviser, Bryan Pagliano, has declined to answer questions about his work from congressional investigators, citing the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
- Some emails on Clinton's server were later deemed top secret, and scores of others included confidential or sensitive information.
- Clinton has said that her server featured 'numerous safeguards,' but she has yet to explain how well her system was secured and whether, or how frequently, security updates were applied.
'That's total amateur hour,' said Marc Maiffret, who has founded two cyber security companies. He said permitting remote-access connections directly over the Internet would be the result of someone choosing convenience over security or failing to understand the risks. 'Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this,' he said.
The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate attacks.
'An attacker with a low skill level would be able to exploit this vulnerability,' said the Homeland Security Department's U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team in 2012, the same year Clinton's server was scanned.
Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas.
The findings suggest Clinton's server 'violates the most basic network-perimeter security tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet,' said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer for Fidelis Cybersecurity.
Clinton's email server at one point also was operating software necessary to publish websites, although it was not believed to have been used for this purpose.
Traditional security practices dictate shutting off all a server's unnecessary functions to prevent hackers from exploiting design flaws in them.
In Clinton's case, Internet addresses the AP traced to her home in Chappaqua revealed open ports on three devices, including her email system.
Each numbered port is commonly, but not always uniquely, associated with specific features or functions. The AP in March was first to discover Clinton's use of a private email server and trace it to her home.
Mikko Hypponen, the chief research officer at F-Secure, a top global computer security firm, said it was unclear how Clinton's server was configured, but an out-of-the-box installation of remote desktop would have been vulnerable.
Those risks - such as giving hackers a chance to run malicious software on her machine - were 'clearly serious' and could have allowed snoops to deploy so-called 'back doors.'
The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks.
It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such as secure VPN connections.
[Oct 09, 2015] Hillary Clintons Lame Wall Street Reform Plan by James Kwak
Oct 09, 2015 | The Baseline Scenario
Hillary Clinton is competing for the nomination of a party whose progressive base thinks, with considerable justification, that her husband is to blame for letting Wall Street run amok-and that Barack Obama, under whom she served, did too little to rein in the bankers who torpedoed the global economy. On top of that, she faces a competitor who says what the people actually think: that the system is rigged, that big banks should be restrained, and that people should go to jail.So she has no choice but to try to appear tough on Wall Street-but she has to do that without simply jettisoning twenty-five years of "New Democrat" friendliness to business and without alienating the financial industry donors she is counting on. So the "plan" she announced yesterday has two messages. On the one hand, she wants to show that she has the right approach to taming Wall Street. Unfortunately, it's just more of the same: another two dozen or so regulatory tweaks, mainly of the arcane variety, that will produce more of the massive, loophole-ridden rules that Dodd-Frank gave us.
Or, that could be the point. Her second message is a promise to the financial industry that, instead of real structural reforms, she will continue the technocratic incrementalism of the Geithner era-which has left the megabanks more or less the way they were on the eve of the financial crisis. Maybe, for her base, that's a feature, not a bug.
For more, see my latest column for The Atlantic.
[Oct 07, 2015] US Ruling Circles Split On Use of Jihadists in Syria
"... Well, the United States and its allies are speaking gobbledygook, and Russia is speaking straight up plain international law truth. Theyve come to the aid of the recognized government of Syria, which is being attacked by proxies of other countries, the U.S., the Saudis, other Gulf states, and Turkey, in violation of international law. ..."
"... They are defending principles of international law. And the U.S. and its allies are violating international law, and the U.S. and its allies cannot draw some kind of red line around ISIS, the wayward jihadists that dont want to take orders, and expect the Russians to only discipline their little bad boys and leave the other jihadists alone. That only makes sense to idiots like the New York Times and CNN and the rest. ..."
"... in a way the Russian military intervention against the jihadists in Syria has given the Obama administration another chance to back off of that decades-long policy of using Islamic jihadists as footsoldiers for imperialism in the Muslim world. ..."
"... there was a growing split in the U.S. government in ruling circles, in the intelligence agencies, even three years ago. And there was a fear that the jihadists would have, were developing their own kind of agenda. And theres nothing that U.S. imperialists dislike more than people who have their own agenda. And we know now that in August of 2012, we know this because of a memo that came to light this year, that analysts for the Defense and Intelligence Agency were warning that the jihadists, the people who would become the Islamic State, were likely to declare their own caliphate. And that would mean that they would have their own policies and they would fight their own war, not the war that the United States wanted them to fight. ..."
"... And although that warning didnt cause the U.S. to reverse its long policy of supporting jihadists, it did I think make Obama much more cautious, and I think thats why he backed off from bombing Syria that same year. The same Defense Intelligence Agency analysts are now screaming that the top Pentagon brass are lying about the kinds of reports that theyve been given, reports about the growing strength of ISIS. And that argument in itself is signs of a real split in the intelligence agencies, a split in the U.S. military, a split in the Obama administration itself. A split that was evident when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. ..."
Oct 07, 2015 | therealnews.com
BALL: So what is going on here? It almost sounds like a neo-Cold War indirect conflict of superpowers vying for colonial control over their property, or a fight over whose anti-Assad allies should be supported. What is going on?FORD: Well, the United States and its allies are speaking gobbledygook, and Russia is speaking straight up plain international law truth. They've come to the aid of the recognized government of Syria, which is being attacked by proxies of other countries, the U.S., the Saudis, other Gulf states, and Turkey, in violation of international law. And the Russians say that they are not just defending the government that they have had relations with for decades. They are defending principles of international law. And the U.S. and its allies are violating international law, and the U.S. and its allies cannot draw some kind of red line around ISIS, the wayward jihadists that don't want to take orders, and expect the Russians to only discipline their little bad boys and leave the other jihadists alone. That only makes sense to idiots like the New York Times and CNN and the rest.
BALL: But again, for those of us who have varying understandings of what's happening here, it would seem like the U.S. would not have a problem with Assad's territory being bombed, given that the U.S. and Obama's administration in particular is no fan of Bashar al-Assad and his leadership there in Syria. Why then are they having a problem with what Russia's doing, and to what extent are the problems that are claimed to be addressed there actually caused in their origin by the United States and its policies?
FORD: Well, the United States has, and Obama knows the United States has, problems that go beyond the Russian intervention. They have problems with their own policy, which has brought them to this state of affairs. And in a way the Russian military intervention against the jihadists in Syria has given the Obama administration another chance to back off of that decades-long policy of using Islamic jihadists as footsoldiers for imperialism in the Muslim world.
And the reason that I say another chance is because it was the Russians back in 2012 who gave President Obama a similar opportunity to re-think that jihadist 35-year-old policy when they proposed that the international community supervise the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons. That was back in 2012. And that allowed President Obama to back off from his threat to attack Syria, to bomb the Syrian government. I think that President Obama backed off on that threat not because of domestic or international opposition. The United States acts unilaterally all the time, I think he could have gotten away with it. I think that Obama was genuinely afraid of what would happen if the Syrian government collapsed. And make no mistake about it, if the United States had attacked the Syrian government directly the dynamic of the situation would have compelled the United States to keep on attacking until that government was totally destroyed, just like they did to Col. Gaddafi's government in Libya only one year before.
But it is very clear, now quite clear in hindsight but I think it was visible back then, that there was a growing split in the U.S. government in ruling circles, in the intelligence agencies, even three years ago. And there was a fear that the jihadists would have, were developing their own kind of agenda. And there's nothing that U.S. imperialists dislike more than people who have their own agenda. And we know now that in August of 2012, we know this because of a memo that came to light this year, that analysts for the Defense and Intelligence Agency were warning that the jihadists, the people who would become the Islamic State, were likely to declare their own caliphate. And that would mean that they would have their own policies and they would fight their own war, not the war that the United States wanted them to fight.
And although that warning didn't cause the U.S. to reverse its long policy of supporting jihadists, it did I think make Obama much more cautious, and I think that's why he backed off from bombing Syria that same year. The same Defense Intelligence Agency analysts are now screaming that the top Pentagon brass are lying about the kinds of reports that they've been given, reports about the growing strength of ISIS. And that argument in itself is signs of a real split in the intelligence agencies, a split in the U.S. military, a split in the Obama administration itself. A split that was evident when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.
So the Russian intervention is now forcing Obama's hand. He's going to have to decide if he's going to continue this policy with the jihadists, or if he's going to go for some kind of containment or stabilization of the battle lines in Syria. We know it's quite obvious that Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states wanted an all-out offensive to take out the Assad government once and for all, but that has been checked definitively by the Russians. And that gives Obama another chance to cooperate with the people in the region, with Syria and with Iran, and with the government of Iraq, as well as with the Russians. He has that chance again, if he takes it.
[Oct 02, 2015] This is a War pure and simple. The Global Informational War.
Lyttenburgh, October 2, 2015 at 12:19 pmThe fact that Mark Adomanis have completely devolved into shit (there is no other words to describe the last couple of his articles for his newest haunt the "Russia! Magazine") had been the last straw for me. I realized once and for all that all those journos, op-ed authors, analytics and most of all legions of opinionated and well informed commenters (read edgy teens and/or ignorant self-absorbed ignorant morons). I'm talking about the Western segment of the Net knew that EuroUkrs and Russian Liberasts active in the Net are a lost cause and evolutionary dead-end long time ago. It's the citizens of the supposedly "Free World" sprouting lies, repeating them and then eagerly believing them 'cause that's what they want to hear to confirm their long established biases who were re-evaluated by me.
There is hardly any dialog possible or even exchange of opinions not to mention this absolutely teeny-weeny and unimportant thing like actually listening to your opponents arguments and facts.
This is a War pure and simple. The Global Informational War.
Reading some comments and articles made me realize (deep-deep inside) that Stalin's methods while dealing with the Enemies were way too humane and ineffective. Oh, no-no! Nope! Only Ivan Grozny only hardcore! I still find morbidly amusing how Ivan IV executed either some monks or the dyak of the Posolskiy prikaz's who've screwed up big time by ordering them to be tied up to a powder keg and then blown up. And let's not forget that czar Ivan was most prolific writer of letters and perfected the now much valued art of trolling, dissing and flaming his opponents nearly 450 years ago!
I won't wax for a long time about any of such articles I'll just comment on one of them which represent a true quintessence of the "Modern Western Journalism" .
Russian Airstrikes in Syria Could Last Four Months, Officials Say
Yes this is The Vice News, a №1 choice for any opinionated and conscientious edgy teens, hipsters, San-Franciscan barefooters and Hikkies around the world when they want to learn about the world at large. For me I think that the name is aptly chosen for this disgusting excuse for the "Modern Journalism". They do embody one of the Mortal Sins nearly perfectly, namely the Sloth.
Article immediately plunges us into the convoluted and weed-brownies destroyed mind of the average VICE NEWS 'author':
"Russia's airstrikes in Syria could continue for three to four months, according to the head of the lower house of the Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee, as controversy continues over what Moscow's attacks are actually targeting."
Wow! What you say "controversial", huh? Well, I'm a silly foreigner Not From the West, and English is not my first language. So I'm gonna to recheck what this "controversial" word means. Let's try Merriam-Webster, shall we?
"relating to or causing much discussion, disagreement, or argument: likely to produce controversy"
Oh, that! Well there is no "controversy" about airstrikes in Russia. Soviet Federaciy voted unanimously for that. Russians (with the exception of delegated to the very Oblivion of a small bunch of the radical "patriots", chronic "putinslivshiks" and liberasts) are totally in favor of that. Who's disagreeing the most are the Western governments and the Free and Independent Western Media . But in that case the word "controversial" can (and should) be applied just to about everything. Honest and free-spirited journos are refraining from doing that when it doesn't suit theig agenda.
"Officials announced on Friday that airstrikes had been carried out for a third day in row and " that these hit 12 Islamic State (IS) targets."
I will just leave this sentence hanging here for a while but I will return to it soon!
"Yet the US, which is leading its own air campaign against IS, says Moscow has been using its campaign as a pretext to hit other groups opposed to Russia's ally, President Bashar al-Assad.
Some of the groups that have been hit are supported by countries which oppose both Assad and IS, including at least one group that received training from the CIA"
Well, thank you VICE NEWS for this frankness and honesty! Oh, those vily Ruskies! Bombing poor and innocent "rebels", who are as pure as baby's tear!
"Russia's air campaign in a country already being bombed by a US-led coalition of Western and Arab countries means that the Cold War superpower foes Moscow and Washington are now flying combat missions over the same country for the first time since World War II.
Well, this is not quite true. In fact last time both Washington and Moscow flew combat missions over the same country was in Vietnam, I think. Everybody remembers brave North Vietnamese ace Li Si Tzeen, right? ;)
"Russian Su-34, Su-24M, and Su-25 warplanes flew 18 sorties, hitting a command post and a communications center in the province of Aleppo as well as a militant field camp in Idlib, a Defense Ministry statement said. A command post in the province of Hama was also completely destroyed, it added."
Once again I will just leave it here. And now this:
"The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the conflict with a network of sources on the ground, said IS had no presence in the western and northern areas that were struck."
AH, YIISSSSS! Nary an article about Syria by the VICE now goes without referencing this august body of the first hand and reliable reporting of the Sacred Truth! Surely, we must trust it completely, folks! They are UK-based, after all!
But I will still ask this nagging ugly question what the hell is this "Syrian Observatory for the Human Rights" which VICEers are so often quote (without providing links to the actual statements, naturally)?
Oh, you gonna love this! According to the Sόddeutsche Zeitung article of 2012 this "SOHR" was the primarily source about the situation "on the ground" for all major Western propaganda outlets. The fact is there is no such thing as "Syrian Observatory for the Human Rights". There is only one guy actually- some Osama Suleyman, living in Coventry, who have adopted the nom de plume Rami-Abdul-Rahman (http://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/rami-abdul-rahman/). According to his own words, Suleyman had been jailed 3 times in Syria for the "opposition activism" and then emigrated to Britain in 2000. In Coventry he and his wife own a clothing shop and now both of them are British naturalized citizens.
In short the sort of people who absolutely 100500% can keep their arms on the pulse of the current events taking place in Syria and report with absolute accuracy only the Truth. Yay!
Well, as for the other claims, about "poor kids bombed by Ruskies", I'll just leave this picture here:
Also, as you have probably noticed by now, when the VICEers had to quote despicable Russian sources they all too often use such terms as "they claimed", "they stated" and "according to them". So we know from the starters we should not trust them! They Russians! But is the source is some brave (and, doubtlessly, pro Western/Democracy/Moderate Islamist) they are to be trusted they "say" and "tell". Charming fellows. Why should they lie?
And no As Everybody Knows , the West doesn't employ propaganda. True story!
[Oct 02, 2015] Showdown at the UN Corral
Antiwar.com
If there was any doubt that Washington has learned absolutely nothing since George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, then President Obama's address to the United Nations has confirmed the world's worst fears. It was an oration that combined the most egregious lies with the wooly-minded "idealism" that has been such a destructive force in world affairs since the days of Woodrow Wilson. First, the lies:"The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime used such weapons on August 21st. U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians. These rockets were fired from a regime-controlled neighborhood and landed in opposition neighborhoods. It's an insult to human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack."
The evidence is far from "overwhelming," and the only insult to human reason is the dogmatic repetition of this American talking point. As Seymour Hersh pointed out in the London Review of Books:
"Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country's civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded without assessing responsibility had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order a planning document that precedes a ground invasion citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad."
And this isn't the only time this President hasn't told the whole story when it comes to the findings of US intelligence agencies: that's why fifty intelligence analysts are in open revolt at his cherry-picking of intelligence in order to show we're making progress in the fight against the Islamic State. And now we have former CIA chief David Petraeus, who was forced to resign, openly coming out with a proposal that we ally with the al-Nusra Front in order to overthrow Assad and edge out the Islamic State. Shouldn't that arouse suspicion that Washington has been covertly cooperating with al-Nusra the Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda all along, and that Petraeus merely wants to formalize his deal with the Islamist Devil?
Here's another lie:
"[I]n Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.
"I know that some now criticize the action in Libya as an object lesson, that point to the problem that the country now confronts, a democratically elected government struggling to provide security, armed groups in some places, extremists ruling parts of the fractured land. And so these critics argue that any intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail. Look at Libya.
"And no one's more mindful of these problems than I am, for they resulted in the death of four outstanding U.S. citizens who were committed to the Libyan people, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, a man whose courageous efforts helped save the city of Benghazi.
"But does anyone truly believe that the situation in Libya would be better, if Gadhafi had been allowed to kill, imprison or brutalize his people into submission? It's far more likely that without international action, Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed."
It is beyond embarrassing that the President of the United States is going before the world assembly of nations proclaiming that he and his allies prevented Libya from being "engulfed in civil war and bloodshed." What does he think is happening there at this very moment?
The reality is that the intelligence did not show a "genocide" was in the making. Officials at the Defense Intelligence Agency the same agency now being accused by its analysts of "cooking" intelligence to suit the administration's political agenda could provide no empirical evidence for the assertions made by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Col. Moammar Gaddafi was planning on slaughtering civilians en masse.
The claims made by the Obama administration that intervention was the only alternative to "genocide" were contested, at the time, by Alan J. Kuperman, writing in the Boston Globe:
"The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi."
"It is hard to know," Kuperman continues, "whether the White House was duped by the rebels or conspired with them to pursue regime-change on bogus humanitarian grounds." With the truth-challenged Hillary Clinton at the helm of this misbegotten misadventure, it isn't at all hard to draw the conclusion that the "genocide" claim was an outright lie perpetrated by the administration and its Libyan Islamist allies.
That these brazen falsehoods are coupled with phrases oozing with liberal "idealism," calls for "international cooperation," and proclamations that all Washington desires is "peace" throughout the Middle East and the world makes for a toxic and particularly nauseating cocktail. Bashar al-Assad is a "tyrant," but the regime of Gen. Abdel al-Sisi, which overthrew the democratically elected government, is merely guilty of making "decisions inconsistent with inclusive democracy."
Speaking of Assad, Obama's focus wasn't on the spread of the Islamic State but on the Syrian strongman, who is barely holding on to power by his fingernails. He cited Washington's support for the so-called "moderate" rebels, but complained that for some unspecified reason "extremist groups have still taken root to exploit the crisis." What he didn't mention although Putin did is that these alleged "moderates" have gone over to the extremists in droves, raising the question: were these US-funded Good Guys always Bad Guys in an ill-fitting disguise?
[Editorial note: This is the first part of a two-part column contrasting President Obama's UN speech to the address delivered by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The second part, dealing with Putin's remarks, will be published on Friday.]
[Sep 28, 2015] The Only Two Things That Matter: Why I'm Supporting Larry Lessig
Notable quotes:
"... We need smart, motivated, knowledgeable voters. And we need a political system in which all people have an equal say. Without those ingredients, no amount of well-meaning, reasoned, fact-based argument is going to do much good. ..."
"... The presumption behind Lessig's gimmick is that democracy is a good form of government, so that closer adherence to democratic ideals will produce better political results. But democracy is arguably a terrible form of government, as the authors of the Federalist Papers were aware. What we need is intelligent, substantive, inspiring leadership. Mr. Lessig is not offering anything of the sort, so I would discourage anyone from wasting his or her vote on an empty gimmick. ..."
Sep 28, 2015 | baselinescenario.com
We have lots of problems: Expensive yet mediocre health care. Lack of retirement security. Out-of-control megabanks. Inequality of opportunity. And, of course, climate change.
At the end of the day, though, there are only two things that matter: early childhood education and electoral reform.
We need smart, motivated, knowledgeable voters. And we need a political system in which all people have an equal say. Without those ingredients, no amount of well-meaning, reasoned, fact-based argument is going to do much good.
michaelhendrickson | September 26, 2015 at 9:47 pm
The presumption behind Lessig's gimmick is that democracy is a good form of government, so that closer adherence to democratic ideals will produce better political results. But democracy is arguably a terrible form of government, as the authors of the Federalist Papers were aware. What we need is intelligent, substantive, inspiring leadership. Mr. Lessig is not offering anything of the sort, so I would discourage anyone from wasting his or her vote on an empty gimmick.
[Sep 28, 2015] Kunstler Rages Perhaps America Has Gotten What It Deserves
Sep 28, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Did Charlie Rose look like a fucking idiot last night on 60-Minutes, or what, asking Vladimir Putin how he could know for sure that the US was behind the 2014 Ukraine coup against President Viktor Yanukovych? Maybe the idiots are the 60-Minutes producers and fluffers who are supposed to prep Charlie's questions. Putin seemed startled and amused by this one on Ukraine: how could he know for sure?
Well, gosh, because Ukraine was virtually a province of Russia in one form or another for hundreds of years, and Russia has a potent intelligence service (formerly called the KGB) that had assets and connections threaded through Ukrainian society like the rhizomorphs of the fungus Armillaria solidipes through a conifer forest. Gosh, Charlie, it's like asking Obama whether the NSA might know what's going on in Texas.
And so there is Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, having to spell it out for the American clodhopper super-journalist. "We have thousands of contacts with them. We know who and where, and when they met with someone, and who worked with those who ousted Yanukovych, how they were supported, how much they were paid, how they were trained, where, in which country, and who those instructors were. We know everything."
The only thing Vlad left out of course was the now-world-famous panicked yelp by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland crying, "Fuck the EU," when events in Kiev started getting out of hand for US stage-managers. But he probably heard about that, too.
Charlie then voice-overed the following statement: "For the record, the US has denied any involvement in the removal of the Ukrainian leader." Right. And your call is important us. And your check is in the mail. And they hate us for our freedom.
This bit on Ukraine was only a little more appalling than Charlie's earlier segment on Syria. Was Putin trying to rescue the Assad government? Charlie asked, in the context of President Obama's statement years ago that "Assad has to go."
Putin answered as if he were explaining something that should have been self-evident to a not-very-bright high school freshman: "To remove the legitimate government would create a situation which you can witness in other countries of the region, for instance Libya, where all the state institutions have disintegrated. We see a similar situation in Iraq. There's no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the government structure."
I guess Charlie and the 60-Minutes production crew hadn't noticed what had gone on around the Middle East the past fifteen years with America's program of toppling dictators into the maw of anarchy. Not such great outcomes.
Charlie persisted though, following his script: Was Putin trying to rescue Assad? Vlad had to lay it out for him as if he were introducing Charlie to the game of Animal Lotto: "What do you think about those who support the terrorist organizations only to oust Assad without thinking about what happens to the country after all the state institutions have been demolished ? Look at those who are in control of 60 percent of the territory of Syria."
Meaning ISIS. Al Nusra (formerly al Qaeda in Syria), i.e., groups internationally recognized as terrorist organizations.
Charlie Rose, 60-Minutes - and perhaps by extension US government agencies with an interest in propagandizing - seem to want to put over the story that Russia has involved itself in Syria only to aggrandize its role on in world affairs.
Forgive me for being so blunt, but what sort of stupid fucking idea is this? And are there any non-lobotomized adults left in the USA who can't see straight through it? The truth is that American policy in Syria (plus Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Somalia, Afghanistan) is an impressive record of failure in terms of the one basic aim that most rational people might agree upon: stabilizing the region in a way that does not leave Islamic jihadi maniacs in charge.
Okay, so now the Russians will do what they can to try to stabilize Syria. They've had their failures, too (famously, Afghanistan). But Russian territory adjoins the Islamic lands and they clearly have stake in containing the virus of Islamic extremism near their borders. Is that not obvious?
Charlie made one other extremely dumb statement - he seems to prefer making assertions to asking straight-up questions - to the effect that Russia was misbehaving by deploying troops on its border with Ukraine.
Putin again seemed astonished by this credulous idiocy. The US had troops and nuclear weapons all over Europe, he answered. Did Charlie think that meant the US was attempting to occupy the nations of Europe now? Was it "a crime" for Russia to defend its own border with a neighboring state (formerly a province) that, he implied, the US had deliberately destabilized?
The Putin segment was followed by an sickening session with Donald Trump, a man who now - after a month or so of public exposure - proves incapable of uttering a coherent idea. I wonder what Vladimir Putin makes of this incomparable buffoon. Perhaps that America has gotten what it deserves.
[Sep 27, 2015] Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for Russian Foreign Ministry, grades Nuland's paper
September 16, 2015 | Fort Russ/Komsomolskaya Pravda
It is impossible to deal with cockroaches in one room while at the same time laying out little plates of bread crumbs on the other side of the wall.
Translated from Russian by Tom Winter
Translator's note: this press account is based on a post on Maria Zakharova's facebook page, and I have changed this account slightly in alignment with Zakharova's original text. It was not clear in KP what was Zakharova and what was KP. I think it is in this translation...
Head of the Information Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry wrote a "critical review" on the "Yalta speech" of the assistant US Secretary of State.
In Kiev, there was a conference "Yalta European Strategy". Already amazing. Yalta is in the Russian Crimea, and the "Yalta" conference was held in the Ukrainian capital. Well and good -- you couldn't miss that one!. But at this Yalta conference came the assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. Yes, the same one that passed out the cookies. But now, considered a shadow ruler of Ukraine, she points out to the Kiev authorities what to do. This time, Nuland said in a public speech:
- There should be no tolerance for those oligarchs who do not pay taxes. There must be zero tolerance for bribery and corruption, to those who would use violence for political ends.And these words of the grande dame of the State Department could not be overlooked. Just think, Americans don't like it when their loans to Ukraine get stolen. And anti-oligarchic Maidan brought the very oligarchs to power, and corruption in the country has become even greater. Some of us have grown weary of this talk. But, let Nuland drone on ...
But then Russian Foreign Ministry official spokesman Maria Zakharova replied. So much so that not a stone was left on stone in the American's "Yalta speech":
"All this a little bit, just a little, looks like a lecture to the fox about how bad it is to steal chickens, but actually it surprised in other ways. As soon as Russian authorities began exposing the tax evasion, bribery, or corruption of the oligarchs, Victoria Nuland's office hastened to call zero tolerance "political repression" - Zakharova wrote on her facebook page.
It would be great to see the Department of State "show that same zero tolerance and inquire a bit about how the initial capital of the Russian (and Ukrainian would not hurt) oligarchs got started, those oligarchs who have been accused of corruption at home, but who, once in London, feel protected by the authorities, enjoying all the benefits of membership in the Club of Victims of Political Persecution" - continued Zakharova."It is impossible to deal with cockroaches in one room while at the same time laying out little plates of bread crumbs on the other side of the wall. Giving the green light to the dirty money from Russia and the former Soviet Union, the Western world is only boosting the zeal with which the domestic thieves shove their loot in foreign bins."
"Though perhaps," wonders the Foreign Minstiry spokesman "this is the actual purpose of the imaginary zero tolerance?""Why do people on Interpol's lists, by the decision of the Russian courts, prove their financial immorality, as they thrive in the Western capitals, and no alarm bells go off in the State Department?"
It turns out to be an interesting story: Taking fetid streams of notes, the West has just one requirement at the border crossing. Scream "victim of the regime." That's it! and you're in spades!
This calls to mind the old Soviet bribery password translated into modern American:
- In Soviet times, it was common phrase, revealing corrupt intent to proceed with plans insidious in varying degrees: "I'm from Ivan Ivanovich." Today the corresponding "Open Sesame" that opens the doors "in Europe and the best houses in Philadelphia," is the phrase "I'm running away from Vladimir".Victoria, if you're going to start cleaning out the cockroaches, stop feeding them on your side.
http://michael-hudson.com/
http://michael-hudson.com/2015/09/killing-the-host-the-book/
The Table of Contents is as follows:
Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy
Introduction: The Twelve Themes of this Book
The Parasite, the Host, and Control of the Economy's Brain
I. From the Enlightenment to Neo-Rentier Economies
II. Wall Street as Central Planner
III. Austerity as a Privatization Grab
IV. There Is An Alternative
William K. Black, author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, http://billmoyers.com/guest/william-k-black/
He developed the concept of "control fraud"-frauds in which the CEO or head of state uses the entity as a "weapon,"