In Last Rites for the USA, Cindy Sheehan addresses the substantial erosion of U.S. democracy by oligarchy. The freshest hell, as Sheehan sees it -- an ultimate tipping point, she claims, in tearing away ANY illusion of democracy -- is the Supreme Court’s recent aggressive decision to expand “personhood” rights and protections of corporations in relation to campaign financing.

“Corporations have long held sway over our government and the soft fascism of corporate control has been running things behind the scenes.”

Just a totally flat out cute kitty video.

Concluding an extra-long thumbsucker on the FT piece everyone's talking about -- about how Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod are destroying Obama's presidency, a process that Obama is completely unaware of -- Steve Clemons advises Obama:

[G]et back to putting good policy before short term politics.

"Get back?" Oh, really? When would that have been?

"Progressive" Alaska:

Via Raw Story:

The largest gay-rights advocacy group in New Jersey has announced it will no longer give money to the Democratic Party.

The move follows the state legislature's failure last month to legalize gay marriage and amid growing signs that the effort to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is already faltering.

Here. Good!

Chomsky talks about how the teabaggers are people who need answers for what's gone wrong in their life and how the corporate entities funding their activities are giving them answers - crazy answers, but answers nonetheless.

Rather than embed the video directly, I'm linking to page where I found it, courtesy of Avedon, Progressive Alaska. I'm doing that because I want you to see the poll in the upper right hand corner: Which Word More Accurately Defines Sarah Palin To You? Your choices are "saint" or "slut". And this from a site that describes itself as "progressive".

Chomsky's answer is good. Now here's the page:
http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/20...

Videos from "Where Do We Go From Here" presented by PNHP at Beth Israel Medical Center on January 19, 2010.

Part One
Donna Smith, Katie Robbins, Christopher, Blair and Dr. Len Rodberg speak at the panel

Part 2
Donna Smith, Katie Robbins, Christopher, Blair and Dr. Len Rodberg speak at the panel

Part 3

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Haw.

News of tomorrow... today!

Obama: My plan is definitely crappy, cruel, and corporatist enough. Well if it isn't, please tell me how to make it worse.

GOP: Sorry, no matter how much worse you make it, it's just not going to be bad enough. But please keep trying!

Unison: The American people want a bipartisan solution. Maybe today puts us on track to have a plan that's crappy, cruel, and corporatist enough. The American public deserves no less!

Prudent Bear:

Rent-seeking is another current problem of Wall Street, not addressed by Volcker. This takes many forms, and has resulted from computerization and from the endless proliferation of derivative instruments. Basically, Wall Street houses, by their substantial market share in trading businesses, acquire insider information about money flows, and then profit by trading on this information. Traders have always done this, of course, and there is no sensible way of making it illegal. In addition genuine “crony capitalism” insider information about future finances and future government actions is as available as it always has been, but with larger trading volumes and fewer inhibitions is more usable without technically contravening insider treading legislation. Thus insider trading, almost all of it technically legal, has acquired an enormously magnified profit potential. This is the principal reason for Wall Street’s greater share of the economy; the genuine value added to third parties from “hedging” or liquidity” is only a tiny fraction of the rents Wall Street can extract from these markets.

After two days of tech troubles.

MMT (Modern Monetary Theory, or "chartalism")*. BillyBlog:

But the point is that the Bush deficits are immaterial to judging whether the Obama deficits are sustainable or whether the Obama administration has “more” or “less” fiscal space. What defines the amount of fiscal space is not the past fiscal position – surplus or deficit – but the extent to which there are underutilised real resources that can be brought back into production.

What Violet said.

The brainless "progressive" flap about Sarah Palin writing some notes on her hand is some weird embodiment of what Somerby calls "the cult of the offhand comment."

If anyone was worried that our politics wasn't going to keep getting dumber at a pace that makes Moore's Law pale in comparison, have no fear.

Note:

Ugh. And ugh.

By David Swanson

What it would have cost us to publicly fund independent media that would have prevented the invasion of Iraq wouldn't amount, in a year, to what we spend on a month of occupying that country.

Diverting the cost of a month of war to a year of giving substance to our "freedom of the press" would mean that the last time someone asked you about the Teabaggers' genius in being smart enough to talk dumb enough to persuade everyone to be racists would, in fact, be the LAST time anyone would ask you how a creation of the corporate media manages to get coverage from the corporate media.

Yep that's the title of the NYT article.

Sorry, just a quick hit and run- gotta crash, but irony?

Irked, Wall St. Hedges Its Bet on Democrats

The shift reflects the hard political edge to the industry’s campaign to thwart Mr. Obama’s proposals for tighter financial regulations.

because it is, but:

For the last few weeks, I've used the following image in my Democratic Underground signature:

Today, I received this note from a DU moderator:

The moderators find your current signature line to be offensive and not in keeping with the goals of the site. We are requesting that you remove it.

I replied thusly:

As you are the mods, I will change my sig line, but it's mindblowing that you could term it "offensive."

And now for something completely different...

Lately there has been a spate of diaries at such web sites as FireDogLake and "Open" Left wherein lay members — typically under attack from site moderators, who act as Democratic Party hacks and gatekeepers — have sought ways to bring back the Progressive Party, or join the Greens, or build up some other institution, that will allow progressives to act together as a cohesive political unit. (I posted an entry there myself, only to end up being attacked by site moderators, threatened with banishment, and ultimately banned when I refused to back down against their incessant bullying.)

I am happily watching the Super Bowl today. Sports kept me out of trouble growing up and provided me with a means to exercise my mind when teachers and schools often didn't bother. (Strategy and statistical analysis were great ways to learn logic and analytical skills.) And one of the central tenants of my political philosophy is the mutual benefits of others talents when societies form, including arts and sports (in addition to not having to make my own clothes, sustain myself solely on home grown food, etc.).

I also think that sports do build community identity and camaraderie. So I am sympathetic to the New Orleans Saints (even though I'm a Colts fan). As I was sick in bed for most of the week, the sports coverage was almost non-stop about how important a win for the Saints was for the city of New Orleans. One can argue quite effectively on that angle in the aftermath of Katrina. But is it accurate?