For those of you who can't do youtube, here's the transcript:

I think that the aid program is a fig leaf trying to make congress and the American people feel better about the war and about killing. I think that diplomacy in the areas of fig leaf to try to make the American people think that there is some constructive alternative to the war when the war itself is destructive and not constructive.
I think that the basic premise that we can alter afghan society is greatly flawed. Afghanistan is simply the part of Asia that was never occupied by the Russians or the English (inaudible). It’s not a country, it’s not even a place. It’s just an empty place on the map. It’s terra incognita. People who live there are a welter of different tribes, different language groups, different religious beliefs.
All over the country you find different people who have nothing to do with each other except for the fact that we call them Afghans, and they don’t even call themselves afghans. They’re (inaudible) or they’re Pashtuns, or they’re (other groups, inaudible)). The things that hold them together are simply the things that we try to create artificially.

And the idea that we could transform that society or any other society through aid I think is entirely questionable. I’ve never seen it happen, probably never will happen.

 Read more…

In Obama's recent speech, he equated the movement to extend Medicare to all Americans with the Canadian single-payer.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone.” ...such a plan “would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have.

He also reminded his "progressive friends" what apparently the real driving force behind health reform has been about all these years:

 Read more…

But our newest one refuses to believe:

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, during his
2nd Inaugural Address, 11 January 1944.

We are united in determination that this war shall not be followed by another interim which leads to new disaster- that we shall not repeat the tragic errors of ostrich isolationism—that we shall not repeat the excesses of the wild twenties when this Nation went for a joy ride on a roller coaster which ended in a tragic crash.

Roosevelt had said this before, during that memorable wartime   Read more…

If you've been paying attention during the last month or so you know about the tent cities. But the truth is they aren't new. The truth is, they go back to the era of Reagan and "entitlement cutbacks." They're not limited to the USA; the causes are worldwide the same, though -- governments not meeting their responsibilities to ensure affordable shelter for the populace:

Tent cities have much in common with the squatter camps of the Great Depression, but to simply call them Hoover-villes is to ignore their complexity. To truly understand them, one must look at current trends in the developing world, where informal urbanism -- a form of "slum" development that takes place outside the conventions of city planning -- is now the predominant mode of city-making.

Informal urbanism, characterized by unauthorized land occupation, makeshift construction and a lack of public utilities, is how many burgeoning nations meet their housing needs. It thrives in places like Fresno, where poverty is endemic and there is a wide gap between rich and poor.

Rahul Mehrotra, a professor at the MIT Institute of Urban Studies and Planning, said there's a real kinship between Taco Flat and the squatter settlements of Mumbai, India, where he runs an architectural firm.

"It's really a reflection of the government's inability to provide housing affordably across society," Mehrotra said. Informal urbanism also thrives wherever people face exclusion from the mainstream markets for work and shelter, he added, whether for ethnic, economic or political reasons.

So, President Obama. Change has come to Washington. Will it be change that brings back jobs? Call center jobs, construction jobs, seasonal work in harvesting or planting -- like jobs generations of Americans used to pull themselves into the middle class in such industries as the telephone company, the power company, the automakers or support industry for the automakers, GE's washer-and-dryer division, Boeing, Raytheon, Convair, General Dynamics, US Steel, Maytag, AT&T, SBC -- these jobs just like the better stronger jobs they replaced in our "service economy" at the behest of the "global free market" -- are gone. The doubt that they'll return grows stronger every day. Corporations have been turning away from US labor since at least the middle of the 1980s, and consumers, lulled by the promise of "lower prices every day" and its poisonous cousin, "easy credit," have been missing the point of saving a little longer to pay for a better quality or US made or both item instead: the job you save might be your own. I'm so old I remember when in some neighborhoods in the US, buying a Toyota or a Datsun bought you a car-egging, if not   Read more…

As we learned so well in the last 6 months, this country was looted, and still is, by plantation owners who own Wall Street, and therefore us. It's not small scale looting. This amounts to pillaging of the country by private jet-flying hooligans that own about 95% of everything.

Obama is nice and flattering to them and invests our future 5% right now in the 95% stolen goods. Obama is now a plantation owner by his actions and newly found friends.

Blue collar workers who, at best, make modest living by working their butts of not only were robbed of their future that was given to the plantation owners, but are asked to hand over money they made in the past, pension funds, to the plantation owners right away. If they resist, Sheriff Obama will close their work place promptly.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Yes, we have been immensely damaged, collectively and individually by the chimp that occupied the WH for the last eight years. And if the concept "national brain" means anything, we can safely assume that it has sustained horrendous damage.

Published: March 4, 2009Filed at 8:39 p.m. ET

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) -- A Connecticut woman mauled by a chimpanzee two weeks ago lost her hands, nose, lips and eyelids and may be blind and suffering brain damage, and hospital officials say it's still unclear if her condition can improve at all..

Dear Mr. President,

What Sara said.

This is a life or death situation and it is deteriorating. The history and the pathologies that got us to this point are well-documented by organizations like SPLC and by independent scholars. Some of us are trying to understand and deal with the situation in a sane and appropriate manner. We could use some support from our government and some leadership from you right now.

1. it's funnier if you were there.

2. a couple of friends of mine have fucked them, way back in their "nobody" years of the late 80s. apparently they like dumb blondes (of all orientations)

3. i miss them, and am unashamed to say i'm glad to know they have a new album out, no matter how much it may suck. all the critics hated "Violator," but you and i both know how that's spun off some of the greatest remix shit, like, ever.   Read more…

Well, not exactly:

Bloggers as America's Watchdogs: New Administration, New Roles?
Sponsored by the American Constitution Society Philadelphia Lawyers and Penn Law School chapters:

The blogosphere began during the early months of the Bush Administration with opposition and criticism being the dominant modes for online progressives. With a new administration in the White House, how will the role of the netroots change? How do leaders of online opinion see their responsibilities with respect to the new President?

Featuring:
John Aravosis -- Editor, AMERICAblog
Christy Hardin Smith -- Blogger, Firedoglake
Baratunde Thurston -- Co-Founder, Jack & Jill Politics and Blogger, The Huffington Post
Daniel Urevick-Ackelsberg -- Founder, Young Philly Politics

Moderator: Adam Bonin, chairman of the board of directors, Netroots Nation

Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 5:30pm - 7:00pm
University of Pennsylvania Law School
3400 Chestnut Street, Phila PA
Please RSVP at http://www.acslaw.org/chapters/lawyer/ph...

I sent a note to the moderator. I basically said that I've never been a "blogger for the party" sort, as if that's not blindingly obvious. I also said that I seriously doubt that Villagers and high-ranking Dems give a shit about what I write, think or say. There are some people who blog who think the political blogosphere can and does make a difference in national politics, but since the MoveOn vote, I've pretty much lost faith in that idea. I find the formulation of the questions of the panel sort of interesting. Yes, a lot of my pre-Obama administration blogging was in response to what Bush was doing. But not all of it, nor would I have been any less engaged and enraged had Bush had a (D) after his name. What do you think?

Blue Gal:

Tuesday, February 3 is Blogroll Amnesty Day. Old timers know that this holiday has a rather sullen history, but now it is a happy occasion: On February 3, bloggers are invited to post links to five blogs you like, that have smaller traffic than your own. It's a great celebration and a time to discover new blogs and link them and stuff. As I said last year, "not to get all mushy here, but do you know how fucking great it is to be here in the blogosphere? Take a moment. Take it in." Spread some linky love.

Small and newbie bloggers please be aware of the ironclad rule that you are not allowed to make "hey no blog is as small as mine" jokes regarding Blogroll Amnesty Day. The rule is, straight from the queen of the indy blogs herself (ahem), that you are not allowed to complain or mention your blog's low traffic until you have been posting daily for a year. If you're little, link other blogs that are new or still growing their audience, and encourage them to practice their craft daily. Then, show them how.

Ah, I do remember the great "amnesty" controversy quite well. Really didn't show the A-Listers in a very positive light, imho. John Swift sums it up nicely:

remember how difficult it was to get people to notice my blog when I first started out. "Build it and they will come," apparently only works with magic baseball fields. The only way to get anyone to notice my blog was to get them to link to me and that was not always easy. I linked to other bloggers and clicked on those links hoping they would notice my link in Sitemeter. I sent emails to other bloggers asking them to take a look at my latest piece or to add me to their blogrolls. I instituted my "Liberal Blogrolling Policy" offering to exchange links with anyone who linked to me. As more blogs began to link to me and add me to their blogrolls, a curious thing began to happen. More people came to my blog from those links and from Google. And many of those readers then visited the blogs that I linked to. Though it cost nothing to link to someone, I realized that on the Internet links are capital. Every link has value. And when two bloggers link to each other, they both profit.

 Read more…

The self-publishing revolution continues. My comments on this are mostly snarky, and I can't claim to have followed its developments very closely. But right off the top of my head I feel compelled to remind everyone that Lambert allows "self-publishing" on this web site for people, for free. There's a nice little button over to your right if you'd like to show your appreciation for that. Secondly, I'm hip deep in some reading about the Reformation right now, and I'm reminded again of just how powerful "self-publishing" has been in history. For example, English language copies of the Bible were actually eventually banned by Henry VIII; the "reformation" king of England was in theological terms, pretty Catholic in all but allegiance to Rome, and was disturbed by all the sects and dangerous ideas rising up during the period in which he allowed translations to flourish. Turns out this was not a genie he, or anyone, could put back in the bottle. The rest, as we say, is history.

45,000 before 9am. I'm glad the good folks at Raw are keeping up with this, in that "OMGWTFBBQ???" sort of way.

Somebody was working this weekend to make sure thousands of other people didn't.

US companies announced they're cutting 45,000 jobs by 9 am Eastern Time on Monday morning, even before the US stock market opened, according to a quick count by Raw Story.

The point is: this isn't going to stop. Layoffs lead to layoffs lead to more layoffs, until it's a Depression "for real." I live in MI, and we've been experiencing the truth of this for years now. There is no magic moment in which it all suddenly gets better, so long as policymakers continue to sit on their hands, or pass another round of meaningless tax cuts that lead to exactly no job creation.

So, what's your favorite snarky one-word response to news like this? "Ouch" just isn't enough anymore.

Or rather, those who supposed they were in the Master Class and are finding out that wasn't so true after all. I don't know much about economics. Maybe Forbes does, though. I read this with great interest, for all I probably didn't understand it. Here's my dramatic oversimplification/reaction:

Taxation, and regulation, of the superwealthy and large corporations, is an essential good for society. Without it, "the economy" is little more than a gambling exercise played by the very rich for the even richer, and everyone with less than $100m is left out in the cold, to suffer and die after slaving their lives away, the better to hand over 90% of what they produce to those who produce nothing. Ahem, the *unelected, un-transparent, unregulated* "those who produce nothing."

Taxation is good. Because it swells government coffers, and pays for programs and development from which everyone can benefit. The internet wasn't developed because some VC firms thought it would be a great thing to invest in. Initially, what got the Internet ball rolling was... government research money. We could be heavily taxing the rich right now, and using that money for research and development into alternative energy technology, or technology that can help us restore the environment and deal with a changing climate. Etc. Anyway, this is me laughing at a bunch of VC suits I used to hang with. HA-ha! 5%? I guess you guys aren't the superbrain masters of the universe after all. Seems I'm not the only one who "doesn't know much" about High Finance.

This is a dense, sober, fact-based post that people should read, but likely won't. That's a shame. There are many lighter and easier to read posts out there which say, more or less, many of the same things; you can find them if you search for them- here, and at other "hater" blogs. I'll try to simplify what I've taken away from the writing I prefer to read of late (a body of works which I'll note is growing in number rapidly) that responds to the stated aims and policies of the administration, which of today, is "official."

Put simply: America is suffering from PTSD. The traumas resulting from the last 8 years are myriad. War, poverty, anti-Constitutional criminality, inflation/deflation, unemployment, environmental and energy crises...and the sad part is that much of that was avoidable. That these things were avoidable is the reason why so many of us are sore in our metaphorical throats, our fingers tired from writing the same "No! We *are* predicting!" type precursors to the inevitable 'no one could've predicted!' response to collapse so common in our SCLM. It's a hard, lonely road, and it's made lonelier today, by the fact that our new Leader essentially has one message: you haven't been traumatized enough; get ready for more pain.

Speaking to non-blog readers, moderate liberals, and people who respond more forcefully to good speechifying than to hard policy, I think I understand the problem. Bluntly: people are tired. They're scared. They're traumatized. And they don't want to hear any more bad news. They want to believe, they want to hope. There's nothing wrong with that. Except, "nothing fails like prayer," and "hope is not a plan." Worse still, a bad plan is guaranteed to cause or increase existing problems, more than no plan at all. In a strange way, I find myself wishing that today's speech had been emptier, more filled with meaningless platitude and feel-goodism, than it already did. But the message I heard was clear: sacrifice. I don't believe President Obama meant those most responsible for our current crises, nor do I believe that he means it for those most able to make those sacrifices truly needed. I believe he means it for you and me, however.

As the author of the linked posts notes in some detail, I have my reasons. FISA. Warren. TARP. The proposed escalation in Afghanistan (and the insufficient plans for 'drawdown' in Iraq). Tax cuts instead of tax increases. "Entitlement reform." Moving "forward," rather than creating a stable, more just future by prosecution of those responsible for the problems that are guaranteed to unfold in it, due to their criminality and incompetence. The scope and range of the proposed stimulus bill does very little to offset the list above, nor do I believe it's more than a calculated, political plan that has more to do with reelection in '10 and '12, and less to do with actually addressing the problems that are hurtling down upon us all, "hope" and "change" notwithstanding.

LAT

For a change, the reporter actually went there and talked to real live Afghani fighters. Bottom line: there is no "victory" to be had there. At this point, I'm completely cynical about anything I hear coming from American politicians on what we're supposedly doing there. We're there to enrich energy companies, contractors and merc firms, and those political districts that benefit from profligate war spending. The exploding heroin market also plays a role. Anyone who says otherwise is bullshitting you.

So, in addition to being an untrustworthy but highly attractive fox, I'm also a bitchy princess who is a tease. So, you only get 10 for tonight. Heh, I could write a whole blog on what I experienced in London. I won't bore you with that, but rather show you what post Empire is really about. That is: bragging rights! If you can kill it, steal it, imitate it, coerce it, and be snobby about all that...you could be a Citizen of the Empire! Just kidding, blokes. Seriously:I loved your nation (what I saw of it) and I want to live there. Any Brit Dykes in need of a footrubbing, politically active, art-loving gardener and cook? I'm available for an EU contract. Standard warning, plenty of pics to follow.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you...The Rosetta Stone:

This is going to get me in all kinds of trouble, but feh, what else is a blog for?
Exhibit A:

CHICAGO (AP) - President-elect Barack Obama says he is saddened by allegations that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich tried to trade favors for Obama's Senate seat—and says he had no contact with the governor or his office on the matter.

The governor was arrested Tuesday on federal corruption charges. Prosecutors say Blagojevich wanted to give Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Obama says he will have no further comment on the matter because it is an ongoing investigation.

Where have I heard those phrases before? Hmmm....

Now, the first part I put in bold is critical, as it related to Axelrod's words in this video. Notice how Axelrod is very careful not to say what subject, or any other relevant details, about what the conversation was concerning. Gee, I wonder why?

I am really trying here. It's a hard, fine line to walk. I don't want to be overly rhetorical, or run away with the latest emotion-based villification of the moment. I'm not looking for attention, and I already know: few, if any politicians in DC are going to "satisfy" me. Etc. But there are a couple of different ways to contrast and compare these two links, and most of them don't make Team Obama look good.

Boilerplate: I've read the pdf, I know what Blago said about Obama; it's clear they didn't get along and I'm inclined to believe that Obama was, let's say, too professional a politician, to get involved in Blago's blatant and sloppy corruption. But then an unpopular blogger (hey, just like me!) throws this out there, and what the hell am I left thinking? That we can't be cynical enough, and that "not quite a lie" is the new "lying their asses off."

I'm so fucking sick of it. Team Obama: just say, "Sure, we talked to him about the appointment choices. He wasn't too fond of ours. You know what he wanted in return for it? Money. We weren't prepared to give him any. That would've been wrong, and corrupt." Can't you see how much better you'd look right now if you'd said that? No, I guess you can't.

Feeling rather unclever today, I don't have the snappy intro I wish I could have for this:

KABUL (Reuters) - The U.S. general commanding NATO forces in Afghanistan has ordered a merger of the office that releases news with "Psy Ops," which deals with propaganda, a move that goes against the alliance's policy, three officials said.

 Read more…

Suzie asks some important questions concerning this report on young people's ethics. It doesn't surprise me at all that more boys than girls believe that lying and cheating are necessary for success in life. Now, I'm not one to bemoan Those Kids Today, as I've been doing some reading on 18thc politics and know we've got a long way to go before we hit rock bottom. But I do think that another point that should be raised re: this endemic of cheating and lying is that politics have far reaching consequences, and to me that is reflected in the survey. If the President and high elected officials lie like rugs and no one calls them on it, why shouldn't young people take that as a model and example?

Personally, I've come to understand that educators must take real care, and guard against cheating and lying, when it comes to teens today. There's a certain culture that crosses races and income levels, which lauds those teens who are able to 'get away with it,' whatever it may be. Again, I don't think this is too different than when I was a teen, or before that, but I think that teens who adopt this aesthetic will carry it on into adulthood, unless some authority in their lives teaches them that there are serious consequences.

It will be interesting, as the coming population wave assumes political and cultural power, in the many battles in which we find ourselves engaged today. People who don't believe that lying and cheating are great evils to be avoided will be more or less likely oppose gay marriage? More or less likely to believe that our nation should be engaged in wars of choice? More or less concerned with government spying? More or less tolerant of "the war on drugs?" I don't know the answer to any of that, but I suspect the political scene will be different, when this generation begins to exhibit its peak influence.

I think of this as one of those "what comes around, goes around" sort of things. Republicans have enshrined lying and cheating as legitimate forms of public behavior, and Democrats have failed to oppose that in a significant way. Soon, we'll get to find out just what it's like when a large portion of the population shares those beliefs. Short form: if the rubes don't follow the rules set up for them, it's a lot harder to suck up obscene profits from their enslavement.

I know this is linked to below, and that Avedon has joined the bandwagon, but I think this simple point is worth repeating, over and over and over. Call *me* boring, I can hack it, but don't dismiss the essential truth of this:

No presidential administration keeps its promises without relentless pressure from below.

From the American Revolution to the Civil War, abolition to women's rights, the Civil rights era to Stonewall, it's the same story every time. Ugly, poor, fat, tranny, unhip, powerless, "criminal," outcast, unpopular, drug using, cat loving, "loosers" have been at the forefront, in the vaanguard, the most vocal and far-seeing, when it comes to progressive change. You can add "unpopular C list bloggers" to that list, now. But the bottom line is that no one listens to "people like us," until they do, because they have to. On so many issues (FISA, Iraq, the "bailout," health care) we're sofa king right, and have the only real and lasting solutions, and everybody else, no matter how well connected, paid, or "popular," are wrong and will be proven so, in the "meaningless" eyes of historians, people who benefit from the programs we advocate, and those millions of current and future generations not killed or forced to suffer so that a few hundred rich people can be richer. I know this in "my soul." More importantly, the history of the West, the religious wars, and science, back me up.

This is likely the wrong blog to ask this kweshun, but I'm still curious. For the sake of argument, let's say Obama wins, very clearly and obviously in your own mind. And let's say that somehow, insert your own 2000 redux here, "they" (try to) take it away from him, via Brooks Brothers riots and SCOTUS foolishness and other sundry undemocratic methods. What is your response, if any? And why? How would it be different than if HRC had had it stolen from her? Or the candidate of Your Choice?

I don't think McSpain has the ground game to steal it this time; I also don't think Wall St/Telco Ave money wants Obama to lose. So honestly I'm not so worried about it. I think we'll get a "democratic" prezint next Jan. But let's say the paranoid, insane racist members of the Franchise refuse to give up power, and pull out all the tricks, and declare at 3am Nov 5 that "McCain Wins!" What do you do?

Marching? Molotovs? Sit ins? Strikes? LTEs? Turning the channel? Knitting? Nothing? Just wondering...

Been a while since Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has been exercised here at Corrente, and there is good news and bad news – of a sort.

I hate headcolds. Anyway, hope you all are having a good harvest. Here's some planting of the seeds of the future, yesterday, muscially speaking:

I also love the next two songs/numbers in this movie, but I figured one race-traitor lo-fi offering was enough for one night.

Please read Paul Jorian's blogpost regarding the implosion of the credit markets, the reasons, the influence of "The Chicago School" of economists whose assumptions continue to help us not understand how economies work, and "What it All Means".

Don't feel bad to reread each sentence, mouth-moving to form the words, just as I must do. Just read it. (plus it's fucking footnoted. My god, who footnotes a blog!!!????)

Here are some teasers:

The opener: