Former Florida governor was critical of current field in a speech this week, prompting rumours he could be a surprise contender
Paul Harris in New York
guardian.co.uk, Friday 24 February 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/24/jeb-bush-latest-white-knight-republican
Speculation that a late challenger might still emerge in the increasingly bitter race for the Republican presidential nomination is set to surge after former Florida governor Jeb Bush made remarks criticising the current field.
Bush, who is the brother of President George W Bush and son of President George Bush Sr, is a beloved figure among many conservatives who see him as a strong and charismatic leader who is popular in the must-win swing state of Florida.
That contrasts with a widespread unease among many Republican leaders and grassroots activists with the remaining crop of Republican candidates and the vitriolic nature of the fight between frontrunner Mitt Romney and his main challengers Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.
In answers to questions from the audience after a speech in Dallas on Thursday, Bush cautioned the remaining Republican campaigns from drifting so far to the right that they put off the key independent voters needed to beat President Barack Obama in November.
"I think it's important for the candidates to recognise though they have to appeal to primary voters, and not turn off independent voters that will be part of a winning coalition," Bush told the audience according to CBS news.
Bush also directly took on the strident tone of recent Republican debates, accusing participants of scare-mongering. "I used to be a conservative and I watch these debates and I'm wondering, I don't think I've changed, but it's a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people's fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective and that's kind of where we are," he said according to Fox News.
With Mitt Romney failing so far to secure the nomination but with no convincing challenger emerging to unseat him, many Republican pundits have speculated about the possibility that none of the current field will be able to amass enough support to secure the nomination this August in Tampa.
Though that is still unlikely, and Romney remains favourite to win the contest, it has led to a slew of names being mentioned as possible "white knights" who could still enter the race or emerge at Tampa as a compromise candidate to unite a splintered party. They include Bush, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels and Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan.
Though none of these figures have expressed any intention to run, and several have repeatedly denied it, Bush's comments are likely to set the rumour mill spinning furiously.
They also come after Tea Party favourite Sarah Palin entered the fray, raising the idea that she might see herself as her party's saviour. In recent interviews the former Alaska governor has said she would "help" out the party if a contested convention happened and told CNN earlier this month that she believed such an event would be a good thing. "I don't think it would be a negative for the party … That's part of the competition, that's part of the process and it may happen," she said.
Ron Paul's campaign has also complicated matters. Though the libertarian-leaning Texan congressman has not yet won a single state's popular ballot, he is trying to build up a large number of delegates to take to Tampa. In caucus states, where complex rules mean the number of delegates assigned to a candidate can outweigh their score in the popular vote, Ron Paul's campaign is working hard to win as much support as possible. That could see him amass a body of delegates in Tampa that far exceeds his standings in the polls and makes a contested convention, with no one having enough support to secure victory, more likely.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
Dear Andrew Sullivan: Why Focus on Obama's Dumbest Critics?
A major defense of the president exaggerates Obama's accomplishments and misses the point: his scandalous transgressions against rule of law.
Conor Friedersdorf
Jan 17 2012
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/dear-andrew-sullivan-why-focus-on-obamas-dumbest-critics/251528
After reading Andrew Sullivan's Newsweek essay about President Obama, his critics, and his re-election bid, I implore him to ponder just one question. How would you have reacted in 2008 if any Republican ran promising to do the following?
(1) Codify indefinite detention into law; (2) draw up a secret kill list of people, including American citizens, to assassinate without due process; (3) proceed with warrantless spying on American citizens; (4) prosecute Bush-era whistleblowers for violating state secrets; (5) reinterpret the War Powers Resolution such that entering a war of choice without a Congressional declaration is permissible; (6) enter and prosecute such a war; (7) institutionalize naked scanners and intrusive full body pat-downs in major American airports; (8) oversee a planned expansion of TSA so that its agents are already beginning to patrol American highways, train stations, and bus depots; (9) wage an undeclared drone war on numerous Muslim countries that delegates to the CIA the final call about some strikes that put civilians in jeopardy; (10) invoke the state-secrets privilege to dismiss lawsuits brought by civil-liberties organizations on dubious technicalities rather than litigating them on the merits; (11) preside over federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries; (12) attempt to negotiate an extension of American troops in Iraq beyond 2011 (an effort that thankfully failed); (14) reauthorize the Patriot Act; (13) and select an economic team mostly made up of former and future financial executives from Wall Street firms that played major roles in the financial crisis.
I submit that had Palin or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice or Jeb Bush or John Bolton or Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney proposed doing even half of those things in 2008, you'd have declared them unfit for the presidency and expressed alarm at the prospect of America doubling down on the excesses of the post-September 11 era. You'd have championed an alternative candidate who avowed that America doesn't have to choose between our values and our safety.
Yet President Obama has done all of the aforementioned things.
Pretend that you knew, circa 2008, that President Cheney or Palin or Rice or Rumsfeld or Giuliani would do all those things -- but that, on the bright side, they'd refrain from torturing anyone else, end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, sign a bank bailout, and pass a health-care bill that you regard as improving on the status quo starting in 2014. Would you vote for them on that basis?
I submit that you would not. And if they were elected, and four years later were running for re-election, would you focus on the stupidity of the least persuasive attacks on their tenure? Or would you laud their most incisive critics? I believe that you'd be among their most incisive critics.
Back to the present.
The Newsweek cover headline for Sullivan's piece is "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" It's entirely defensible to point out that many critiques of Obama are laughably disconnected from reality -- I've done that myself on many occasions -- so it's arguably a fair headline.
But the one I've chosen is fair too: "Why Focus on Obama's Dumbest Critics?"
No, Obama isn't a radical Kenyan anti-colonialist. But he is a lawbreaker and an advocate of radical executive power. What precedent could be more radical than insisting that the executive is empowered to draw up a kill list of American citizens in secret, without telling anyone what names are on it, or the legal justification for it, or even that it exists? What if Newt Gingrich inherits that power?
He may yet.
Over the years, Sullivan has confronted, as few others have, American transgressions abroad, including torture, detainee abuse, and various imperial ambitions. He's long drawn attention to civil-liberties violations at home too, as a solo blogger and as lead editor and writer of a blogazine. When I worked for Sullivan, he not only published but actively encouraged items I found that highlighted civil-liberties abuses by the Obama Administration, and since I parted ways with The Daily Dish, he and the Dish team have continued to air critiques of Obama on these questions.
But his Newsweek essay fits the pattern I've lamented of Obama apologists who tell a narrative of his administration that ignores some of these issues and minimizes the importance of others, as if they're a relatively unimportant matter to be set aside in a sentence or three before proceeding to the more important business of whether the president is being critiqued fairly by obtuse partisans.
Sullivan should reconsider this approach.
During President Bush's first term, Sullivan will recall the most unhinged attacks on him -- the comparisons to Hitler, the puppets burned in effigy, the comparisons to a chimp. There wasn't anything wrong with lamenting those attacks, just as there's nothing wrong with pointing out exaggerated and baseless attacks on Obama, which have spread through most of the Republican Party. But the priority put on rebutting the least persuasive left-wing critiques of Bush, and pre-election 2004 worrying about the flaws of the Democratic field, are part of what postponed the backlash against Bush's ruinous policies. The backlash should've been the priority all along.
The same is now true of Obama. Like President Bush, he is breaking the law, transgressing against civil liberties, and championing a radical view of executive power -- and he is invoking the War on Terror to get away with it. As much as it was in 2003 or 2007, it is vital in 2012 that there be a backlash against these post-9/11 excesses, that liberty-loving citizens push back so that these are anomalies that are reined in, rather than permanent features of a bipartisan consensus that can only end in a catastrophically abusive executive operating in an office stripped by successive presidents and their minions of both constitutional and prudential checks.
Beyond strenuously objecting to the focus of his piece and what it doesn't mention, and agreeing with some of Sullivan's points, I have important disagreements with others. "Where Bush talked tough and acted counter-productively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war," Sullivan writes. "Since he took office, al Qaeda's popularity in the Muslim world has plummeted." But it's surely relevant that, according to surveys like this one from James Zogby in 2011, "After improving with the election of Barack Obama in 2008, U.S. favorable ratings across the Arab world have plummeted. In most countries they are lower than at the end of the Bush Administration, and lower than Iran's favorable ratings (except in Saudi Arabia)." And in the areas where Obama's drone strikes are killing innocent civilians, he is trading short-term terrorist deaths for the possibility that our policies will create more terrorists in the long run. It's a tradeoff some people consider prudent; but that's different from saying he is "winning the propaganda war." In fact, the predictable effect of some of his policies is to increase hatred of the U.S.
Says Sullivan, "Obama's foreign policy, like Dwight Eisenhower's or George H.W. Bush's, eschews short-term political hits for long-term strategic advantage." But there are cases when the opposite is true. When the CIA sponsored a fake vaccination campaign in Pakistan as a ruse to get bin Laden's DNA, the Dish cited commentators who argued that it was egregiously shortsighted, and quoted an infectious-disease specialist's fears "that disclosure of the CIA's vaccine ruse actually will turn out to kill more people than bin Laden ever did." The bin Laden raid itself, combined with the steady drone campaign in Pakistan, has done so much to destabilize Pakistan that its generals, fearful of American interference, are more frequently moving its nuclear weapons around the country in lightly guarded trucks, as reported by Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder. Surely Sullivan should acknowledge that it is possible that the raid and drone strikes will ultimately turn out to be a case of sacrificing long-term strategic advantages for a short-term hit. (That might not be the case -- the point is that it's premature to give Obama credit. We're still operating in the short run.)
Says Sullivan, "From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, where anything requires 60 Senate votes even to stand a chance of making it into law. They have described him as a hapless tool of Wall Street, a continuation of Bush in civil liberties, a cloistered elitist unable to grasp the populist moment that is his historic opportunity." Without getting into all the issues contained in that passage, it is in fact true that Obama represents a continuation of Bush policies on civil liberties! And in some respects he has gone even farther than Bush.
"Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels," Sullivan writes. Yes, but no thanks to Obama, who opposes both marriage equality and marijuana legalization! This is the height of illegitimate Obama apologia: attributing to his credit policies he hasn't advanced because a change in public opinion happens to have coincided with his tenure. By this logic Bush also deserves credit for the increasing support for gay marriage during the aughts.
To Sullivan, this is the big picture story of the Obama Administration: "the president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider." Like the whole of his essay, it takes as its lodestar the two-party system and defines Obama as a centrist within it, as if the most coherent way to judge him is by comparison with other establishment politicians.
But centrism inside a consensus that is steadily eroding civil liberties, doing away with checks and balances, and increasing executive power is nothing to support, never mind something to celebrate. "Yes, Obama has waged a war based on a reading of executive power that many civil libertarians, including myself, oppose. And he has signed into law the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (even as he pledged never to invoke this tyrannical power himself)," Sullivan states. "But he has done the most important thing of all: excising the cancer of torture from military detention and military justice. If he is not re-elected, that cancer may well return."
That sums it up, doesn't it?
Obama has transgressed against what is arguably Congress' most essential check on executive power -- its status as the decider of when America goes to war -- and he has codified indefinite detention into law, something that hasn't been done since Japanese Americans were detained during World War II. But at least he doesn't torture people! How low we've set the bar.
It isn't that I object to Sullivan backing Obama's reelection if his GOP opponent runs on bringing back torture. Is he the lesser of two evils? Maybe so. But lauding him as a president who has governed "with grace and calm" and "who as yet has not had a single significant scandal to his name"? If indefinite detention, secret kill lists, warrantless spying, a war on whistleblowers, violating the War Powers Resolution, and abuse of the state secrets privilege don't fit one's definition of "scandal," what does? If they're peripheral flaws rather than central, unacceptable transgressions, America is doomed to these radical, illiberal policies for the foreseeable future.
Conor Friedersdorf
Jan 17 2012
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/dear-andrew-sullivan-why-focus-on-obamas-dumbest-critics/251528
After reading Andrew Sullivan's Newsweek essay about President Obama, his critics, and his re-election bid, I implore him to ponder just one question. How would you have reacted in 2008 if any Republican ran promising to do the following?
(1) Codify indefinite detention into law; (2) draw up a secret kill list of people, including American citizens, to assassinate without due process; (3) proceed with warrantless spying on American citizens; (4) prosecute Bush-era whistleblowers for violating state secrets; (5) reinterpret the War Powers Resolution such that entering a war of choice without a Congressional declaration is permissible; (6) enter and prosecute such a war; (7) institutionalize naked scanners and intrusive full body pat-downs in major American airports; (8) oversee a planned expansion of TSA so that its agents are already beginning to patrol American highways, train stations, and bus depots; (9) wage an undeclared drone war on numerous Muslim countries that delegates to the CIA the final call about some strikes that put civilians in jeopardy; (10) invoke the state-secrets privilege to dismiss lawsuits brought by civil-liberties organizations on dubious technicalities rather than litigating them on the merits; (11) preside over federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries; (12) attempt to negotiate an extension of American troops in Iraq beyond 2011 (an effort that thankfully failed); (14) reauthorize the Patriot Act; (13) and select an economic team mostly made up of former and future financial executives from Wall Street firms that played major roles in the financial crisis.
I submit that had Palin or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice or Jeb Bush or John Bolton or Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney proposed doing even half of those things in 2008, you'd have declared them unfit for the presidency and expressed alarm at the prospect of America doubling down on the excesses of the post-September 11 era. You'd have championed an alternative candidate who avowed that America doesn't have to choose between our values and our safety.
Yet President Obama has done all of the aforementioned things.
Pretend that you knew, circa 2008, that President Cheney or Palin or Rice or Rumsfeld or Giuliani would do all those things -- but that, on the bright side, they'd refrain from torturing anyone else, end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, sign a bank bailout, and pass a health-care bill that you regard as improving on the status quo starting in 2014. Would you vote for them on that basis?
I submit that you would not. And if they were elected, and four years later were running for re-election, would you focus on the stupidity of the least persuasive attacks on their tenure? Or would you laud their most incisive critics? I believe that you'd be among their most incisive critics.
Back to the present.
The Newsweek cover headline for Sullivan's piece is "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" It's entirely defensible to point out that many critiques of Obama are laughably disconnected from reality -- I've done that myself on many occasions -- so it's arguably a fair headline.
But the one I've chosen is fair too: "Why Focus on Obama's Dumbest Critics?"
No, Obama isn't a radical Kenyan anti-colonialist. But he is a lawbreaker and an advocate of radical executive power. What precedent could be more radical than insisting that the executive is empowered to draw up a kill list of American citizens in secret, without telling anyone what names are on it, or the legal justification for it, or even that it exists? What if Newt Gingrich inherits that power?
He may yet.
Over the years, Sullivan has confronted, as few others have, American transgressions abroad, including torture, detainee abuse, and various imperial ambitions. He's long drawn attention to civil-liberties violations at home too, as a solo blogger and as lead editor and writer of a blogazine. When I worked for Sullivan, he not only published but actively encouraged items I found that highlighted civil-liberties abuses by the Obama Administration, and since I parted ways with The Daily Dish, he and the Dish team have continued to air critiques of Obama on these questions.
But his Newsweek essay fits the pattern I've lamented of Obama apologists who tell a narrative of his administration that ignores some of these issues and minimizes the importance of others, as if they're a relatively unimportant matter to be set aside in a sentence or three before proceeding to the more important business of whether the president is being critiqued fairly by obtuse partisans.
Sullivan should reconsider this approach.
During President Bush's first term, Sullivan will recall the most unhinged attacks on him -- the comparisons to Hitler, the puppets burned in effigy, the comparisons to a chimp. There wasn't anything wrong with lamenting those attacks, just as there's nothing wrong with pointing out exaggerated and baseless attacks on Obama, which have spread through most of the Republican Party. But the priority put on rebutting the least persuasive left-wing critiques of Bush, and pre-election 2004 worrying about the flaws of the Democratic field, are part of what postponed the backlash against Bush's ruinous policies. The backlash should've been the priority all along.
The same is now true of Obama. Like President Bush, he is breaking the law, transgressing against civil liberties, and championing a radical view of executive power -- and he is invoking the War on Terror to get away with it. As much as it was in 2003 or 2007, it is vital in 2012 that there be a backlash against these post-9/11 excesses, that liberty-loving citizens push back so that these are anomalies that are reined in, rather than permanent features of a bipartisan consensus that can only end in a catastrophically abusive executive operating in an office stripped by successive presidents and their minions of both constitutional and prudential checks.
Beyond strenuously objecting to the focus of his piece and what it doesn't mention, and agreeing with some of Sullivan's points, I have important disagreements with others. "Where Bush talked tough and acted counter-productively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war," Sullivan writes. "Since he took office, al Qaeda's popularity in the Muslim world has plummeted." But it's surely relevant that, according to surveys like this one from James Zogby in 2011, "After improving with the election of Barack Obama in 2008, U.S. favorable ratings across the Arab world have plummeted. In most countries they are lower than at the end of the Bush Administration, and lower than Iran's favorable ratings (except in Saudi Arabia)." And in the areas where Obama's drone strikes are killing innocent civilians, he is trading short-term terrorist deaths for the possibility that our policies will create more terrorists in the long run. It's a tradeoff some people consider prudent; but that's different from saying he is "winning the propaganda war." In fact, the predictable effect of some of his policies is to increase hatred of the U.S.
Says Sullivan, "Obama's foreign policy, like Dwight Eisenhower's or George H.W. Bush's, eschews short-term political hits for long-term strategic advantage." But there are cases when the opposite is true. When the CIA sponsored a fake vaccination campaign in Pakistan as a ruse to get bin Laden's DNA, the Dish cited commentators who argued that it was egregiously shortsighted, and quoted an infectious-disease specialist's fears "that disclosure of the CIA's vaccine ruse actually will turn out to kill more people than bin Laden ever did." The bin Laden raid itself, combined with the steady drone campaign in Pakistan, has done so much to destabilize Pakistan that its generals, fearful of American interference, are more frequently moving its nuclear weapons around the country in lightly guarded trucks, as reported by Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder. Surely Sullivan should acknowledge that it is possible that the raid and drone strikes will ultimately turn out to be a case of sacrificing long-term strategic advantages for a short-term hit. (That might not be the case -- the point is that it's premature to give Obama credit. We're still operating in the short run.)
Says Sullivan, "From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, where anything requires 60 Senate votes even to stand a chance of making it into law. They have described him as a hapless tool of Wall Street, a continuation of Bush in civil liberties, a cloistered elitist unable to grasp the populist moment that is his historic opportunity." Without getting into all the issues contained in that passage, it is in fact true that Obama represents a continuation of Bush policies on civil liberties! And in some respects he has gone even farther than Bush.
"Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels," Sullivan writes. Yes, but no thanks to Obama, who opposes both marriage equality and marijuana legalization! This is the height of illegitimate Obama apologia: attributing to his credit policies he hasn't advanced because a change in public opinion happens to have coincided with his tenure. By this logic Bush also deserves credit for the increasing support for gay marriage during the aughts.
To Sullivan, this is the big picture story of the Obama Administration: "the president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider." Like the whole of his essay, it takes as its lodestar the two-party system and defines Obama as a centrist within it, as if the most coherent way to judge him is by comparison with other establishment politicians.
But centrism inside a consensus that is steadily eroding civil liberties, doing away with checks and balances, and increasing executive power is nothing to support, never mind something to celebrate. "Yes, Obama has waged a war based on a reading of executive power that many civil libertarians, including myself, oppose. And he has signed into law the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (even as he pledged never to invoke this tyrannical power himself)," Sullivan states. "But he has done the most important thing of all: excising the cancer of torture from military detention and military justice. If he is not re-elected, that cancer may well return."
That sums it up, doesn't it?
Obama has transgressed against what is arguably Congress' most essential check on executive power -- its status as the decider of when America goes to war -- and he has codified indefinite detention into law, something that hasn't been done since Japanese Americans were detained during World War II. But at least he doesn't torture people! How low we've set the bar.
It isn't that I object to Sullivan backing Obama's reelection if his GOP opponent runs on bringing back torture. Is he the lesser of two evils? Maybe so. But lauding him as a president who has governed "with grace and calm" and "who as yet has not had a single significant scandal to his name"? If indefinite detention, secret kill lists, warrantless spying, a war on whistleblowers, violating the War Powers Resolution, and abuse of the state secrets privilege don't fit one's definition of "scandal," what does? If they're peripheral flaws rather than central, unacceptable transgressions, America is doomed to these radical, illiberal policies for the foreseeable future.
Obama: To The Right of Reagan
Barack Obama has not just dribbled away the progressive mandate of 2008, he has emerged over the past three years as a politician “to the right of President Ronald Reagan, the Tea Party hero” on at least some issues. The U.S. continues its steady decline in all the indices that count for the average person. “Only three developed countries – Albania, Russian and Moldova – had a worse maternal mortality rate.” African Americans are in free fall under the First Black President.
BAR editor and columnist Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, PhD
Wed, 01/04/2012
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/obama-right-reagan
“Of 891 promises made, Obama has kept 233, broken 116 and failed to address 61 percent.”
Barack Obama recently told a radio interviewer of his response to criticisms of his administration, “I tell them what Joe Biden says, judge me not as the Almighty, consider the alternative.”
Obama’s comment was astonishing. The man who came in on a wave of public optimism and support, whose rallying cry was, “Yes, we can” was brushing off his four years of “no, we can’ts.” Here are some examples:
– Obama has increased drone strikes eight times over what the Bush administration did across two terms according to John Feffer, co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies
– He prevailed upon the Environmental Protection Agency to pull back anti-smog legislation as part of the Clean Air Act. The U.S. with China and India is the worst carbon emitter in the world.
– He has failed to close Guatanamo Bay – an election promise.
– He promised immigration reform - a key promise given that 26 percent of the electorate is Latino. In 2010, his administration arrested more migrants – 393,000 - than any administration before (81,000 more than in President George W. Bush’s last year in office).
Obama’s failure to keep promises has been mapped by a user of Idea Palooza, a U.S. website, it is sobering reading. The creator, who appears to be conservative, compiled all 891 election promises Obama made (perhaps the first warning was a candidate who made so many promises, but Americans and the world, exhausted after eight war-mongering years of George W. Bush failed to pay attention). So far, according to this measure, which is used by major U.S. news media, Obama has kept 233 promises, broken 116 and failed to address 61 percent.
“In some states schools are on four-day weeks because there is no funding and thousands of teachers have been retrenched.”
He is to the right of President Ronald Reagan, the Tea Party hero, according to the Institute for Policy Studies on some financial issues. They point out that after more than 250 economists wrote to him earlier this year calling for more imagination in the handling of the $15-trillion debt, their call was spurned by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (Obama remained silent). The IPS said, “That rigid position places the Obama administration to the right not only of Reagan, but also both Bush presidencies and the International Monetary Fund.” Geithner served as head of New York’s Federal Reserve under Bush, and is one of a number of key Bush appointees Obama has kept close; they also include national Federal Reserve chief, Ben Bernanke and former Defense secretary, Robert Gates, among others.
When Obama was elected into office in November, 2008, he had the strongest majorities in both houses of Congress since 1993. Democrats held 258 of the 435 seats in the House and at least 54 of the 100 seats in the Senate. Two years later he lost the House to the Republicans.
And since then a bitterly divided Congress has slumped to a nine percent approval rating – its worst ever – for its failure to legislate and continual threats to shut down government. These threatened shutdowns have seen government departments freeze – they are too nervous to implement projects or to hire staff because there is no assuredness that they will receive an ongoing flow of funding.
“Nearly two-thirds of city employees across the country facing layoffs are African American.”
And so America’s infrastructure has begun crumbling: 12% or 69,000 bridges are “structurally deficient,” as just one example. In some states schools are on four-day weeks because there is no funding and thousands of teachers have been retrenched.
In August the White House reported that unemployment among young African Americans was 32%; by December it had leapt to 41.3%. The union group, AFL-CIO, reported last week that, “The loss of public-sector jobs has disproportionately impacted African Americans – nearly two-thirds of city employees across the country facing layoffs are African American.”
While Africa greeted his election with joy, Obama has shown little interest in the continent. In September, he signed into law a $23.2 million cut for Pepfar – the HIV and AIDS program introduced by President George W. Bush and an important funder of treatment and care programs in developing nations. But global family planning and reproductive health services took the biggest hit with a reduction of $85 million.
The U.S. has the highest maternal death rate of any industrialized nation according to the CIA Factbook. The Save the Children Fund notes that “an American woman is more than seven times as likely as one in Ireland to die from pregnancy-related causes and her maternal death risk is 15 times that in Greece. Only three developed countries – Albania, Russian and Moldova – had a worse maternal mortality rate.”
The Census Bureau reports the number of Americans in poverty jumped to 15.1 percent in 2010, a 17-year high. About 46.2 million people, or nearly one in six, were in poverty. And 49.9 million were without health insurance.
“The U.S. has the highest maternal death rate of any industrialized nation.”
In October, the Congressional Budget Committee revealed that since 1979, the richest one percent had seen incomes rise 275%, while the middle class was 40% more comfortable and the lowest fifth of the nation had seen incomes rise only 18% – essentially, they got poorer. Yet in November, when the so-called super-committee nominated by Obama to find ways out of the debt crisis failed to reach accord, one of the biggest stumbling blocks was a refusal by Republicans to increase taxes on the rich, many of whom pay far lower taxes than the lowest earning members of society. Billionaire Warren Buffet famously pointed out recently that his personal assistant pays more tax than he does.
Many of these issues Obama inherited, but with the mandate the electorate gave him he had the greatest capacity of any president in decades to make a real difference.
When he was elected Obama said: “Americans have sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of red states and blue states, we have been and always will be the United States of America.”
Under Obama the United has fallen off the States of America. History still has to reveal whether Barack Obama is a victim of racists in the Republican Party who will do anything to stymie the first black president for the United States or whether he simply was not the right man for an important job.
Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo is the author of No FEAR: A Whistleblowers Triumph over Corruption and Retaliation at the EPA is available through amazon.com and the National Whistleblower Center. Dr. Coleman-Adebayo worked at the EPA for 18 years and blew the whistle on a US multinational corporation that endangered vanadium mine workers. Marsha's successful lawsuit lead to the introduction and passage of the first civil rights and whistleblower law of the 21st century: the Notification of Federal Employees Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 ( No FEAR.)
BAR editor and columnist Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, PhD
Wed, 01/04/2012
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/obama-right-reagan
“Of 891 promises made, Obama has kept 233, broken 116 and failed to address 61 percent.”
Barack Obama recently told a radio interviewer of his response to criticisms of his administration, “I tell them what Joe Biden says, judge me not as the Almighty, consider the alternative.”
Obama’s comment was astonishing. The man who came in on a wave of public optimism and support, whose rallying cry was, “Yes, we can” was brushing off his four years of “no, we can’ts.” Here are some examples:
– Obama has increased drone strikes eight times over what the Bush administration did across two terms according to John Feffer, co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies
– He prevailed upon the Environmental Protection Agency to pull back anti-smog legislation as part of the Clean Air Act. The U.S. with China and India is the worst carbon emitter in the world.
– He has failed to close Guatanamo Bay – an election promise.
– He promised immigration reform - a key promise given that 26 percent of the electorate is Latino. In 2010, his administration arrested more migrants – 393,000 - than any administration before (81,000 more than in President George W. Bush’s last year in office).
Obama’s failure to keep promises has been mapped by a user of Idea Palooza, a U.S. website, it is sobering reading. The creator, who appears to be conservative, compiled all 891 election promises Obama made (perhaps the first warning was a candidate who made so many promises, but Americans and the world, exhausted after eight war-mongering years of George W. Bush failed to pay attention). So far, according to this measure, which is used by major U.S. news media, Obama has kept 233 promises, broken 116 and failed to address 61 percent.
“In some states schools are on four-day weeks because there is no funding and thousands of teachers have been retrenched.”
He is to the right of President Ronald Reagan, the Tea Party hero, according to the Institute for Policy Studies on some financial issues. They point out that after more than 250 economists wrote to him earlier this year calling for more imagination in the handling of the $15-trillion debt, their call was spurned by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (Obama remained silent). The IPS said, “That rigid position places the Obama administration to the right not only of Reagan, but also both Bush presidencies and the International Monetary Fund.” Geithner served as head of New York’s Federal Reserve under Bush, and is one of a number of key Bush appointees Obama has kept close; they also include national Federal Reserve chief, Ben Bernanke and former Defense secretary, Robert Gates, among others.
When Obama was elected into office in November, 2008, he had the strongest majorities in both houses of Congress since 1993. Democrats held 258 of the 435 seats in the House and at least 54 of the 100 seats in the Senate. Two years later he lost the House to the Republicans.
And since then a bitterly divided Congress has slumped to a nine percent approval rating – its worst ever – for its failure to legislate and continual threats to shut down government. These threatened shutdowns have seen government departments freeze – they are too nervous to implement projects or to hire staff because there is no assuredness that they will receive an ongoing flow of funding.
“Nearly two-thirds of city employees across the country facing layoffs are African American.”
And so America’s infrastructure has begun crumbling: 12% or 69,000 bridges are “structurally deficient,” as just one example. In some states schools are on four-day weeks because there is no funding and thousands of teachers have been retrenched.
In August the White House reported that unemployment among young African Americans was 32%; by December it had leapt to 41.3%. The union group, AFL-CIO, reported last week that, “The loss of public-sector jobs has disproportionately impacted African Americans – nearly two-thirds of city employees across the country facing layoffs are African American.”
While Africa greeted his election with joy, Obama has shown little interest in the continent. In September, he signed into law a $23.2 million cut for Pepfar – the HIV and AIDS program introduced by President George W. Bush and an important funder of treatment and care programs in developing nations. But global family planning and reproductive health services took the biggest hit with a reduction of $85 million.
The U.S. has the highest maternal death rate of any industrialized nation according to the CIA Factbook. The Save the Children Fund notes that “an American woman is more than seven times as likely as one in Ireland to die from pregnancy-related causes and her maternal death risk is 15 times that in Greece. Only three developed countries – Albania, Russian and Moldova – had a worse maternal mortality rate.”
The Census Bureau reports the number of Americans in poverty jumped to 15.1 percent in 2010, a 17-year high. About 46.2 million people, or nearly one in six, were in poverty. And 49.9 million were without health insurance.
“The U.S. has the highest maternal death rate of any industrialized nation.”
In October, the Congressional Budget Committee revealed that since 1979, the richest one percent had seen incomes rise 275%, while the middle class was 40% more comfortable and the lowest fifth of the nation had seen incomes rise only 18% – essentially, they got poorer. Yet in November, when the so-called super-committee nominated by Obama to find ways out of the debt crisis failed to reach accord, one of the biggest stumbling blocks was a refusal by Republicans to increase taxes on the rich, many of whom pay far lower taxes than the lowest earning members of society. Billionaire Warren Buffet famously pointed out recently that his personal assistant pays more tax than he does.
Many of these issues Obama inherited, but with the mandate the electorate gave him he had the greatest capacity of any president in decades to make a real difference.
When he was elected Obama said: “Americans have sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of red states and blue states, we have been and always will be the United States of America.”
Under Obama the United has fallen off the States of America. History still has to reveal whether Barack Obama is a victim of racists in the Republican Party who will do anything to stymie the first black president for the United States or whether he simply was not the right man for an important job.
Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo is the author of No FEAR: A Whistleblowers Triumph over Corruption and Retaliation at the EPA is available through amazon.com and the National Whistleblower Center. Dr. Coleman-Adebayo worked at the EPA for 18 years and blew the whistle on a US multinational corporation that endangered vanadium mine workers. Marsha's successful lawsuit lead to the introduction and passage of the first civil rights and whistleblower law of the 21st century: the Notification of Federal Employees Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 ( No FEAR.)
Friday, January 6, 2012
Vote Obama – if you want a centrist Republican for US president
Because Barack Obama has adopted so many core Republican beliefs, the US opposition race is a shambles
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 December 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/vote-obama-centrist-republican
American presidential elections are increasingly indistinguishable from the reality TV competitions drowning the nation's airwaves. Both are vapid, personality-driven and painfully protracted affairs, with the winners crowned by virtue of their ability to appear slightly more tolerable than the cast of annoying rejects whom the public eliminates one by one. When, earlier this year, America's tawdriest (and one of its most-watched) reality TV show hosts, Donald Trump, inserted himself into the campaign circus as a threatened contestant, he fitted right in, immediately catapulting to the top of audience polls before announcing he would not join the show.
The Republican presidential primaries – shortly to determine who will be the finalist to face off, and likely lose, against Barack Obama next November – has been a particularly base spectacle. That the contest has devolved into an embarrassing clown show has many causes, beginning with the fact that GOP voters loathe Mitt Romney, their belief-free, anointed-by-Wall-Street frontrunner who clearly has the best chance of defeating the president.
In a desperate attempt to find someone less slithery and soulless (not to mention less Mormon), party members have lurched manically from one ludicrous candidate to the next, only to watch in horror as each wilted the moment they were subjected to scrutiny. Incessant pleas to the party's ostensibly more respectable conservatives to enter the race have been repeatedly rebuffed. Now, only Romney remains viable. Republican voters are thus slowly resigning themselves to marching behind a vacant, supremely malleable technocrat whom they plainly detest.
In fairness to the much-maligned GOP field, they face a formidable hurdle: how to credibly attack Obama when he has adopted so many of their party's defining beliefs. Depicting the other party's president as a radical menace is one of the chief requirements for a candidate seeking to convince his party to crown him as the chosen challenger. Because Obama has governed as a centrist Republican, these GOP candidates are able to attack him as a leftist radical only by moving so far to the right in their rhetoric and policy prescriptions that they fall over the cliff of mainstream acceptability, or even basic sanity.
In July, the nation's most influential progressive domestic policy pundit, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, declared that Obama is a "moderate conservative in practical terms". Last October, he wrote that "progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge act of self-delusion", because the president – "once you get past the soaring rhetoric" – has "largely accepted the conservative storyline".
Krugman also pointed out that even the policy Democratic loyalists point to as proof of the president's progressive bona fides – his healthcare plan, which mandates the purchase of policies from the private health insurance industry – was designed by the Heritage Foundation, one of the nation's most rightwing thinktanks, and was advocated by conservative ideologues for many years (it also happens to be the same plan Romney implemented when he was governor of Massachusetts and which Newt Gingrich once promoted, underscoring the difficulty for the GOP in drawing real contrasts with Obama).
How do you scorn a president as a far-left socialist when he has stuffed his administration with Wall Street executives, had his last campaign funded by them, governed as a "centrist Republican", and presided over booming corporate profits even while the rest of the nation suffered economically?
But as slim as the pickings are for GOP candidates on the domestic policy front, at least there are some actual differences in that realm. The president's 2009 stimulus spending and Wall Street "reform" package – tepid and inadequate though they were – are genuinely at odds with rightwing dogma, as are Obama's progressive (albeit inconsistent) positions on social issues, such as equality for gay people and protecting a woman's right to choose. And the supreme court, perpetually plagued by a 5-4 partisan split, would be significantly affected by the outcome of the 2012 election.
It is in the realm of foreign policy, terrorism and civil liberties where Republicans encounter an insurmountable roadblock. A staple of GOP politics has long been to accuse Democratic presidents of coddling America's enemies (both real and imagined), being afraid to use violence, and subordinating US security to international bodies and leftwing conceptions of civil liberties.
But how can a GOP candidate invoke this time-tested caricature when Obama has embraced the vast bulk of George Bush's terrorism policies; waged a war against government whistleblowers as part of a campaign of obsessive secrecy; led efforts to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs; extinguished the lives not only of accused terrorists but of huge numbers of innocent civilians with cluster bombs and drones in Muslim countries; engineered a covert war against Iran; tried to extend the Iraq war; ignored Congress and the constitution to prosecute an unauthorised war in Libya; adopted the defining Bush/Cheney policy of indefinite detention without trial for accused terrorists; and even claimed and exercised the power to assassinate US citizens far from any battlefield and without due process?
Reflecting this difficulty for the GOP field is the fact that former Bush officials, including Dick Cheney, have taken to lavishing Obama with public praise for continuing his predecessor's once-controversial terrorism polices. In the last GOP foreign policy debate, the leading candidates found themselves issuing recommendations on the most contentious foreign policy question (Iran) that perfectly tracked what Obama is already doing, while issuing ringing endorsements of the president when asked about one of his most controversial civil liberties assaults (the due-process-free assassination of the American-Yemeni cleric Anwar Awlaki). Indeed, when it comes to the foreign policy and civil liberties values Democrats spent the Bush years claiming to defend, the only candidate in either party now touting them is the libertarian Ron Paul, who vehemently condemns Obama's policies of drone killings without oversight, covert wars, whistleblower persecutions, and civil liberties assaults in the name of terrorism.
In sum, how do you demonise Obama as a terrorist-loving secret Muslim intent on empowering US enemies when he has adopted, and in some cases extended, what was rightwing orthodoxy for the last decade? The core problem for GOP challengers is that they cannot be respectable Republicans because, as Krugman pointed out, Obama has that position occupied. They are forced to move so far to the right that they render themselves inherently absurd.
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 December 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/vote-obama-centrist-republican
American presidential elections are increasingly indistinguishable from the reality TV competitions drowning the nation's airwaves. Both are vapid, personality-driven and painfully protracted affairs, with the winners crowned by virtue of their ability to appear slightly more tolerable than the cast of annoying rejects whom the public eliminates one by one. When, earlier this year, America's tawdriest (and one of its most-watched) reality TV show hosts, Donald Trump, inserted himself into the campaign circus as a threatened contestant, he fitted right in, immediately catapulting to the top of audience polls before announcing he would not join the show.
The Republican presidential primaries – shortly to determine who will be the finalist to face off, and likely lose, against Barack Obama next November – has been a particularly base spectacle. That the contest has devolved into an embarrassing clown show has many causes, beginning with the fact that GOP voters loathe Mitt Romney, their belief-free, anointed-by-Wall-Street frontrunner who clearly has the best chance of defeating the president.
In a desperate attempt to find someone less slithery and soulless (not to mention less Mormon), party members have lurched manically from one ludicrous candidate to the next, only to watch in horror as each wilted the moment they were subjected to scrutiny. Incessant pleas to the party's ostensibly more respectable conservatives to enter the race have been repeatedly rebuffed. Now, only Romney remains viable. Republican voters are thus slowly resigning themselves to marching behind a vacant, supremely malleable technocrat whom they plainly detest.
In fairness to the much-maligned GOP field, they face a formidable hurdle: how to credibly attack Obama when he has adopted so many of their party's defining beliefs. Depicting the other party's president as a radical menace is one of the chief requirements for a candidate seeking to convince his party to crown him as the chosen challenger. Because Obama has governed as a centrist Republican, these GOP candidates are able to attack him as a leftist radical only by moving so far to the right in their rhetoric and policy prescriptions that they fall over the cliff of mainstream acceptability, or even basic sanity.
In July, the nation's most influential progressive domestic policy pundit, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, declared that Obama is a "moderate conservative in practical terms". Last October, he wrote that "progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge act of self-delusion", because the president – "once you get past the soaring rhetoric" – has "largely accepted the conservative storyline".
Krugman also pointed out that even the policy Democratic loyalists point to as proof of the president's progressive bona fides – his healthcare plan, which mandates the purchase of policies from the private health insurance industry – was designed by the Heritage Foundation, one of the nation's most rightwing thinktanks, and was advocated by conservative ideologues for many years (it also happens to be the same plan Romney implemented when he was governor of Massachusetts and which Newt Gingrich once promoted, underscoring the difficulty for the GOP in drawing real contrasts with Obama).
How do you scorn a president as a far-left socialist when he has stuffed his administration with Wall Street executives, had his last campaign funded by them, governed as a "centrist Republican", and presided over booming corporate profits even while the rest of the nation suffered economically?
But as slim as the pickings are for GOP candidates on the domestic policy front, at least there are some actual differences in that realm. The president's 2009 stimulus spending and Wall Street "reform" package – tepid and inadequate though they were – are genuinely at odds with rightwing dogma, as are Obama's progressive (albeit inconsistent) positions on social issues, such as equality for gay people and protecting a woman's right to choose. And the supreme court, perpetually plagued by a 5-4 partisan split, would be significantly affected by the outcome of the 2012 election.
It is in the realm of foreign policy, terrorism and civil liberties where Republicans encounter an insurmountable roadblock. A staple of GOP politics has long been to accuse Democratic presidents of coddling America's enemies (both real and imagined), being afraid to use violence, and subordinating US security to international bodies and leftwing conceptions of civil liberties.
But how can a GOP candidate invoke this time-tested caricature when Obama has embraced the vast bulk of George Bush's terrorism policies; waged a war against government whistleblowers as part of a campaign of obsessive secrecy; led efforts to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs; extinguished the lives not only of accused terrorists but of huge numbers of innocent civilians with cluster bombs and drones in Muslim countries; engineered a covert war against Iran; tried to extend the Iraq war; ignored Congress and the constitution to prosecute an unauthorised war in Libya; adopted the defining Bush/Cheney policy of indefinite detention without trial for accused terrorists; and even claimed and exercised the power to assassinate US citizens far from any battlefield and without due process?
Reflecting this difficulty for the GOP field is the fact that former Bush officials, including Dick Cheney, have taken to lavishing Obama with public praise for continuing his predecessor's once-controversial terrorism polices. In the last GOP foreign policy debate, the leading candidates found themselves issuing recommendations on the most contentious foreign policy question (Iran) that perfectly tracked what Obama is already doing, while issuing ringing endorsements of the president when asked about one of his most controversial civil liberties assaults (the due-process-free assassination of the American-Yemeni cleric Anwar Awlaki). Indeed, when it comes to the foreign policy and civil liberties values Democrats spent the Bush years claiming to defend, the only candidate in either party now touting them is the libertarian Ron Paul, who vehemently condemns Obama's policies of drone killings without oversight, covert wars, whistleblower persecutions, and civil liberties assaults in the name of terrorism.
In sum, how do you demonise Obama as a terrorist-loving secret Muslim intent on empowering US enemies when he has adopted, and in some cases extended, what was rightwing orthodoxy for the last decade? The core problem for GOP challengers is that they cannot be respectable Republicans because, as Krugman pointed out, Obama has that position occupied. They are forced to move so far to the right that they render themselves inherently absurd.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Significa 1-5-12
Kool Websites
Watch Live Baseball
http://www.watchlivebaseball.com/
Tune in to Watch Baseball Live Streaming online on your pc with instant access payments...
Watch Live NBA Online
http://www.watchlivenba.tv/
Watch all the top NBA games through high quality online streams...
The Jinn
http://www.thejinn.net/
UFO, alien, poltergeist, demon, ascended master, space brother, monster, Watcher, nephilim, reptilian, Grey, Bigfoot, ghost....
We don't actually know a single thing about life on other planets. Scientific evidence that extraterrestrials visit us doesn't exist.
Our belief that they do is fantastic modern mythology in the making.
However, there is enormous evidence that deceptive entities are masquerading as extraterrestrials.
There are unseen creatures that we share this Earth with.
They don't come from other planets.
They've been called many names: aliens, spirits, Etherians, Ultraterrestrials, and more.
In the Koran they are called the Jinn.
Information about the Jinn reads like a textbook description of UFO and other paranormal phenomena.
Discovering these entities gives you an essential key to understanding paranormal phenomena.
They are the major players behind our myths and most perplexing mysteries.
UFOs aren't extraterrestrial -- They're extradimensional.
*
Celente’s Trends Proven Accurate; What Will 2012 Bring?
Gerald Celente
Trends Research
December 16, 2011
“Wake-Up Call” Trend: The Decline of America trend is nowhere near bottom, and the worse is yet to come.
One year later: “Worse” has happened, as the country piles up more and more debt, politicians are gridlocked, paralyzed in some perpetual political traffic jam of inaction.
“Crack-Up 2011” Trend: Teetering economies will collapse, currency wars will ensue, trade barriers will be erected, economic unions will splinter...
One year later: The Sovereign debt crisis threatens both the European Union and Euro, currency wars are underway and the US and China are trading trade barbs.
“Crime Time” Trend: No job + no money + compounding debt = high stress, strained relations, short fuses. Hardship-driven crimes will be committed across the socioeconomic spectrum by legions of the on-the-edge desperate who will do whatever they must to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table.
One year later: Thieves are stealing copper piping and cables, cooking oil and temple donation boxes; “Criminal recycling” is flourishing; in 2011 a record number of cyber crimes is reported to the FBI: more than 23,000 per month.
“Screw the People” Trend: As times get even tougher and people get even poorer, the “authorities” will intensify their efforts to extract the funds needed to meet fiscal obligations.
One year later: In the two-tier American justice system, the long arm of the law only reaches down to the low hanging fruit. Banks are slapped with slap on the wrist fines for billion dollar crimes, and like Jon Corzine, no crime time. But swift justice is readily dealt out for small time crimes. From closing down lemonade stands operating without a license to swat teams busting raw foods cooperatives, in America, Justice means “just us!”
“Students of the World Unite” Trend: “University degrees in hand yet out of work, in debt and with no prospects on the horizon, young adults and 20-somethings are mad as hell, and they’re not going to take it anymore.”
One year later: Occupy Wall Street is just one of the scores of worldwide student protest movements, some of which have proven powerful enough to bring down governments.
“Crackdown on Liberty” Trend: A national crusade to “Get Tough on Crime” will be waged against the citizenry. And just as in the “War on Terror,” where “suspected terrorists” are killed before proven guilty or jailed without trial, in the “War on Crime” everyone is a suspect until proven innocent.
One year later: TSA strip searches of little old ladies; Obama backs bill “authorizing indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens.”
“Journalism 2.0” Trend: With its unparalleled reach across borders and language barriers, “Journalism 2.0” has the potential to influence and educate citizens in a way that governments and corporate media moguls would never permit.
One year later: Aleksai Navalny, an imprisoned young Russian blogger/Twitterer with some 200,000 followers, is “credited with mobilizing a generation of young Russians through social media, a leap much like the one that spawned Occupy Wall Street and youth uprisings across Europe this year.”
“Cyberwars” Trend: The demonstrable effects of Cyberwar and its companion, Cybercrime, are already significant – and will come of age in 2011. Equally disruptive will be the harsh measures taken by global governments to control free access to the web, identify its users, and literally shut down computers that it considers a threat to national security.
One year later: Iran proudly displayed a sleek, white U.S. drone that was used for spying on Iranians; Iranians were able to capture what US military officials privately told Bloomberg was a Lockheed Martin RQ-170 by hacking into its security code; PayPal shuts off service to WikiLeaks.
Gerald Celente was spot on with his Top Trends 2011. No one else came even close. To get a heads up on “History before it happens,” you’ll want the Top Trends 2012.
*
Why the Smell of Cinnamon Makes You Spend Money
Retailers know how to manipulate all our senses — and that includes our olfactory ones
Martin Lindstrom
December 16, 2011
http://ideas.time.com/2011/12/16/why-the-smell-of-cinnamon-makes-you-spend-money
Lindstrom's latest book is Brandwashed: Tricks Companies Use to Manipulate Our Minds and Persuade Us to Buy.
Every December, you vow it’s not going to happen and yet, without fail, you return home from your Christmas shopping with far more than you intended. Do you ever wonder why? The answer might surprise you, because you’ve probably been seduced by something you can neither see nor hear.
It was a perfectly normal kind of day when I was first struck by that feeling of Christmas in the air, the one that links directly to childhood anticipation of the festive season. The odd thing was that it was early November, yet my need for tangible symbols of the festive season had bitten like a bug. I studiously hit the streets of my neighborhood in search of the perfect tree. I bought decorations and wrote Christmas cards, only to realize that Nov. 5 was a little early to be mailing them.
I was astounded by my behavior. After all, I’m a 41-year-old man who’s long since stopped believing in Santa Claus. So what was it that led me to this neat pile of cards ready to be mailed a good six weeks before Christmas? In my attempt to understand, I went over the details of the days leading up to my own personal Christmas frenzy, and I tracked the origins of it back to a brief window of time as I changed flights in the Zurich airport. I noticed the duty free shops were already full of the colors of Christmas. There was a ginormous tree topped by a gleaming star, surrounded by images of Santas and reindeer and sleighs. But surely it would take more than clichéd icons to turn me into a Christmas zombie?
Not having anything else to go on, I investigated further. Turns out I was on the right path, for the truth of the matter was to be found in the mechanisms behind the displays. To be more precise, carefully camouflaged tubes strategically placed amongst the tinsel and glitz were piping in the sumptuous smells of Christmas: a perfect mix of cinnamon and pine.
Although it seemed I’d gotten to the nub of the issue, I was still perplexed. I mean, can a tube dispensing cinnamon and pine really compel me to embrace the Christmas spirit way ahead of time? Surprisingly, yes. Dr. Gemma Calvert, who is an expert in modern brain imaging based in Oxford, England, discovered the remarkable ability smells have to reactivate childhood memories. She exposed a group of volunteers to cinnamon and then viewed their reactions, using an fMRI scanner. As they breathed in the sweet spicy scent, their brains fired up — including the region responsible for authentic emotional engagement. It seems cinnamon is one of the main ingredients associated, over time, with baking and cider-making rituals and can kick-start an emotional journey whenever it wafts our way.
So while it might seem as though retailers are concentrating on everything that delights your eyes and ears, they also might be surreptitiously enticing you to buy more through your nose. And they might not even be doing it in a sneaky manner. This season, Trader Joe’s, Publix, and other supermarkets are prominently displaying heavily-scented “cinnamon brooms” by the check out — large, smelly bunches of twigs to hang inside your home and anoint with cinnamon oil when their pungency starts to fade. At Bed, Bath and Beyond, Home Depot, and other big-box stores, cinnamon-scented pine cones for sale greet you as you walk in the door. Take these items home and you might even get the urge to rush out shopping again. Christmas is in the air — quite literally!
Lindstrom is a marketing consultant and the author of Brandwashed. The views expressed are his own.
*
Konformist Book Club
The World's Greatest Conspiracies
http://www.atomicbooks.com/index.php/worlds-greatest-conspiracies.html
$21.95
Too unsettling to be buried in the shadows for far too long, the Pandora’s Box of information unleashed in this completely updated and expanded expose proves you just can’t get away from Them. Hidden agendas, massive cover-ups, diabolically sinister plots—if you can handle it, the lowdown on the latest right-under-your-nose conspiracies is right here, including: - 9/11: Islamic terrorism...or inside job? - George W. Bush: The real powers behind the leader of the free world - Atlantis Rising: the deep and wide mythology of a “lost” civilization - Elvis: Still everywhere, with new King-size theories aplenty - Cuidad Juarez: Who—or what—is behind the unsolved serial killings of more than 90 women in this otherwise sleepy border town? - Dick “Darth” Cheney: Dr. Evil for the New Millennium? - And many others that will have you looking over your shoulder With the sordid truth finally leaking more and more into the nightly news, this provocative compilation is crucial reading for seeing beyond what They want you to believe. Whether you’re a cynic or completely certain, this walk on the wild side will convince you of one thing: You should be very, very nervous. “Fills a desperate need in this paranoid era.” —Wired magazine
Jonathan Vankin / John Whalen
Publisher Citadel Press
Page Count 844pp
Publication Date June 29, 2010
ISBN 978-0806528786
The Man Cave Book
Jeff Wilser
Kindle Price: $9.99 includes free wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet
Paperback $10.19
What separates the men from the boys? The Man Cave.
Boyhood Fort Vs. Man Cave
Who's allowed
Boyhood Fort: Not girls—they have cooties
Man Cave: Not women—they have authority
Primary materials used in construction
Boyhood Fort: Wood, stuff your mom doesn't want
Man Cave: Particleboard, stuff your wife doesn't want
Key activities inside
Boyhood Fort: Goofing around, avoiding responsibility
Man Cave: Goofing around, avoiding responsibility
Peak periods of use
Boyhood Fort: After school, weekends
Man Cave: After work, weekends
Slumber parties with buddies?
Boyhood Fort: Yes
Man Cave: No
Food and beverages consumed
Boyhood Fort: Soda and unhealthy snacks
Man Cave: Beer and unhealthy snacks
Spend the night inside?
Boyhood Fort: Not as a habit, but it's been known to happen
Man Cave: Not as a habit, but it's been known to happen
Money spent on space
Boyhood Fort: As little as possible
Man Cave: As much as possible
Is this a phase you will outgrow?
Boyhood Fort: Yes
Man Cave: No
The Man Cave Book is a tribute to great and glorious man spaces and the craftsmen behind them. Complete with instructions and insights into creating your own unique refuge and shrine to beer, sports, and everything else that's right with the world, this is an essential manual for any man cave enthusiast.
About the Author
A former USMC Reserves squad leader and the author of The Maxims of Manhood, Jeff Wilser is a regular columnist on dating, nightlife, and pop culture who has contributed to GQ, Esquire, Glamour, MTV, and VH1.
Format: Kindle Edition
File Size: 8251 KB
Print Length: 192 pages
Publisher: HarperCollins e-books; Original edition (April 19, 2011)
Sold by: HarperCollins Publishers
Language: English
ASIN: B004U73C1S
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
Amazon URL
Kindle Edition:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Man-Cave-Book-ebook/dp/B004U73C1S/thekonformist
Paperback:
http://www.amazon.com/Man-Cave-Book-Jeff-Wilser/dp/0062003925/thekonformist
*
Awesome Quotes
“You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of this country, much better.”
Matt Damon on Barack Obama
"The sound of five pretentious old guys joylessly grinding out sub-shoegaze drone and patting themselves on the back for being 'subversive.' It's more out of touch than a bunch of CEOs starting a drum circle at an Occupy rally and as sonically disastrous."
Entertainment Weekly, in naming the Lou Reed - Metallica collaboration Lulu the worst album of the year
*
YouTube Greatest Hits
Tiger Woods Amazing Miracle Shot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHMPpZVOfbI
16th Hole at the 2005 Masters in Augusta...
The Dark Crystal, Part 1 of 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMnFMAF_0RQ
All eight parts are available...
Bill Hicks: On Letterman (1993)
The Cut Set
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vf340K_Ed0o
In honor of what would be his 50th birthday on December 16th:
http://alchemicalarchives.blogspot.com/
Hicks constantly faced problems with censorship. In 1984, Hicks was invited to appear on Late Night with David Letterman for the first time. He had a joke that he used frequently in comedy clubs about how he caused a serious accident that left a classmate confined to a wheelchair. NBC had a policy that no handicapped jokes could be aired on the show, making his stand-up routine difficult to perform without mentioning words such as "wheelchair". Hicks was disappointed that the TV audience didn't get to experience the uncensored Bill Hicks that people saw in clubs.
On October 1, 1993, about five months before his death, Hicks was scheduled to appear on Late Show with David Letterman, his twelfth appearance on a Letterman late night show but his entire performance was removed from the broadcast — then the only occasion where a comedian's entire routine was cut after taping. Hicks' stand-up routine was removed from the show allegedly because Letterman and his producer were nervous about Hicks' anti-religious jokes. Hicks said he believed it was due to a pro-life commercial aired during a commercial break. Both the show's producers and CBS denied responsibility. Hicks expressed his feelings of betrayal in a letter to John Lahr of The New Yorker. Although Letterman later expressed regret at the way Hicks had been handled, Hicks did not appear on the show again. The full account of this incident was featured in a New Yorker profile by Lahr, which was later published as a chapter in Lahr's book, Light Fantastic.
Hicks' mother, Mary, appeared on the January 30, 2009, episode of Late Show. Letterman played the routine in its entirety. Letterman took full responsibility for the original censorship and apologized to Mrs. Hicks. Letterman also declared he did not know what he was thinking when he pulled the routine from the original show in 1993. Letterman said, "It says more about me as a guy than it says about Bill because there was absolutely nothing wrong with that."
*
Retropedia: Santa Claus Conquers the Martians
http://www.retroland.com/santa-claus-conquers-the-martians
Earthlings have long held an affinity for the jolly bearded fellow in the red suit that hands out Christmas presents each year. Is it any wonder that other planets might just be a little jealous that we haven’t shared St. Nick with the rest of the galaxy? Well, that all changed in 1964, when the Martians took matters into their own hands in the campy sci-fi classic, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians. It might not have given Citizen Kane a run for its money in terms of quality, but that hasn’t stopped numerous generations from gleefully embracing this one-of-a-kind B-movie that remains popular to this day.
The poor kids on Mars have a tough life, what with all of that forced educational programming that has left them little freedom to have fun. Luckily, they are allowed access to some good ol’ Earth television and, as a result, have become enamored by famed North Pole resident, Santa Claus. One particular set of Martian parents, Kimar and Momar (dad and mom, respectively) become aware of this trend, thanks to their kids Girmar and Bomar, and bring their children’s fascination with St. Nick to the attention of the all-knowing Martian, Chochem, who realizes the importance in letting the children of Mars have a little fun in their lives. To that end, he instructs the Martian leaders to head over to Earth and kidnap the famed Kris Kringle.
The idea is to have Santa set up shop on Mars and start churning out toys for the kids, but that doesn’t sit well with one particularly cantankerous alien named Voldar, who would rather see Santa killed, rather than corrupt their ancient culture. So when Santa arrives, along with two Earth children, Betty and Billy, Voldar starts plotting their demise. He immediately sends his henchmen, Shim and Stobo to sabotage the new toy factory so that it builds defective products. And when fellow Martian, the dimwitted Dropo, starts impersonating Santa around town and shows up at the toy factory, Voldar mistakes his identity for the real thing and kidnaps the faux Santa. Meanwhile, the real all-knowing Santa is a step ahead of the scheming and Voldar’s plans quickly unravel. But the big guy is too kind-hearted to leave the children of the planet sans Santa and he has a pretty good idea of who might make a suitable replacement for him on the planet.
While there may not be any huge box-office revenues to report or a list of Academy Award nominations, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is one of those films that is almost impossible not to like, despite its “B” status. And, although the film certainly didn’t boast an all-star cast, eagle-eyed viewers might notice that one of the Martian kids is actually a very young Pia Zadora.
Recent generations were re-introduced to Santa Claus Conquers the Martians as part of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 show on Comedy Central. The cast poked fun at (skewered) the film in their own inimitable way, leading it to become one of the most popular episodes, one that airs every holiday season. And, although rumors of a remake have persisted for years, it would appear that this classic film is safe from being re-invented as of this writing.
To view the movie:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/24/holiday-movie-santa-claus-conquers-the-martians
RawStory.com review:
There are b-movies and c-movies and then there’s this holiday confection, “Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.” The title alone should tell you everything you need to know about how seriously this 1964 release takes itself. We file this one under “So bad, it’s good.” Actually, make that under “So bad, it’s AWESOME.”
Merry Christmas!
*
RIP
Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memoriam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011
Vaclav Havel, Czech dissident, playwright, politician dead at 75:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/18/world/europe/czech-republic-vaclav-havel-obit
Cheetah the Chimp, Johnny Weissmuller's sidekick in the Tarzan movies, at the age of 80, allegedly:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/12/cheetah-remembering-tarzans-hairy-sidekick.html
The Wilshire Grand Hotel in downtown Los Angeles:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-1223-wilshire-grand-20111223,0,2448939.story
NOT RIP: Jon Bon Jovi. Also, Taylor Lautner isn't gay...
Watch Live Baseball
http://www.watchlivebaseball.com/
Tune in to Watch Baseball Live Streaming online on your pc with instant access payments...
Watch Live NBA Online
http://www.watchlivenba.tv/
Watch all the top NBA games through high quality online streams...
The Jinn
http://www.thejinn.net/
UFO, alien, poltergeist, demon, ascended master, space brother, monster, Watcher, nephilim, reptilian, Grey, Bigfoot, ghost....
We don't actually know a single thing about life on other planets. Scientific evidence that extraterrestrials visit us doesn't exist.
Our belief that they do is fantastic modern mythology in the making.
However, there is enormous evidence that deceptive entities are masquerading as extraterrestrials.
There are unseen creatures that we share this Earth with.
They don't come from other planets.
They've been called many names: aliens, spirits, Etherians, Ultraterrestrials, and more.
In the Koran they are called the Jinn.
Information about the Jinn reads like a textbook description of UFO and other paranormal phenomena.
Discovering these entities gives you an essential key to understanding paranormal phenomena.
They are the major players behind our myths and most perplexing mysteries.
UFOs aren't extraterrestrial -- They're extradimensional.
*
Celente’s Trends Proven Accurate; What Will 2012 Bring?
Gerald Celente
Trends Research
December 16, 2011
“Wake-Up Call” Trend: The Decline of America trend is nowhere near bottom, and the worse is yet to come.
One year later: “Worse” has happened, as the country piles up more and more debt, politicians are gridlocked, paralyzed in some perpetual political traffic jam of inaction.
“Crack-Up 2011” Trend: Teetering economies will collapse, currency wars will ensue, trade barriers will be erected, economic unions will splinter...
One year later: The Sovereign debt crisis threatens both the European Union and Euro, currency wars are underway and the US and China are trading trade barbs.
“Crime Time” Trend: No job + no money + compounding debt = high stress, strained relations, short fuses. Hardship-driven crimes will be committed across the socioeconomic spectrum by legions of the on-the-edge desperate who will do whatever they must to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table.
One year later: Thieves are stealing copper piping and cables, cooking oil and temple donation boxes; “Criminal recycling” is flourishing; in 2011 a record number of cyber crimes is reported to the FBI: more than 23,000 per month.
“Screw the People” Trend: As times get even tougher and people get even poorer, the “authorities” will intensify their efforts to extract the funds needed to meet fiscal obligations.
One year later: In the two-tier American justice system, the long arm of the law only reaches down to the low hanging fruit. Banks are slapped with slap on the wrist fines for billion dollar crimes, and like Jon Corzine, no crime time. But swift justice is readily dealt out for small time crimes. From closing down lemonade stands operating without a license to swat teams busting raw foods cooperatives, in America, Justice means “just us!”
“Students of the World Unite” Trend: “University degrees in hand yet out of work, in debt and with no prospects on the horizon, young adults and 20-somethings are mad as hell, and they’re not going to take it anymore.”
One year later: Occupy Wall Street is just one of the scores of worldwide student protest movements, some of which have proven powerful enough to bring down governments.
“Crackdown on Liberty” Trend: A national crusade to “Get Tough on Crime” will be waged against the citizenry. And just as in the “War on Terror,” where “suspected terrorists” are killed before proven guilty or jailed without trial, in the “War on Crime” everyone is a suspect until proven innocent.
One year later: TSA strip searches of little old ladies; Obama backs bill “authorizing indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens.”
“Journalism 2.0” Trend: With its unparalleled reach across borders and language barriers, “Journalism 2.0” has the potential to influence and educate citizens in a way that governments and corporate media moguls would never permit.
One year later: Aleksai Navalny, an imprisoned young Russian blogger/Twitterer with some 200,000 followers, is “credited with mobilizing a generation of young Russians through social media, a leap much like the one that spawned Occupy Wall Street and youth uprisings across Europe this year.”
“Cyberwars” Trend: The demonstrable effects of Cyberwar and its companion, Cybercrime, are already significant – and will come of age in 2011. Equally disruptive will be the harsh measures taken by global governments to control free access to the web, identify its users, and literally shut down computers that it considers a threat to national security.
One year later: Iran proudly displayed a sleek, white U.S. drone that was used for spying on Iranians; Iranians were able to capture what US military officials privately told Bloomberg was a Lockheed Martin RQ-170 by hacking into its security code; PayPal shuts off service to WikiLeaks.
Gerald Celente was spot on with his Top Trends 2011. No one else came even close. To get a heads up on “History before it happens,” you’ll want the Top Trends 2012.
*
Why the Smell of Cinnamon Makes You Spend Money
Retailers know how to manipulate all our senses — and that includes our olfactory ones
Martin Lindstrom
December 16, 2011
http://ideas.time.com/2011/12/16/why-the-smell-of-cinnamon-makes-you-spend-money
Lindstrom's latest book is Brandwashed: Tricks Companies Use to Manipulate Our Minds and Persuade Us to Buy.
Every December, you vow it’s not going to happen and yet, without fail, you return home from your Christmas shopping with far more than you intended. Do you ever wonder why? The answer might surprise you, because you’ve probably been seduced by something you can neither see nor hear.
It was a perfectly normal kind of day when I was first struck by that feeling of Christmas in the air, the one that links directly to childhood anticipation of the festive season. The odd thing was that it was early November, yet my need for tangible symbols of the festive season had bitten like a bug. I studiously hit the streets of my neighborhood in search of the perfect tree. I bought decorations and wrote Christmas cards, only to realize that Nov. 5 was a little early to be mailing them.
I was astounded by my behavior. After all, I’m a 41-year-old man who’s long since stopped believing in Santa Claus. So what was it that led me to this neat pile of cards ready to be mailed a good six weeks before Christmas? In my attempt to understand, I went over the details of the days leading up to my own personal Christmas frenzy, and I tracked the origins of it back to a brief window of time as I changed flights in the Zurich airport. I noticed the duty free shops were already full of the colors of Christmas. There was a ginormous tree topped by a gleaming star, surrounded by images of Santas and reindeer and sleighs. But surely it would take more than clichéd icons to turn me into a Christmas zombie?
Not having anything else to go on, I investigated further. Turns out I was on the right path, for the truth of the matter was to be found in the mechanisms behind the displays. To be more precise, carefully camouflaged tubes strategically placed amongst the tinsel and glitz were piping in the sumptuous smells of Christmas: a perfect mix of cinnamon and pine.
Although it seemed I’d gotten to the nub of the issue, I was still perplexed. I mean, can a tube dispensing cinnamon and pine really compel me to embrace the Christmas spirit way ahead of time? Surprisingly, yes. Dr. Gemma Calvert, who is an expert in modern brain imaging based in Oxford, England, discovered the remarkable ability smells have to reactivate childhood memories. She exposed a group of volunteers to cinnamon and then viewed their reactions, using an fMRI scanner. As they breathed in the sweet spicy scent, their brains fired up — including the region responsible for authentic emotional engagement. It seems cinnamon is one of the main ingredients associated, over time, with baking and cider-making rituals and can kick-start an emotional journey whenever it wafts our way.
So while it might seem as though retailers are concentrating on everything that delights your eyes and ears, they also might be surreptitiously enticing you to buy more through your nose. And they might not even be doing it in a sneaky manner. This season, Trader Joe’s, Publix, and other supermarkets are prominently displaying heavily-scented “cinnamon brooms” by the check out — large, smelly bunches of twigs to hang inside your home and anoint with cinnamon oil when their pungency starts to fade. At Bed, Bath and Beyond, Home Depot, and other big-box stores, cinnamon-scented pine cones for sale greet you as you walk in the door. Take these items home and you might even get the urge to rush out shopping again. Christmas is in the air — quite literally!
Lindstrom is a marketing consultant and the author of Brandwashed. The views expressed are his own.
*
Konformist Book Club
The World's Greatest Conspiracies
http://www.atomicbooks.com/index.php/worlds-greatest-conspiracies.html
$21.95
Too unsettling to be buried in the shadows for far too long, the Pandora’s Box of information unleashed in this completely updated and expanded expose proves you just can’t get away from Them. Hidden agendas, massive cover-ups, diabolically sinister plots—if you can handle it, the lowdown on the latest right-under-your-nose conspiracies is right here, including: - 9/11: Islamic terrorism...or inside job? - George W. Bush: The real powers behind the leader of the free world - Atlantis Rising: the deep and wide mythology of a “lost” civilization - Elvis: Still everywhere, with new King-size theories aplenty - Cuidad Juarez: Who—or what—is behind the unsolved serial killings of more than 90 women in this otherwise sleepy border town? - Dick “Darth” Cheney: Dr. Evil for the New Millennium? - And many others that will have you looking over your shoulder With the sordid truth finally leaking more and more into the nightly news, this provocative compilation is crucial reading for seeing beyond what They want you to believe. Whether you’re a cynic or completely certain, this walk on the wild side will convince you of one thing: You should be very, very nervous. “Fills a desperate need in this paranoid era.” —Wired magazine
Jonathan Vankin / John Whalen
Publisher Citadel Press
Page Count 844pp
Publication Date June 29, 2010
ISBN 978-0806528786
The Man Cave Book
Jeff Wilser
Kindle Price: $9.99 includes free wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet
Paperback $10.19
What separates the men from the boys? The Man Cave.
Boyhood Fort Vs. Man Cave
Who's allowed
Boyhood Fort: Not girls—they have cooties
Man Cave: Not women—they have authority
Primary materials used in construction
Boyhood Fort: Wood, stuff your mom doesn't want
Man Cave: Particleboard, stuff your wife doesn't want
Key activities inside
Boyhood Fort: Goofing around, avoiding responsibility
Man Cave: Goofing around, avoiding responsibility
Peak periods of use
Boyhood Fort: After school, weekends
Man Cave: After work, weekends
Slumber parties with buddies?
Boyhood Fort: Yes
Man Cave: No
Food and beverages consumed
Boyhood Fort: Soda and unhealthy snacks
Man Cave: Beer and unhealthy snacks
Spend the night inside?
Boyhood Fort: Not as a habit, but it's been known to happen
Man Cave: Not as a habit, but it's been known to happen
Money spent on space
Boyhood Fort: As little as possible
Man Cave: As much as possible
Is this a phase you will outgrow?
Boyhood Fort: Yes
Man Cave: No
The Man Cave Book is a tribute to great and glorious man spaces and the craftsmen behind them. Complete with instructions and insights into creating your own unique refuge and shrine to beer, sports, and everything else that's right with the world, this is an essential manual for any man cave enthusiast.
About the Author
A former USMC Reserves squad leader and the author of The Maxims of Manhood, Jeff Wilser is a regular columnist on dating, nightlife, and pop culture who has contributed to GQ, Esquire, Glamour, MTV, and VH1.
Format: Kindle Edition
File Size: 8251 KB
Print Length: 192 pages
Publisher: HarperCollins e-books; Original edition (April 19, 2011)
Sold by: HarperCollins Publishers
Language: English
ASIN: B004U73C1S
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
Amazon URL
Kindle Edition:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Man-Cave-Book-ebook/dp/B004U73C1S/thekonformist
Paperback:
http://www.amazon.com/Man-Cave-Book-Jeff-Wilser/dp/0062003925/thekonformist
*
Awesome Quotes
“You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of this country, much better.”
Matt Damon on Barack Obama
"The sound of five pretentious old guys joylessly grinding out sub-shoegaze drone and patting themselves on the back for being 'subversive.' It's more out of touch than a bunch of CEOs starting a drum circle at an Occupy rally and as sonically disastrous."
Entertainment Weekly, in naming the Lou Reed - Metallica collaboration Lulu the worst album of the year
*
YouTube Greatest Hits
Tiger Woods Amazing Miracle Shot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHMPpZVOfbI
16th Hole at the 2005 Masters in Augusta...
The Dark Crystal, Part 1 of 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMnFMAF_0RQ
All eight parts are available...
Bill Hicks: On Letterman (1993)
The Cut Set
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vf340K_Ed0o
In honor of what would be his 50th birthday on December 16th:
http://alchemicalarchives.blogspot.com/
Hicks constantly faced problems with censorship. In 1984, Hicks was invited to appear on Late Night with David Letterman for the first time. He had a joke that he used frequently in comedy clubs about how he caused a serious accident that left a classmate confined to a wheelchair. NBC had a policy that no handicapped jokes could be aired on the show, making his stand-up routine difficult to perform without mentioning words such as "wheelchair". Hicks was disappointed that the TV audience didn't get to experience the uncensored Bill Hicks that people saw in clubs.
On October 1, 1993, about five months before his death, Hicks was scheduled to appear on Late Show with David Letterman, his twelfth appearance on a Letterman late night show but his entire performance was removed from the broadcast — then the only occasion where a comedian's entire routine was cut after taping. Hicks' stand-up routine was removed from the show allegedly because Letterman and his producer were nervous about Hicks' anti-religious jokes. Hicks said he believed it was due to a pro-life commercial aired during a commercial break. Both the show's producers and CBS denied responsibility. Hicks expressed his feelings of betrayal in a letter to John Lahr of The New Yorker. Although Letterman later expressed regret at the way Hicks had been handled, Hicks did not appear on the show again. The full account of this incident was featured in a New Yorker profile by Lahr, which was later published as a chapter in Lahr's book, Light Fantastic.
Hicks' mother, Mary, appeared on the January 30, 2009, episode of Late Show. Letterman played the routine in its entirety. Letterman took full responsibility for the original censorship and apologized to Mrs. Hicks. Letterman also declared he did not know what he was thinking when he pulled the routine from the original show in 1993. Letterman said, "It says more about me as a guy than it says about Bill because there was absolutely nothing wrong with that."
*
Retropedia: Santa Claus Conquers the Martians
http://www.retroland.com/santa-claus-conquers-the-martians
Earthlings have long held an affinity for the jolly bearded fellow in the red suit that hands out Christmas presents each year. Is it any wonder that other planets might just be a little jealous that we haven’t shared St. Nick with the rest of the galaxy? Well, that all changed in 1964, when the Martians took matters into their own hands in the campy sci-fi classic, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians. It might not have given Citizen Kane a run for its money in terms of quality, but that hasn’t stopped numerous generations from gleefully embracing this one-of-a-kind B-movie that remains popular to this day.
The poor kids on Mars have a tough life, what with all of that forced educational programming that has left them little freedom to have fun. Luckily, they are allowed access to some good ol’ Earth television and, as a result, have become enamored by famed North Pole resident, Santa Claus. One particular set of Martian parents, Kimar and Momar (dad and mom, respectively) become aware of this trend, thanks to their kids Girmar and Bomar, and bring their children’s fascination with St. Nick to the attention of the all-knowing Martian, Chochem, who realizes the importance in letting the children of Mars have a little fun in their lives. To that end, he instructs the Martian leaders to head over to Earth and kidnap the famed Kris Kringle.
The idea is to have Santa set up shop on Mars and start churning out toys for the kids, but that doesn’t sit well with one particularly cantankerous alien named Voldar, who would rather see Santa killed, rather than corrupt their ancient culture. So when Santa arrives, along with two Earth children, Betty and Billy, Voldar starts plotting their demise. He immediately sends his henchmen, Shim and Stobo to sabotage the new toy factory so that it builds defective products. And when fellow Martian, the dimwitted Dropo, starts impersonating Santa around town and shows up at the toy factory, Voldar mistakes his identity for the real thing and kidnaps the faux Santa. Meanwhile, the real all-knowing Santa is a step ahead of the scheming and Voldar’s plans quickly unravel. But the big guy is too kind-hearted to leave the children of the planet sans Santa and he has a pretty good idea of who might make a suitable replacement for him on the planet.
While there may not be any huge box-office revenues to report or a list of Academy Award nominations, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is one of those films that is almost impossible not to like, despite its “B” status. And, although the film certainly didn’t boast an all-star cast, eagle-eyed viewers might notice that one of the Martian kids is actually a very young Pia Zadora.
Recent generations were re-introduced to Santa Claus Conquers the Martians as part of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 show on Comedy Central. The cast poked fun at (skewered) the film in their own inimitable way, leading it to become one of the most popular episodes, one that airs every holiday season. And, although rumors of a remake have persisted for years, it would appear that this classic film is safe from being re-invented as of this writing.
To view the movie:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/24/holiday-movie-santa-claus-conquers-the-martians
RawStory.com review:
There are b-movies and c-movies and then there’s this holiday confection, “Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.” The title alone should tell you everything you need to know about how seriously this 1964 release takes itself. We file this one under “So bad, it’s good.” Actually, make that under “So bad, it’s AWESOME.”
Merry Christmas!
*
RIP
Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memoriam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011
Vaclav Havel, Czech dissident, playwright, politician dead at 75:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/18/world/europe/czech-republic-vaclav-havel-obit
Cheetah the Chimp, Johnny Weissmuller's sidekick in the Tarzan movies, at the age of 80, allegedly:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/12/cheetah-remembering-tarzans-hairy-sidekick.html
The Wilshire Grand Hotel in downtown Los Angeles:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-1223-wilshire-grand-20111223,0,2448939.story
NOT RIP: Jon Bon Jovi. Also, Taylor Lautner isn't gay...
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Obama Perfects Right Wing Policy
Margaret Kimberley
Tue, 11/08/2011
http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-obama-perfects-right-wing-policy
“Nothing sticks to him, no matter how awful his actions.”
Conservative pundit William Kristol had this to say about Barack Obama, a man he lauded as a “born again neo-con.” “What’s the joke – they told me if I voted for McCain, we’d be going to war in a third Muslim country? I voted for McCain and we’re doing it.”
It was said that Ronald Reagan had teflon, that is to say, nothing stuck to him. If Reagan had teflon, then Barack Obama has patented a brand new, space aged non-stick material, because nothing sticks to him, no matter how awful his actions. Thanks to his success in marketing himself as an agent of change, and the complete capitulation of black voters and other progressives, Obama is free to do as he pleases in America and around the world.
He is showing his true self, and the portrait is an ugly one. Obama has been able to follow his predecessor George W. Bush in spreading evil intent and action around the world.
It was clear to anyone who was paying close attention that Barack Obama is a lover of conservative policy. His demonization of the 60s and its supposed excesses, his paeans of praise to Ronald Reagan, and his love of a so-called consensus with Republicans were proof that the idol of progressives didn’t have a progressive bone in his body.
Being a smart man with conservative leanings, Obama had only to ponder how he would get away with the worst right wing behavior and still get Democratic love. In foreign policy it is very simple. Make a case for saving people and don’t get any Americans killed.
“Obama, the idol of progressives, didn’t have a progressive bone in his body.”
If Obama, makes the case for war and terror even after having consulted with Bill Kristol and his ilk, most progressives will go along with whatever he says without question, complaint, or protest. If as in the case of Libya, the dirty deed is done without a loss of American lives, as the president bragged after Gaddafi was killed by a raging mob, then so much the better. “Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives, and our NATO mission will soon come to an end.”
Americans love wars if they are short and sweet, don’t result in coffins covered by Old Glory, and are waged for what they consider to be noble motives. Obama got the evil tyrant routing down perfectly, and helped people who think of themselves as do gooders to justify their support for the horror inflicted upon Libya.
In domestic policy, Obama continues on this path of making what used to be unacceptable suddenly palatable. The budget deal, rightly called “a Satan Sandwich” has resulted in Democrats outdoing Republicans in their pledges to cut the budget. Social Security is no longer the third rail of politics because Obama put it on the table along with earmarks and every other government expenditure. Republicans can breath a sigh of relief as even the lowest hanging fruit stays on the tree.
Obama policy making is worse than Bill Clinton’s cynical triangulating. Obama’s plans for grand designs are meant to change politics forever by making the most fundamental principals of the Democratic party irrelevant. The president is happiest when John Boehner and the Republicans come to the negotiating table but that is when the rest of us are most at risk.
“Social Security is no longer the third rail of politics because Obama put it on the table.”
Naïve Democrats may excoriate him for caving to the Republicans or for not having a backbone but their observations are wildly off the mark. Obama has plenty of backbone. This very perceptive man sought out the job that requires him to do the bidding of corporate interests and the dictates required of an empire. He is certainly not naïve, he is very ambitious and a true believer in the right of the state and corporations to exert their influence over the rest of humanity.
The result is that Republicans are winning whether they are in power or not. If Obama succeeds in being re-elected in 2012 he will probably be followed by a Republican in 2016. Having discredited nearly everything that Democrats claim to want, right wing ideology will have emerged triumphant, perhaps permanently.
It seems that every Democratic president pushes American politics further to the right. Triangulation is followed by a budget super committee and Republican wars are followed by Democratic interventions. Clinton may have said that the era of big government is over, but Obama agreed to across the board budget cuts and refuses to protect entitlements.
Perhaps it isn’t surprising that the man who is president at this momentous point in history would be a person who changes politics in such a negative way. The influence of money, the death of black politics, and the end of the financial system as we know it combine to insure that the person who emerges at the top of the political heap will be an unmitigated disaster. The question is, will we rise to the occasion and call him what he is.
Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com/. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley@BlackAgandaReport.com.
Tue, 11/08/2011
http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-obama-perfects-right-wing-policy
“Nothing sticks to him, no matter how awful his actions.”
Conservative pundit William Kristol had this to say about Barack Obama, a man he lauded as a “born again neo-con.” “What’s the joke – they told me if I voted for McCain, we’d be going to war in a third Muslim country? I voted for McCain and we’re doing it.”
It was said that Ronald Reagan had teflon, that is to say, nothing stuck to him. If Reagan had teflon, then Barack Obama has patented a brand new, space aged non-stick material, because nothing sticks to him, no matter how awful his actions. Thanks to his success in marketing himself as an agent of change, and the complete capitulation of black voters and other progressives, Obama is free to do as he pleases in America and around the world.
He is showing his true self, and the portrait is an ugly one. Obama has been able to follow his predecessor George W. Bush in spreading evil intent and action around the world.
It was clear to anyone who was paying close attention that Barack Obama is a lover of conservative policy. His demonization of the 60s and its supposed excesses, his paeans of praise to Ronald Reagan, and his love of a so-called consensus with Republicans were proof that the idol of progressives didn’t have a progressive bone in his body.
Being a smart man with conservative leanings, Obama had only to ponder how he would get away with the worst right wing behavior and still get Democratic love. In foreign policy it is very simple. Make a case for saving people and don’t get any Americans killed.
“Obama, the idol of progressives, didn’t have a progressive bone in his body.”
If Obama, makes the case for war and terror even after having consulted with Bill Kristol and his ilk, most progressives will go along with whatever he says without question, complaint, or protest. If as in the case of Libya, the dirty deed is done without a loss of American lives, as the president bragged after Gaddafi was killed by a raging mob, then so much the better. “Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives, and our NATO mission will soon come to an end.”
Americans love wars if they are short and sweet, don’t result in coffins covered by Old Glory, and are waged for what they consider to be noble motives. Obama got the evil tyrant routing down perfectly, and helped people who think of themselves as do gooders to justify their support for the horror inflicted upon Libya.
In domestic policy, Obama continues on this path of making what used to be unacceptable suddenly palatable. The budget deal, rightly called “a Satan Sandwich” has resulted in Democrats outdoing Republicans in their pledges to cut the budget. Social Security is no longer the third rail of politics because Obama put it on the table along with earmarks and every other government expenditure. Republicans can breath a sigh of relief as even the lowest hanging fruit stays on the tree.
Obama policy making is worse than Bill Clinton’s cynical triangulating. Obama’s plans for grand designs are meant to change politics forever by making the most fundamental principals of the Democratic party irrelevant. The president is happiest when John Boehner and the Republicans come to the negotiating table but that is when the rest of us are most at risk.
“Social Security is no longer the third rail of politics because Obama put it on the table.”
Naïve Democrats may excoriate him for caving to the Republicans or for not having a backbone but their observations are wildly off the mark. Obama has plenty of backbone. This very perceptive man sought out the job that requires him to do the bidding of corporate interests and the dictates required of an empire. He is certainly not naïve, he is very ambitious and a true believer in the right of the state and corporations to exert their influence over the rest of humanity.
The result is that Republicans are winning whether they are in power or not. If Obama succeeds in being re-elected in 2012 he will probably be followed by a Republican in 2016. Having discredited nearly everything that Democrats claim to want, right wing ideology will have emerged triumphant, perhaps permanently.
It seems that every Democratic president pushes American politics further to the right. Triangulation is followed by a budget super committee and Republican wars are followed by Democratic interventions. Clinton may have said that the era of big government is over, but Obama agreed to across the board budget cuts and refuses to protect entitlements.
Perhaps it isn’t surprising that the man who is president at this momentous point in history would be a person who changes politics in such a negative way. The influence of money, the death of black politics, and the end of the financial system as we know it combine to insure that the person who emerges at the top of the political heap will be an unmitigated disaster. The question is, will we rise to the occasion and call him what he is.
Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com/. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley@BlackAgandaReport.com.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Is there any possible way Jesse Ventura could win the Presidency?
David Gewirtz | November 8, 2011
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/government/is-there-any-possible-way-jesse-ventura-could-win-the-presidency/10980
Jesse Ventura, like so many of us who fly, is fully enraged at the practices of the TSA, the Transportation Security Agency.
Can he appeal to enough Americans to get on the map?
Yes, undoubtedly. No one expected him to win the governorship in Minnesota, and yet he did. He didn’t win big, but he did beat out some better known candidates. Ventura has exceptional skills in reaching people and with our disgruntled populace, he’s sure to strike a chord with a measurable group of people.
Can he raise enough money to be a credible contender against the hundreds of millions of dollars that’ll be spent by his competitors?
This is where his chances drop precipitously. This next election may well cost the GOP and the Dems a billion dollars each. It’s highly unlikely Ventura could raise even a tenth of that.
He did win in Minnesota with a fraction of the money of his then competitors, but playing in Duluth and Eden Prairie isn’t exactly like playing on Time Square. It’s far from clear that Ventura could carry even a single cranky red state, and he might upset the fragile sensibilities of blue staters.
More to the point, you can get a lot of traction and a lot of votes for a billion dollars, and charm, anger, and personal fortitude can only get you so far against such a concentration of economic resources.
Is there any way that an independent would ever win the White House?
Five years ago, I would have said “No.” Now, I think I have to say, “Yes.”
Barack Obama was not exactly an establishment candidate. He broke all sorts of records and barriers and made it to the White House. He got elected, in part based on much of America’s disgruntlement with George W. Bush, in part because otherwise right-leaning voters were nervous about the McCain/Palin combination, in part because finally voting in someone of color was long overdue, and in part because he was a far more appealing candidate than McCain.
Unfortunately, while Obama was not the establishment candidate, he has been a very establishment President. All those disgruntled Americans who voted President Obama into office are still disgruntled — and neither the GOP nor the Democrats are showing any sign of changing the bad business-as-usual climate we’ve seen over the last few decades.
The Tea Party and Occupy movements may just be the tip of the iceberg. I’m starting to think that our two major parties — driven so much by the power and money of lobbyists, banks, and big-money interests — have completely lost touch with the vast majority of voting Americans.
And, while I do think it’s nigh on impossible to battle against the entrenched power of big business, big banking, big capital, and big health, I do think there’s a crack in their defensive battlements — in that they’ve SO angered so many Americans.
Ventura as President. Likely: no. Possible: yes.
Can he build the “machine” necessary for a national campaign?
Ventura’s a very bright dude and did manage a state-wide win. But it’s not clear he’s got the management fortitude to organize what’s essentially a very large enterprise and run it on a national basis.
Fortunately, you can hire such talent and Ventura’s been quite good at recognizing and directing excellent talent.
So, assuming he can pay that talent, I’d rate this one as a definite maybe.
Can he control his mouth and temper so he doesn’t shoot himself in his own foot?
That’s a question for all the candidates, isn’t it? Cain might not be able to keep his foot from his mouth (or possibly his hands to himself, if there’s any truth to the harassment accusations he’s currently fighting). Bachmann certainly can’t. Romney has good message control, but it’s so good he looks more like a robot than a President. And, of course, President Obama is excellent on the campaign trail, but whether he can succeed in an environment not bathed in adulation is the big open question.
So, while it’s not clear Ventura can keep his mouth on mission, he has no less of a chance than any of the other candidates to keep his mouth in check, our President included.
Bottom line: can Ventura win?
Honestly, I think he has very little chance, but I do believe he has a chance — if he decides to run pretty much now and plays for keeps.
Honestly, if Ventura were to run on a simple message — dismantle the TSA — he’s likely to attract a far larger group of voters than anyone might expect. There’s real anger in America about the TSA, and Ventura could be the lightning rod for that anger.
It’ll be a tough slog and a tough fight, but — after all — when you want someone who can handle a tough slog and a tough fight, there isn’t anyone better than a Navy SEAL.
No doubt, it’ll be interesting to watch. And, I’ll tell you what, I’d pay serious money to watch Jesse Ventura debate any or all of the other candidates. Now, that would be something to see!
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/government/is-there-any-possible-way-jesse-ventura-could-win-the-presidency/10980
Jesse Ventura, like so many of us who fly, is fully enraged at the practices of the TSA, the Transportation Security Agency.
Can he appeal to enough Americans to get on the map?
Yes, undoubtedly. No one expected him to win the governorship in Minnesota, and yet he did. He didn’t win big, but he did beat out some better known candidates. Ventura has exceptional skills in reaching people and with our disgruntled populace, he’s sure to strike a chord with a measurable group of people.
Can he raise enough money to be a credible contender against the hundreds of millions of dollars that’ll be spent by his competitors?
This is where his chances drop precipitously. This next election may well cost the GOP and the Dems a billion dollars each. It’s highly unlikely Ventura could raise even a tenth of that.
He did win in Minnesota with a fraction of the money of his then competitors, but playing in Duluth and Eden Prairie isn’t exactly like playing on Time Square. It’s far from clear that Ventura could carry even a single cranky red state, and he might upset the fragile sensibilities of blue staters.
More to the point, you can get a lot of traction and a lot of votes for a billion dollars, and charm, anger, and personal fortitude can only get you so far against such a concentration of economic resources.
Is there any way that an independent would ever win the White House?
Five years ago, I would have said “No.” Now, I think I have to say, “Yes.”
Barack Obama was not exactly an establishment candidate. He broke all sorts of records and barriers and made it to the White House. He got elected, in part based on much of America’s disgruntlement with George W. Bush, in part because otherwise right-leaning voters were nervous about the McCain/Palin combination, in part because finally voting in someone of color was long overdue, and in part because he was a far more appealing candidate than McCain.
Unfortunately, while Obama was not the establishment candidate, he has been a very establishment President. All those disgruntled Americans who voted President Obama into office are still disgruntled — and neither the GOP nor the Democrats are showing any sign of changing the bad business-as-usual climate we’ve seen over the last few decades.
The Tea Party and Occupy movements may just be the tip of the iceberg. I’m starting to think that our two major parties — driven so much by the power and money of lobbyists, banks, and big-money interests — have completely lost touch with the vast majority of voting Americans.
And, while I do think it’s nigh on impossible to battle against the entrenched power of big business, big banking, big capital, and big health, I do think there’s a crack in their defensive battlements — in that they’ve SO angered so many Americans.
Ventura as President. Likely: no. Possible: yes.
Can he build the “machine” necessary for a national campaign?
Ventura’s a very bright dude and did manage a state-wide win. But it’s not clear he’s got the management fortitude to organize what’s essentially a very large enterprise and run it on a national basis.
Fortunately, you can hire such talent and Ventura’s been quite good at recognizing and directing excellent talent.
So, assuming he can pay that talent, I’d rate this one as a definite maybe.
Can he control his mouth and temper so he doesn’t shoot himself in his own foot?
That’s a question for all the candidates, isn’t it? Cain might not be able to keep his foot from his mouth (or possibly his hands to himself, if there’s any truth to the harassment accusations he’s currently fighting). Bachmann certainly can’t. Romney has good message control, but it’s so good he looks more like a robot than a President. And, of course, President Obama is excellent on the campaign trail, but whether he can succeed in an environment not bathed in adulation is the big open question.
So, while it’s not clear Ventura can keep his mouth on mission, he has no less of a chance than any of the other candidates to keep his mouth in check, our President included.
Bottom line: can Ventura win?
Honestly, I think he has very little chance, but I do believe he has a chance — if he decides to run pretty much now and plays for keeps.
Honestly, if Ventura were to run on a simple message — dismantle the TSA — he’s likely to attract a far larger group of voters than anyone might expect. There’s real anger in America about the TSA, and Ventura could be the lightning rod for that anger.
It’ll be a tough slog and a tough fight, but — after all — when you want someone who can handle a tough slog and a tough fight, there isn’t anyone better than a Navy SEAL.
No doubt, it’ll be interesting to watch. And, I’ll tell you what, I’d pay serious money to watch Jesse Ventura debate any or all of the other candidates. Now, that would be something to see!
Saturday, November 5, 2011
The Son of Africa claims a continent’s crown jewels
John Pilger
20 October 2011
http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/the-son-of-africa-claims-a-continents-crown-jewels
On 14 October, President Barack Obama announced he was sending United States special forces troops to Uganda to join the civil war there. In the next few months, US combat troops will be sent to South Sudan, Congo and Central African Republic. They will only "engage" for "self-defence", says Obama, satirically. With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent is under way.
Obama's decision is described in the press as "highly unusual" and "surprising", even "weird". It is none of these things. It is the logic of American foreign policy since 1945. Take Vietnam. The priority was to halt the influence of China, an imperial rival, and "protect" Indonesia, which President Nixon called "the region's richest hoard of natural resources... the greatest prize". Vietnam merely got in the way; and the slaughter of more than three million Vietnamese and the devastation and poisoning of their land was the price of America achieving its goal. Like all America's subsequent invasions, a trail of blood from Latin America to Afghanistan and Iraq, the rationale was usually "self defence" or "humanitarian", words long emptied of their dictionary meaning.
In Africa, says Obama, the "humanitarian mission" is to assist the government of Uganda defeat the Lord's resistance Army (LRA), which "has murdered, raped and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women and children in central Africa". This is an accurate description of the LRA, evoking multiple atrocities administered by the United States, such as the bloodbath in the 1960s following the CIA-arranged murder of Patrice Lumumba, the Congolese independence leader and first legally elected prime minister, and the CIA coup that installed Mobutu Sese Seko, regarded as Africa's most venal tyrant.
Obama's other justification also invites satire. This is the "national security of the United States". The LRA has been doing its nasty work for 24 years, of minimal interest to the United States. Today, it has few than 400 fighters and has never been weaker. However, US "national security" usually means buying a corrupt and thuggish regime that has something Washington wants. Uganda's "president-for-life" Yoweri Museveni already receives the larger part of $45 million in US military "aid" - including Obama's favourite drones. This is his bribe to fight a proxy war against America's latest phantom Islamic enemy, the rag-tag al Shabaab group based in Somalia. The RTA will play a public relations role, distracting western journalists with its perennial horror stories.
However, the main reason the US is invading Africa is no different from that which ignited the Vietnam war. It is China. In the world of self-serving, institutionalised paranoia that justifies what General David Petraeus, the former US commander and now CIA director, implies is a state of perpetual war, China is replacing al-Qaeda as the official American "threat". When I interviewed Bryan Whitman, an assistant secretary of defence at the Pentagon last year, I asked him to describe the current danger to America. Struggling visibly, he repeated, "Asymmetric threats ... asymmetric threats". These justify the money-laundering state-sponsored arms conglomerates and the biggest military and war budget in history. With Osama bin Laden airbrushed, China takes the mantle.
Africa is China's success story. Where the Americans bring drones and destabilisation, the Chinese bring roads, bridges and dams. What they want is resources, especially fossil fuels. With Africa's greatest oil reserves, Libya under Muammar Gaddafi was one of China's most important sources of fuel. When the civil war broke out and Nato backed the "rebels" with a fabricated story about Gaddafi planning "genocide" in Benghazi, China evacuated its 30,000 workers in Libya. The subsequent UN security council resolution that allowed the west's "humanitarian intervention" was explained succinctly in a proposal to the French government by the "rebel" National Transitional Council, disclosed last month in the newspaper Liberation, in which France was offered 35 per cent of Libya's gross national oil production "in exchange" (the term used) for "total and permanent" French support for the NTC. Running up the Stars and Stripes in "liberated" Tripoli last month, US ambassador Gene Cretz blurted out: "We know that oil is the jewel in the crown of Libyan natural resources!"
The de facto conquest of Libya by the US and its imperial partners heralds a modern version of the "scramble for Africa" at the end of the 19th century.
Like the "victory" in Iraq, journalists have played a critical role in dividing Libyans into worthy and unworthy victims. A recent Guardian front page carried a photograph of a terrified "pro-Gaddafi" fighter and his wild-eyed captors who, says the caption, "celebrate". According to General Petraeus, there is now a war "of perception... conducted continuously through the news media".
For more than a decade the US has tried to establish a command on the continent of Africa, AFRICOM, but has been rebuffed by governments, fearful of the regional tensions this would cause. Libya, and now Uganda, South Sudan and Congo, provide the main chance. As WikiLeaks cables and the US National Strategy for Counter-terrorism reveal, American plans for Africa are part of a global design in which 60,000 special forces, including death squads, already operate in 75 countries, soon to be 120. As Dick Cheney pointed out in his 1990s "defence strategy" plan, America simply wishes to rule the world.
That this is now the gift of Barack Obama, the "Son of Africa", is supremely ironic. Or is it? As Frantz Fanon explained in 'Black Skin, White Masks', what matters is not so much the colour of your skin as the power you serve and the millions you betray.
20 October 2011
http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/the-son-of-africa-claims-a-continents-crown-jewels
On 14 October, President Barack Obama announced he was sending United States special forces troops to Uganda to join the civil war there. In the next few months, US combat troops will be sent to South Sudan, Congo and Central African Republic. They will only "engage" for "self-defence", says Obama, satirically. With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent is under way.
Obama's decision is described in the press as "highly unusual" and "surprising", even "weird". It is none of these things. It is the logic of American foreign policy since 1945. Take Vietnam. The priority was to halt the influence of China, an imperial rival, and "protect" Indonesia, which President Nixon called "the region's richest hoard of natural resources... the greatest prize". Vietnam merely got in the way; and the slaughter of more than three million Vietnamese and the devastation and poisoning of their land was the price of America achieving its goal. Like all America's subsequent invasions, a trail of blood from Latin America to Afghanistan and Iraq, the rationale was usually "self defence" or "humanitarian", words long emptied of their dictionary meaning.
In Africa, says Obama, the "humanitarian mission" is to assist the government of Uganda defeat the Lord's resistance Army (LRA), which "has murdered, raped and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women and children in central Africa". This is an accurate description of the LRA, evoking multiple atrocities administered by the United States, such as the bloodbath in the 1960s following the CIA-arranged murder of Patrice Lumumba, the Congolese independence leader and first legally elected prime minister, and the CIA coup that installed Mobutu Sese Seko, regarded as Africa's most venal tyrant.
Obama's other justification also invites satire. This is the "national security of the United States". The LRA has been doing its nasty work for 24 years, of minimal interest to the United States. Today, it has few than 400 fighters and has never been weaker. However, US "national security" usually means buying a corrupt and thuggish regime that has something Washington wants. Uganda's "president-for-life" Yoweri Museveni already receives the larger part of $45 million in US military "aid" - including Obama's favourite drones. This is his bribe to fight a proxy war against America's latest phantom Islamic enemy, the rag-tag al Shabaab group based in Somalia. The RTA will play a public relations role, distracting western journalists with its perennial horror stories.
However, the main reason the US is invading Africa is no different from that which ignited the Vietnam war. It is China. In the world of self-serving, institutionalised paranoia that justifies what General David Petraeus, the former US commander and now CIA director, implies is a state of perpetual war, China is replacing al-Qaeda as the official American "threat". When I interviewed Bryan Whitman, an assistant secretary of defence at the Pentagon last year, I asked him to describe the current danger to America. Struggling visibly, he repeated, "Asymmetric threats ... asymmetric threats". These justify the money-laundering state-sponsored arms conglomerates and the biggest military and war budget in history. With Osama bin Laden airbrushed, China takes the mantle.
Africa is China's success story. Where the Americans bring drones and destabilisation, the Chinese bring roads, bridges and dams. What they want is resources, especially fossil fuels. With Africa's greatest oil reserves, Libya under Muammar Gaddafi was one of China's most important sources of fuel. When the civil war broke out and Nato backed the "rebels" with a fabricated story about Gaddafi planning "genocide" in Benghazi, China evacuated its 30,000 workers in Libya. The subsequent UN security council resolution that allowed the west's "humanitarian intervention" was explained succinctly in a proposal to the French government by the "rebel" National Transitional Council, disclosed last month in the newspaper Liberation, in which France was offered 35 per cent of Libya's gross national oil production "in exchange" (the term used) for "total and permanent" French support for the NTC. Running up the Stars and Stripes in "liberated" Tripoli last month, US ambassador Gene Cretz blurted out: "We know that oil is the jewel in the crown of Libyan natural resources!"
The de facto conquest of Libya by the US and its imperial partners heralds a modern version of the "scramble for Africa" at the end of the 19th century.
Like the "victory" in Iraq, journalists have played a critical role in dividing Libyans into worthy and unworthy victims. A recent Guardian front page carried a photograph of a terrified "pro-Gaddafi" fighter and his wild-eyed captors who, says the caption, "celebrate". According to General Petraeus, there is now a war "of perception... conducted continuously through the news media".
For more than a decade the US has tried to establish a command on the continent of Africa, AFRICOM, but has been rebuffed by governments, fearful of the regional tensions this would cause. Libya, and now Uganda, South Sudan and Congo, provide the main chance. As WikiLeaks cables and the US National Strategy for Counter-terrorism reveal, American plans for Africa are part of a global design in which 60,000 special forces, including death squads, already operate in 75 countries, soon to be 120. As Dick Cheney pointed out in his 1990s "defence strategy" plan, America simply wishes to rule the world.
That this is now the gift of Barack Obama, the "Son of Africa", is supremely ironic. Or is it? As Frantz Fanon explained in 'Black Skin, White Masks', what matters is not so much the colour of your skin as the power you serve and the millions you betray.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Erin Burnett: Voice of the People
Financial reporters revere Wall Street as much as national security reporters revere military and CIA officials
Glenn Greenwald
Wednesday, Oct 5, 2011
http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/05/erin_burnett_voice_of_the_people/
On her new CNN show on Monday night, host Erin Burnett was joined by Rudy Giuliani’s former speechwriter John Avlon and together they heaped condescending scorn on the Wall Street protests while defending the banking industry, offering — as FAIR documented — several misleading statements along the way. Burnett “reported” that while she “saw dancing, bongo drums, even a clown” at the protest, the participants “did not know what they want,” except that “it seems like people want a messiah leader, just like they did when they anointed Barack Obama.” She featured a video clip of herself explaining to one of the protesters that the U.S. Government made money from TARP, and then demanded to know if that changed his negative views of Wall Street.
This is far from the first time Burnett has served as spokesperson for Wall Street; it’s basically what her “journalistic” career is. She angered Bill Maher a couple years ago when arguing that the rich have suffered along with the poor and middle class as part of the financial crisis, and that it would be wrong to “soak the rich” because they’re already paying so much taxes. She caused Rush Limbaugh to gush over her when she argued on TV in 2007 that all Americans benefit when the rich get richer: “the majority of Americans directly benefit from what happens on Wall Street,” she proclaimed, just over a year before the financial collapse.
In an interview last year with Vanity Fair, she insisted that people on Wall Street do not have private planes and that “there are a lot of stalwart, solid people on Wall Street. There are just a few shady people providing the fodder for big budget movies”; when asked: “When was the last time you interviewed somebody on Wall Street and said, ‘Enough of your lies, we deserve the truth goddammit?!’”, she would only say in response: “I’d never use the word ‘goddammit’ in an interview.” And then there’s this two-minute video from her 2009 appearance on Meet the Press, compiled by Progressive Change Campaign Committee, in which she repeatedly heaps patronizing scorn on criticisms of Wall Street while defending its virtue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLWPj5hTkio
Here’s some background about this former NBC News business reporter and current CNN news host, from an article last week:
[Burnett] is set to tie the knot with Citigroup executive David Rubulotta...
The American-born journalist started her career as a financial analyst for worldwide investment banking and securities firm Goldman Sachs.
During her time at the company she was headhunted by CNN for the position of writer and booker for the network’s hit show Moneyline.
When Burnett later became Vice President of Citigroup/CitiMedia, she met Rubulotta, who currently serves as an executive with the company.
Last week, as MediaBistro reported, “CNN feted its newest anchor [] at Robert restaurant at The Museum of Arts and Design in Columbus Circle, just a few hundred feet from CNN’s NYC headquarters, overlooking Columbus Circle and the southwest corner of Central Park.” Among the many fabulous guests celebrating Burnett’s new “news” program was JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. Do you think any of this might have anything to do with her scorn for Wall Street protests and her perpetual defense of the nation’s oligrachs? Would it ever occur to CNN that perhaps a former Wall Street banker at Goldman Sachs, currently engaged to a Citigroup executive, might not be the best person to cover those protests? Of course not: that’s exactly the bias that makes her such an appropriate choice in the eyes of her Time Warner bosses.
Meanwhile, Burnett’s CNN colleague, business reporter Alison Kosik, was encouraged on Twitter to ask the Wall Street protesters to explain the purpose of the protest in 140 characters (the limit for Twitter). As NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen documented, this is how that CNN journalist replied to the suggestion:
"Purpose in 140 or less: bang on the bongos, smoke weed!"
After numerous people criticized her for that, she ignored the criticisms but deleted the tweet without comment; what a brave and intrepid thing for a reporter to do. But while that tweet is deleted, she left this comment, after a staff member on CNN’s Piers Morgan Show wrote: “Occupy Wall Street should go mainstream and protest debit-card fees. Or would that be too corporate?":
"the list of whines is too long already"
Kosik then went on CNN last night and assured everyone that Wall Street traders empathize with the (whining, bongo-beating, pothead) protesters because — echoing Burnett — traders are suffering like everyone else.
Needless to say, Burnett and Kosik consider themselves to be opinion-free, objective “reporters.” Indeed, this is what Burnett said in the Vantiy Fair interview when asked if she sympathizes too much with the Wall Street plutocrats on whom she purports to report: “My job isn’t to give an opinion but to try and explain what’s happening.” But just like Andrew Ross Sorkin and his protection of and subservience to his “CEO-of-a-major-bank” friend, these people are oozing bias and opinion from every pore of their being. They are so devoted to and immersed in the insular oligarchical world of which they are desperate to be a part that they know and care about nothing else. Expecting them to provide objective, critical assessments of business elites is like expecting a heroin addict to rat out his dealer.
Financial reporters like these have the same relationship to Wall Street titans as most national security reporters have to miltiary and intelligence officials: subservience, reverence, and a desperate desire to identify with them. Last night while looking for something else, I happened to stumble into the contentious interview I had last year with CNN’s Jessica Yellin and Fran Townsend about WikiLeaks – when those two, like most media figures, competed with each other to see who could be more scornful and contemptuous of Julian Assange — and realized that the parallels were clear. People like Yellin and Townsend hated WikiLeaks because the group challenges and subverts those whom they most revere (National Security State officials); it’s exactly the same reason that people like Burnett, Kosik and Sorkin are so contemptuous of Wall Street protesters: because the protesters have targeted the high priests of their world (Wall Street executives) with denunciations and opposition.
I’d bet that these two CNN personalities, along with Sorkin, would genuinely find the suggestion that they are not objective to be baffling and offensive. That’s because their world begins and ends with Jamie Dimon, Citigroup executives, and Columbus Circle corporate galas. To them, Truth is what is found in that world and nothing else. When someone like Kosik sneers at concerns over mass joblessness, hopeless debt, foreclosures, and oligarchical control of the political process, she’s not being a conscious propagandist; she’s just being honest. Those problems don’t exist in their world except as abstractions.
The only people they think are worth talking to are people who view the protesters as dirty rabble and their concerns as whiny irrelevancies. They’re serving as spokespeople for the political and financial elites on whom they pretend to report: that’s their job. Listen to Burnett in that Maher appearance linked above; to her, the real victims, the only victims, are the wealthiest who tragically pay so much in taxes and whose net wealth has decreased over the past few years — such as herself, her Citigroup-executive fiancée, her Time Warner bosses, and Andrew Ross Sorkin’s “CEO of a major bank” assignment editor: the only people who really exist in her universe and who matter (do you think Sorkin would have been as responsive to a call from, say, a person suffering long-time unemployment and foreclosure as he was to his “CEO of a major bank”?).
It’s the opposite of surprising that large corporations which own media outlets want to hire people to play the role of journalist on the TV who are slavishly devoted to their culture and their agenda. But that’s the point: the pretense that these people are “objective journalists” delivering opinion-free facts is so discredited that they should just stop pretending. It’s embarrassing already. Few things have exposed their deep, embittered biases as much as their snide, defensive reaction to these Wall Street protests.
Glenn Greenwald
Wednesday, Oct 5, 2011
http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/05/erin_burnett_voice_of_the_people/
On her new CNN show on Monday night, host Erin Burnett was joined by Rudy Giuliani’s former speechwriter John Avlon and together they heaped condescending scorn on the Wall Street protests while defending the banking industry, offering — as FAIR documented — several misleading statements along the way. Burnett “reported” that while she “saw dancing, bongo drums, even a clown” at the protest, the participants “did not know what they want,” except that “it seems like people want a messiah leader, just like they did when they anointed Barack Obama.” She featured a video clip of herself explaining to one of the protesters that the U.S. Government made money from TARP, and then demanded to know if that changed his negative views of Wall Street.
This is far from the first time Burnett has served as spokesperson for Wall Street; it’s basically what her “journalistic” career is. She angered Bill Maher a couple years ago when arguing that the rich have suffered along with the poor and middle class as part of the financial crisis, and that it would be wrong to “soak the rich” because they’re already paying so much taxes. She caused Rush Limbaugh to gush over her when she argued on TV in 2007 that all Americans benefit when the rich get richer: “the majority of Americans directly benefit from what happens on Wall Street,” she proclaimed, just over a year before the financial collapse.
In an interview last year with Vanity Fair, she insisted that people on Wall Street do not have private planes and that “there are a lot of stalwart, solid people on Wall Street. There are just a few shady people providing the fodder for big budget movies”; when asked: “When was the last time you interviewed somebody on Wall Street and said, ‘Enough of your lies, we deserve the truth goddammit?!’”, she would only say in response: “I’d never use the word ‘goddammit’ in an interview.” And then there’s this two-minute video from her 2009 appearance on Meet the Press, compiled by Progressive Change Campaign Committee, in which she repeatedly heaps patronizing scorn on criticisms of Wall Street while defending its virtue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLWPj5hTkio
Here’s some background about this former NBC News business reporter and current CNN news host, from an article last week:
[Burnett] is set to tie the knot with Citigroup executive David Rubulotta...
The American-born journalist started her career as a financial analyst for worldwide investment banking and securities firm Goldman Sachs.
During her time at the company she was headhunted by CNN for the position of writer and booker for the network’s hit show Moneyline.
When Burnett later became Vice President of Citigroup/CitiMedia, she met Rubulotta, who currently serves as an executive with the company.
Last week, as MediaBistro reported, “CNN feted its newest anchor [] at Robert restaurant at The Museum of Arts and Design in Columbus Circle, just a few hundred feet from CNN’s NYC headquarters, overlooking Columbus Circle and the southwest corner of Central Park.” Among the many fabulous guests celebrating Burnett’s new “news” program was JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. Do you think any of this might have anything to do with her scorn for Wall Street protests and her perpetual defense of the nation’s oligrachs? Would it ever occur to CNN that perhaps a former Wall Street banker at Goldman Sachs, currently engaged to a Citigroup executive, might not be the best person to cover those protests? Of course not: that’s exactly the bias that makes her such an appropriate choice in the eyes of her Time Warner bosses.
Meanwhile, Burnett’s CNN colleague, business reporter Alison Kosik, was encouraged on Twitter to ask the Wall Street protesters to explain the purpose of the protest in 140 characters (the limit for Twitter). As NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen documented, this is how that CNN journalist replied to the suggestion:
"Purpose in 140 or less: bang on the bongos, smoke weed!"
After numerous people criticized her for that, she ignored the criticisms but deleted the tweet without comment; what a brave and intrepid thing for a reporter to do. But while that tweet is deleted, she left this comment, after a staff member on CNN’s Piers Morgan Show wrote: “Occupy Wall Street should go mainstream and protest debit-card fees. Or would that be too corporate?":
"the list of whines is too long already"
Kosik then went on CNN last night and assured everyone that Wall Street traders empathize with the (whining, bongo-beating, pothead) protesters because — echoing Burnett — traders are suffering like everyone else.
Needless to say, Burnett and Kosik consider themselves to be opinion-free, objective “reporters.” Indeed, this is what Burnett said in the Vantiy Fair interview when asked if she sympathizes too much with the Wall Street plutocrats on whom she purports to report: “My job isn’t to give an opinion but to try and explain what’s happening.” But just like Andrew Ross Sorkin and his protection of and subservience to his “CEO-of-a-major-bank” friend, these people are oozing bias and opinion from every pore of their being. They are so devoted to and immersed in the insular oligarchical world of which they are desperate to be a part that they know and care about nothing else. Expecting them to provide objective, critical assessments of business elites is like expecting a heroin addict to rat out his dealer.
Financial reporters like these have the same relationship to Wall Street titans as most national security reporters have to miltiary and intelligence officials: subservience, reverence, and a desperate desire to identify with them. Last night while looking for something else, I happened to stumble into the contentious interview I had last year with CNN’s Jessica Yellin and Fran Townsend about WikiLeaks – when those two, like most media figures, competed with each other to see who could be more scornful and contemptuous of Julian Assange — and realized that the parallels were clear. People like Yellin and Townsend hated WikiLeaks because the group challenges and subverts those whom they most revere (National Security State officials); it’s exactly the same reason that people like Burnett, Kosik and Sorkin are so contemptuous of Wall Street protesters: because the protesters have targeted the high priests of their world (Wall Street executives) with denunciations and opposition.
I’d bet that these two CNN personalities, along with Sorkin, would genuinely find the suggestion that they are not objective to be baffling and offensive. That’s because their world begins and ends with Jamie Dimon, Citigroup executives, and Columbus Circle corporate galas. To them, Truth is what is found in that world and nothing else. When someone like Kosik sneers at concerns over mass joblessness, hopeless debt, foreclosures, and oligarchical control of the political process, she’s not being a conscious propagandist; she’s just being honest. Those problems don’t exist in their world except as abstractions.
The only people they think are worth talking to are people who view the protesters as dirty rabble and their concerns as whiny irrelevancies. They’re serving as spokespeople for the political and financial elites on whom they pretend to report: that’s their job. Listen to Burnett in that Maher appearance linked above; to her, the real victims, the only victims, are the wealthiest who tragically pay so much in taxes and whose net wealth has decreased over the past few years — such as herself, her Citigroup-executive fiancée, her Time Warner bosses, and Andrew Ross Sorkin’s “CEO of a major bank” assignment editor: the only people who really exist in her universe and who matter (do you think Sorkin would have been as responsive to a call from, say, a person suffering long-time unemployment and foreclosure as he was to his “CEO of a major bank”?).
It’s the opposite of surprising that large corporations which own media outlets want to hire people to play the role of journalist on the TV who are slavishly devoted to their culture and their agenda. But that’s the point: the pretense that these people are “objective journalists” delivering opinion-free facts is so discredited that they should just stop pretending. It’s embarrassing already. Few things have exposed their deep, embittered biases as much as their snide, defensive reaction to these Wall Street protests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)