Tuesday, July 10, 2012

You're welcome, Tea Partyers, for this opportunity

Since Tea Partyers are the first Americans to ask, "Where are all the moderate Muslims denouncing terrorism?" I'm going to give those same people the first shot at denouncing their racist, anti-American tea party brethren in New Mexico.  The Confederate flag, as I've said before, isn't only a symbol of treason and institutional racism, but it is certainly symbolic of those things.

So, my friends, you're welcome for this opportunity to prove your moderate views.  

(Psst!  Now's the part where you e-mail all your friends, call your neighbors, post to your blogs, confess to your priests, write a letter to the editor, take out an ad in the local paper, staple fliers to telephone poles, etc., etc.  Because if you don't, you are condoning racism!  It's really that simple.)

(P.S. -- The only political float at my home town's 4th of July parade this year was a Tea Party-sponsored Nobama float with "End of an Error" and similar slogans all over it.  These classy fellas picked just the right day of national unity to diss our elected President.  Nice.  Look, I get it that 99.9 percent of the town is Republican, but... didn't that make their overtly disrespectful political statement on our nation's birthday that much more pointless and mean?)


By Nick Wing
July 10, 2012 | Huffington Post

Liberals 'kicked poverty's butt'

"We kicked poverty's butt."  I love that.  

'Course, that's a qualified We.  We liberals and Democrats should take the credit.  ALL of it!  And yet we don't.  Yet we still refuse to do the Dirty Bird in the end zone like Republicans would... if only they had any policy successes to point to.

Indeed, the stats are incontrovertible.  Our policies work; theirs don't.  Scooooore-booooooard!

We gotta stop being "loser liberals," celebrate OUR successes, and get aggressive with the truth!


By Jared Bernstein
July 9, 2012 | Huffington Post

The REAL Eric Holder scandal

As usual, Obama's administration gets criticized for the wrong things while his real mistakes go ignored.  

Instead of being held in contempt of Congress for the scandal that never was, aka "Operation Fast and Furious," Attorney General Eric Holder should be skewered by lawmakers for not putting any resources into investigating Wall Street's fraud and misrepresentation leading up to, and during, the financial crisis that caused the Great Recession.  Despite his promise to do so.

After the S&L frauds, Republicans in Congress unleashed hundreds of investigators to produce hundreds of indictments, and bankers were not only fined but went to jail. Yet to-date, Obama's Justic Dept. hasn't prosecuted a single banker, much less put one behind bars.  Not one.  Instead, Obama honors Dubya's "gentelmen's agreement" with Wall Street to let them investigate themselves, and bring only civil charges and levy fines -- effectively punishing shareholders and taxpayers as they pay for corrupt bankers' dishonesty.

It just goes to show, once again, that in our political system you get what you pay for.  Wall Street learned its lesson after the S&L crisis: buy and own both parties to ensure lax regulation and criminal immunity.  


By Richard Eskow
July 10, 2012 | Huffington Post

Waiting for a left-wing POTUS

I'm sorry to shatter your illusions, my tea-partying friends, but we don't actually have a real left-winger in the White House.  But boy, how we need one right now!...

I mean, Obama and the Democrats are so clueless and spineless that they have let Republicans seize on the economic disaster in the EU as evidence for gutting federal spending, mostly on entitlements, education and poverty alleviation.  When in fact the EU has embraced austerity measures, and most of the pain they're suffering now is a direct result of their spending cuts -- cuts that Republicans want to emulate!  It's mad and absurd.  But we reasonable, rational, evidence-based Americans have let them twist the truth and get away with it.  We have failed to educate our fellow citizens, and point to the EU's spending cuts as a mistake to avoid.

It was thanks to the Occupy movements that our national dialogue shifted back toward the interests of the 99 Percent, at least for a few months.  Yet Obama avoided them like kryptonite and most elected Democrats followed suit.  


By Robert Kuttner
July 8, 2012 | Huffington Post

The economy is plainly stuck in second gear. For the third month in a row, new job creation in June, at just 80,000, was barely enough to keep the unemployment rate from rising, and not nearly sufficient to accommodate new entrants to the labor market and unemployed people looking for work.

Not only did the private sector fail to create enough jobs. With the crisis in state and local budgets and the absence of federal aid, the loss of public sector jobs continued. Ordinarily in a slump, public employment takes up some of the slack. In this recession, government has shed 627,000 jobs.

Here's the deeper worry. Not only could a weakening economy cost Barack Obama the election -- this slump could literally go on indefinitely.

In the aftermath of a financial collapse, the economy gets stuck in a downward spiral. Banks are too traumatized to lend, businesses see too few customers to invest, and there is too little purchasing power among consumers who are either out of work or who haven't seen a raise in a decade. The housing bust only adds to the downward drag.

Exports have been a bright spot, but as Europe succumbs to a similar vortex of recession compounded by austerity, Europe's even worse economic woes are likely add to America's.

Something similar happened in the late 1930s. Though economic growth returned, it wasn't strong enough to repair the damage of the Great Depression or create enough jobs. Despite the New Deal, unemployment remained stuck at around 12 percent.

World War II solved the problem -- it was the greatest accidental economic stimulus in economic history. It put people back to work, retrained the unemployed, and recapitalized industry. But today, there is nothing in the wings waiting to play the role of the Second World War.

During the war, federal deficits averaged more than 25 percent of GDP, nearly triple today's deficits.  But that's what it took to blast out of the depression. After the war, high growth rates paid down the accumulated national debt.

What's needed today is a massive investment program, to shift the economy to a clean energy path, modernize infrastructure, increase productivity -- and along the way create millions of good jobs and restore consumer purchasing power.  Then, the vicious circle could be reversed.

The problem is that neither party is proposing such a program. It is entirely outside mainstream debate.

President Obama is willing to have the federal government spend more money. But he has partly bought the story that deficit reduction has to come first. The Republicans would further gut the public sector.

Contrary to the conventional view that deficit reduction would somehow "restore confidence" and increase business investment, that's not how economies work. Businesses invest when they see customers with open wallets.  Though the Congressional Budget Office projects higher growth returning around 2014, it bases these projections on a "return to trend." There is no plausible story about where the higher growth will come from.

If we don't get a drastic change in policy, we will be stuck in this rut for a generation or more.

The best case for November is that Obama is re-elected and somehow the Democrats take back the House and hold the Senate. If this happens, it will not be due to green economic shoots or a persuasive Democratic program but because Mitt Romney is such a dismal candidate.

However, with dozens of Senate Democrats senators committed to the folly of deficit reduction first, there is no prospect of an investment program on a scale that could make a difference.

I am an optimistic by temperament, but I don't see much to make me optimistic about either economics or politics. Though the recession nominally ended in June 2009 when weakly positive growth returned, there is little doubt that the economy is stuck in a long-term slump that could well deepen between now and November.

Frankly, the best hope is that whether Obama wins or loses, progressives take back the Democratic Party so that a candidate genuinely committed to full employment runs and wins in 2016. But that's an awfully long time to wait. And in the meantime, as government fails to improve things, more people are likely to give up on politics or to turn to demagogues.

It is also possible that Barack Obama in a second term, freed of the need to win re-election and looking to his legacy, could become more of the leader we thought we were electing in 2008, shaming Republicans and rallying Democrats to back a true recovery program. Nobody would be more surprised or pleased than your faithful writer.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Absurd, terrifying history of counter-insurgencies

This is a fascinating brief history (complete with embedded film clips) of the absurd and terrifying results of Western "counter-insurgency" warfare, from Algiers to Vietnam to Iraq.

Personally I was shocked to learn that Gen. David "Surge" Petraeus found his inspiration in 2006 in none other than French military expert David Galula who advised the RAND Corp. and the U.S. military how to fight the Viet Cong.  Said Galula:


"Revolutionary warfare requires a revolutionary approach on both sides in the struggle.  Whereas in ordinary war the objective is to destroy the enemy and occupy his territory, the guerrilla's aim is to control the population.



"This, therefore, must be the aim of the counter-guerrilla as well."

HOWEVER,

"One basic difference between insurgency and counterinsurgency is that the insurgent starts out with nothing but a cause and grows to strength, while counterinsurgent often starts with everything but a cause and gradually declines in strength to the point of weakness."

And we all know how well Vietnam went for the U.S.

The point is that counter-insurgency, without any real cultural understanding of the native people, in the end always resorts to indiscriminate torture and killing.  First we westerners train our local "allies" in new, aggressive guerrilla-like tactics; then our "allies" lead us, their "masters," by the nose to wreak havoc on their personal enemies and/or rival sects and tribes, until the violence becomes criminal, absurd, and seemingly indiscriminate.  We kid ourselves into thinking we can sort the good guys from the bad.


By Adam Curtis 
June 16, 2012 | BBC