a refreshing look at Obama

[Prospero]

From Foreign policy magazine...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/13/think_again_obamas_new_deal

[Willie Escalade]

Waiting for the haters to rebuke this...and you know it's coming...

[Stavros]

Prospero, thanks for the link to a fascinating and almost balanced analysis -it probably can't be bias free. I think in the circumstances, particularly with a House that seems to block everything for no other reason than to act like a tough guy on the street corner, Obama has done well -it illustrates an interesting comparison to the economics of austerity being practised by Conservatives here in the UK -as I said in another post I wonder what the US reaction would be if Romneyshambles promised austerity to 2020 and offered Americans growth rate predictions per year of 0%-0.8% as the Bank of England has for us.

This paragraph I think is most judicious:

In reality, the Recovery Act provided early evidence that Obama is pretty much what he said he was: a left-of-center technocrat who is above all a pragmatist, comfortable with compromise, solicitous of experts, disinclined to sacrifice the good in pursuit of the ideal but determined to achieve big things. It reflected his belief in government as a driver of change, but also his desire for better rather than bigger government. And it was the first evidence that despite all his flowery talk during the campaign, he understood that bills that don't pass Congress don't produce change.

However, I think there is am emerging trend against investment in alternative energy in the US -or rather that it is lower than investment in conventional hydrocarbons. Hydraulic fracturing has 'captured the imagination' and with the promise of an exponential increase in domestic petroleum supplies the cinderallas of energy may be waiting for that coach way past midnight; and their prince won't be coming soon.

[Erika1487]

Hmm....you want him for another 4 years....O_o? I won't vote for Mitt, so I guess I will sleep in this election!

[Odelay]

Actually, Erica, as a former soldier for the GOP, I'd be interested on your take on the mud slinging going on right now. Personally, I love it. Democrats finally dishing shit back - at least at the Presidential/VP level. As a lib, I obviously want Obama. However, if he loses but goes down swinging, I'm all for that. I would like someone to put the GOP on notice that there are some Democratic candidates who just aren't going to take their 40 years of crap anymore.

[fred41]

Actually, Erica, as a former soldier for the GOP, I'd be interested on your take on the mud slinging going on right now. Personally, I love it. Democrats finally dishing shit back - at least at the Presidential/VP level. As a lib, I obviously want Obama. However, if he loses but goes down swinging, I'm all for that. I would like someone to put the GOP on notice that there are some Democratic candidates who just aren't going to take their 40 years of crap anymore.

You talk as if mudslinging is a new thing for the Democratic Party...as if they never get their hands dirty...that's ridiculous...how quick we forget the ruthlessness of the Clinton political war machine.

[trish]

You mean how Clinton ruthlessly murdered Vince Forster?

[Odelay]

fred41, in sheer volume the Democrats haven't held a candle to the Republicans. And we just haven't had good counterpunchers through the years, i.e. Dukkakis, Gore, Kerry, and yes even Clinton. In 1992 Clinton was all about the economy while also drafting on Perot, who was doing a lot of the heavy lifting.

[fred41]

fred41, in sheer volume the Democrats haven't held a candle to the Republicans. And we just haven't had good counterpunchers through the years, i.e. Dukkakis, Gore, Kerry, and yes even Clinton. In 1992 Clinton was all about the economy while also drafting on Perot, who was doing a lot of the heavy lifting.

there is and always has been mudslinging by both parties...if not directly by the parties...then indirectly by the campaigns...it's just that when it's done by a candidate that an individual backs...it's often seen as a half truth (or complete truth) and therefore fair game...or, as a fair knee jerk reaction to an opposing slander that's always seen as having been slung first (if that makes any sense)...

...and the Clinton's became terrific at digging and digging. That's one of the reasons no one wanted to run against her here in New York.

Gore and Kerry were fine ...Kerry just wasn't very likeable, something that's very important in any election (though I agree Dukkakis was terrible at it).

[trish]

Speaking of Kerry, even the GOP these days uses the word "swiftboating" to mean a scurrilous, unfounded slander campaign to ruin someone's good name in order to gain political advantage.

[Ben]

A not so refreshing look at Obama by authoress Naomi Wolf.... As she points out: Obama is continuing Bush policies.
I mean, as Chris Hedges has pointed out: it makes no difference who you vote for.
Romney might be slightly better. Who knows. Or worse. Who knows.
But the absolute system and structure won't change... unless there is a widespread popular movement. Oh, we had it: Occupy Wall Street.
Still don't know what that was all about.... Or what they really wanted.
I guess they wanna be part of the managerial class and serve the top 1 percent -- ha ha ha!
But Naomi Wolf, again, is correct in the sense that Obama is carrying out the same policies as Bush. Who carried on the same policies as Clinton. In the sense of letting Wall Street run wild. It was Clinton who deregulated Wall Street. One can't blame Reagan for that.
Anyway, the silly charade of politics goes on and on -- :)

Naomi Wolf: Obama Continuing Bush Administration Torture Policies - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTrtkQ9zKUg)

[Ben]

Naomi Wolf on Liberty and the Founding Fathers - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCdXpyFbrGE)

Naomi Wolf on a Police State in America - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CpLNvai3QA)

[Prospero]

This is akin to the sort of 1960s naivete that proclaimed "politics is pigshit"... so don't vote. Just look at what the Republicans in office have done over the past 25 or 30 years. Really look and you'll see why it matters.

[Stavros]

A not so refreshing look at Obama by authoress Naomi Wolf.... As she points out: Obama is continuing Bush policies.
I mean, as Chris Hedges has pointed out: it makes no difference who you vote for.

Anyway, the silly charade of politics goes on and on -- :)


Ben these days its ok to call a woman who writes books an author...

Your cynical dismissal of politics is baffling -given the economic mess that Obama inherited from President Bush, are you really saying that the various packges that were put together to save the banking system from further erosion, that were designed to stimulate the economy, and the Affordable Health Care for America Act were merely 'business as usual' and a continuation of the policies of the previous Republican administration? If you are not interested in policy, then say so, but then ask yourself what it is that people, be they in or out of the Occupy movements are discussing when they discuss taxes. What passes for your critique of the power of the state in the US is wholly valid, but in the absence of a revolutionary movement -and the closest thing to it that you have is the Tea Party- you are stuck with the system you have -why not enter it in an attempt to improve it, even if only at the margins?

[Prospero]

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:


Your cynical dismissal of politics is baffling -given the economic mess that Obama inherited from President Bush, are you really saying that the various packges that were put together to save the banking system from further erosion, that were designed to stimulate the economy, and the Affordable Health Care for America Act were merely 'business as usual' and a continuation of the policies of the previous Republican administration? If you are not interested in policy, then say so, but then ask yourself what it is that people, be they in or out of the Occupy movements are discussing when they discuss taxes. What passes for your critique of the power of the state in the US is wholly valid, but in the absence of a revolutionary movement -and the closest thing to it that you have is the Tea Party- you are stuck with the system you have -why not enter it in an attempt to improve it, even if only at the margins?

[broncofan]

I understand that on certain issues there may not be enough different choices offered by the present political parties. But I never did understand those who say they don't see the difference between the policies of the Republican and Democratic parties. Yes, they are both beholden to some special interest groups and so the political process is occasionally corrupted.

But with respect to taxation and our budget the differences are enormous. The process was designed to balance a lot of those differences out so neither party gets free rein, but if you think about what either party would propose in the absence of necessary political compromise, the differences are stark. Health care, disability, education, fiscal policy (supply side v. neo-keynesian), monetary policy, campaign finance reform (some similarity here due to those pernicious political pressures), but a great deal of divergence. We can look at social policies. Gay marriage, civil rights legislation, abortion rights, administrative law. It's just that the way our system has been set up prevents us from getting our way too easily, so change is incremental. We can see which way the tide is going on several issues, including gay rights, health care, and civil rights generally. It will just be a while before the norms shift further to the left and the reactionary forces in this country become more and more nostalgic.

[broncofan]

This is akin to the sort of 1960s naivete that proclaimed "politics is pigshit"... so don't vote. Just look at what the Republicans in office have done over the past 25 or 30 years. Really look and you'll see why it matters.
I was reading a case last year that involved the department of transportation during the Reagan years. Under the law they had the mandate to ensure public safety by enacting regulations that protect motorists. The Reagan appointees were considering a proposal that would have required car companies to either mandate those automatic seatbelts that fold across your body as soon as you sit down or airbags. The data they had demonstrated that either increasing the use of seatbelts with such devices or mandating airbags would likely save thousands of lives a year.

The appointees to the department focused on the phrase economically feasible or something similar to justify adopting neither mandate. In other words, those who were appointed to ensure safety and regulate the market were arguing that neither policy was economically feasible and that the market should win out. I can't remember the case holding, but I believe the court said that though agencies should not have their substantive rulemaking micromanaged by judges, they have to at least demonstrate that their decision is not arbitrary and capricious. Or perhaps, under the arbitrary and capricious standard the court allowed them to commit this injustice. I just remember the attempt, and of course am pretty sure they eventually failed.

Anyhow, I didn't mean to be long-winded but in this attempt we can see the immorality of their attempts at regulatory sabotage. The lives of thousands of people were not worth forcing car companies to do something they did not want to do, even though it was their legal mandate to regulate. I really don't believe Democrats have the same cavalier attitude when it comes to regulatory law. They have not been particularly effective when it comes to banking law but that's because the issue of how much regulation banks should be forced to submit to is actually complicated unlike whether car companies should install airbags.

[Erika1487]

Actually, Erica, as a former soldier for the GOP, I'd be interested on your take on the mud slinging going on right now. Personally, I love it. Democrats finally dishing shit back - at least at the Presidential/VP level. As a lib, I obviously want Obama. However, if he loses but goes down swinging, I'm all for that. I would like someone to put the GOP on notice that there are some Democratic candidates who just aren't going to take their 40 years of crap anymore.Odelay I can attest for the fact that party leaders DID NOT want Mitt on the ticket, and from what I here from a few of my former co-workers the party leaders in the south are still worried even with Paul Ryan on the Vp ticket. Many of the party leaders are worried that a mormon on the ticket will drive southern baptists away from the polls.

[hippifried]

Many of the party leaders are worried that a mormon on the ticket will drive southern baptists away from the polls.

Won't they worry about the same thing with a Papist?

[Prospero]

Would they rather vote for a Mormon-Catholic team than a man many of those bright people still believe to be a Muslim?

[Erika1487]

To anwser both of you, Yes the anger at the POTUS out weighs any short comings that most rank file southern republicans have, but there are more than a 'few' that will choose not to vote for the simple reason that Mitt is a mormon.

[Stavros]

Is it possible -theoretically- for the delegates at the Republican National Convention to change their vote/minds, and select Ryan instead of Romney? As in switch them round, or select Ryan and choose someone else for VP-?

[Prospero]

Is it possible -theoretically- for the delegates at the Republican National Convention to change their vote/minds, and select Ryan instead of Romney? As in switch them round, or select Ryan and choose someone else for VP-?

That would be interesting, wouldn't it.

[Ben]

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html

[Prospero]

Jesus - Niall Ferguson, in-house historian to the neo-cons.

[Ben]

Ben these days its ok to call a woman who writes books an author...

Your cynical dismissal of politics is baffling -given the economic mess that Obama inherited from President Bush, are you really saying that the various packges that were put together to save the banking system from further erosion, that were designed to stimulate the economy, and the Affordable Health Care for America Act were merely 'business as usual' and a continuation of the policies of the previous Republican administration? If you are not interested in policy, then say so, but then ask yourself what it is that people, be they in or out of the Occupy movements are discussing when they discuss taxes. What passes for your critique of the power of the state in the US is wholly valid, but in the absence of a revolutionary movement -and the closest thing to it that you have is the Tea Party- you are stuck with the system you have -why not enter it in an attempt to improve it, even if only at the margins?

You can't be an angel in politics or business. You can only be a monster.

[Ben]

Jesus - Niall Ferguson, in-house historian to the neo-cons.

He is.

[Prospero]

..And a pompous hugely self-important and arrogant distorter of fact.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/gdp/2012/08/niall-ferguson-attacks-obama-poorly

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

[Stavros]

You can't be an angel in politics or business. You can only be a monster.

How was Steve Jobs (when he was alive) a monster, or Bill Gates? Does the man who runs a grocery store on the corner of your neighbourhood really look like and behave like a monster? And who was asking for Angels to run a business anyway? Aung San suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela are both politicians, albet retired in one case -again, what sort of monsters are they? Jimmy Carter brokered the fist significant peace treaty between Israel and the Arabs in 1979, are those the actions of a monster?

[Ben]

Jesus - Niall Ferguson, in-house historian to the neo-cons.

A Full Fact-Check of Niall Ferguson's Very Bad Argument Against Obama:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/a-full-fact-check-of-niall-fergusons-very-bad-argument-against-obama/261306/

[Prospero]

Ben is an idealist it seems - full of youthful passion and, just perhaps, a degree of naivety, as Stavros clearly points out. Or perhaps hugely and deeply cynical?

[Stavros]

Anyone who thinks Nelson Mandela is a monster is lacking in political judgement, I wouldn't call it idealism.

[Prospero]

Indeed - though to be fair to ben he didn't name Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi by name. They might transcend Ben's definition of politicians as monster.

[Stavros]

Not according to the comment Ben made.

[Prospero]

Yes - the quote IS dogmatic. No grey areas in Ben's vision of politics or business. Presumably markets in the developing world where poor people barter their few old possessions for enough to eat are also populaled by monsters.

So BEN.... over to you

[Ben]

Anyone who thinks Nelson Mandela is a monster is lacking in political judgement, I wouldn't call it idealism.

One has to separate the person from the office. (Martin Luther King Jr. said that if he entered political life he'd have to compromise his principles.) Even Noam Chomsky, who I admire, was asked if he became President, well, what would he do.
He said that he should be placed under arrest for the crimes that he's going to carry out. I mean, it's impossible not to commit crimes when one is a politician or a business executive. (Well, any oil executive is committing crimes against nature. Same with a forestry executive. Or the coal industry, their executives. Or a mining executive. Or take the entire food industry, their executives. Ya know, in these positions one is a monster. Take, say, McDonald's. A monstrous industry.
Take a look at the entire agricultural industry.
http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

Take, say, Bill Clinton. Is he a nice guy? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know.
But he put in place policies -- like NAFTA, like repealing Glass-Stegall -- that harmed the country, that harmed the majority of the population. And the likes of Clinton know full well that the policies they put in place harm the vast majority of the population.
I mean, Jimmy Carter is quite Saintly. But in assuming the role of President of the U.S., well, he had to be a monster. You can't avoid it. (Well, take a look at Rex Tillerson. CEO and Chairperson of ExxonMobil. He may be the nicest guy in the world. Nice to his kids, his wife, the family pet. But we've got something called global warming.
And in his institutional role, under legal obligation, he can't think about that. He has to ignore that. It's required of him. That's monstrous. But that's the institution.
And global warming might be the death knell of the species. But Tillerson treats it as an externality.
So, there are institutional constraints imposed on him. And it's fully rational. He is serving the company &/or the shareholders. And himself. Again, it's fully rational. That's why it's so scary.

[Ben]

Oh, The Nazi Doctors by Robert J. Lifton is quite good. It shows how even doctors can become absolute monsters. Depending on the circumstances.

[Ben]

Nazi Doctors 1-5 The Deadly Experiment - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOK1Nfqw0U4)

[Prospero]

So because some doctors bought into Nazi ideology ALL doctors are corrupt. This is an insane view of the world.

[Stavros]

Well, any oil executive is committing crimes against nature. Same with a forestry executive. Or the coal industry, their executives. Or a mining executive. Or take the entire food industry, their executives. Ya know, in these positions one is a monster. Take, say, McDonald's. A monstrous industry.


Take, say, Bill Clinton. Is he a nice guy? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know.
But he put in place policies -- like NAFTA, like repealing Glass-Stegall -- that harmed the country, that harmed the majority of the population. And the likes of Clinton know full well that the policies they put in place harm the vast majority of the population.

I mean, Jimmy Carter is quite Saintly. But in assuming the role of President of the U.S., well, he had to be a monster. You can't avoid it.

(Well, take a look at Rex Tillerson. CEO and Chairperson of ExxonMobil. He may be the nicest guy in the world. Nice to his kids, his wife, the family pet. But we've got something called global warming.
And in his institutional role, under legal obligation, he can't think about that. He has to ignore that. It's required of him. That's monstrous. But that's the institution.
And global warming might be the death knell of the species. But Tillerson treats it as an externality.
So, there are institutional constraints imposed on him. And it's fully rational. He is serving the company &/or the shareholders. And himself. Again, it's fully rational. That's why it's so scary.

Ben, I think even with more finesse your arguments fall flat and have no impact. To take some of yours in sequence:

1) Crimes against Nature? Nature did not create villages, towns and cities, are all urban settlements that have transformed the earth on which they ae built crimes against nature? Are we all guilty of crimes against nature? But if we are also part of nature doesn't that mean cities are nature in concrete and glass? Do you indict Elephants who flatten grassland, I mean, how do you think the grass and the insects crushed in it feel about Elephants destroying their habitat?

2) Clinton know full well that the policies they put in place harm the vast majority of the population...I think realistically that politicians making policy know some will not benefit from it, it is said to be part of the dilemma inherent in democracy, but any politician who said he was going to harm 'the vast majority' would never get elected, and not twice either. What can be monstrous about the Oslo Peace Accords? Yasir Arafat to many people was a monster, to some others Yitzhak Rabin wasn't much better, yet there was a treaty; Jimmy Carter brought together Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat in an earlier treaty: in the context of the Middle East these treaties were major events, monstrosity seems an inapropriate word to attach to them.

3) The only occasion when Carter sent the US military on an expedition was the ill-fated attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran, otherwise, as far as I recall, he has been the only US President since 1945 not to send US troops to a battlefield; his major blunder, but in retrospect, was Afghanistan. It's not about monstrosities, but looking at his record and making a balanced judgement.

4) Rex Tillerson -the US does not own an oil and gas company; Exxon historically has been its biggest and most successful since Rockefeller's Standard Empire was broken up in 1911 (creating Standard Oil of New Jersey = Exxon) -the company is controlled by its shareholders, and you can become one and vote for Tillerson to be sacked every year if you want. Oil and gas companies are not the worst offenders in environmental degradation or carbon emissions, as I pointed out to you before -they have the money to adapt their installations to reduce emissions, but the key point is that these companies are legally obliged to file detailed reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission in the US, and can be forced to give evidence in Congress -you as a US citizen have the right to challenge all they do, and not to use any of their products, from gasoline to the CD's, DVD's, plastic bags, biros and packaging used on foods that are produced from crude oil and natural gas by the petrochemicals industry.

Criticism where it is due, yes, but to lump everyone under one label, 'Monster' does not make sense.

[Ben]

So because some doctors bought into Nazi ideology ALL doctors are corrupt. This is an insane view of the world.

Yep! All doctors -- ha ha!
No. The point is: given the right conditions anyone of us can either be a monster or a saint.
We all have the same genes. So, anyone of us, under the right circumstances can be either exceedingly good or monstrously bad. As happened in NAZI Germany.
And, too, AMORAL attributes occur in a corporate setting. One has to put the corporate shareholders above all else. So, if need be: set up sweatshops in Cambodia, let global warming occur etc., etc.
Anyone seen this film about Obama or is eager to see it?
2016 Obama's America: Trailer 3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfLsSg9wZlE)

[Ben]

Obama's Excuse for War Crimes Creates Moral Decay:

The problem is power. And concentrated power. Which conservatives are against. Traditional conservatives are against the concentration of power.
So, people in positions of power, and this is the crux of the problem, come to believe in the justness and merit of their elevated status [and this makes no difference whether it's Obama or Bush or Clinton or Carter or Reagan] and with that comes the belief that they're ABOVE THE LAW.
So, this applies to, again, Obama and Bush and Cheney. They believe in the importance and rightness of their high status and thus are above the law. Hence: the invasion of Iraq, hence Obama's drone strikes and indefinite detention...

Obama's Excuse for War Crimes Creates Moral Decay | Brainwash Update - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6uQbzGwHXI&feature=plcp)

Ron Paul Says Indefinite Detention "Un-American" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1I2Di90QJk)

[Ben]

Drone warfare's deadly civilian toll: a very personal view

From The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/19/drone-warfare-deadly-civilian-toll

[pantybulge69]

keep an eye on state of ohio. of all the supposely key swing states, as far back as 1960 whomever wins ohio ....wins the presidential elections.

the latest leading polls in key swing state are just a sign of things to come.

[Ben]

Hold on! Did Madonna just say that Obama is "fighting for gay rights." Well, that simply isn't true. He is "fighting" for votes. Obama, unlike Madonna, is somewhat socially conservative. I understand why she'd rather Obama than Romney.
No mention of Jill Stein??????? The nominee for President under the Green Party banner. Madonna, like most, is simply serving her parochial interests.
Madonna, firmly ensconced in the top 1 percent, is, again, serving her own rational interests.
I mean, a "Green" President could tax the shit out of her -- ha ha ha! Well, Stein may put in place policies that says: the planet has value, too. We can't continue to trash the planet.
So people like Madonna who maximize personal gain so as to maximize personal consumption may pay a high price under a Stein presidency....
Anyway, Madonna certainly is committed to gay rights. She is certainly socially liberal.
And the idea of a Romney presidency and the religious right having influence over him makes her, well, uneasy, to say the least. As it does me.
I mean, right-leaning Christians make me cringe. With their dogged intolerant belief systems. Not, say, moderate Christians, tolerant Christians. And I fear Romney will bring them back into the political fold, as it were.

Madonna Concert: Obama is a Black Muslim...What? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejwKO_jCq98&feature=plcp)

[robertlouis]

Hold on! Did Madonna just say that Obama is "fighting for gay rights." Well, that simply isn't true. He is "fighting" for votes. Obama, unlike Madonna, is somewhat socially conservative. I understand why she'd rather Obama than Romney.

Ben, if this was anyone other than you, I'd think you were being wilfully disingenuous. You know as well as I do that the issue of gay rights and rights for the lgbt lobby in general are a very difficult topic to deal with at a practical political level. There's a huge difference between marching in the streets and making coherent, effective and workable policy.

I shake my head almost every time you appear to equate Obama with Romney. You're a great guy and I enjoy your posts, but surely you can see that a Romney - indeed these days ANY Republican presidency - would be socially regressive and would certainly attempt to reclaim hard-won minority rights at every level, even to the point of active persecution. What you'd get from the Democrats would be slow and cautious, but at least you know it would be moving in the right direction.

[trish]

Samuel L Jackson " WAKE THE FUCK UP " Barack Obama AD - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og35U0d6WKY)

[Ben]

Ben, if this was anyone other than you, I'd think you were being wilfully disingenuous. You know as well as I do that the issue of gay rights and rights for the lgbt lobby in general are a very difficult topic to deal with at a practical political level. There's a huge difference between marching in the streets and making coherent, effective and workable policy.

I shake my head almost every time you appear to equate Obama with Romney. You're a great guy and I enjoy your posts, but surely you can see that a Romney - indeed these days ANY Republican presidency - would be socially regressive and would certainly attempt to reclaim hard-won minority rights at every level, even to the point of active persecution. What you'd get from the Democrats would be slow and cautious, but at least you know it would be moving in the right direction.

Depends Robert, I guess, on which Dems we're talking about. Yeah, I think someone like Dennis Kucinich is very good. Russ Feingold, too. Not sure if he'll jump back into politics.
But I don't see Obama being a champion for gay rights or so-called progressive causes.
The author Paul Street, who is a democratic socialist, in his book The Empire's New Clothes, points out -- and this is from, again, a very left perspective -- that Obama is deeply conservative.
Anyway, Obama is there to manage the system, as it were. Not change it. The whole Hope and Change campaign was brilliant marketing.
President Obama indeed did make a good step by affirming his support of same-sex marriage. Now Romney (and, well, I've no idea where he truly stands on issues surrounding LGBT rights) will move to the right with respect to social issues. Because, in part, to satisfy the Republican Party and the overall base.
But, again, I disagree with Madonna that Obama is fighting for gay rights. That's like saying he's fighting for union rights or fighting to stem global warming or fighting for middle and working class Americans. And, too, Obama didn't even fight for the public option. Obama is against public health care. But he could've fought for the public option. But didn't.
So, it's simply not true. That isn't Obama. And that's fine. (Naomi Klein said that Obama is a centrist. And that's fine, she said. We just need to push him to the left, Klein said.
But politicians do respond to public movements, as it were. FDR did. Nixon did. Politicians do. That's the hope -- )
I think the author Paul Street is correct: Obama is conservative, deeply conservative.
I mean, Obama is, in the words of Paul Krugman, a Republican from circa 1992....

Wall Street does better under Democrats, says Paul Krugman -- Freeland File - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HZjoyWof3c)

[Ben]

Bill Maher: Democrats Are the New Republicans:

Bill Maher - Democrats Are The New Republicans - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVngBa1wtz4)

[Prospero]

Loudon Wainwright's update of an old song....

Loudon Wainwright III On to Victory Mr. Roosevelt Madison Square Park NYC - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idY90nJO294)

[Ben]

Nader has an interesting take on Obama:

Ralph Nader: President Obama is a 'War Criminal' (Politico) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67tdqhO3hPY)

And at the 2 minute and 52 second mark Ron Paul:

Ron Paul on 2nd Presidential Debate: Obama Needs to Admit Foreign Policy Is Wrong - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opgpCfy9CyQ)

[Ben]

Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schultz is clueless or pretending to be clueless about Obama's kill list.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh0nIYNAyY

[trish]

Oh come on!

[Ben]

Conor Friedersdorf, a staff writer at The Atlantic, makes an interesting case as to why he will not vote for Obama:

Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/

And Glenn Greenwald:

Who is the worst civil liberties president in US history? Where do the abuses of the last decade from Bush and Obama rank when compared to prior assaults in the name of war?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/02/obama-civil-liberties-history

[hippifried]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz snort...

Oh, more closet commies whining because President Obama hasn't lived up to their expectations for things they wish he would have promised in 2008?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

[Ben]

Odd that so-called conservative Andrew Sullivan would be defending/supporting Obama. But then again Sullivan has called Obama a moderate Republican. Is Obama merely a moderate Republican??? (And we must remember that about 42 percent of Americans didn't vote. Now why didn't they vote? Well, they've been extensively studied and it turns out that the vast majority of them are social democratic. So, well, who are they going to vote for? Because the Dems are NOT a social democratic party.
So, it's understandable why a fairly substantial number of Americans didn't vote.... I mean, really you've got one party: the business party. And two wings of that party. Even Ron Paul agrees with that.... Even though Paul doesn't support social democratic policies -- ha ha!)

Watch S.E. Cupp Reduce Bill Maher’s Panel to Obscenities Over Obama’s Foreign Policy:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/watch-s-e-cupp-reduce-bill-mahers-panel-to-obscenities-over-obamas-foreign-policy/

[Ben]

Obama's kill list policy compels US support for Israeli attacks on Gaza

The US was once part of the international consensus against extra-judicial assassinations. Now it is a leader in that tactic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/15/israel-gaza-obama-assassinations

[Ben]

President Jimmy Carter on US Violating Human Rights & Israel, Palestine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H2IQiYI1Emw

[greyman]

I could not resist posting this!
George Carlin ~ The American Dream - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q)

[Ben]

I could not resist posting this!
George Carlin ~ The American Dream - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q)

Carlin is brilliant. Especially this bit about how the planet is fine. There's nothing wrong w/ the planet. The planet will be here for another 5 billion years. We won't. So, as Carlin says, pack your shit -- ha ha!
Save the planet -- ha ha ha!
Carlin: "Environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

[Ben]

Why Paul Krugman should be President Obama's pick for US treasury secretary:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/05/paul-krugman-obama-treasury-secretary

[trish]

I second that motion.

[Kire89]

Obama hasn't had it easy. Peak oil for crude was in 2005~ and the net energy is avalanching downwards. The US is using 5 million barrels less every day than a few years back. It's impossible to have economic growth, more jobs and prosperity in such a situation, alas.

Reagan and Bush Senior had it easy with Alaskan oil and North Sea oil coming online. :)

[Stavros]

Obama hasn't had it easy. Peak oil for crude was in 2005~ and the net energy is avalanching downwards. The US is using 5 million barrels less every day than a few years back. It's impossible to have economic growth, more jobs and prosperity in such a situation, alas.

Reagan and Bush Senior had it easy with Alaskan oil and North Sea oil coming online. :)

Kire you must be aware in Norway that the attempt to spread hydraulic fracturing across the US has alrready reduced US imports of crude and gas, that potentially it could make the US self-sufficient in hydrocarbons, and that some estimates of the Arctic Region's reserves are somewhere around 25-30 billion bbls. With new reserves being discovered in other parts of the world, albeit at a smaller level than in the golden age of the 20th century, the concept of 'peak oil' is still contested. Ironically as I am sure you know, Hubbert applied it to US supplies which he said would peak in the 1960s -he was wrong about that, and I don't know if 'Peak Oil' is a valid concept globally as you would need to compute a range of indicators on production, consumption and predictions of reserves yet found, and so on.

That doesn't mean we are all safe, that hydrocarbons are here for our lifetimes, but the profile isn't so clear either and the development of technological and storage capacity in renewables is crucial for the fuel-mix of the future.

Small point -I think Alaskan and North Sea hydrocarbons came onstream in the 1970s, not online!

[Kire89]

You know fracked oil and gas wells have a lifespan of something like 5 years before they hardly produce BTUs enough to heat a kettle of tea? Conversely, a conventional gas well in Russia might produce high-quality stuff for 30 years. Fracking is a net energy mess and has been known for half a century. It can't beat the conventional stuff of the past.

The Arctic might hold a cubic mile of oil (30 billion barrels~), but that just adds another year of consumption to the reserve base. Not exactly something to write home about.

Hubbert correctly assessed the US peak to be in 1970-71. You were the Saudi Arabia of oil for a very long time. Cumulatively you might produce more than Saudia Arabia ever will, but your conventional reserves are down to ~20GB.

To me peak oil isn't so much an issue (ie. the total liquid volume) as the total net energy that's available from day to day. That's what's killing America's and Western Europe's wealth. 5 million barrels less a day means less oil to refine into the $3-4/gal gas you're so fond of, fewer flyer miles, less domestic industry, less consumption und su weiter.

Anyway, I feel for Obama, the energy situation is grim for the US and the world at large.

As for the North Sea, it took quite a while for production to ramp up. And we sold most of it at $10-20 a barrel. What utter waste. :)

[robertlouis]

You know fracked oil and gas wells have a lifespan of something like 5 years before they hardly produce BTUs enough to heat a kettle of tea? Conversely, a conventional gas well in Russia might produce high-quality stuff for 30 years. Fracking is a net energy mess and has been known for half a century. It can't beat the conventional stuff of the past.

The Arctic might hold a cubic mile of oil (30 billion barrels~), but that just adds another year of consumption to the reserve base. Not exactly something to write home about.

Hubbert correctly assessed the US peak to be in 1970-71. You were the Saudi Arabia of oil for a very long time. Cumulatively you might produce more than Saudia Arabia ever will, but your conventional reserves are down to ~20GB.

To me peak oil isn't so much an issue (ie. the total liquid volume) as the total net energy that's available from day to day. That's what's killing America's and Western Europe's wealth. 5 million barrels less a day means less oil to refine into the $3-4/gal gas you're so fond of, fewer flyer miles, less domestic industry, less consumption und su weiter.

Anyway, I feel for Obama, the energy situation is grim for the US and the world at large.

As for the North Sea, it took quite a while for production to ramp up. And we sold most of it at $10-20 a barrel. What utter waste. :)

Good post, Kire. And I couldn't agree more with your final point. By allowing free market capitalism to dictate the finances of North Sea oil and gas, rather than treating it as a strategic resource, we have knowingly blown a golden opportunity to rebalance the UK's long-term energy approach and potentially society as a whole. Like you, I'm rather eager to see what will follow in capitalism's sorry and discredited wake.

[Stavros]

You know fracked oil and gas wells have a lifespan of something like 5 years before they hardly produce BTUs enough to heat a kettle of tea? Conversely, a conventional gas well in Russia might produce high-quality stuff for 30 years. Fracking is a net energy mess and has been known for half a century. It can't beat the conventional stuff of the past.

The Arctic might hold a cubic mile of oil (30 billion barrels~), but that just adds another year of consumption to the reserve base. Not exactly something to write home about.

Hubbert correctly assessed the US peak to be in 1970-71. You were the Saudi Arabia of oil for a very long time. Cumulatively you might produce more than Saudia Arabia ever will, but your conventional reserves are down to ~20GB.

To me peak oil isn't so much an issue (ie. the total liquid volume) as the total net energy that's available from day to day. That's what's killing America's and Western Europe's wealth. 5 million barrels less a day means less oil to refine into the $3-4/gal gas you're so fond of, fewer flyer miles, less domestic industry, less consumption und su weiter.

Anyway, I feel for Obama, the energy situation is grim for the US and the world at large.

As for the North Sea, it took quite a while for production to ramp up. And we sold most of it at $10-20 a barrel. What utter waste. :)

Small point -I am in the UK. I dont disagree with much of what you say, and I am not sure at what pace the development of the Arctic will proceed, probaby slower than currently assumed -more and more developments of a declining resource is, however, the way the industry is going, as it is still profitable to do so; fracking appears profitable right now, that seems to be what is driving a lot of it in the US. Human ingenuity will have to come up with some solutions in the next 25 years, and usually does at the level of technology, so soner rather than later we may be using completely different forms of fuel for domestic, industrial and military uses from the fuels we know of today.

[Odelay]

You know fracked oil and gas wells have a lifespan of something like 5 years before they hardly produce BTUs enough to heat a kettle of tea?

Kire, I'm really interested in this comment that you made. Do you know of a couple of sources for this? I hadn't heard about the short lifespans of fracked wells, but I have read that there are many, many frackable (is that word?) reserves dotted all around the world. Based on what I've read their cumulative volume is huge.

BTW, coming at this from another direction, peak oil can also be thought of as a useless concept because if we burn even half of our remaining reserves, the carbon released will have disastrous consequences on our climate.

[Stavros]

Odelay if I might interject, having an interest in this subject, I have linked some scholarly articles that might help you, although the precise data on the life-span of the average well seems to be obscure. From the first source on the list it would seem that five years is a good lifetime for a large reservoir, suggesting that in smaller ones two years might be the maximum life of production, although complicating factors could shorten the life of any conventional/unconventional reservoir.

1. Hydraulic Fracturing and Shale Gas Production: Technology, Impacts, and Policy
http://www.gliccc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Hydraulic-Fracturing-and-Shale-Gas-Production-Technology_Impacts_Polic....pdf
-from the Department of Energy (US) clearly written, well-illustrated introduction.

2. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING AND SHALE GAS EXTRACTION
http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/15160/MichaelKlein2013.pdf?sequence=5
-master's thesis which is also well-written if a bit superficial

3 Life cycle analysis of water use and intensity of oil and gas recovery in Wattenberg field, Colo
http://cewc.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/OGJ-May-2012-Lifecycle-Analysis-of-Water-.pdf
-although a technical paper it offers documented use of the huge volumes of water that are used in fracking, which in turn raises questions in rural areas about the priorities that water use demand -food production or gas?

4.Untested Waters: The Rise of Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil and Gas Production and the Need to Revisit Regulation
http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester/courses/Emerging%20Tech%202011/Wiseman%20on%20Fracking.pdf
-Hannah Wiseman's paper is from 2009 but ranges across some controversial topics and is worth reading if you are into the details of policy making in science.

[Ben]

It'll be even more frightening when someone further to the right than Obama becomes President.
But, at present, most Americans, sadly, support the Drone program... because they see it as better than sending in soldiers...

DOJ Memo Justifies Drone Strikes and Targeted Killings of Americans:

DOJ Memo Justifies Drone Strikes and Targeted Killings of Americans - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4Q4LV2mQA8)

[fivekatz]

I must admit that I see drones as what Cheney talked about right after 9/11 which was the "dar side". I had no idea that Cheney meant two conventional wars, indefinite detention, the Patriot Act and torture.

All that shit is pretty hard to put back in bottle. The US is still in the process of leaving Afganistan and no President once granted the extraordinary powers given Bush 43 after 9/11 will give them back. Candidates will denounce how they are used but incumbents will keep them, believe "they" would never abuse them.

Now right or wrong, drones are an approach to combat with terrorists that is proportional versus conventional warfare. It is unappealing and in the hands of the wrong person it could create even greater harm but by its very nature easier to roll back than an invasion by 160,000 ground troops or carpet bombing to create "shock and awe". And for better or worse more likely to get the bad guys.

It is horrid that any of this exists but for all the outrage about drones, look at all the crap the Obama administration took and is taking over the embassy attack in Libya. The public expects the President to be excessively diligent in the defense of the nation and in the case of Obama I do not think anyone can say he has not. He has not however been provocative and fallen into the neo-con trap of pre-emptive action against Iran. But make no mistake the GOP found itself in the 2012 in the unusual position of not being able to attack the Dems as weak on defense.

There is no winning in killing and that is as it should be. Obama has sadly learned that closing Gitmo was no easy matter which is as sad as is the liberal use of drones. Genie left the bottle on 9/11 and as long as their are terrorists that render conventional defense meaningless, new and unfortunate means of dealing with it will sought out.

[Ben]

Barack Obama is pushing gun control at home, but he's a killer abroad

President Obama's appeals to respect human life in the US are at odds with his backing for drone strikes in foreign parts

Gary Yonge The Guardian: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/garyyounge)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/10/obama-gun-control-drones-killer

[Ben]

An Interview with Marjorie Cohn about Targeted Killings:

http://www.zcommunications.org/an-interview-with-marjorie-cohn-about-targeted-killings-by-marjorie-cohn

[fivekatz]

Gary Younge's premise seems to rely on the assumption that if the President had advance knowledge that a domestic shooter was going to plan an assault on 20-30 American's on US soil that the President would not use drones to eliminate shooter prior to the execution of his plan.

Obama's opponents on the left and many others worry that just opposite could be true.

Drones are a nasty topic as is all forms of killing. Even more nasty perhaps than how the drones are used today is how they could be used in the hands of others with executive power.

The drones are scary and the moral questions are obvious. But let's assume for a minute that the Bush Administration had drilled down on the warnings they got of impending attack better, that they were lucky enough to get more data and imaginative enough to realize that terrorists were going to hijack airliners and use them as suicide bombs on sites with high concentrations of innocent people.

Should the Bush people have ordered drone attacks targeting the key players in the plot r should they have waited until 3,000 plus had died and then attempted to capture, jail and put on trial the principle plotters since those that actual attacked the buildings died in doing so?

Indeed it is a dark question, it is what I thought Cheney meant went he said the dark side versus large conventional warfare combined with torture of detainees.

It is a leap of faith to give our elected officials the right to use drones and that is a slippery slope but I do believe when small groups of people render a nation's conventional defensive deterrents as irrelevant that the options all become unsavory.

[Ben]

MSNBC Says Trust Obama on Drones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjNmDtsvnFk

[Ben]

Bob Woodward demands law-ignoring, mind-controlling presidential leadership (http://www.salon.com/2013/02/27/bob_woodward_demands_law_ignoring_mind_controlling _presidential_leadership/)

Washington's most respected reporter is embarrassing himself in his sequester showdown comments:

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/27/bob_woodward_demands_law_ignoring_mind_controlling _presidential_leadership/

[buttslinger]

team obama

2014

[Ben]

Obama Urges Against Paranoia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRg5vWZqzRg

[fivekatz]

Obama Urges Against Paranoia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRg5vWZqzRgTheir premise is a great example of triangulating.

[Ben]

Their premise is a great example of triangulating.

Yep! It is....

[Ben]

Their premise is a great example of triangulating.

An interesting book by Christopher Hitchens...

[Ben]

"Astoundingly Disturbing": Obama Administration Claims Power to Wage Endless War Across the Globe:

"Astoundingly Disturbing": Obama Administration Claims Power to Wage Endless War Across the Globe - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCZV3Dy43tU)

[fivekatz]

Well the power was created post 9-11 and there isn't a President who will give it back without a fight. Whether you are Cheney or Obama you believe that you are a just custodian of such power and you won't release it.

What we may see is the Obama Administration basically roll back the unlimited blank check to engage in war actions under the umbrella of the war on terror at the end of their administration.

Rumors were out there that they had a whole series of papers ready to release if they lost this election.

[hippifried]

Nothing new. The Korean war's still going with a tentative ceasefire. Where was the declaration? The entire cold war was done piecemeal like this one. Can't even use that as an excuse for all the military interventionism throughout our history. The argument goes back to Jefferson & the fight with the Barbary pirates. Maybe before that. This is a problem, but it won't be fixed by Congress whining a little bit then rubber-stamping authorizations in perpetuity.

[Ben]

Well the power was created post 9-11 and there isn't a President who will give it back without a fight. Whether you are Cheney or Obama you believe that you are a just custodian of such power and you won't release it.

What we may see is the Obama Administration basically roll back the unlimited blank check to engage in war actions under the umbrella of the war on terror at the end of their administration.

Rumors were out there that they had a whole series of papers ready to release if they lost this election.

Governments, like corporations, have one responsibility: to maximize their own power. (It's slightly different with corporations... as they must, under legal obligation, maximize power/profits/market share. But, by all accounts, corporations are private governments. Again, they deviate on certain things. I mean, governments aren't, of course, legally obligated to make as much money as they can.)
Glenn Greenwald, and one can agree or disagree, said that political actors crave war because it maximizes their power. It's not to say President Obama is a bad person. Again, much like corporate structures, we're talking about institutions. Not people. I mean, I'm sure Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, is deeply concerned about global warming. In his private life. But in his institutional role, as the CEO of the biggest energy/oil company, he MUST set his personal feelings aside. If he cannot do that, well, he is out.
So, it's happening to Obama... and it's bound to happen... without serious constraints on power. And since President Cheney (yes!, he was the de facto President) power in the executive branch has become more extreme and: "... absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton: ""Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

[fivekatz]

Governments, like corporations, have one responsibility: to maximize their own power. (It's slightly different with corporations... as they must, under legal obligation, maximize power/profits/market share. But, by all accounts, corporations are private governments. Again, they deviate on certain things. I mean, governments aren't, of course, legally obligated to make as much money as they can.)
Glenn Greenwald, and one can agree or disagree, said that political actors crave war because it maximizes their power. It's not to say President Obama is a bad person. Again, much like corporate structures, we're talking about institutions. Not people. I mean, I'm sure Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, is deeply concerned about global warming. In his private life. But in his institutional role, as the CEO of the biggest energy/oil company, he MUST set his personal feelings aside. If he cannot do that, well, he is out.
So, it's happening to Obama... and it's bound to happen... without serious constraints on power. And since President Cheney (yes!, he was the de facto President) power in the executive branch has become more extreme and: "... absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton: ""Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."Not all Presidents crave war. Lyndon Johnson found war and foreign policy to be distracting from his goal which was to create The Great Society and in the process maximize his legacy with the New Deal being his benchmark.

But every President wishes all their actions were unfettered by Congress or the Supreme Court. Human nature as you point out. The Congress has not learned from history by allowing not 1 but now 3 Presidents to start wars without the need for Congress to declare them.

The last authorization was so well written by David Addington (Cheney's attorney) and so poor edited by Congress that it grants almost blanket war powers to the President. The incumbent always thinks he/she will do no harm with unfettered power, so for folks to expect Obama to give back any of the power granted Cheney and 43, IMHO it is unrealistic and expects more of Obama than should expected.

[hippifried]

Governments, like corporations, have one responsibility: to maximize their own power. (It's slightly different with corporations... as they must, under legal obligation, maximize power/profits/market share. But, by all accounts, corporations are private governments. Again, they deviate on certain things. I mean, governments aren't, of course, legally obligated to make as much money as they can.)
Glenn Greenwald, and one can agree or disagree, said that political actors crave war because it maximizes their power. It's not to say President Obama is a bad person. Again, much like corporate structures, we're talking about institutions. Not people. I mean, I'm sure Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, is deeply concerned about global warming. In his private life. But in his institutional role, as the CEO of the biggest energy/oil company, he MUST set his personal feelings aside. If he cannot do that, well, he is out.
So, it's happening to Obama... and it's bound to happen... without serious constraints on power. And since President Cheney (yes!, he was the de facto President) power in the executive branch has become more extreme and: "... absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton: ""Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

I won't speak for the rest of the world, but the US government isn't a corporation. It isn't structured like a corporation, although modern corporate structure is loosely based on our model. It isn't single-mindedly focused on one agenda. It can't be. There's no "absolute power" here

Greenwald is just a doom monger. He sounds like one of those paranoid John Birchers of the '50s & '60s, or an Alex Joneser. Everything's a plot, & there's no solution to the doom scenario. I keep picturing some bozo in sack cloth, carrying a sign that says: "The end is nigh!". Why doesn't he just drink the "kook-aid" instead of trying to pass it out to everybody else?

[trish]

Governments, like corporations, have one responsibility: to...Corporations have a responsibility to make profits for their shareholders. The are organization that consist OF workers, are run BY ceo's and exist FOR shareholders.

Our government's responsibilities are described in the Constitution and in summary they are to secure and protect our rights and liberties are stated therein. The responsibility of the government, like the government itself is of, by and for the people.

Because the security of our governance rests on the structure of checks and balances, no branch of government is going abdicate power to another bran...no wait...it was Congress, to avoid a political awkwardness, that in essence abdicated its prerogative to declare war and since then those powers have been eroding to the advantage of the executive.

[buttslinger]

There are people on this forum who know much more about Government than others, who knows....? There may be a Mega-Minded Mutant somewhere who knows ALL the answers. DOESN"T MATTER. If he tried to influence things, he'd be attacked from all sides. Hitler laughed about FDR's power in a Democracy, like trying to fight with one hand tied behind your back. A few years later he sighed "the war is over" when he got a report that the New London shipyards were turning out a ship a day. America's strength is MONEY, not freedom, not God's Will. And as we all know, when money is involved, the game gets much more interesting.........Dis-information suddenly becomes as important as information.

[hippifried]

The Preamble to the US Constitution is its statement of purpose. It's simple & straight forward. The whole document itself lays out the structure for achieving that purpose. The only reason for people to gather in societies is to pool their resources. Everything else is details & bullshit.

[robertlouis]

Interesting slant on Prism from Friday's Guardian:

Giving evidence to parliament's intelligence and security committee last year, the head of the UK Government Communications Headquarters made a simple statement. "Communications data is extremely helpful to us," he told the committee in a closed hearing. Given GCHQ's function is to eavesdrop on electronic communications here and around the world, Sir Iain Lobban's words may seem a statement of the obvious. But this rare comment by the head of an agency whose stock in trade is global online and telephone-derived intelligence helps to illuminate why the Guardian's latest allegations about US government data-trawling have now firmly crossed the Atlantic, requiring serious public answers not just from American officials but now from British ones too.

The new allegations – which follow evidence that America's National Security Agency (NSA) now enjoys routine access to communications data from the US's largest telecoms companies – are focused not on telephone records but on internet data. According to the documents obtained by the Guardian, the NSA uses a programme called Prism, authorised under a Bush-era law, since renewed by the Obama administration, to obtain direct access to the systems of internet companies, search engines and social media including Google, Facebook, Apple, Skype, Yahoo and other household names. Although all these companies are obliged, under US law, to comply with NSA or FBI requests for users' communications, the unique feature of the Prism programme seems – at least according to internal evidence – to be that it allows the US agencies direct access to the companies' traffic.

Although all this surveillance is generated and conducted in the United States under sweeping powers granted by post-9/11 US law, it is now alleged that GCHQ – which is essentially the UK equivalent of the massive NSA – is able to drink from the same trough too. The Guardian's documents show that GCHQ has had access to Prism material since at least June 2010 – the programme began in 2007 – and that in the year to May 2012 GCHQ was able to generate 197 intelligence reports to its customers (normally MI6 and MI5) from it – more than double the number generated in the year to May 2011. According to the documents, special programmes exist within Prism for GCHQ's intelligence needs, suggesting that parts of the system were developed with UK input.

If these allegations are correct, the implications are huge. They suggest that the UK's security and intelligence agencies are using GCHQ and NSA channels to obtain far more extensive communications data and, through Prism, communications content than has ever been revealed, let alone publicly authorised. The trawling appears to go far further than the powers contained in the "snooper's charter" communications data bill, which has been dropped by the UK government but which is supported by Conservative and Labour parties at Westminster. As NSA trawling covers communications between the US and the UK, it also seems possible that British agencies are already obtaining much more through the back door than they would like through the front.

"All our operations," says GCHQ on its website, "are conducted within a framework of legislation that defines our roles and activities." GCHQ "takes its obligations under the law very seriously", the agency said on Friday. The Guardian's Prism documents pose a striking question: whose laws? The powers revealed in these documents do not exist under UK law. They raise questions about US-UK intelligence-gathering, including that from British citizens, which should urgently be debated in parliament. There are certainly terrorists out there from whose activities we must be protected, including by clandestine means. But there are also the civil liberties of ordinary British citizens out there. And they must be protected too.

[Ben]

Remember Hope -- and Change -- :)

Glenn Greenwald: U.S. wants to destroy privacy worldwide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL8q0xv8gUY

[robertlouis]

More from The Guardian, this time by Jonathan Freedland.



Among the guests at the fabled Bilderberg meeting, held this weekend just outside London, are the top brass of Google, Amazon and Microsoft. How appropriate they should be there, alongside luminaries of the US political and military establishment. For this was the week that seemed to confirm all the old bug-eyed conspiracy theories about governments and corporations colluding to enslave the rest of us.

The Guardian revealed that the US National Security Agency has cracked open our online lives, that it can rifle through your emails, listen to your calls on Skype, watching "your ideas form as you type", as a US intelligence officer put it – apparently in cahoots with the corporate titans of the web.

This disgraces all involved, but it damages the head of the US government most. Barack Obama always had much in common with the Apple and Facebook crowd. Like them, he held out the promise of modernity – a slick, cool contrast to their creaky, throwback rivals. (Obama was rarely without BlackBerry and iPod; McCain and Romney came from the age of the manual typewriter.) But, like those early internet giants, he promised more than just an open-necked, hipper style. He would be better too. Google's informal motto is Don't be Evil. Obama's was Hope.

Perhaps people lost their innocence about Google and Facebook long ago, realising that, just because their founders were kids in jeans, they were no less red-toothed than any other capitalist behemoth. But now the president's reputation will suffer the same treatment. This Prism will dim the halo that once adorned him.

For he has authorised not merely the continuation of a programme of state surveillance that he once opposed, but has actively expanded it. That officers who serve him could brag in a 41-page presentation – one, incidentally, laced with David Brent-style grandiosity, starting with the naffness of the Prism logo – of their ability to collect data "directly from the servers" of the likes of Microsoft, Apple and Yahoo, will be a lasting stain on his record. In this, he is George W Obama.

There is a mirthless chuckle to be had from a president repeatedly slammed as a "liberal" whose legacy will be marred by a series of gravely illiberal acts.

He promised but failed to close the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, where men have been held for more than a decade without charge (though Congress shares the blame for that). He has made routine the use of drones, assassinating enemies from the sky – repeatedly taking the innocent in the process, as he's admitted. Last month it emerged that Obama's justice department had spied on a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, tracking his movements, seizing his telephone records and taking two days' worth of his personal emails, in pursuit of a state department leak. That came after Obama had made "no apologies" for seizing two months of telephone records from Associated Press. Little wonder that the high citadel of US liberalism, the editorial column of the New York Times, this week declared that "The administration has now lost all credibility", later softening the blow by adding the words, "on this issue".

It is becoming ever harder for liberals to defend Obama. One forlorn effort I heard this week was that perhaps he did not know what the NSA was up to, even though we're told Prism is now the prime generator of material for the president's daily brief. When you're reduced to saying your hero is not evil, just useless, you know you're in trouble.

As for the web companies, their role remains unclear. Initially they insisted that the access-all-areas relationship described in Prism's PowerPoint presentation is false and there was no such collaboration. Yet one industry insider tells me that "it's very hard to think the companies did not know" the NSA was collecting their data, since such an intrusion "would show up pretty damn quick". That leaves a third possibility: that the Prism pitch was exaggerated, in order to make it a more attractive sell to its potential customers among the US – and UK – intelligence fraternity.

Whatever the truth, it's unlikely to have a lasting impact on the web giants' success. That's partly because of cynicism: plenty of us assumed these big companies abused our privacy anyway. But it's also because our relationship is one of dependence. When it emerged that Starbucks, Amazon and Google had all been paying negligible tax in the UK, it was obvious Starbucks would feel the consumer heat most, simply because it's easy to walk across the street to get a cup of coffee somewhere else. Amazon is harder to avoid and Google all but impossible. So reliant are we on these companies' services, we simply shrug and move on.

And here lies the heart of the matter, the shift in our lives that has made Prism possible. Back in the le Carré days of cold war espionage, private information was hard to get. Spies relied on papers stuffed in manila files, or operatives hanging around on street corners, forced to gain each bit of knowledge by hand. Back then, people gave up their personal details sparingly and reluctantly.

Now we are liberal with our innermost secrets, spraying them into the public ether with a generosity our forebears could not have imagined. Where we once sent love letters in a sealed envelope, or stuck photographs of our children in a family album, now such private material is despatched to servers and clouds operated by people we don't know and will never meet. Perhaps we assume that our name, address and search preferences will be viewed by some unseen pair of corporate eyes, probably not human, and don't mind that much. We guess the worst that can happen is Google bothering us with an annoying ad or Spotify recommending Taylor Swift.

But if that knowledge goes elsewhere, if governments can get it when they ask for it, or even without asking for it, then that means something else entirely. It means that the intelligence agencies can now watch the entire population, albeit by privatised means, having in effect outsourced the job of spying to the web mega-companies.

That leaves us with a choice. Either we try to stuff this genie back in the bottle and return to the privacy habits of old. Unlikely. Or we demand companies stand firm when pressed by governments to disclose our data. Not easy. Or we demand lawmakers change the rules, restraining the executive branch's limitless appetite for information on us.

It's hard to be optimistic, for technology has made the pickings available too rich, too tempting, for the spies to resist. And, strangest of all, it is us who made this possible – by becoming informants on ourselves.

[Ben]

Corporations have a responsibility to make profits for their shareholders. The are organization that consist OF workers, are run BY ceo's and exist FOR shareholders.

Our government's responsibilities are described in the Constitution and in summary they are to secure and protect our rights and liberties are stated therein. The responsibility of the government, like the government itself is of, by and for the people.

Because the security of our governance rests on the structure of checks and balances, no branch of government is going abdicate power to another bran...no wait...it was Congress, to avoid a political awkwardness, that in essence abdicated its prerogative to declare war and since then those powers have been eroding to the advantage of the executive.

Yes! Corporations have to maximize their own power which translates into serving shareholders. Not, say, stakeholders. Meaning: people, the wider population. And there is nothing in economic or business principle that says corporations have to serve shareholders and not, say, stakeholders. I mean, the legal obligation to serve shareholders came about through the courts and not through parliament, as it were. So, it wasn't a democratic decision.
Corporations, by design, don't and can't care about future generations.... I mean, corporations, again, have an institutional imperative to trash the planet. Do we really think oil companies can care about the impact of global climate change on future generations? Do corporations care about pollution? Whether it be soil, water or air pollution? No, of course not. It's not to say that people within those institutions are awful people. They have a job to do. And if they don't do it, well, they're out.
Simply put: corporate entities can't care about future generations.
According to environmental lawyer Thomas Linzey: "... the folks that wrote the U.S. Constitution, which serves as the DNA or hardwiring for this country, in essence worshiped English common law. We got rid of the King but we didn't get rid of an English structure of law that placed property and commerce over the rights of communities and nature."
So, the Constitution was set up to serve the concentration of capital and not people.

[Ben]

Is Obama worse than Bush? That's beside the point

Obama's transformation from national security dove to hawk is the norm: any president is captive to America's imperial power:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/21/obama-worse-than-bush?CMP=twt_fd

[Ben]

Don't expect this in America...

Obama called "war criminal" & "hypocrite of the century" in Irish Parliament:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIMucHfUMyg

[Ben]

MP: Ireland a Lapdog for US Imperialism | Hero - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D0bUrhTVBg)

[Ben]

Obama Is Laying The Foundations Of A Dystopian Future by Oliver Stone:

http://www.zcommunications.org/obama-is-laying-the-foundations-of-a-dystopian-future-by-oliver-stone

[Ben]

Obama holds historic phone call with Rouhani and hints at end to sanctions:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/obama-phone-call-iranian-president-rouhani

[Ben]

Obama holds historic phone call with Rouhani and hints at end to sanctions:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/obama-phone-call-iranian-president-rouhani

Addendum -- :)

Brian Williams' Iran propaganda:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/brian-williams-iran-propaganda

[Ben]

Worse Than Nixon? Committee to Protect Journalists Warns About Obama Crackdown on Press Freedom:

Worse Than Nixon? Committee to Protect Journalists Warns About Obama Crackdown on Press Freedom - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU9dTYstiyo)

[Ben]

Malala Yousafzai tells Obama drones are 'fueling terrorism':

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/11/205176/obama-and-first-lady-meet-with.html

[Ben]

U.S. Can’t Track Tons of Weapons-Grade Uranium, Plutonium

President Obama has repeatedly said his top counterterrorism goal is to prevent terrorists from acquiring the building blocks to make nuclear or “dirty” bombs. In April of 2009, Obama announced a new international effort to “secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered/).” Since then, the Department of Energy has dispatched scientists around the globe to collect hundreds of pounds of the stuff.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/uranium-mia/

[Ben]

Donate to Obama, Become an Ambassador! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sauR8Cv9pA)

[Stavros]

While President Obama is being slated in other threads over the Affordable Health Care Act, perhaps one should acknowledge some recent successes which might have long-term benefits for the US and also in the Middle East: in this last quarter, the US has pulled back from direct military engagement with the armed forces of Syria, and has played an integral part in the agreement with Iran that will slow (but not halt) the pace of its nuclear development and open the process to more direct scrutiny. In both cases, the Obama presidency has preferred diplomacy over military action, but in both cases the administration has and will continue to attract the opposition of those elements in Congress addicted to violence as a solution to political problems.

A guarded welcome is due because the isolation of Iran has been a problem inside the country. Rouhani's election and his 'moderate' stance has already paid dividends, but does set up a potential conflict with the Republican Guard that sees itself as the guarantor of Khomeini's legacy if they feel that Rouhani is trying to gradually undo all they achieved since 1979. Potentially, the now open channels of communication between Washington and Tehran could benefit the crisis in Syria where the opposition has failed to make any significant military gains, and has actually lost territory in the north to Islamic extremists who don't share their long-term agenda. It is true that the powerful position Iran seems to have been in since regime change in Iraq has worried Saudi Arabia and Israel -the Saudis were not aware of the secret channels the US opened with Iran (possibly initially via Mrs Clinton through Oman where Kerry went over a year ago) and have to face the fact that their sponsorship of the opposition in Syria has got nowhere on the battlefield, while the leader of the Syrian opposition's 'Free Syrian Army' is refusing to go to the talks in Geneva next month. Benjamin Netanyahu has denounced the deal with Iran at the same time as claiming it was his pressure on the US that prevented them from giving Iran even more 'concessions' -and has been rightly pilloried in the Israeli press as a result.
A cautious welcome, because as long as the military conflict in Syria continues factions will continue to make demands that in reality cannot be met. Some of the refugees in the Zaatari camp in Jordan have decided to leave the squalor there and take their chances back home; and at some point in the future the Syrian opposition will have to deal with the al-Qaeda franchise which is undermining its claims of legitimacy.

One hopes that the diplomatic process can bring the politicians back into the equation -this conflict is going nowhere and is destroying lives; solutions are available, if the parties have the courage to face up to them.

[broncofan]

I have read several commentary pieces on the deal with Iran and the skeptics hold a line of reasoning I don't really understand. They say that if negotiations break down, this will be an impetus for Iran to "race" to complete development of nukes, and this will spark off an arms race with other Middle East rivals, including Saudi Arabia.

The purpose of the sanctions as I understood it is to prevent Iran from developing nukes. The premise must be then that undeterred they would develop nuclear weapons. So they do not need to wait for sanctions to fail to encourage them to develop nuclear weapons. Diplomacy as far as I see it has a potential upside and no downside, but I am what the Republicans would call naive.

I do not understand the idea that failed diplomacy does anything but keep Iran on the track they've been on. Maybe it accelerates the pace of development because diplomacy will have failed and Iran will have no reason to hold back...but for the West a diplomatic solution has been the only realistic option for a long time. The military option is simply not feasible. If it were feasible, it would be feasible after a failed diplomatic effort. But it's neither feasible if diplomacy fails or never begins.

[broncofan]

Oh, I guess the idea is that in the interim we take the squeeze off Iran, which is letting them off the hook. This means that further negotiation could fail and the sanctions will not have been doing their work. While this is true I am not sure Iran was ever going to unilaterally submit based on the effects of the sanctions. Something would have to be negotiated and you do have to make some good-faith concessions to get them to the table.

[Stavros]

Oh, I guess the idea is that in the interim we take the squeeze off Iran, which is letting them off the hook. This means that further negotiation could fail and the sanctions will not have been doing their work. While this is true I am not sure Iran was ever going to unilaterally submit based on the effects of the sanctions. Something would have to be negotiated and you do have to make some good-faith concessions to get them to the table.

The criticism is based on the various deals on nuclear proliferation with North Korea in exchange for food which the North Koreans then repudiated; the question is can Iran be trusted any better than North Korea?

The Conservative opinion bank (Ted Cruz, John Bolton, Claude Chafin and Frank Gaffney in the first link, Jiri Valenta in the second) has already lodged its complaints that Obama has been duped by the Iranians, though the argument that joint missile development between Iran and North Korea will threaten the US is a bit far fetched given that North Korea's missiles so far have ended up in the sea rather than Long Island.

Yes, the US and its allies should be cautious, but as you say diplomacy must first be exhausted, and the 'taking out' of targets, as Cheney suggested isn't as easy as it sounds.

The discussion and prediction of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East has been going on since the 1970s when Iran sought US backing for its nuclear option...

http://freebeacon.com/iran-north-korea-missile-cooperation-undermines-recent-geneva-nuclear-deal/

http://russiancouncil.ru/en/blogs/jvlv/?id_4=837

[Prospero]

Refreshing....

[Ben]

Obama... speaking, frankly, about the corrupt nature of the system:

Obama on Citizens United Ruling - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8ApHBsP5Z0)

[Ben]

Thanks Obama - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkQxHlr2fXM)

[Ben]

Does Obama Joking Like This Bother You?

Does Obama Joking Like This Bother You? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2p5rRGmFSs)

[robertlouis]

Gary Younge in Monday's Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/what-is-barack-obama-presidency-for

[Ben]

Obama's war on journalism:

Jeremy Scahill and The War on Journalism - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQjmCa47olI)

"There Is A War On Journalism": Jeremy Scahill on NSA Leaks & New Investigative Reporting Venture - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gnheUUCmI4)

[Ben]

The Leader Obama Wanted to Become and What Became of Him:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/the-leader-obama-wanted-t_b_4932145.html

[95racer]

Jimmy Carter is a huge fan of Obama. He will make Carter's presidential term look at least mediocre.

[Dino Velvet]

This thread appears to have gone sideways way away from its original intention.

http://kevinwhiteman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/r1433985915.jpg

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/7c/7cf1163ffe1476cda9dc318da86b7178880dffc9b502ed340a 8d7e117914e618.jpg

Creepy Obama Worship - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI-BCbKuJGA)

[AshlynCreamher]

https://31.media.tumblr.com/55349378a2e51e19def5ca3fa774bc1c/tumblr_n2jomdiSJQ1t2s577o1_500.jpg
Obama, Biden Jog Around White House for Let's Move! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_Sq6Pb0Zzs)

[mrtrebus]

https://31.media.tumblr.com/55349378a2e51e19def5ca3fa774bc1c/tumblr_n2jomdiSJQ1t2s577o1_500.jpg
Obama, Biden Jog Around White House for Let's Move! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_Sq6Pb0Zzs)
Would you drink my water? :Bowdown:

[AshlynCreamher]

Would you drink my water? :Bowdown:

Do you have balanced bodily fluids?

[Dino Velvet]

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/03/120330_obama_smile_ap_328.gif
"Let me be clear. All babies should eat."

http://theblacksphere.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ObamaWorship.jpg

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2013/02/14/18/14/17UGmB.AuSt.91.jpg
"You look delicious, little lamb. I wish I could thank your parents for their submission."

[Dino Velvet]

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/w/x/7047eb5c2d.jpg

[Ben]

Jimmy Carter is a huge fan of Obama. He will make Carter's presidential term look at least mediocre.

I don't think Carter is a "huge fan" of Obama. Not sure why anyone would be a "fan" of any President.
Unless a President is responsive to the population. But the political class aren't very responsive to the population. They've other concerns... that don't really include the population.
As the late author Gore Vidal pointed out: every President wants to be a dictator. There's no President that wants to lessen his or her powers. And, too, as Glenn Greenwald noted: every president craves war because it maximizes their power.
So, we're dealing with a system of power and, too, a system/structure that has a deep loathing for democracy. Why? Simple. Democracy minimizes their power. This also applies to the corporate world. The corporate class loathe democracy, understandably and rationally so, 'cause it reduces their overall power.
Obama craves inordinate power. Bush Jr. and Sr. craved excessive power. Clinton -- the same. As did Carter. Reagan, too.
So, if they crave and gain more and more power, well, who loses or has their power diminished? Well, easy. The population. And thus the frittering away of so-called democracy.
If we had a meaningful democratic government, well, government policy would reflect public opinion. Does this happen?

Obama's newest critic: Jimmy Carter...

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/obamas-newest-critic-jimmy-carter/1#.UyZc9s5UX4Y

[AshlynCreamher]

"Let me be clear. All babies should eat."

http://theblacksphere.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ObamaWorship.jpg

Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI)

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Ben;1470294]
But the political class aren't very responsive to the population. They've other concerns... that don't really include the population.
--How do Presidents get elected, then?

There's no President that wants to lessen his or her powers. And, too, as Glenn Greenwald noted: every president craves war because it maximizes their power.
--Can you prove with examples that Jimmy Carter 'craved war'? How about Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge? I thought Harding's response to the First World War and isolation was to reduce spending on the armed forces, especially the Navy -?
Didn't Calvin Coolidge sign the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) which renounced war as a means of solving conflicts?

The corporate class loathe democracy, understandably and rationally so, 'cause it reduces their overall power.
--Can you confirm that most of the large corporations listed on the DowJones and the FT Index are owned by shareholders who vote once a year for a variety of things, such as the executive members of the Board, remuneration, changes to policy and so on? Yes, the major institutional shareholders have more power than small shareholders, but without those votes, what corporations do might be considered illegal.


If we had a meaningful democratic government, well, government policy would reflect public opinion. Does this happen?
--Can you confirm that the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s was not passed in Congress because legislators responded to a campaign that had been going on for years but because legislators ignored public opinion?

[buttslinger]

The Democratic Position:

â–¶Zach Galifinakis Vs Preseident Barack Obama Between "HealthCare.gov" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR28KbBQTww)

Republican response:

MORE Anger Over Obama On Between Two Ferns With Zach Galifianakis - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJvNcm3tG7A)

[AshlynCreamher]

Lmao

[AshlynCreamher]

MORE Anger Over Obama On Between Two Ferns With Zach Galifianakis - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJvNcm3tG7A)

Following up on this: I would like to stick my foot in my mouth for a moment and say; O'Reily is an over opinionated, hyper critical, elevated asshole!

He has the audacity to go on camera and make personal attacks against and entertainer who is simply try to make a buck: hosting a talk show. In the same breathe of air he will also sell a book and coffee mug. Its called capitalism and he's apart of it as much as much as Zach Galifianakis.

[AshlynCreamher]

My deepest and most sincere Apologies to Bill O'Reilly, what I said was not only out of line but inaccurate. But I still think he is an asshole

[dderek123]

It's okay ashlyn. He only plays a right-wing hypocritical jerk on TV. He is an entertainer to all of those people who tune in to watch him and agree with whatever BS he's spewing. It's sad that some people still get there information from the television these days. It's mostly crap.

[Dino Velvet]

Back on topic. With ObamaCare you don't know what to believe. Both sides accusing the other of lying. Media sources arguing with each other too.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/how-many-have-paid-obamacare-premiums/


How many have paid Obamacare premiums?

Sarah Hurtubise
7:04 PM 03/17/2014

The Obama administration made its sixth update of the year on Obamacare enrollment Monday — without ever revealing how many customers have paid.
A blog post (http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/blog/2014/03/marketplace-enrollment-hits-5-million.html) from Marilyn Tavenner, director of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, boasts 5 million sign-ups so far. The administration has updated the enrollment tally twice a month since millions of customers were required to pay their premiums, but officials have declined yet again to disclose payment information.
Monday’s unscheduled update revealed that the administration can now count 5 million selected plans on Obamacare exchanges across the country — 1 million (http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/03/17/covered-california-hits-million-sign-ups-for.html) in California alone. It’s a desperately needed coup for the administration, which is two weeks away from the final enrollment deadline.
But like Tavenner’s other (http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/blog/2014/02/marketplace-enrollment-hits-4-million.html) surprise (http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/blog/2014/01/three-million-in-marketplaces.html) enrollment updates, the blog post is devoid of details or statistics. Instead, it’s chock full of stories about those who were so happy to receive Obamacare that they cried.
Official monthly enrollment announcements merit a conference call with media and a formal state breakdown from the Department of Health and Human Services. But detailed demographic information wasn’t released until mid-January — over halfway through the open enrollment period.
The late release emphasized the administration’s failure to enroll nearly enough of its key demographic, healthy people aged 18 to 35. Through February’s end, Obamacare exchange customers were only 25 percent “young invincibles” — leaving very little time to meet the administration’s prior minimum target of 39 percent.
As of January, customers that paid have been using their Obamacare insurance. But the Obama administration continues to say it doesn’t know how many have paid their premiums.
The best estimates come from consulting firms’ studies of data from insurance companies. Goldman Sachs’ latest indicates (http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/03/11/how-many-people-did-obamacare-really-enroll/) that 80 percent of the number the White House has advertised will follow through and purchase their coverage; McKinsey estimates only 77 percent. Such a record would bring that 5 million down to 3.85-4 million instead.
Follow Sarah on Twitter (https://twitter.com/SarahMHurtubise)
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org (+licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org).

[Dino Velvet]

From Huffington Post of all places. Pretty rough.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/obama-i-dont-care-about-t_b_4978653.html?utm_hp_ref=politics


Eric Zuesse (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse) Become a fan (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/becomeFan.php?of=hp_blogger_Eric%20Zuesse) Investigative historian


Obama: 'I Don't Care About the Public's Welfare'


No, he didn't say it; no politician does; instead, he proves it, by both what he does and what he says (as will be shown here).
Of course, there's pretense in at least some of what all successful politicians say, because success in politics requires at least some degree of pretense. No matter how good a person is, pretense is necessary for success in politics; that's just reality. We live with it; we deal with it, if we are at all realistic.
A politician shows his values, and makes clear his priorities, not by what he says, but instead by what he actually does.
For example, President Obama's 24 January 2012 State of the Union Address said: "Tonight, I'm asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. (Applause.) This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans. Now, a return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help protect our people and our economy."
But, two years later, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice issued on 13 March 2014 its "Audit of the Department of Justice's Efforts to Address Mortgage Fraud," (http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2014/a1412.pdf) and reported that it turned out to be just a lie. DOJ didn't even try; and they lied even about their efforts. The IG found: "DOJ did not uniformly ensure that mortgage fraud was prioritized at a level commensurate with its public statements. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Criminal Investigative Division ranked mortgage fraud as the lowest criminal threat in its lowest crime category. Additionally, we found mortgage fraud to be a low priority, or not [even] listed as a priority, for the FBI Field Offices we visited." Not just that, but, "Many Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSA) informed us about underreporting and misclassification of mortgage fraud cases." This was important because, "Capturing such information would allow DOJ to ... better evaluate its performance in targeting high-profile offenders."
On 27 March 2009, Obama had assembled the top executives of the bailed-out financial firms in a secret meeting at the White House and he assured them (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20871.html) that he would cover their backs; he told them "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks" (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/04/obama-to-banker/) (but of course it's not on the White House website; it had to be leaked out, which is one of the reasons Obama hates leakers). What the DOJ's IG indicated was, in effect, that Obama had kept his secret promise to them.
He had lied to the public, all along. According to the DOJ (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/February/10-opa-192.html), their Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF) was "established by President Barack Obama in November 2009 to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes." But, according to the Department's IG, it was all a fraud: a fraud that according to the DOJ itself had been going on since at least November 2009.
The IG's report continued by pointing out the Attorney General's lies, noting that on 9 October 2012, "the FFETF held a press conference to publicize the results of the initiative," and:
"The Attorney General announced that the initiative resulted in 530 criminal defendants being charged, including 172 executives, in 285 criminal indictments or informations filed in federal courts throughout the United States during the previous 12 months. The Attorney General also announced that 110 federal civil cases were filed against over 150 defendants for losses totaling at least $37 million, and involving more than 15,000 victims. According to statements made at the press conference, these cases involved more than 73,000 homeowner victims and total losses estimated at more than $1 billion.
"Shortly after this press conference, we requested documentation that supported the statistics presented. ... Over the following months, we repeatedly asked the Department about its efforts to correct the statistics. ... Specifically, the number of criminal defendants charged as part of the initiative was 107, not 530 as originally reported; and the total estimated losses associated with true Distressed Homeowners cases were $95 million, 91 percent less than the $1 billion reported at the October 2012 press conference. ...
"Despite being aware of the serious flaws in these statistics since at least November 2012, we found that the Department continued to cite them in mortgage fraud press releases. ... According to DOJ officials, the data collected and publicly announced for an earlier FFETF mortgage fraud initiative - Operation Stolen Dreams - also may have contained similar errors."
Basically, the IG's report said that the Obama Administration had failed to enforce the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009. The bill had been passed overwhelmingly, 92-4 in the Senate, and 338-52 in the House. All of the votes against it came from Republicans. This law, which sent $165 million to the DOJ to catch the executive fraudsters who had brought down the U.S. economy, and which set up the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, had been introduced and written by the liberal Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy. President Obama signed it on 20 May 2009, with a smile but a tight upper lip, and with a gun held by Democrats to his head: he just couldn't afford to display, so early in his Administration, that he was far to the right of every congressional Democrat. He needed the pretense that he was a progressive.
Already on 15 November 2011, Syracuse University's TRAC Reports had headlined "Criminal Prosecutions for Financial Institution Fraud Continue to Fall," (http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/267/) and provided a chart showing that whereas such prosecutions had been running at a fairly steady rate until George W. Bush came into office in 2001, they immediately plunged during his term and were continuing that decline under Obama, even after the biggest boom in alleged financial fraud cases since right before the Great Depression. And, then, on 24 September 2013, TRAC Reports bannered "Slump in FBI White Collar Crime Prosecutions," (http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/331/) and said that "prosecutions of white collar criminals recommended by the FBI are substantially down during the first ten months of Fiscal Year 2013." This was especially so in the Wall Street area: "In the last year, the judicial District Court recording the largest projected drop in the rate of white collar crime prosecutions -- 27.8 percent -- was the Southern District of New York (Manhattan)."
Anyone who doubts that Obama is a liar (except when addressing banksters in private), whose actual values are often the exact opposite of his sanctimonious public statements, should read not only the IG's report, but, regarding other issues, things such as,
from Wayne Madsen, "UKRAINIAN PHONE WRECKS: The Secret Agenda of Ashton and Nuland Revealed" (http://www.voltairenet.org/article182601.html);
and, from Marcy Wheeler, "The White House Has Been Covering Up the Presidency's Role in Torture for Years" (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/13/president-obama-covering-presidencys-role-torture-4-years/);
and, from Lee Fang, "Obama Admin's TPP Trade Officials Received Hefty Bonuses From Big Banks" (http://www.republicreport.org/2014/big-banks-tpp/);
and, from Kate Sheppard, "Michael Froman, Top U.S. Trade Official, Sides With Tar Sands Advocates In EU Negotiations." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/michael-froman_n_3984115.html)
and then, add in, for good measure, an article by a courageous Ukrainian, about how profoundly fascist are the people that the Obama Administration has installed in Ukraine, "The Nazis Even Hitler Was Afraid Of." (http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Nazis-Even-Hitler-was-by-George-Eliason-Exile_Genocide_Hitler-Brownshirts_Hitler-Youth-140316-321.html)
And the State Department was at least as bad under Hillary Clinton (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/elizabeth-warren-comes-do_b_4483753.html).
If Barack Obama were competing with George W. Bush to become the new worst U.S. President of all time, then one could say that he is doing a brilliant job.
But one thing's for sure: he's a terrific liar, whenever he's speaking in public.
Why aren't Democrats in Congress pressing for him to be impeached? There are so many sound reasons why he ought to be forced out of office. But none of them are reasons that Republicans hate him. Republicans hate him because, no matter how far to the right a Democrat is, Republicans demand someone who is even farther to the right, and Obama isn't leaving them much territory to the right of himself; so, he's driving them into territory that makes everyone except perhaps the Koch brothers and their friends feel a bit sour.
----------
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 (http://www.amazon.com/Theyre-Not-Even-Close-Democratic/dp/1880026090/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1339027537&sr=8-9), and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007Q1H4EG).

[buttslinger]

The median age of the Fox TV viewer is 68, so it's no wonder they want to put the brakes on the American Bicycle a little bit.

[Dino Velvet]

The median age of the Fox TV viewer is 68, so it's no wonder they want to put the brakes on the American Bicycle a little bit.

The MSNBC Kool-Aid averages out the BS. Both are spin and entertainment and ratings are their priority. InfoTainment is what we have here.

Neither of those articles are from Fox News also.

[buttslinger]

Neither of those articles are from Fox News also.

Hey Man, Don't believe what the "LAMESTREAM MEDIA" says, this is a trick to give Republicans a false sense of security building up to the November elections.

Like when Megan Kelly asks "Isn't health insurance for everyone a good thing?"
And then her guest answers " yes, but we just can't afford it........"
Then Megan says..."ooooooh.............."

The Republicans are finally coming up with their plan on how to fix the insane rising costs of healthcare. It should be good.
It will probably contain cutting taxes on Capital Gains.

[Dino Velvet]

Hey Man, Don't believe what the "LAMESTREAM MEDIA" says, this is a trick to give Republicans a false sense of security building up to the November elections.

Like when Megan Kelly asks "Isn't health insurance for everyone a good thing?"
And then her guest answers " yes, but we just can't afford it........"
Then Megan says..."ooooooh.............."

The Republicans are finally coming up with their plan on how to fix the insane rising costs of healthcare. It should be good.
It will probably contain cutting taxes on Capital Gains.

Where is the other half of the "LAMESTREAM MEDIA" carrying the beloved public servant on their shoulders like their triumphant hero? Where is the triumph? What did they win?

That one article was from Huffington Post.

I imagine the "solution" from the Republicans will be just as bad. Just as many idiots over there too, just idiotic for different lost causes.

We are good people in this country. I fucked up voting for Bush twice. I am trying to learn from my mistakes too. The first step to learning from your mistakes is being aware you are in error. We all deserve better, not mostly more of the same.

The most devout, fanatical, and vulnerable are the easiest to take advantage of and the last to know they've been betrayed. Much of that in my family and other families and individuals in America.

[trish]

The Affordable Care Act IS the Republican solution. It's the boiler plate proposal that came out of the Heritage Foundation and foisted on the bipartisan committee that was tasked with writing the ACA. All other ideas (single payer, medicare for all) were shot down in committee. This was the only thing that could possibly have come out of it. But the Tea Party started calling it ObamaCare and the Republicans are left without plan they can take credit for. It IS their plan that's being implemented. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. The plan is complicated because it has to incorporate all the available private plans that pass the standards. It's essentially eHarmony for matching insurance companies with potential customers. Any other plan that comes out of the GOP is just going to be even more insanely conservative and complicated.

If the current plan stays in place it will go through a long series of fixes and if we're lucky, in a decade or two it'll morph into single payer. This is pretty much the same route the Canadian system went through. BTW, most Canadians love their system and a lot of Americans do to. They go there to buy their prescription drugs because the Canadian government is allowed to negotiate with the drug companies...something we're not allowed to do thanks to Bush's Medicare Part D.

[Dino Velvet]

If the current plan stays in place it will go through a long series of fixes and if we're lucky

I hope something is done. I am happy for your aunt too. Sincerely. We're all Americans here. Government and media just divides and conquers us and we're all cooperative at each others' throats when we should join up together and hold government to account. It's corrupt as Hell no matter who steers the ship. No difference between The Wolf Of Wall Street or The Sheep Of Wall Street. They all answer to the same.

[Dino Velvet]

Remember when he said part of his job was to make government cool again? Enjoy the rest.

9/11/08 - Barack Obama Wants To Make Government Cool Again - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka5aCjJhYMk)

[95racer]

Here's a review:

[buttslinger]

Is this the Republican that will run in 2016?
BU3H

[Ben in LA]

About that "mainstream" or "Liberal" media...:whistle:

[Ben in LA]

Is this the Republican that will run in 2016?
BU3H

:hide-1: :( :ignore:

[Ben]

US Takes a Break From Condemning Tyranny to Celebrate Obama’s Visit to Saudi Arabia:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/28/us-takes-break-condemning-tyranny-celebrate-obamas-visit-saudi-arabia/

[Ben]

Abby Martin...

The Drone King's Massacre in Yemen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_HIqAO9gLU

[Ben]

I agree w/ President Obama.

Obama stands firm on Bowe Bergdahl decision:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/05/obama-firm-bergdahl-decision-backlash

[danthepoetman]

:)
:banana:

[95racer]

Total Fail !!!!!!!

[Turlington]

Total Fail !!!!!!!

Considering the stuff posted just above, your post sure is a total fail.

[Turlington]

Priorities...

[95racer]

The posted stuff above is a bunch of bullshit. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

[broncofan]

The posted stuff above is a bunch of bullshit. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
Is that what you call a rebuttal?:D

[Turlington]

Truth has a liberal bias.®

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=danthepoetman;1508544]:)
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/attachment.php?attachmentid=732006&stc=1&d=1405123941

'Has the Arab League watching Syria'...
There are times when you wonder who writes this stuff...

[Ben]

Majority of Self-Identified Democrats Back Obama's Bombing of Iraq:

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/08/19/majority-self-identified-democrats-back-obamas-bombing-iraq

[Ben]

Obama Wants End Of Gay Conversion Therapy For Minors:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDWNghV5Nx8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDWNghV5Nx8)

[Ben]

Obama Could Face Disastrous Summit Due to Venezuela Sanctions:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/04/10/obama-could-face-disastrous-summit-due-venezuela-sanctions

[cameron47]

Worst president since Jimmy Carter.

[Ben]

Worst president since Jimmy Carter.

What about the dynamic duo Cheney/Bush???
Just curious: what makes him so bad? His allegiance to the Wall Street Banks? His bombing of Libya and Syria and Yemen?
His treatment of Manning and Assange?

http://blog.loususi.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/asshats_n_chielf-bush-cheney.jpg

[Ben in LA]

Do they even REMEMBER how fucked up Bush's presidency was? And don't get me started on Reagan's policies.

[trish]

Under Carter no American soldier fired a shot at any human being. For that alone he's better than all the presidents that came after him.

[Stavros]

I think that too much was expected of Obama in 2008, it is profoundly difficult to enter office with so much hope for change when the system itself is not designed to work that way. Guantanamo being a prime example of system failure. That said, it seems trite to say there have been successes and failures, so to condemn Obama as 'the worst' since any other President is meaningless unless there is an agreed checklist of what constitutes success and failure.

It also means that for political reasons, some Americans may believe that providing Affordable Health Care is in the long term a major advance for most people; or it is a scam; or a good idea poorly executed. It must be a good thing that the US does not appear to send 'special forces' into Latin American countries to support military governments and dictators; it must be a good thing to be adult about Cuba -if anything, it is the Cubans who are more worried about change than the Americans-; I think most Americans believe that the reality of social change means that gay marriage is really not that big a deal, and was long overdue; but I do wonder what Americans think of the law enforcement services, the war on drugs, and the apparently impossible task of reducing the volume of firearms that people think they need to own. And when it comes to the Middle East, and in spite of the fact that Carter brokered the Treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1979 (somebody tell Marc Rubio) and Clinton muscled in on the treaty between Israel and the PLO in 1993, one wonders if the US is doomed to fail in the region?
This article by Emma Sky presents a damning picture of the Obama administration's exit from Iraq, in which haste and poor decision making is seen as paving the way for the current crisis. None of the key players -Obama and Mrs Clinton specifically- emerge from this without blame. And the drones are still flying. Winners and losers indeed.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/obama-iraq-116708.html#.VS3LUpMTalc

[celticgrafix]

Saw refreshing, thought that would mean not on vacation or a golf course

[dreamon]

Under Carter no American soldier fired a shot at any human being. For that alone he's better than all the presidents that came after him.

Operation Eagle Claw.

[flabbybody]

Bumped....
in honor of prospero

[trish]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/27/another-moment-for-the-history-books/

[Stavros]

Does this mean, after Clinton's 'prayer breakfasts', George W Bush's apocalyptic visions, and Amazing Grace that the US Presidency is now Christian in all but name?

[trish]

Does this mean, after Clinton's 'prayer breakfasts', George W Bush's apocalyptic visions, and Amazing Grace that the US Presidency is now Christian in all but name?Well the Reagans dabbled in Tarot...not sure if that's compatible with Christian principles or not...but yeah, it would take one Amazing (presidential) Race to put a professed non-Christian in the White House.

[martin48]

A self-proclaimed atheist in the White House - that would be Heaven

[broncofan]

A self-proclaimed atheist in the White House - that would be Heaven
It's amazing how far away from this we are (at least I think). A few years ago I was talking to someone in a fairly liberal city. We got to talking about religion and I told him I'm an atheist. He paused and said, "that's so strange, you seem like such a nice person." I told him I think I am, that I still have a moral code and believe I can tell right from wrong.

He didn't say it stridently or angrily either. He said it as though he was puzzled that someone could be an atheist and not (insert description..I don't know what he expected an atheist to be). It was a big wake up call because in my own head I couldn't imagine it was a big deal that I don't believe in God.

[trish]

It's amazing how far away from this we are (at least I think). A few years ago I was talking to someone in a fairly liberal city. We got to talking about religion and I told him I'm an atheist. He paused and said, "that's so strange, you seem like such a nice person." I told him I think I am, that I still have a moral code and believe I can tell right from wrong.

He didn't say it stridently or angrily either. He said it as though he was puzzled that someone could be an atheist and not (insert description..I don't know what he expected an atheist to be). It was a big wake up call because in my own head I couldn't imagine it was a big deal that I don't believe in God.

Hi Bronco. Long time, no see. Missed you.

It does seem to be a common misconception that the behavior of atheists is unrestrained by any common notion of decency. It was cited in the Atomic Energy Commission’s report to Truman as an argument against negotiating a nuclear test ban treaty with the godless communists of the Soviet Union: being godless, they can't be trusted. (I recently read this in Building the H-Bomb by Kenneth Ford...though at the moment I can’t cite the page number).

Within the past year I had two personal experiences similar to yours. Once while having lunch with two colleagues (a Christian and a Muslim, both male, both U.S. citizens although the latter was born and raised in Iran during the Shah’s reign). Although both knew me and both trusted me on many occasions, neither felt my good behavior was compelled and expressed their belief that religion is necessary (for the general populace at least) to compel people to behave ethically and morally. On another occasion, at a garden party, an older Christian woman from Australia had expressed to me the same opinion, adding that my reasoning or any moral reasoning is unfounded if it doesn’t draw upon divine authority.

I grant that the foundation for my behavior (if I bothered to construct such an edifice) would be grounded in human empathy and shaped with reason; and I grant that human empathy pretty weak stuff. But in my opinion its the only stuff we got to work with.

[fred41]

I grant that the foundation for my behavior (if I bothered to construct such an edifice) would be grounded in human empathy and shaped with reason; and I grant that human empathy pretty weak stuff. But in my opinion its the only stuff we got to work with.

Empathy is THE most powerful reason, I believe, that a normal human being steers a (for the most part) straight course (plus most people just prefer following rules). Religion, for the majority, is just a psychologically imprinted and often, traditional set of beliefs.

...plus, when you really come down to it, isn't a true atheist more likely to try to avoid jail than a Catholic (for instance)?


empathy isn't weak stuff at all.
but you know that...;)

[broncofan]

I agree with both of your posts (even where you slightly disagree:)). And I was going to chastise the idea that people will only behave well when compelled, but isn't our penal system a secular endorsement of that principle (at least on average)?

Empathy is very powerful, but some people can be impaired in that regard, or deliberately cut themselves off from connecting with others. Ideas, particularly when they are based on incomplete information, can override our natural tendency to empathize, because they help us deny our bond with others. We don't owe any duty to anyone else if we convince ourselves they are not like us (are they communists, atheists, homosexuals, or women who wear short skirts?). I think sectarianism does a good job of enabling in-group bonding and creating rifts with everyone else.

Again, I don't deny that religion can promote optimism and a sense of community, but it comes at a serious cost because it allows for the judgment of others based on an artificial set of principles. Anyhow, I think empathy creates a good starting point for the use of logic. Empathy helps us understand the pain and joy of others by extrapolation. Logic can help us use that information to avoid the former and maximize the latter. But that makes it sound like collective happiness is the only worthwhile object?!

I miss you too Trish. I will be posting regularly in a couple of months but just reading and posting sporadically in the meantime.

[broncofan]

I realize I've strayed from the main subject out of exuberance. My point is, it would be nice if no candidate would be disqualified based on his or her religion or lack of belief. It's simply irrelevant as long as they understand the Constitution, are 35 years old, citizens and aren't related to Ron Paul.

[Stavros]

Hi Bronco. Long time, no see. Missed you.

It does seem to be a common misconception that the behavior of atheists is unrestrained by any common notion of decency. It was cited in the Atomic Energy Commission’s report to Truman as an argument against negotiating a nuclear test ban treaty with the godless communists of the Soviet Union: being godless, they can't be trusted. (I recently read this in Building the H-Bomb by Kenneth Ford...though at the moment I can’t cite the page number).



One of the interesting issues that emerges from this debate about a non-religious basis to ethics and values in society emerges when human rights are on the agenda. In the UK the new Conservative government is committed to repeal the Human Rights Act of 1998 which the Labour Government introduced as part of the Good Friday Agreement that ended the military conflict in Northern Ireland. It will not take on this challenge in this Parliament, but it may happen in the next 5 years.

Human Rights are not seen as having a foundation in Christianity but in the rational application of the law so that everyone in society can relate to rights based legislation regardless of their religious affiliation, if they have one. The law may be the closest expression 'Reason' comes to shaping modern politics in Europe and North America. And yet nothing seems to get 'the right' into a lather than Human Rights because of the troublesome fact that if human rights exist, every human has them, and that includes Al Capone, Adolf Hitler, and the assortment of al-Qaeda sympathisers in the UK who rang rings round the government because they had clever lawyers and because the law itself always contains ambiguities. A lot of people in Chicago knew what Al Capone was responsible for, but the law only caught up with him on tax evasion rather than racketeering; Hermann Goering and other top Nazi officials were prosecuted at Nuremburg, yet after 9/11 it seems the prospect of Human Rights giving mass murderers a respite from justice is being used to undermine Human Rights altogether, or runs the risk of doing so. Could Osama bin Laden have been arrested rather than assassinated? Was there enough evidence to convict him in a court of law in the state of New York, or Washington DC?

They used to say 'truth is the first casualty of war', and that may still be the case, but are we now entering a phase when 'human rights' are to be discarded because 'we' are so appalled by what 'they' are doing to us? Is this part of the reason why so many Black Americans never get to court -because they have been executed before they could state their case?

Is there a crisis in Human Rights, or were we naive to think that rights have been fundamental to our democracies?

[buttslinger]

I think I mentioned it before, I remember hearing about a social club in London made up of amateur philosophers who would meet and discuss or debate which words in red print of the New Testament were the actual words of Jesus, and which ones were added later by bored monks, or whatever.
"Give unto God what is God's...",....everybody agrees that's pure Jesus. What makes it better is that Jesus supposedly came up with it off the cuff when the guys he was talking to tried to cross him up by asking him" What about the Romans? Are we supposed to love them too?"
Here on planet Earth, the rights of Mankind change daily, but God's Heaven never changes. To me, loving your neighbor is a hurdle I'm not quite ready to jump just yet. I pretty much think God is indifferent toward the daily life of us mortals, if we can't keep up, so be it. Loving our neighbor, that is a personal step, a large step that instantly puts us a lifetime ahead of those who are preoccupied with whose rights are whose. Kind of like in the Wizard of Oz when they sing "We're out of the woods"
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether of not our neighbors are worthy of our love, it's more about if our love is worthy of God.
Lloyd's of London was formed when all the individual shipping companies decided it was good business to chip into an insurance company that could protect them all against ruinous storms. They were all equal partners. But what fueled all the shipping companies were PROFITS, that's the motivating principal that created them.
Obamacare is kind of like a Lloyds of London for American Healthcare, and the guys who make huge profits off sick people don't like it.
It is important that the LAW be in stone, clear and understandable, but that's about as far as you can go. There are lots of nice guys in jail. Nobody goes to their job to trade four quarters for a dollar, when you sell your used car it is understood you want the absolute most money you can get for it. Most people go to church on Sunday as kind of a RESET button from Saturday Night, when the Devil is at his wicked best and in control of your soul, as per your contact. Am I my brother's keeper?

[Stavros]

It seems incredible that Barack Obama is the first President to visit a Federal Prison. One wonders how close to the impact of policy making Presidents ever get, indeed, one wonders how many Senators or Congressional Representatives have seen the inside of the prisons to which so many of their fellow Americans are sent to live and die.

What is interesting perhaps, is that while many conservative critics fixated on foreign affairs see Obama has having abandoned the USA's commitments overseas -as if drone strikes and the bombing of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan were non-events and free of charge- maybe the question for Obama, and also his successor is how to fix a 'broken America' if the reality is not just the Prison system -or Prison Business as it should probably be called- but also the crumbling physical infrastructure of the country's roads, its bridges, its tunnels, its dams and so forth.

If even this 'domestic' Presidency has made little difference to the fabric of the country, how much more will the next one have to do, but will domestic policies be given the priority they deserve? Or it could just be that as I do not live in the USA I don't see the many things that have changed for the better....

[trish]

If even this 'domestic' Presidency has made little difference to the fabric of the country, how much more will the next one have to do, but will domestic policies be given the priority they deserve? Or it could just be that as I do not live in the USA I don't see the many things that have changed for the better....

It used to be that after the elections the parties would swallow their losses, shake hands and try to do their jobs with a modicum of cooperation. The political climate changed drastically with Newt Gingrich and Hastert. The two of them reinvented obstructionist politics. Today obstructionism is honed to a fine art. It doesn’t help that the conservative party has moved so far to the right they no longer believe that government has a role to play in anything other than the blockading and bombing of foreign nations who stubbornly refuse to see things our way.

I don’t see this changing anytime soon. Scott Walker, the relatively young, current governor of Wisconsin and presidential hopeful, essentially busted the public unions and cut back funding to public services. Billionaire Governor Rauner of Illinois is doing the same thing to Illinois. Transportation has been cut, schools have been cut, health services have been cut, grants for the maintainence of infrastructure have been canceled etc. There is a greater outflux of people to the rural sectors of the State than influx. Reality has dropped in value, rural businesses and towns are dying. But the austerity measures continue on the theory that businesses will be attracted by low taxes and a labor force desperate for jobs.

And so it goes.

[Stavros]

The longer that renovations or overhauls of facilities is delayed the more it costs. I get the impression that years of neglect mean that private capital alone can not do the job, hence the 'public private' initiatives that are discussed in the Brookings paper I have linked below. There is also a link to a White House paper on the Build America Investment Initiative of 2014, not sure what happened for the six years before that when Obama was in office. But if there are political problems in Congress (which the White House paper suggests scuppered one plan), you have a real long term problem because I don't see on available evidence any real change happening, certainly not if Mrs Clinton gets both the nomination and the White House, which with the pathetic Republican candidates as they are at present looks more and more possible.

Or it could also be that private capital, which in the 19th century built the railroads, and created the modern firms we know today but which were associated closely with individuals such as Carnegie, Rockefeller and Vanderbilt, has changed so much it sees more future in the investment incest in financial products rather than in bricks and mortar?

Brookings paper:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2014/12/17-infrastructure-public-private-partnerships-sabol-puentes

White House Fact Sheet:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/16/fact-sheet-increasing-investment-us-roads-ports-and-drinking-water-syste

[trish]

Maureen Dowd's most recent assessment in Sunday's NYT
http://nyti.ms/1VeSxJS

[Stavros]

Maureen Dowd's most recent assessment in Sunday's NYT
http://nyti.ms/1VeSxJS

Frankly pathetic. Nothing on the state of America's bridges, its roads, its railroads, its schools, and when it comes to prisons and I read this: he is now teaming with the Koch brothers, who have spent a fortune trying to kill his agenda, for a criminal justice overhaul. I wonder, are the Koch Brothers the people you go to to reform American's prisons? Are they really so indispensable to the workings of democracy? No mention of the USA's involvement in the currently futile attempt to bomb Daesh into oblivion, no attempt to work out if the USA is battering Daesh in support of the government in Damascus when two years it wanted to bomb the hell out of them..I grant Obama some successes, in a difficult environment and with a terrible legacy, but Dowd's piece was just excuses. You only need ponder the nightmare of a Clinton Presidency to realise what opportunities are currently being missed, though I suspect as you said in an earlier post, the tendency of Congress to stand in the way is as much a part of the problem. Disappointed, not least because we have been told in this last week that the Royal Air Force has been bombing Syria in spite of the fact that Parliament has not authorised it to do so, and David Cameron has said Daesh must be smashed, without saying how or how we will know when it happens it has been smashed, or what happens after that. I sometimes wonder if on the Middle East, Obama and Cameron think we, the people, are dimwits who can be told anything and we will believe it.

[buttslinger]

I'm getting old, .......
Maybe what's wrong with the middle east is THE MIDDLE EAST!!!
I think the British had the bright idea to bring the Jews to Israel when they were in Damascus after WWI.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, I guess.

I don't consider Obama a Lion, or a visionary from God, but after Bush/Cheney, a lawyer in the White House is 50 times better than a damn businessman. Obama talks for ten seconds then stops...........I guess because the average sound bite is 15 seconds. He seems to be on a pretty good roll, even with Republicans owning the other two branches of government.
Normally two terms means a switch in parties next White House term, but it looks like Hilary to me. (but that could be the Bush curse also) It's when a President is blatantly WRONG, the public screams for change, so I can understand Obama erring on the side of caution. We gotta get Scalia out of the Supreme Court.
All in all, I'm pretty satisfied, I'll give the Presidential critics 50 years or so to find out Obama's all star ranking. Obama wasn't just broke, he has been buried in debt, a poor American President can't do anything except enact some big Social Program like Social Security or Obamacare.
Probably after 16 years of Democratic peace and prosperity we'll be ready to invade the middle east again. The public will be sick of a woman on the rag and want a blood and guts Republican.