Links 5/5/12

Posted on by

Housewife asked to knit a spacesuit for NASA’s rubber chicken Daily Mail (May S)

Penguin p-p-p-picks up more votes than the Lib Dems Guardian (John L). Wonder if someone here will try running as a polar bear.

Yogurt diet leads to ‘swaggering’ mice with larger testicles Raw Story. This is a marketer’s wet dream.

First-of-its-kind study reveals surprising ecological effects of 2010 chile earthquake EarthSky (furzy mouse)

Judge says Facebook ‘like’ not protected by First Amendment Washington Post (martha r)

Secret Roast-Pork Recipe Tests Value of Real Estate Bloomberg. Another train wreck of a headline. Effective, though.

Syrian forces executing and burning residents of Idlib, Amnesty says and Inside Syria’s crackdown: ‘I found my boys burning in the street’ Guardian (John L)

Hollande Poll Lead Narrows With Sarkozy Closing in as Race Ends Bloomberg

Is LTRO QE in disguise? VoxEU

The Denial on Housing in Spain Credit Writedowns

France faces 40pc house price slump Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Telegraph

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Planned Parenthood Funding Ban Huffington Post

Feingold links Pelosi with Steny Hoyer for supporting Simpson-Bowles “Catfood” proposal AmericaBlog

Shale Gas Export Boom: Planned All Along? Firedoglake (Carol B)

Anaemic jobs data hit Obama launch Financial Times. I try to resist saying “I told you so…” so forgive me (more from Lambert below on the political tooth-gnashing).

Reasons Abound for Ebb in Job Growth New York Times

US should return stolen land to Indian tribes, says United Nations Guardian

How retiring makes the unemployed happier VoxEU

Discrepancies on Medical Bills Can Leave a Credit Stain New York Times

UBS Loses Bid to Block Fannie, Freddie Suits Wall Street Journal

National Mortgage Settlement Expires In 2015, Banks Battling To Keep Reforms From Becoming Permanent Huffington Post. This is beyond pathetic.

Montreal students stage nearly-nude protest Montreal Gazette (Lambert)

Cops Caught Mass Drugging Teens And Dropping Them At Occupy Minnesota Alexander Higgins (Walter Mit Man, ohmyheck)

Occupied Oakland’s May Daze Truthout (Lambert)

Occupy pledges to ‘un-Frieze’ art fair Financial Times

Can the Colleges Be Saved? New York Review of Books

* * *

D – 126 and counting*

“I am not willing that the vitality of our people be further sapped by the giving of cash, of market baskets, of a few hours of weekly work cutting grass, raking leaves or picking up papers in the public parks. “ –FDR SOTU, 1935

Unemployment: The world’s most frightening chart is still frightening. Izvestia: “A robust recovery continues to elude the White House”. Robama’s campaign office at the Council of Economic Advisors: “The economy is continuing to heal.” Robama blames somebody else; in this case, Congress, and tries to make lowering student loan interest a job creating measure.

Unemployment: Dueling benchmarks; have they changed? Romney’s 4% is aspirational. (And what’s wrong with that?) The Atlantic sets the “politically-important” benchmark at 8% (Just like 2010). Felix Salmon: “When more than half a million people in one month decide that they’re not even going to bother looking for work any more, there’s no way you can say you’re in a healthy recovery.” DeLong agrees. The Rs blast Robama’s unemployment record from a call center in Manila.

My take: It’s not unemployment, but DISemployment; the most frightening chart in world shows that Robama has successfully achieved a new normal where far fewer people have work (except in System D). Further, since actions speak louder than words, this is the preferred policy of the elite and both legacy parties, or they would have done something about it. FDR created 15 million jobs during his administration. He also created the WPA by executive order. Robama could do the same thing tomorrow, same as he can whack U.S. citizens without due process. He doesn’t, because he thinks other things are more important: Among them, keeping people desperate to find and keep work, which keeps wages low, profits high, and enables the banksters to keep seizing people’s homes as they fail to able to afford them. Just saying.

“Clooney’s Obama fundraiser expected to collect record $12 million”. Bainster Ed Conard (shredded by Yves here) was the headline-making million-dollar anonymous contributor to Obomney Super PAC. WSJ claims Robama tries to intimate Obomney contributors. (And indeed, “most of them are scared stiff”.) Ron Paul benefits the least from Super PACs.

Returning to Bloomberg’s Carlson’s claim that Obama can’t be swift-boated, Yves’s exclusive shows that’s not so. Whatever happened to the fine art of oppo? Surely it was and is possible to send a film crew to Grove Parc, and get at least one tenant on video about the vermin and the no-heat calls? Exactly as on the issues, tactical decisions are now made in a very narrow, a trivially narrow range. The party that impeached Bill Clinton over a blow-job can’t get it together to show community organizer Obama’s tenants freezing in rat-infested quarters? WTF?

Ron Paul supporters hope to take over the ME GOP. The Green’s Jill Stein attends May Day rally in Gainesville, FL. And I bet Elizabeth Warren can’t believe what’s happening to her with the Cherokee ancestry thing. Politics ain’t beanbag, even if it is kabuki.

— Horse race-related tips, links, hate mail to lambert

* 126 days ’til the Democratic National Convention ends with a Dinner At Trimalchio’s in Bank of America Stadium, Charlotte, NC. Those who go out weeping, carrying seed to sow,will return with songs of joy, carrying sheaves with them (Ps 126). Cross-posted to Corrente.

Antidote du jour:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. kingbadger

    Big balls are a painful liability. Any man will be able to attest to this.

      1. Comment

        Soy is a testosterone blocker and estrogen enhancer. So perhaps it would have the opposite effect?

  2. dearieme

    I say, I say, I say, why do firemen have bigger balls than policemen?

    I don’t know, why do firemen have bigger balls than policemen?

    Because they sell more tickets.

    1. craazyman

      I had to think about that one for a while, after recovering my composure from the shock of seeing such ostensibly ribald humor on a family-safe web site. But then I got it.

  3. dearieme

    “probing discrimination against Native Americans”: but it can get you a comfortable berth at Harvard Law.

  4. Jessica

    Big balls: Among primates, when most of the mating is done only by the alpha male (=harem), then the males are much larger than the females but their genitals are not large.
    If each female mates with any and all males when they come into heat, then the male’s balls are large because the competition among males is not through fighting, but sperm competition after intercourse.
    If the females pick their mates, then the males have proportionally larger penises.
    Compared to other primates, human males are nearly the same size as females and relative to body size, have the largest penises of any species.
    Not sure how (if) this actually relates to anything, but it is more useful information than you will get from Izvestia or Pravda at least.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      Lucky for the rich, reproductive success can be greatly enhanced with wealth.

    2. Procopius

      “…more useful information than you will get from Izvestia or Pravda at least.” You really should take a look at, Russia Today. I’m especially fond of The Alyone Show. Every talking head on American cable could learn from watching her do interviews, but then, come to think of it, they aren’t paid to even be entertaining, just to get the talking points out there. Have you noticed that for a while some people were referring to the New Your Times as “Izvestia on the Hudson,” and the Washington Post as “Pravda on the Potomac.” I like Dean Baker’s usage, WaPo is “Fox on Fiftenth Street.”

      1. Lambert Strether

        I think identifying WaPo and The World’s Greatest Newspaper (not!) with “controlled state media” is important. Since, after all, that’s what they are, even if the control operates a little more subtly than it did in the other decaying imperial, multinational, and multilingual police state of continental scope.

        So “Fox on 15th” is a nice jab, but lacks that functionality.

        1. Anonymous Jones

          I find it probable that not too many examples exist of mass media that are not influenced by the political system and environment in which such mass media operate.

          What you have, as in most things, is a continuum. It ranges from almost no influence and control (cannot even think of an example at this end) to total influence and control (where the state actually owns the desks and is the day-to-day de jure boss in a carefully constructed and documented chain of command – USSR).

          The idea that WaPo is all the way at the end of that continuum so as to approach the state-owns-the-desks-and-writes-the-check Pravda is, I’m sorry, not credible. Not in the least. In fact, not only is it not credible but it outs the person making the claim as having serious cognitive issues. That’s just the way it is. I’m really sorry, but with all due respect, it leads me to believe you have lost your mind. Using hyperbole to make a point is one thing, but you say this so often that I’ve come to think that you actually believe this.

          I get that you don’t like the amount of influence. I don’t either. I get that these papers have become dumping ground for PR stories from the political parties, Apple, and banks. But degree is important. 85Fahrenheit is hot. 115Fahrenheit is hotter. And it’s a distinction that can make a profound difference. All distinctions can, but in my example, a lot more people die in the latter amount of heat, but it doesn’t mean the former is anything like 20 below just because less people die from heat stroke than in the latter. Learning the difference between degrees and suppressing one’s hysterical response to anger-inducing activity by WaPo or NYT would probably end with you not looking so foolish, but as reality dictates, you have the ability to clown it up as much as you want.

          1. Ed

            I just rechecked and Pravda was not owned by the government of the Soviet Union. It was the newspaper of the Communist Party. Izvestia was owned by the Soviet Union. People outside the Soviet system understandably get them confused. The purpose of Pravda, or “Truth”, literally was to publish the party line, it was never intended to be the newspaper of record. Izvestia, or “News” was supposed to be a news source and the propeganda was dialed down compared to Pravda.

            The point is that the Communist Party and the government in the Soviet Union were intertwined, so people don’t make a distinction between them. But arguably corporations in the United States and the government are intertwined too, maybe as much as the Communist Party and the state was in the Soviet Union. Mainstream media outlets in the U.S. are either owned by large corporations or are large corporations in their own right.

            The main difference as I see it is in the treatment of samizdat; I can obviously make this sort of comment on an American blog in 2012, but doing something similar today in China would be out of the question.

          2. lambert strether

            Anonymous Jones: Let’s not be tediously literal. Of course WaPo isn’t exactly like Pravda or even Al Ahram. Except when push comes to shove — like, say, when the Bush administration faked the WMDs, or Bill Keller held back James Risen’s story on Bush’s warrantless surveillance until after Bush was safely re-elected.

            And our system of press control is far more efficient and effective than the creaky old Soviet system: Lots of the censorship is simply internal; witness the lack of coverage of huge demos in Montreal, and on and on and on. And on matters like coverage accounting control fraud by the big banks, our famously free press is positively Goebbelsian.

            Ed: Yes. It’s a trope, only partially isomorphic to real relations. Pravda on the Potomac is superior from the standpoint of euphony and mnenomics, so probably that’s why the usage become established.

            NOTE Am I the only one who regards a complete lack of irony and or sense of fun as having “serious cognitive issues”? I hope not!

            UPDATE Maybe I was sloppy with the word “identifying.” I don’t mean, literally, they are identical. I mean that they share, particularly around issues of power and and trustworthiness, similar characteristics that I wish to bring to the forefront of reader’s minds. Calling Bush or for that matter Obama “Dear Leader” is a similar trope.

        2. chitown2020

          I thought so Lambert until I discovered they screen their comments. They are not being completely honest either. They are stifling free speech.

          1. chitown2020

            If you talk about the Vatican or the Rothschilds they wont allow that. Things that make you go hmmm… ???

  5. jim3981

    Drugging the Occupiers by police with meth or coke,and dropping the protesters off at occupy, seems like an attempt to set of a riot or something.

    Trying to set off Arab spring american style?

    1. LeonovaBalletRusse

      Meth and cocaine are addictive substances that change the brain and nervous system permanently, through the creation of permanent dependency to maintain the “new normal” or to suffer the deprivation/misery without the substance. The police accomplish their purpose through a de facto “invasive procedure”–which even in the medical field is illegal without the consent of the person subject to invasion.

      Was the “addicting” of the Occupiers done without their consent? If not, then the “administrators of the security bureaucracy” are guilty of “forced injection” or of “forced feeding”–both being “invasive procedures which breach the integrity of the human body. This is why brutal “forced feeding” in conjunction with forced ingestion of laxatives by prisoners under the Bush-Yoo doctrine was not only “torture” by “invasive procedure” without consent.

      But, then, isn’t this just confirmation that The Opium Wars against China have been brought to the Homeland, the Crown Colony?

      1. F. Beard

        Meth and cocaine are addictive substances that change the brain and nervous system permanently, LeonovaBalletRusse

        No, I don’t believe that. The brain is able to re-wire itself or at least God is able to re-wire it.

        As for addictions, people often give them up spontaneously. From what I have read that is the most common recovery route.

        1. LeonovaBalletRusse

          F.B, a fine expert in this field, Gabor Mate, M.D. would disagree with you.

          1. F. Beard

            Doctors, those fine professionals that used to go from autopsies to vaginal inspections of poor pregnant women without first washing their hands? Killing a large percentage of them with infections?

            Nature and life is continually amazing scientists. The brains can and does re-wire itself even though that was once considered impossible.

        2. chitown2020

          The hidden hand is the real cause of all of our problems. They have us brainwashed into blaming ourselves and others for what they have caused. There should be no poverty in any nation….none. They have hijacked our wealth, our natural resources, our homes, businesses, our livelihoods, our minds with lies and deceptions .. Globalization is a fraud. Their pyramid scheme with our tax money, fake money lending, fraudulent debt creation off of our birth certificates ….their global credit scam, unnecessary wars and so on have hijacked our freedom and independence. They label us loons and racists for pointing them out. When they are the psychopathic control freaks. By manufacturing our demise they are creating their own. Their own greed destroys them every time.

        3. Yves Smith Post author

          Meth is a big gay club drug, and I happen to know a couple of people who have had serious meth habits. You don’t give it up spontaneously. The one I know who got clean found it enormously difficult to do so (it is a performance enhancer of all sorts, cognitively as well as in other areas; meth is chemically equivalent to Adderal with a “methyl” attached, CH3, which drives it deeper into the brain. You sleep 15 days straight when you quit, no joke). He had one period where he was off it for a while, and now has been off for years (I don’t keep count closely, but I think at least 6).

          And his brain shows the effects in Xrays, BTW.

          1. F. Beard

            I used Meth a few times and was able to give it up without clinical help. Later, I was diagnosed with ADD and got 60mg of Dexedrine a day for it for several YEARS. The effect was very similar (no surprise, they are both amphetamines) to the Meth. I gave up the Dexedrine about three years ago on my own and haven’t used stimulants since.

            I also gave up MAOIs spontaneously after decades of use. Talk about the depression afterwards!

            I’m not saying the quiting was easy but it took little will power to make the initial move ONCE I seriously got tired of a drug. But it was MY personal decision and that’s why I was able to do it.

          2. Maximilien

            @Yves: “You don’t give [meth] up spontaneously.”

            I don’t know much about meth but I do know a little about crack. Crack addicts almost never give up spontaneously. They only quit when they run out of money. If they can keep the money coming in from whoring or pimping or stealing, they tend to keep using it until they die from it.

            Now, crack might be a special case, but I think this applies to many addictions including alcoholism. Often the process of “reaching bottom” involves running out of money and ways of getting money. Most serious addicts in my experience and observation don’t choose to quit; they are forced to quit. And lack of money is the #1 reason.

      2. Up the Ante

        “Meth and cocaine are addictive substances that change the brain and nervous system permanently, through the creation of permanent dependency to maintain the “new normal” ..”

        Give them some Ibogaine, they’ll be fine.

        “But, then, isn’t this just confirmation that The Opium Wars against China have been brought to the Homeland, the Crown Colony? ”

        Ahh, yes, the true Great Game.

          1. F. Beard

            When the cocaine blew out the open convertible top, I almost quit reading! What a bummer!

    2. Walter Wit Man

      The stated purpose of “observing” the subjects high on drugs seems like bullshit to me.

      One of the young protesters said how the police gave him a bag of weed and tried to recruit them to be snitches. They were pumping the young protesters for information.

      Also, it could be to entrap the kids or create profiles of them. They all basically incriminated themselves and told the police their drug habits and other things.

      They could be dropping the kids off high hoping they cause problems . . . but I would think they would use different drugs than pot for this purpose and the heroine user wasn’t given heroine but offered marijuana.

      I’m guessing this was more of an effort to get information or snitches or find malleable people that can be convinced into plots like the Ohio bridge plot.

  6. Richard Kline

    The Lib Dems over there have no excuse for continued existence. I’m surprised anyone voted for them other than their spouses. That crowd betrayed everyone who voted for them on the instant they went into government with the wrong partner, and have been no more than toilet paper for the Conservatives since that day. Even by the standards of contemporary electoral politics, which have to look up to see ants’ ankles these days, the Lib Dems are airless fifth wheels.

    1. craazyman

      I don’t know Richard. When I think extra-marital antics of headline liberal dems over the years — Clinton, Edwards, Anthony Weiner, etc. — I’d be shocked if their spouses voted for them. bowhahah. I wonder if Hillary voted for Dole. haha. God knows how Anthony Weiner stayed married. And his wife is pretty hot too! She’d win the lottery on eHarmony. But I guess she had Hillary as a psychiatrist.

      1. Lambert Strether

        I’m leery of the distinctions implicit in “extra-marital antics of headline liberal dems,” but and not to defend the Ds. My model is more that they all do “it” (for some definition of it) beause power really is an aphrodiasiac. Only some are not so much caught but revealed, and the revelation is done for whatever opportunistic reasons present themselves.

        * * *

        For example, it was useful to take down Eliot Spitzer for patronizing ladies of negotiable affection. But we’ve also got the Cartagena affair, where it looks to me like the entire Secret Service is seeking out “camp followers” as a matter of routine, just like any imperial garrison would.

        But surely anybody in Washington who takes the trouble to find out such things (like the 18 separate intelligence agencies, any reporter with a rolodex of any size, all the oppo researchers on and off staff of the major political parties, private intel agencies like Strator, and the small business owner/operators who manage this particular service economy) knows what the score is, and has known about the Secret Service, Spitzer, Vitter, and many many others for a long time. But all these sources talk about what they know only when it’s useful to do so. “Useful” to a news organization can be anything from disinformation (WMDs, Whitewater) to misinformation (the economy) to actual newsgathering prompted by profit (ratings) or the relative autonomy of editors (the recent story on WalMart) or even reportial integrity (some of the coverage on Katrina or Dan Rather on Bush and the national guard).

        Discernment isn’t so easy…

        1. craazyman

          Im just cracking myself up. I don’t understand the secret service thing. i mean, If I were a dude in my 20s or early 30s down in Columbia around all that beer and hot women willing to do some business, I sure as hell wouldn’t abstain. How can anyone reasonably expect a red-blooded American guy with a gun license to restrain themselves. I say keep these dudes on ice for a month or two and then let them back in but don’t tell anybody, and no passing out drunk afterward next time or they’ll find themselves guarding Newt Gingrich.

          1. reslez

            So, it’s perfectly cool that First World men refused to pay the Third World prostitute after enjoying her services? You seem to be missing the point. Their actions reveal a very ugly Imperialist and male sense of entitlement.

        2. reslez

          The whole reason men pursue power is to attract women by gaining status. To imagine any man is above this sort of thing is ridiculous, particularly the ones motivated to go to the lengths a career in politics requires. Men do it and know it goes on, they just don’t talk about it until it gains them advantage.

          1. craazyman

            they certainly do, but women are equally involved. Not sure if you saw Mr. Kervick’s post about the Zero Bound, but he described a situation where a well-regarded female philanthropist who fancied herself as a humanist and liberal fell on hard times financially and decided to pimp out one former benefactee of her largesse, a woman she had been supporting with grant money so the woman, Carlie, could build bird sculptures out of milk cartons and exhibit them in galleries where photographers and socialites were present for wine parties. When Abbie, the philanthropist, was confronted with her moral fall from grace she refused to acknowlege it, and saw herself as a victim, and her pimping out of Carlie as a way of continuing her financial support as best she could. She refused to accept the fact that pimping out Carlie, while taking an egregious cut of the fee, was hateful behavior. Whether she knew that inside, in her heart, is a mystery. But outwardly she exploded in rage if her integrity were questioned. I don’t know how to get through to someone like that. But they’re all over the place, male and female, white and black and red. It’s almost like a sky full of birds.

      2. LeonovaBalletRusse

        Political wives assess which side their bread is buttered on, and act accordingly.

      3. different clue

        I think Richard Kline is talking about the GB LibDems specifically. I could be wrong though.

        1. bmeisen

          Thank you – what a goofy spin on a comment. RK is talking about Lib Dems in the UK.

  7. burnside

    Startled to discover I couldn’t finish the NYRB higher education piece – far too many erroneous or quaintly simplified assumptions proposed in the exordium for me to place any value whatever on the terminus.

    1. bmeisen

      Agreed – barely informative and barely informed. For example GRafton dismisses writers “who argue that the college premium in wages is overrated” because they thereby argue “that higher education has become a strange ghost world.” He then begins his own narrative of American higher ed’s current economic crisis with Prop 13 in CA and the abandonment of the notion that higher ed is a “public good”.

      Some Libertarian exotics may reject the college premium argument as a veiled attack on personal Freedom. But the argument against higher ed as a public good is ultimately the college premium argument: that the individual, not the commonweal, is the direct benefactor of education, that education is first and foremost a personal choice and produces benefits that the individual enjoys directly. According to the college premium argument, the public good benefits from education indirectly as a trickle down effect of the individual exercising her free choice, becoming productive in the free market and accumulating wealth which may be taxed or, even better, donated.

      This is a disasterous scenario for democratic society. The US is experiencing the disaster today. Grafton can not defend the college premium argument from criticism and then generate an analysis of the current crisis from a rejection of the common good argument.

      As expected Grafton goes on to ignore the salient feature of American higher ed today: that it has become an elite system in which even the public universities strive to join the circle of almost exclusively private institutions that have a strangle hold on what has become the higher education “market”. Using the preferred terminology, the key to their dominance is pricing power.

      The usefulness of the book under review remains unclear. GRafton has a mixed opinion of Delbanco’s effort, though he ends by praising its “humanity”. Na ja.

  8. Richard Kline

    Lambert: “party that impeached Bill Clinton over a blow-job can’t get it together to show community organizer Obama’s tenants freezing in rat-infested quarters? WTF?” It’s cheaper to propagate outright lies, a la ‘He isn’t born in . . .’ Seriously, fact-based actions are comletely antithetical to operative methodology amongst the Repugnicants. Stooping to mere facts wouldn’t merely confuse them, it would throw them off their game.

    If I was watching all this from Mars, it would be terribly amusing. Barricaded in a 4th floor studio with A Thousand Clowns with Live Rounds packing the hallways and sidewalks, I don’t have too many yucks to spare. We need revolution sooner not later; at least it will be better theater.

    1. BDBlue

      And, too, I’d bet the elite who run the GOP care much more about blow jobs than they do poor people living in bad housing. Perhaps what Obama did in Chicago isn’t so much a scandal as an accomplishment, so why would they hit him on it?

      1. Lambert Strether

        Who said the Rs “cared” about poor people?* You don’t have to care about poor people to make a video about a community organizer whose constituency lives in freezing rat infested housing. Especially if you put the whole thing in a “big government” frame. All you have to care about is oppo.

        Now, if you want to say that this isn’t a fit topic for oppo, that’s, yes, that tactics take place within very narrow bounds.

        1. different clue

          What if the Rs are under secret orders to throw the election to Obama? If they were, they certainly would not make a good Oppo Video about this subject.

          I remember a Mike Ruppert quote from 2008: “the Republicans are trying to throw the election like it was a flaming bobcat on meth.”

    2. LeonovaBalletRusse

      RK, Republicans hate him already. It’s the Dems–especially those who lost their homes, jobs, and pensions through Master Class embezzlement, fraud, and theft–who need to see these facts about Obama advertised continually on billboards, in print, on TV, radio, the Internet, and on cell phones.

      Or will we, like voters of Louisiana forced to chose between David Duke and Edwin Edwards, advertise the slogan: “Vote for the crook. It’s important.”

      MUST the Dems choose to “Vote for the crook?”

      I’d like to hear the response of Toni Morrison and Nell Irvin Painter to this revelation about the “REAL Barack Obama.” Does Barack Obama do justice to the tortured black man in America and to the women who did so much to “raise him up” from his degraded status as a slave in America? Isn’t Obama rather the epitome of the sleazy duplicitous crook, the morally reprehensible Uncle Tom on the Take who is the Enemy of His People while posing as their Model of Excellence if not their Savior? In light of the facts, isn’t Obama the epitome of Enemy of the 99%–the White Master Class–the “people of no mercy,” of shameless deceit and hypocrisy, of despicable immorality, who have made life hell for those of African descent in America since Colonial times? This is “Louisiana Politics” on steroids, bringing the USA to ignominy.

      The facts reveal Obama to be an abysmal disgrace. He has brought egregious dishonor to the People of Color with whom he claims to identify–those who have risen honorably from the ashes of American Slave status to great heights of dignity and accomplishment. Will our honorable descendants of slaves permit this Johnny-come-lately Usurper of Kenyan birth to dishonor their hard-won gains as honorable citizens of the United States? Can we the marks who voted him into office now get rid of him without delay? Fight!

      I was completely conned by Obama & Co., and fought hard for his triumph. In four years I have seen his stripes, and recognize by his deeds that he is a profiteering fraud, a shameless liar and master deceiver of the People, an arch traitor to the Democrats, to democracy, and to We the People; a “Destroyer of Worlds” through subversion/destruction of our Laws and our Constitution.

      We now know that Obama and Romney are cast as candidates for President and Commander in Chief at “Puppet Central” to serve a “foreign power”–a .01%+.99%Agency power foreign to our Constitution and to We the People of the United States of America. What CAN We do about this? What WILL We?

    3. Jim

      I’m certain Romney will focus group test the story, and if it impacts voters, he’ll wait until September to launch the ads in key states. Why do it now, thereby inoculating the President by November.

  9. JTFaraday

    “US should return stolen land to Indian tribes, says United Nations”

    Now they tell us.

    1. Externality

      Perhaps he wants to make sure Elizabeth Warren has someplace to live.


      Seriously, her adopting a Native American ancestry for employment purposes while having a quintessentially WASPish name and Nordic appearance, being (at most) 1/32 Native American, and having no cultural or legal connection to any tribe is beyond ridiculous.

      1. Dan B

        …but it is an advantage in applying for jobs in academia as the university gets to check the affirmative action hire box. In fairness, maybe Warren wants her heart buried at Wounded Knee.

    2. different clue

      Well, of course we should. And the Japanese should return stolen Ainu land to the Ainus, and the AngloSaxons should restore stolen Cornish land to the Cornishmen, and the Chinese should restore stolen Tibetan land to the Tibetans, and the Australians should restore stolen Aboriginal land to the Aborigines, and on and on and on.
      But will we? Or will they? Or will anyone?

    3. Up the Ante

      “Now they tell us. ”

      And that’s only what they’ll tell us, what they tell them will be quite another.

  10. F. Beard

    “I am not willing that the vitality of our people be further sapped by the giving of cash, of market baskets, of a few hours of weekly work cutting grass, raking leaves or picking up papers in the public parks. “ –FDR SOTU, 1935 [emphasis added]

    And this guy is a hero?

    He sounds like an elite cattle owner concerned about the health of his cattle rather than justice for the American people. Cash was exactly what was needed in the US as WWII later proved (very expensively in lives and material).

    What a spectacle when Democrats try to behave like Republicans!

    1. Ned Ludd

      FDR is a liberal hero. Liberals see working people in the same way that a prosperous cattle owner sees their cattle – treat them well and they will produce more. Treat them poorly and they will produce less and become hard to handle.

    2. Lambert Strether

      Well argued! And I’m a supporter of Atrios’s slogan “Give us the money!” (Ahthough this does show that Obama’s not even a liberal.

      But I’m not such a supporter of begging, which is how I interpret this. I don’t regard it as a positive good. (Blegging is a different matter, I suppose…) That’s not the same as a debt jubilee.

      1. F. Beard

        Who’s begging? Credit creation cheats debtors and non-debtors alike. People should be DEMANDING that the system be abolished and the entire population bailed out till ALL credit debt is paid off.

        If it comes to begging, it will be “Let’s do this peacefully folks; there is no need for violence or suffering.”

  11. financial matters

    Will be interesting to see what comes out in the wash here… The problems were the cause rather than attributable to the recession. Sophisticated may give them too much credit but complicit may not be far off the mark… And again where do we find the money to bail them out while pushing austerity on the 99%?

    UBS Loses Bid to Block Fannie, Freddie Suits Wall Street Journal

    “”Fannie and Freddie were “sophisticated participants” in the mortgage market and their losses “are attributable to the deepest recession in 75 years,” said a UBS spokesman in a statement. The company “remains confident in its defenses to the claims in the complaint.”

    Fannie and Freddie were taken over by the U.S. government 3½ years ago and the FHFA was named as the conservator for the failed mortgage titans. Taxpayers are on the hook for nearly $150 billion that is been used to fund continued operations.

    The mortgage companies typically buy loans from originators and package them into securities that they then sell to investors. But during the past decade, Fannie and Freddie increasingly bought top-rated pieces of higher-yielding securities that they didn’t package and that instead were issued by their Wall Street competitors.””

    1. LeonovaBalletRusse

      fm, didn’t Fannie write the computer program at the dark heart of MERS?

      1. financial matters

        FORECLOSURES, MERS, AND STINKY WOODPILES .. by Marilyn M Barnewell

        “”Then, late last week another announcement was made. Schneiderman filed suit against Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo because they created and used a private national mortgage electronic registry system called MERS. He said the three banks acted as “MERS certifying officers.” So did 20,000 others, Mr. Schneiderman. As I noted in my article 18 months ago, just about anyone could become a “certifying officer” for MERS. Are you going to file against them?

        You can read my article series, Mortgage Mayhem and MERS, Hot Tubs and the FBI written 18 months ago. Go here. Welcome to the world of MERS and other mortgage fraud Mr. Schneiderman. What took you so long?

        In a statement about the suit filed against three of the banks involved with the creation and use of MERS, Schneiderman said “The banks created the MERS system as an end-run around the property recording system, to facilitate the rapid securitization and sale of mortgages.” Schneiderman is absolutely right, but I wonder why he left other names of the creators of MERS out – names like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Will he be going after them, too?””


        “”It will ease your mind to know that Freddie and Fannie are part owners of the MERS system. MERS’s Legal services companies produce documents needed for foreclosure. It appears those documents often have forged signatures. One guy at a foreclosure mill “legal service” admitted to forging over 10,000 documents.

        Investors all over the world are trying to reclaim their losses from mortgage-backed derivatives gone bad. They file suit against the brokerage house that sold the worthless derivative. The brokerage house (or insurance company) files suit against companies that sold them the mortgages in the worthless derivatives. Thus, your home on which the payments are current, may be foreclosed because foreign investors are suing brokers who created derivatives that got fried – and your mortgage was part of the package.””

        1. LeonovaBalletRusse

          fm, these defendants are named in the suit brought by the Louisiana Clerks of Court in a “roundabout” way. Find the text at blog site of Matthew Weidner, Esq:

          The suit points to the smoking guns.

          1. financial matters

            Thanks leonova. The scale of the fraud is mind boggling and every little bit of discovery helps…


            Time to Audit the Remic Trusts

            L. Randall Wray
            December 23, 2010

            “”Every top management official of all the biggest dozen banks, plus everyone at MERS, all officers of every servicer, rater, appraiser, accounting firm, and mortgage broker ought to be investigated for fraud. In the aftermath of the thrift crisis, 1852 bank insiders were prosecuted and 1072 were jailed. So far in this much bigger crisis there have been only 50 criminal probes and 80 civil lawsuits authorized by FDIC. It is time to get serious about the home thieves.””

  12. Ep3

    Yves, I have a thought that concerns me. In regards to evolution, we often see in nature one version of a species will dominate another (the 4 legged lion grows strong while the 3 legged lion dies off for many reasons). We may see things and say “from our perspective, 3 legs seem smarter than 4 yet 4 dominates”. And eventually, no more 3 legged lions. Well, since human beings are also products of evolution, then wouldn’t certain groups be subject to this 3 vs. 4. And maybe that was a bad example. But, let me ask this question, how many subgroups of humans (I think specifically to the Neanderthal) have died out that we know of? We thought that they just couldn’t survive winters or whatever. But new evidence is coming out that maybe Neanderthals died from both absorption and killing by a different group of humans, mostly those migrating from Africa. So, wouldn’t this be a form of evolution?
    Which leads me to present day. What happened to the native American? Absorbed and exterminated by european white men. So I wonder are these capitalist WASPs just another form of evolution? I am not saying they are right and should be the dominate form. But nature doesn’t do things cuz they are right. We don’t really know why she does it the way she does. And pardon me for interjecting some form of higher power. Maybe things have to be a little ugly now so that in 3000 years, things won’t be ugly. Again, I don’t think it’s right. I just want to know the bigger picture.

    1. Procopius

      I am not a biologist, so maybe I am getting this wrong, but as I understand it the phrase “different species” is supposed to mean groups of animals that cannot successfully mate together. So current paleontologists call one group “hominids” and claim they were two or three different species, also different species from homo sapiens sapiens, and that Neanderthals were a different species from Cro Magnon Man. If in fact they were able to mate with humans, wouldn’t that just mean that there was a mistake in classification and they were not in fact different species? After all, there can be enormous variation within a species, as demonstrated by dogs (chihuahua is same species as rotweiller)or pigeons (variation is amazing — it used to fascinate Darwin). So the disappearance of these “hominids” and Neanderthals and other non-Cro Magnon body types may just mean a lessening of the variation in our species. So it’s not a case of their genes being added to ours by absorption, but that those were human genes all along. Many years ago I found a paleontology web site that promised to explain the evidence for evolution, starting with teaching how to identify all the bones of a skull and how to tell the difference between an ape and a human skull; I’ve been looking for it for several years now, but it seems not to exist any more. Too bad, that kind of thing would be very useful to me, but probably wouldn’t generate a lot of page hits for advertising purposes.

      1. ArchLover

        Take a moment to consider where these terms come from. People created these divisions; they are meant to imply a certain boundedness that our brains seems to appreciate. While in a relative sense, the definition of a species comes down to groups that cannot interbreed and have successful progeny (many closely related species can interbreed but will have infertile offspring), the reality is that this boundary is blurred, and scientists are well aware of it (e.g. evidence of coyotes and wolves breeding together in the wild, or polar bears and grizzly bears). There isn’t really an agreed upon definition of species in biology – instead a more useful concept of species is the idea of an interbreeding population in nature. This helps clarify the idea that many different species can successfuly interbreed, but in nature generally don’t.

        A great explanation of where our definitions of species have come from, and how they have evolved, is again in Ernst Mayr, What Evoultion Is (specifically, Chapter 8, The Units of Diversity: Species; the next chapter is then about Speciation).

        Now come back to divisons of humans and hominids and think about what they are based on. It is inferences of population relationships based almost solely on skeletons, and for hominids, these are not even whole skeletons. This means there is a lot of disagreement about where to draw species and genus divisions (a genus is based on groups that are believed to share the same ancestry); this disagreement is reflected in constantly shifting naming patterns that don’t make their way to the popular media.

        Classifications of different hominid and homo genuses/species are usually based on a type skeleton, through which paleontologists construct estimates of variation; skeletons that fit within the characteristics and variation set out are then classified as a similar species. Again, this is difficult to do based on the size of hominid populations, how rarely skeletons fossilize, and the often small numbers of skeletal elements that such designations must be based on. Hence, lots of vitriolic disagreement within the field and in academic publications.

        Disagreements about lineage do have implications for “losing” or “adding” genes, but realistically, genes between homo species or hominids are not all that different to begin with; these differences are going to be quite small at the start, and will ultimately be more based on how particularly genes are expressed and the implications that has for survival and reproduction.

        If you’re interested in some more background on disagreements in hominid classification, The Wisdom of the Bones: In Search of Human Origins is good read, and the authors talk about their disagreements with the Homo habilis designation. In the book overall, the authors go a bit overboard with some of their statements (so read with a grain of salt – it’s also a bit old now, being published in 1997), but it does provide a good description of how researchers construct their designations and argue for new species, or collapse separate “species” back down into one (i.e. splitting or lumping.

    2. Comment

      What was done to the Native Americans was not done by ‘Nature’. The ‘new-comers’ destroyed the environments/Eco-systems that the natives lived in harmony with for the express purpose of destroying the natural economy that sustained and supported them for hundreds or thousands of years, so that the new-comers could have free-reign without competition.

      Perhaps it could be called something like human-nature. But even that is not entirely accurate, lest we forget that the natives were/are also human and lived by an entirely different form of human nature.

      Those who came to conquer did so, but that is not attributable to nature, but to a personality type, I reckon.

      1. ArchLover

        Please read some history, and perhaps some more recent ecological theory. As many researchers understand environments currently, they are never in “balance.” The are constantly shifting and in flux. Saying that Native peoples were in “harmony” or “balance” with their natural environment is a dangerous statement as well, which can do just as much harm to current Native peoples. It relies on the idea of the “noble savage,” a theme that is often brought up against Native peoples today, as a way of arguing that they are somehow less “legitimate.” Your statement also implies a troubling lack of agency among Native peoples; as if European domination was inevitable and Native groups simply crumbled in the face of the colonial onslaught.

        None of this to say that what European colonists (Russian too) did was somehow benign; it’s a terrible history that this country has yet to fully appreciate or even attempt to come to terms with. However, real life is a bit more messy and complicated.

    3. LeonovaBalletRusse

      Ep3 go the Truth-out website and search recent articles on the “Conservative” mind and the biology behind the authoritarian response to fear.

    4. ArchLover

      Ep3 –I am going to do my best to respond to you in a clear and calm manner. I will suggest that you take a look at the history of physical anthropology around the turn of the century; you are coming dangerously close to a particularly disgusting form of eugenics argument personified at that point in history – for some background feel free to read The Mismeasure of Man, by Stephen Jay Gould, or Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Battle for Native Identity, by David Hurst Thomas. You need some background on these arguments, where they originate from, and how they affect ACTUAL people. Because yes, although your post seems to indicate ignorance of it, Native Americans are still around in the U.S. as well as all around the world.

      It is very difficult to respond to your misreading of evolutionary arguments, because you’ve chosen to start with a made-up example and broad, sweeping statements about evolutionary mechanisms. Are you speaking about different species of lions, or are you talking about different varieties? Are they in different geographical locations? Various groups that “may” be in the process of speciation, then coming back together, can happen for a multitude of reasons. Success from an evolutionary perspective means multiple things –that you are better adapted to your particular set of environmental circumstances, that members of your group are able to survive, and are able to reproduce successfully. These are constantly shifting targets, marked just as much by luck and chance as they are marked by successful physical design. You need to know more about the way in which one species or variety seems to have become more successful – if your 3 legged lions actually started reproducing with the 4 legged lions, then they haven’t simply died out; from an evolutionary perspective they are successful if they are passing their genes on to the next generation. If you want to know more about mechanisms of evolution, then I would suggest finding a book by Ernst Mayr – a particularly good on is called What Evolution Is (he was a particularly eloquent and hugely influential evolutionary biologist).

      When you start talking about humans, and how many subgroups died out – well there haven’t been that many subgroups of humans to begin with, compared with the numbers of different hominids. Many divisions of Homo sapiens have to do with skeletal changes in the aggregate, and are divisions made more for our benefit (there is also a lot of disagreement about where and what divisions should be made in terms of species and subspecies). It also makes a difference in terms of species/groups, for your argument, whether they became “extinct” through competition, through being too adapted to a certain environmental niche, etc.

      I’m not sure where your statement “we thought that they just couldn’t survive winters or whatever,” come from, except from perhaps much older arguments. Neanderthals, and other humans, lived throughout Europe during a glacial period. In fact, Neanderthals seem to have been better adapted to cold conditions than modern humans, and at times when the environment got cold enough, may have temporarily displaced modern humans in regions of the Middle East.

      Your other statement, “Neanderthals died from both absorption or killing” is more of the type of statement that comes out of the popular media, or that’s what I have to assume. As far as we can tell, Neanderthals never had particularly large populations, which means they were already at risk of becoming too small to successfully maintain their numbers. There is genetic evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans did reproduce together and clearly those offspring did survive and reproduce, although this does not make up a large part of our genome. The idea that modern humans killed Neanderthals is an argument that has been offered up as one explanation for their disappearance. As far as I know, there is no actual evidence of a Neanderthal that was killed by modern humans; this argument relies strongly on the assumption that simply because they were different groups, modern humans and Neanderthals would have been in violent conflict with each other. There are a range of responses available to people interacting with new groups; violence is just one, and needs to be supported with actual evidence, rather than simply assumed and then reified as an explanation.

      Instead, real evidence seems to support the idea that Neanderthals were particularly adapted to cold conditions, relying largely on a meat-based diet (more so than modern humans at the time). As the climate warmed up, Neanderthals probably lost many of the most important animals to their diets, and would have needed to quickly adapt to new sources of food (this is a really broad statement; Neanderthals living along the coasts of Europe may have had radically different diets, but you can make a similar argument – climatic warming would have resulted in many animal species shifting ecological zones and/or disappearing). The more specialized you are, and the more you rely on a narrow range of foods, the more susceptible you are to such environmental shifts. It seems that this process likely played a large part in the disappearance of Neanderthals – they may have been too adapted to cold conditions and animal species. There are places where Neanderthals and modern humans seem to have lived at the same time; in these places, it appears that while they were in competition for the some similar resources, they occupied different areas of the environment. Some have made the argument that the areas modern humans lived (essentially on hilltops) would have allowed them to see animals/animal herds first, and thus they would have had an advantage in terms of access to animal meat. I think it’s probably more important that they exploited a wide range of resources, both plant and animal, because this means a much greater range of flexibility in the face of environmental shifts.

      Anyways, all that is to say that shifts in human populations are actually quite complicated. Additionally, arguing that the dying out of Neanderthals is somehow akin to what happened to Native American populations represents an inappropriate analogy. Neanderthals skeletal appearance was different enough from modern human populations alive at the time that they have been recognized as at least a subspecies of humans, if not a different species; no such thing has ever in seriousness been suggested for Native American peoples, or any other populations, that exist today (I am not going to acknowledge racist arguments for this that have their roots in 19th and 20th century ideas and applications of the notion of “race”). Read some books about the early history of the British, French, Dutch, and Spanish colonies in North America – a lot of people don’t know about events like the Pueblo Rebellion or King Philip’s War. “Domination” of European groups was not a given, even with huge depopulation as a result of European infectious diseases, and was in flux for hundreds of years. In fact, pretty much all early groups of colonists would have never survived without the help of Native groups (I can’t think of any exceptions to this). Speaking of a range of possible responses to new groups, if Native peoples had all decided to have violent responses to Europeans, it would have been fairly easy to keep colonial powers from getting a foothold in the New World. Unfortunately for Native groups, you can’t know what the future holds, and murderous violence is NOT a given, particularly given how many Native groups were in the various areas European groups occupied early on.

      Lastly, think about your wording, particularly extinction and absorption. These are pretty value-laden and need to be used carefully. When those words get bandied about today in terms of Native groups, it is generally based on the idea that there was some “pure” Native past that Europeans corrupted, and that adoption of “European” goods implies assimilation and disappearance. If that were true, then I guess you couldn’t call us Americans – we’d be Chinese, Japanese, or some other version of Asian instead. It’s something that needs to be seriously contemplated.

    5. James Cole

      Your line of thinking here is called social Darwinism. To me it seems to mistake facts about the natural world for moral principles, which they are not.

  13. Ep3

    So it’s apparently wrong to be a compromiser in an era of “putting down the partisan gloves”. Also, I would say this is just another shift in the electoral landscape, Luger moves center and his opponent is far right. So say Lugar loses (one of obamas BFFs, according to all those 2008 campaign commercials to show Obama did something besides run for president while in the senate. Oh wait I forgot about telecom immunity and tarp.), then we have the far right guy and then the democrat can run as Lugar. Center right versus far right.

  14. Susan the other

    FDL on domestic Liquified Natural Gas for export was planned all along. Probably. Out here we watched as Anchutz put in huge pipelines that went up and down all over the mountains. It was a massive project and the impetus behind it had to be that the future of LNG was in export. It is interesting that Jordan Cove, Oregon is at Coos Bay – the once beautiful site of the Exxon Valdez spill, which still oozes out of those beaches. What the heck, why ruin another beautiful bay. This effort by Anchutz began about 20 years ago. He just recently sold his rights to the Marcellus Field in 2010. So Cheney and his 2001 secret meeting of gas and oil developers was just part of the ongoing effort. The deception of domestic use v. export is par for the course. Secrets rule the world.

    1. LeonovaBalletRusse

      S, research the history and purpose of Port Fourchon in Louisiana, and the players behind it.

  15. Walter Wit Man

    Oh. No. You. Didn’t.

    You didn’t just say wet dream at the end of the gigantic balls story? Did you?

  16. Walter Wit Man

    The Syrian story can’t be trusted.

    We have had numerous examples from both Syria and Libya of the media printing lies in order to help the western attack on these countries.

    The media “coverage” of Syria has been particularly bad. Many stories like the one the Guardian and Amnesty International are peddling have been shown to be false. The fact this one is just as sensational as the previous fake stories makes me doubt the truth. She claims 8 people were lined up and executed against a wall and that her son was taken.

    The Guardian has been neck deep in the lies and it really is overwhelming how much power is going into these media lies. It has opened my eyes to the fact most our media is completely corrupted.

    There is no one in the major media even trying to tell the truth about Syria. It’s amazing and scary that TPTB have so much control to lie like this.

  17. barrisj

    Meanwhile, another despatch from the clandestine forces front:

    Top commander creates draft to expand use of Special Forces
    WASHINGTON — A top U.S. commander is seeking authority to expand clandestine operations against militants and insurgencies around the globe, a sign of shifting Pentagon tactics and priorities after a grueling decade of large-scale wars.

    Adm. William H. McRaven, a Navy SEAL and commander of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, has developed plans that would provide far-reaching new powers to make special operations units “the force of choice” against “emerging threats” over the next decade, internal Defense Department documents show.

    America’s secret military forces have grown dramatically over the last decade as the Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence community have increasingly merged missions, including drone strikes and counterterrorism operations.

    But some Pentagon officials and outside experts warn that giving secret soldiers too much additional authority outside the normal chain of command might lead to abuses.

    The little-known Special Operations Command, which McRaven heads from his headquarters in Tampa, Fla., oversees more than 60,000 military personnel and civilians.

    The command includes Army Green Berets who specialize in training foreign military forces; Ranger light infantry units; Navy SEALs; Air Force squadrons flying drones and aerial gunships; and the Pentagon’s most elite combat units, Delta Force and the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known as DEVGRU, which conducted the bin Laden raid.
    “We are in a generational struggle,” McRaven says in a draft paper circulating at the Pentagon. “For the foreseeable future, the United States will have to deal with various manifestations of inflamed violent extremism. In order to conduct sustained operations around the globe, our special operations forces must adapt.
    The draft plans do not specify where special operations would be increased, but officers and officials familiar with Pentagon thinking say it probably would include
    remote and chaotic areas of the Middle East, such as Yemen, parts of northern Africa stretching from Somalia to Nigeria and the Maghreb, and to a lesser extent, parts of Asia and Latin America.
    McRaven’s aides say the elite teams would remain under the direct day-to-day control of Pentagon regional commanders once deployed. But under his plan, McRaven would have greater authority to move forces and resources instead of merely responding to requests from regional commanders.
    The plan faces “major bureaucratic obstacles to obtain the authorities” to expand Special Operations Command, the Commander’s Estimate acknowledges. Not only the geographic commanders but the Pentagon’s powerful Joint Staff, which plays a central role in recommending where and when special forces units will be deployed, are likely to have reservations, several officers said. McRaven may be hoping in part on pushing the plan through with support from Obama.

    “Generational struggle”, “US interests abroad”, “national security”,, yadda-yadda, Warden, yadda-yadda.
    Obama seems to be transfixed by the whole SOCOM ethos and the ideology supporting it. Just another name for permanent war and the “national emergency” mindset: “We are constantly challenged by militant organisations across the globe, and we need to quash such non-state actors and their agendas well into the indefinite future”. And, as the entire sordid history of US foreign policy since the dawn of the Cold War has shown, “militants”, “insurgencies”, “extremists”, and the like can be defined in a myriad of ways, but with one common characteristic: they oppose US influence and hegemony in their particular region. “Pro-Kremlin stooges”, “Marxist rebels”, “Islamic terrorism”, the labels change but the basic impulse to create then destroy “the enemy” remains. And both major US political parties have long ago completely signed off on maintaining this credo ad infinitum>.

    1. Walter Wit Man

      Nice highlighting.

      This theme of global war is not just now “emerging”, and the authors know it. They are purposely pushing this false theme.

      There were big stories when Obama took over about this change in plan. They read almost exactly like this story. But also notice the disinformation going on at the time when Obama was reviewing the name “GWOT” and I remember a lot of right-wingers getting in a tissy because they thought this meant less global war and didn’t realize it was classic Obama marketing (i.e. lying).

      One of Obama’s first actions was summarily executing the teenage pirates, and openly and notoriously increasing the use of drones and attacking countries we were not at war with, like Yemen.

      One could even say the U.S. is now an empire and this trend has been going on a while now, but I guess that’s too radical for the MSM . . . .

    2. BMD Commander

      McRaven, you brain-damaged goon. Emerging threats. Try sneakin that one past the ICJ in your bedwetting chickenshit Article 51 invocation against some teenager half a world away. Typical trained seal, like at Sea World. They’ll shut him up when Article 8 bis comes into force.

  18. Walter Wit Man

    Nancy Pelosi is a litmus test.

    Some of us have known for years now that Nancy Pelosi was going to help Obama cut Social Security. The Democrats have long claimed cutting Social Security was a ‘third rail’ issue, and if the Republicans ever tried to touch that issue they would electrocute them with the energy of angry Americans, or something.

    But of course Pelosi, the Democrats, and the media lie and pretend that Pelosi still views this as a third rail issue, when it’s clear the fix is in.

    Most Democrats have been bamboozled. Most liberals have been bamboozled.

    But who WASN’T bamboozled? Who correctly figured this out in real time?

    This is the litmus test for me because it seems basic that a liberal would want to make sure their House leader, Pelosi, could be trusted to follow through on the most basic tenets of the party platform. But truth be told she and the president, arguably the two most important party leaders, have conspired to cut social security and to obscure this fact from the voters.

    Most liberals were bamboozled.

  19. Comment

    Talk about willfully blindness. Some say it’s hard to see how we could essentially heal the effects of this crisis any faster, thereby getting people back to work.

    What about prosecuting those who caused the crisis and the follow-on criminality, so that the market gets an ” all clear” signal indicating that those who use criminality to corrupt the system to get ahead will no longer be an impedence to those who are trying to get ahead by following righteous rules. Until that happens, it truly is hard to see how we get out of these financial doldrums.

  20. pws

    System D is interesting. My take on modern big capitalists is that their primary way to make money is to find some entity doing quality, productive work and then kill it. Indeed they search and search to find people doing useful stuff in order to stop them.

    In the past, even within a corporation, I found that people in other sections of my corporation wanted my section to fail (mainly because they felt it would increase the importance of their section).

    However, I expect System D to be trumpeted by libertarians like the Koch brothers (whose real life goal would be to exterminate all System D businesses) in order to continue to put forward their “let’s drown the useful parts of the government in the bathtub and keep the oppressive parts for our own use” agenda.

    1. LeonovaBalletRusse

      pws, “private equity” sucks the substance out of everything vital, leaving the corpse to the 99% scavengers.

  21. LeonovaBalletRusse

    List of ALEC Corporations, thanks to Common Cause:

    “the following corporations are members of ALEC’s task forces. This list is current as of July 2011, except for the Tax and Fiscal Policy task force, correct as of March 2011” —

    Question: if reps of this “foreign power” cabal WROTE THE LAWS for State and Nation-State, did they not violate the Constitution, in collusion with members of the Second Branch of Government and other Official Agents of federal and state government who were charged exclusively to write the laws according to the Constitution? Did elected MC’s forfeit their duty to operatives of the ALEC cabal? If so, did they violate their Oaths of Office and convey their law-writing power to ALEC, a foreign power and the Enemy of the People, thus committing acts of treason?

  22. George

    May Daze in Oakland.

    While we agree with OWS, there is little sympathy in our shop for the movement as long as they pursue their open borders nonsense.

    Our livelyhoods as working men have been destroyed by a tide of human ants from Central America that work weekends, nights and holidays for ten dollars an hour or less.

    OWS gets the support of the White Working Class when they drop the pro illegal nonsense.

  23. tiebie66

    I fear that yoghurt will get even more adulterated and the price will shoot up…

  24. Jesse

    RE: World’s most frightening chart.

    Does anyone know which chart in specific Yves is referring to? Change in payroll?

    1. different clue

      I am just guessing its the chart which compares month-to-month unemployment rates of the different recessions “side by side”.

Comments are closed.