Cornel West Denounces His Former Friend, Barack Obama

Chris Hedges rallies to the defence of black intellectual Cornel West and, in the process, issues a bill of indictment against Barack Obama for his relentless assault on America's black prophetic movement and democracy itself.

“Jeremiah Wright was the canary in the mine,” West said when we met a few days ago in Princeton, N.J. “The black prophetic tradition has been emptied out. Its leaders have either been murdered or incarcerated. ... A lot of political prisoners who represent the black prophetic tradition [are] in jail. They have been in there for decades. Or we have leaders who have completely sold out. They have been co-opted. And these are the three major developments. With sold-out leaders you get a pacified followership or people who are scared.”

“The black prophetic tradition has been the leaven in the American democratic loaf,” West said. “What has kept American democracy from going fascist or authoritarian or autocratic has been the legacy of Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Martin King, Fannie Lou Hamer. This is not because black people have a monopoly on truth, goodness or beauty. It is because the black freedom movement puts pressure on the American empire in the name of integrity, decency, honesty and virtue.”

The tradition is sustained by a handful of beleaguered writers and intellectuals, including Glen Ford and his Black Agenda Report, James Cone, Carl Dix, Bruce Dixon, Boyce Watkins, Yvette Carnell, Robin Kelley, Margaret Kimberley, Nellie Bailey, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, Maulana Karenga, Ajamu Baraka and Wright, but none have the public profile of West, who is routinely attacked by Obama’s black supporters as a “race traitor,” the equivalent of a “self-hating Jew” to hard-line supporters of Israel. It is understandable why this tradition frightens Obama. It exposes him as the ideological heir of Booker T. Washington, a black accommodationist whose core message to black people was, in the words of W.E.B. Du Bois, “adjustment and submission.” The wide swath of destruction Obama has overseen on behalf of the corporate state includes the eradication of most of our civil liberties and our privacy, the expansion of imperial war, the use of kill lists, abject subservience to Wall Street’s criminal class and the military-industrial complex, the relentless persecution of whistle-blowers, mass incarceration of poor people of color and the failure to ameliorate the increasing distress of the poor and the working class. His message to the black underclass in the midst of the corporate rape of the nation is drawn verbatim from the Booker T. Washington playbook. He tells them to work harder—as if anyone works harder than the working poor in this country—and obey the law.

“Obama is the highest manifestation of the co-optation that took place,” West said. “It shifted to the black political class. The black political class, more and more, found itself unable to tell the truth, or if they began to tell some of the truth they were [put] under surveillance, attacked and demonized. Forty percent of our babies are living in poverty, living without enough food, and Obama comes to us and says quit whining. He doesn’t say that to the Business Roundtable. He doesn’t say that to the corporate elites. He doesn’t say that to AIPAC, the conservative Jewish brothers and sisters who will do anything to support the Israeli occupation against Palestinians. This kind of neglect in policy is coupled with disrespect in his speeches to black folk, which the mainstream calls tough love.”

“He is a shell of a man,” West said of Obama. “There is no deep conviction. There is no connection to something bigger than him. It is a sad spectacle, sad if he were not the head of an empire that is in such decline and so dangerous. This is a nadir.  ...But now if you criticize Obama the way Randolph criticized Garvey, you become a race traitor and an Uncle Tom. A lot of that comes out of the Obama machine, the Obama plantation.”

“Obama used [Martin Luther] King’s Bible during his inauguration, but under the National Defense Authorization Act King would be detained without due process. He would be under surveillance every day because of his association with Nelson Mandela, who was the head of a ‘terrorist’ organization, the African National Congress. We see the richest prophetic tradition in America desecrated in the name of a neoliberal worldview, a worldview King would be in direct opposition to. Martin would be against Obama because of his neglect of the poor and the working class and because of the [aerial] drones, because he is a war president, because he draws up kill lists. And Martin King would have nothing to do with that.”

“We are talking about crimes against humanity—Wall Street crimes, war crimes, the crimes of the criminal justice system in the form of Jim Crow, the crimes against our working poor that have their backs pushed against the wall because of stagnant wages and corporate profits going up,” West said. “Abraham Heschel said that the distinctive feature of any empire in decline is its indifference to criminality. That is a fundamental feature of our time, an indifference to criminality, especially on top, wickedness in high places.” 

Obama's Mortal Sin - Normalizing Extremism

Guantanamo remains open.   Drones strike far afield.   American citizens are being liquidated by their own government without trial or even charge.  Is this the legacy of Barack Obama, the normalization of the radical extremism of Bush-Cheney?

Netanyahu's Sock Puppet Addresses UN General Assembly

Barack Obama showed what he was made of today - not very much at all.

In a flaccid speech that appeared to convince no one, Obama said that recognition of Palestinian statehood was premature and the UN instead ought to use its efforts to push Israel and the Palestinians into negotiations.

Obama plainly implied, but stopped short of actually saying, that recognition of Palestinian statehood would somehow undermine prospects for peace with Israel.  He didn't come right out and say it because he knew how pathetically stupid it would sound.

With a wormy lap dog like Obama, Netanyahu is away to the races.

The New York Times - "A Terrible Deal"

Today's New York Times editorial isn't pulling any punches about Obama's debt ceiling deal, calling it precisely what it is - a capitulation.

...The deal would avert a catastrophic government default, immediately and probably through the end of 2012. The rest of it is a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists. It will hurt programs for the middle class and poor, and hinder an economic recovery.

...in the end, most Democrats will have no choice but to swallow their fury, accept the deal and, we hope, fight harder the next time. 

The paper laments that the few principles for which the Dems held out were, for the sake of a deal, abandoned.

Democratic negotiators  ...are counting on future Congresses to undo its arbitrary butchering.


Sadly, in a political environment laced with lunacy, that calculation is probably correct. Some Republicans in the House were inviting a default, hoping that an economic earthquake would shake Washington and the Obama administration beyond recognition. Democrats were right to fear the effects of a default and the impact of a new recession on all Americans.

President Obama could have been more adamant in dealing with Republicans, perhaps threatening to use constitutional powers to ignore the debt ceiling if Congress abrogated its responsibility to raise it. But this episode demonstrates the effectiveness of extortion. Reasonable people are forced to give in to those willing to endanger the national interest. 

I think Obama has all but sealed his fate in 2012.  He was elected by a narrow margin thanks to an overwhelming surge of support from progressives who embraced his message of hope and change.  He made too many promises that, with rare exception, he has ignored or betrayed.  It's going to be very hard, possibly at this stage impossible, for Obama to mobilize those supporters again.

Obama - A Wall Street Democrat in Progressive Clothing

When we listened to his stirring speeches on the campaign trail, Barack Obama sounded genuinely progressive.   Then he won the presidency and got down to business - Wall Street business.

In  a campaign almost as frenzied as the effort to get Barack Obama into the White House, liberal groups are now mobilizing against the White House and reported deals that would cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. They accuse President Obama of being weak and willing to “cave” to corporate and conservative forces bent on cutting the social safety net while protecting the wealthy.

Those accusations are wrong.

The accusations imply that Obama is on our side. Or was on our side. And that the right wing is pushing him around.

But the evidence is clear that Obama is an often-willing servant of corporate interests -- not someone reluctantly doing their bidding, or serving their interests only because Republicans forced him to.
Since coming to Washington, Obama has allied himself with Wall Street Democrats who put corporate deregulation and greed ahead of the needs of most Americans...

...The sad truth  ...is that Obama had arrived at the White House looking to make cuts in benefits to the elderly. Two weeks before his inauguration, Obama echoed conservative scares about Social Security and Medicare by talking of “red ink as far as the eye can see.” He opened his doors to Social Security/Medicare cutters -- first trying to get Republican Senator Judd Gregg (“a leading voice for reining in entitlement spending,” wrote Politico) into his cabinet, and later appointing entitlement-foe Alan Simpson to co-chair his “Deficit Commission.” Obama’s top economic advisor, Larry Summers, came to the White House publicly telling Time magazine of needed Social Security cuts.

 At this late date, informed activists and voters who care about economic justice realize that President Obama is NOT “on our side.”

What a crushing disappointment.    Obama reveals how firmly Washington has embraced corporatism - from its shamelessly politicized Supreme Court to its "bought and paid for" Congress to the White House.   All three branches of American government, the vaunted checks and balances, are yoked into service of corporatist interests.   Something will fail but it's unclear now whether it will be America's perverted institutions or American democracy.

It's Official - Obama Has No Spine

It's gone, surgically removed by specialists from the Republican congressional ranks.   Now Obama has lost all chance of ever being able not to roll over on command.

Elizabeth Warren is out.   The best possible candidate for director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been passed over by Obama and it's no secret why.   The corporate lobbyists who call the shots with Republican legislators wanted Warren trashed at any cost.   As instructed, Republicans fiercely opposed Warren's nomination.  Obama rolled over.   End of story.

The agency, with Warren at the helm, was expected to tightly regulate the student loans, mortgage lending and credit card industry.   With no director - and there isn't one on the horizon - the CFPB can regulate nothing.

There's a Hole In the Bottom of the Sea

Americans believe. They're a nation of believers. The late Pierre Berton said their passionate "need to believe" was, more than anything else, what distinguished Americans from Canadians.

Being gripped by belief has served the American people, by turns, both very well and very poorly. It has formed the foundation for a highly confident, dynamic nation that - albeit briefly - ascended to unipolar global supremacy. For a while that seemed not just to confirm but to conclusively prove the reality of American exceptionalism. It manifested itself in neo-conservatism expressed by the likes of The Project for the New American Century and given life in the Bush Doctrine.

There is an often blurry line between confidence and arrogance. Crossing that line usually carries unwelcome consequences. Arrogance begets hubris, the "pride that blinds", a cup from which Americans took deep draughts ever since the arrival of Reagan's Age of Ruin and, particularly, over this past decade. It has left America unbalanced and bloated - bloated with debt.

This crippling debt was understood by the Project for the New American Century. The Neo-Cons realized that American governments, corporations and the American people had mortgaged their global supremacy to foreign lenders and therefore advocated the use of American military superiority to bolster their country's dominance, militarily and economically. This madness was formally adopted in the Bush Doctrine. "It's ours and if you dare rival us, we'll bomb you into submission." Bush's supporters believed this was their nation's due. They believed America's destiny and rightful place was to rule, or at least "guide" on advantageous terms, the rest of the world - in perpetuity. The world would be led forever by the United States of America. It was state gangsterism, the act of a rogue state. America proclaimed itself beyond the laws of nations that America itself had prescribed, an outlaw state.

There were some who supported the conquest of Iraq as fulfillment of this American superiority doctrine. One neo-con (whose name unfortunately escapes me) opined that America chose Iraq as an opportunity to throw a small nation against a wall as a lesson to other states of the consequences of defiance.

Ever wonder what the world would look like today if America had pulled off stunning victories in Iraq and Afghanistan? Wrap your mind around that for a while. In your mind, rewrite the history of the past decade. Who would have been next? Where would the madness have ended and at what cost?

The madness of America's quest for global domination was mirrored by a deep madness at home. The American people lost their grip on reality. What other people could believe that a debt-ridden government running massive deficits could simultaneously wage two wars and cut taxes for the very rich without leading the country to ruin? What other people could believe that achieving wealth was simply a matter of getting title to a home or two or three, four maybe? Perhaps a nation in which an immensely powerful vice president was able to assure his president that "Reagan showed that deficits don't matter" as justifying additional tax cuts for the rich? What other people could believe that the solution to financial distress was to refinance, or "re-fi", their homes? Where were the Tea Partiers when this madness was bringing ruin to their nation? Why was it only after the hens came home to roost that they rebelled? Madness, that's why and a firm belief in truly magical thinking.

To a people in thrall to utter delusion, what must it mean that all the King's horses and all the King's men cannot save them from a mere hole in the bottom of the sea? It must be driving them mad. A little hole in the bottom of the sea that imperils the American south from Texas to Florida and possibly the Atlantic states to boot. Is it any wonder they blame Obama when the path to this disaster leads directly back to the days when neo-conservative Oil Men occupied the White House?

Unless he fights back and fights hard, Obama may wind up wearing the Deepwater Horizon fiasco, because, to a lot of voters, he hasn't kissed their boo-boo nor has he conjured up the shiny thing to distract them as his predecessors so routinely did. What must it feel like to this horde to see their country exposed as impotent by a mere hole in the bottom of the sea?

NYT Calls Obama Health Bill an Attack on Wealth Inequality

According to the New York Times, the Obama health bill is the first significant measure to reverse the wealth gap between America's rich and poor that has been steadily expanding since 1970.

Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.

Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.

The "Age of Reagan"? Might as well call it the "Age of Ruin." When Ronald Reagan entered the
White House, America was the world's largest creditor nation. In the breathtakingly short span of but eight years Reagan transformed the U.S. into the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan and Bush I and II were the only presidents since the end of WWII not to reduce America's debt as a function of GDP. Under them it skyrocketed to the near ruinous state inherited by Obama.

The Age of Reagan saw Americans become utterly stupid, willing to believe fantastic ideas such as their ability to live in wealth due to the endlessly increasing value of their homes. It wasn't just "casino capitalism" that brought America down, it was also "casino consumerism."

There were two types of wealth in America - real wealth and mirage wealth. Real wealth was what accumulated at the top among America's wealthy elites. Mirage wealth was the illusion of prosperity conjured out of cheap foreign borrowing and a bubble economy. It was scam wealth although it bought all the trappings of genuine affluence - while it lasted.

The Age of Reagan ruined the country and ruined an awful lot of Americans' lives. It allowed Washington, Wall Street and the American people to dig a horribly deep hole to the point where, today, their only salvation in the short to medium-term is another economic bubble. That's like a junkie relying on the next fix to keep the throes of withdrawal at bay.

For Obama and the United States, measures to arrest and narrow the wealth gap can help heal the damage done to the country and its people. On March 13th I addressed the sinister side effects of wealth inequality in a post, "A 'Must Read' for the Liberal Right." That post covered the book "The Spirit Level" in which two prominent British epidemiologists looked at the relationship between income inequality on half a century of data covering everything from mental health, drug use, physical health and life expectancy, obesity, educational performance, teen births, violence, imprisonment and punishment and social mobility.

Spirit Level compared every Western, industrialized democracy and also put America under a spotlight on a state by state comparison. What they found, and linked most persuasively, is that all of these blights on society worsen markedly (and predictably) as income or wealth inequality worsened. As income inequality diminished so too did these troubles. The authors also showed this wasn't just about the poor. Everyone but the very wealthiest suffered the scourges resulting from income inequality.

There's little question that America's rabid social Darwinism leaks across the border and into weak minds like that of our current boss, Harper. You might recall that, prior to his recent transformation, Harper subscribed to every bit of this made-in-America nonsense and even rebuked Canadians for our backward ways, the same ways that kept Canada from falling into the fiscal abyss created by the Americans.

I hope the New York Times has this one right and, if so, I hope Obama succeeds beyond his dreams. There are some who believe healthcare reform will be the spark that ignites social change in the United States. Among their ranks lie many hardcore congressional Republicans now struggling furiously to find a way to douse that very spark before it can catch hold.

How Long Before Americans "Get It"?

Trolling through American media web pages it quickly becomes apparent how the American people are divided into two utterly different realities over Obama's healthcare reform. Some truly support it, others act as though Joe Stalin himself was marching down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Oh the tyranny of it all!

John Kenneth Galbraith would find the anguish hilarious. The Canadian-born economic advisor who served Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson, long ago noted that the only socialism Americans could accept was socialism for the rich. From the Wall Street bailouts to tobacco and energy industry subsidies to the endless grants, subsidies and massive overruns of the defense industry, America is the ultimate corporate welfare state. Socialism for the rich and powerful indeed.

Yet bringing the health insurance industry to heel and extending coverage to millions of formerly uninsured Americans is more than those taxpaying teabaggers can stand. It doesn't matter that, in the short and long-term, it will save their government money. These are the idiots, 19 out of 20 of whom don't realize that Obama has lowered their taxes. These are people who have disconnected themselves from reality which, I suppose, qualifies them as mentally disturbed at best, deranged at worst.

Obama got his healthcare bill. Maybe not the legislation he sought at the outset but a toehold bill in any case. He's signed it into law. But he's not out of the weeds yet. The Republicans, well and truly deep in the healthcare industry's pocket, will fight furiously to kill this off. They think they still have a chance to rescind this law but even they know they have to act fast before the public come to understand what healthcare reform really means. Once the American people "get it", the Republican resistance is finished.

Dear President Obama - Get It In Writing

And please ensure it has Stan McChrystal's and David Petraeus' signatures on the bottom of the page. Word is that President Barack Obama has given in to the thinly veiled arm-twisting of Afghan commander, General Stan McChrystal, and Stan's boss, even bigger General and future Republican presidential hopeful, David Petraeus, and will send another 40-45,000 American troops to Afghanistan.


As far as I can tell, the Pentagon is trying to play "Pin the Debacle" on the new president by leaving him two choices (carefully leaked to the media of course): give us another 40,000 troops or take personal responsibility for our failure in Afghanistan for the past eight years.


Perhaps Obama sees what they have in store for him if he doesn't give in to their tantrum. Well he's not the first political leader and he won't be the last to get strongarmed by incompetent military bosses. But that doesn't mean that he can't - and shouldn't - demand a few concessions of his own.


David Petraeus. This guy has some explaining to do. Make that a lot of explaining. He's been stirring the pot over there since the first Bush term. Why wasn't he twisting Bush's arm for more troops four or five years ago when the Taliban resurgence began? Just what has he been doing these past five years? Oh that's right, the "surge" in Iraq, a fine bit of sleight of hand by which Petraeus could claim the victor's laurels for pretty much nothing. Why 40,000 and why now? I think Obama should ask Petraeus to respond to those questions in essay form.


And Stan McChrystal. This character says he needs 40,000 troops or else America loses Afghanistan. But Stan is long on dire threats and fantastically short on promises. Stan needs to explain just what he promises (that's right, p-r-o-m-i-s-e) to achieve with those 40,000 soldiers. Something tangible, something measurable. So far none of these Pentagon jackasses, not one, has done what they were sent there to do. One after another, they've all put in their time, got their ticket punched, and handed the mess off to the next guy just in time to retire.


Somebody from the Pentagon, preferrably McChrystal and Petraeus, should explain how the omnipotent United States military screwed this up so badly for the past eight years. (We should also get a few answers from Canada's military brass to the same questions) There's this pattern of consistent failure evidenced in the West's military leadership. Somehow, some way they've become dysfunctional, worse than useless.


The way I see it, not one of these bemedalled clowns is willing to admit that they haven't got a clue how to 'win' anything in Afghanistan which is why they've lowered the bar to a goal of simply "not failing." These guys are shooting for a low D, not a B, not even a C. All their threats and warnings and advice are given in the context of hoping to achieve a low D. Yeah, that's some winning team, no?

Obama Kills Plan to Stage Missiles on Russia's Doorstep

And it's about bloody time, too. Barack Obama has rescinded the Bush administration's mad plan to position anti-missile batteries in Poland and the Czech Republic ostensibly to defend against rogue missile launches from Iran.

Everyone, and I mean every one, knew that gambit had nothing to do with Iran. Instead it was an integral part of Bush's plan to march NATO right to Russia's borders with a view to shoehorning Moscow out of Central Asia altogether. The prize is the Caspian Basin or, more directly, the massive fossil fuel reserves found there.

What Bush/Cheney never admitted was that Iran has no missiles that could get anywhere near Poland or the Czech Republic. It might have made sense to locate the American batteries closer to Iran, say perhaps in Turkey.

So now Obama has the Poles and the Czechs steamed. They were going to be handsomely rewarded for allowing the anti-missile batteries on their territory and, like the rest of the world, they knew the American weaponry was meant for Russia, not Iran.

Huckabee Slams Obama

Despite his gentle, folksy manner, Rapture-sucker and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee can't hide his fundamentalist zealotry for very long.

Huckabee hopped a freebee junket larded his way by Ateret Cohanim, an organization that buys land in Jerusalem's Arab neighborhoods and settles Jews there. And his benefactors got got their money's worth and then some. From McClatchey:

Huckabee criticized the Obama administration's calls for ending such settlements and said Obama's position had only encouraged the Palestinian government not to negotiate with Israel.

More important than Huckabee's words, however, was where he chose to deliver them: at several controversial Jewish enclaves in the mostly Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, which both Israel and the Palestinian Authority claim.

"The policies are a drastic change from previous administrations," Huckabee said at Maale Zeitim, a 100-unit housing project at the foot of the Mount of Olives. "Halting peace talks until 20 families are moved out? Our focus should be on Iran, and not on where 20 Jewish families are moving."

..."It concerns me that some in the U.S. tell Israelis they can't live where they want in their own country," Huckabee said.

Standing In The Lions' Den

Standing in that most Catholic of American universities, Notre Dame, Barack Obama didn't hesitate to address his nation's bitter divide on abortion.

"No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable," said Obama as he accepted an honorary law degree.

...Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually – it has both moral and spiritual dimensions'," he said. He continued: "Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature."

Obama's comments reminded me of Pierre Trudeau's words during an interview at the time he began the trek to reproductive freedom by decriminalizing abortion. That was 40-years ago. He said at the time that he knew Canadian society was sharply divided on the issue and irreconcilable. He said he also knew that his government's initiative would please neither side and so, in the circumstances, it was probably the best that could be achieved in that society.

There's something about genuine leaders and real courage. A lot of the time you leave a lot of people angry, for a while.

Obama Keeps Door Open on Torture Prosecutions

Barack Obama says it's up to his attorney-general to decide whether to prosecute the directing minds behind the CIA's torture of suspected terrorists. From BBC:

US President Barack Obama has left open the possibility of prosecuting officials who wrote CIA memos allowing harsh interrogation methods.

...the president's comments marked a change of tone amid growing pressure from the Democratic Party not to rule out potential prosecutions.

They reflect the increasingly complex political situation around the decision to release the memos, he says.

"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws," Mr Obama said.

He also said he could support a congressional investigation of the issue if it was conducted in a bipartisan way.

Clearly Obama has yielded to unexpected outpouring of anger, even outrage, at the announcement by his chief of staff on Sunday that the president would not allow anyone to be prosecuted, including those who gave the orders to torture. It's obvious that he's aware of the danger of the Repugs rallying to defend their own and, if necessary, making martyrs out of them.

In Defence of Obama on Torture

Barack Obama has stirred up a hornet's nest of angry indignation from the left over his decision not to prosecute CIA officers who tortured terrorism suspects.

I think he is right.

It's a facet of 'victor's justice' that the only people ever prosecuted for following orders are those from the vanquished's side. The other side doesn't prosecute its own people because that calls into question the very legitimacy of the state and the chain of command. That's not to say there should be no prosecutions. To the contrary, you prosecute not those who carried out the orders but those in authority who issued the orders.

Obama has said he's not going to prosecute the CIA officers who did the dirty deeds. He has not said that he won't be calling to account those who aithorized and directed these crimes.

I suspect he's cognizant of the risks of taking on too many challenges all at once. He's put an end to torture. That, for now, ought to be enough. Dealing with Gonzales, Feith, Rumsfeld and perhaps even Cheney can wait until the immediate crises confronting America and the Obama White House are under control.

When you prosecute the little guys it paves the way for scapegoating and cover-up. That's a common tactic of the right. It's what they did at My Lai and what they did at Abu Ghraib. They used the proles as whipping boys while the real criminals, the directing minds, drifted back into the safety of obscurity.

America's Pendulum Slowly Swings Back

A small, but encouraging development. A Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that, despite the Repugnicant's best efforts, an overwhelming majority of Americans isn't buying the idea that their new president is responsible for their country's economic meltdown.

Despite the furious efforts of the Repugs in Congress and their shills at FOX (Hannity) and elsewhere (Slimebot) to tag Obama with the Bush era mess, Americans by a massive majority put the blame where it belongs - on their financial industry.

Now anyone who reads this blog would think that much was obvious but don't forget this is a citizenry that was totally taken in by an emperor with no pants for many years; a people that believed their houses were infinite ATMs; a nation of borrowers who have truly acted as though they alone could defy gravity. When you've been that far out on the branch for that long, getting back to the centre is a long climb down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033003415.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Back on Track

Barack Obama has a problem. His White House is leaking like a sieve. The upside to it is that it appears the cowboy days of Shrub Bush are history and the executive branch is back to rational decision-making.

The New York Times identified no less than half a dozen officials who spoke to the paper about Obama's decision on Afghanistan. Naturally they all spoke on condition of anonymity.

The debate over the past few weeks offered a glimpse into how Mr. Obama makes decisions. In this case, he chose a compromise between his political and military advisers that some critics say includes some strategic holes, such as a reliance on the same sort of vague guidelines that proved difficult to carry out in Iraq. It also offers insight into the role of Mr. Biden and other members of a foreign policy team that includes many powerful figures vying for Mr. Obama’s attention.

In the end the plan is a compromise that reflected all of the strains of the discussion among his advisers, one that is markedly different, though perhaps no less difficult, from the goals his predecessor set for the region. In speaking of Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush spoke of lofty goals that included building nations that could stand as models of democracy in the Muslim world.

...During the debate, the senior administration officials said, Mr. Biden sought to put strict parameters on the size of the additional force deployed to Afghanistan and to ensure there was a specific mission for them. Mr. Biden also cast the debate in terms of what was achievable in Mr. Obama’s first term, administration officials said.

Mr. Biden, White House officials said, was heavily influenced by the trip he took to Afghanistan and Pakistan just before the inauguration in January. He observed to Mr. Obama that if you asked 10 people on the ground what American objectives were, he would get 10 different answers. That observation, aides said, carried weight with Mr. Obama and helped to lead to his decision to narrow the American goal in Afghanistan.

Contrast this with former State Secretary Colin Powell's revelation that he only learned about Bush's decision to invade Iraq after it had already been taken. And look how well that turned out.

I'm still curious whether the Times' sources were really telling tales out of school or was it intended they would get the message out?

Obama and Israel, a Strained Friendship?

I don't buy "biblical inerrancy," the strange notion that every word in the bible is the literal Word of God. The Bible, whatever else it may be, is a book written by a bunch of very mortal human beings a long, long time ago reflecting a very early understanding of the world and deities.

In his book American Fascists, Chris Hedges utterly dismantles the notion of biblical inerrancy as patently false given the numerous contradictions in its text and something we only chose to rely on when it suits us:

A literal reading of the Bible means re institution of slavery coupled with the understanding that the slavemaster has the right to beat his slave without mercy since "the slave is his money" (Exodus 21:21). Children who strike or curse a parent are to be executed (Exodus 21:15, 17). Those who pay homage to another god "shall be utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:20). Menstruating women are to be considered unclean, and all they touch while menstruating becomes unclean (Leviticus 15:19-32). The blind, the lame, those with mutilated faces, those who are hunchbacks or dwarfs and those with itching diseases or scabs or crushed testicles cannot become priests (Leviticus 24:16). And "if the spirit of jealousy" comes upon a man, the high priest can order the jealous man's wife to drink "the water of bitterness." If she dies, it is proof of her guilt; if she survives, of her innocence (Numbers 5:11-31). Women, throughout the Bible, are subservient to men, often without legal rights, and men are free to sell their daughters into sexual bondage (Exodus 21:7-11).

But one little bit of lunacy we cling to in modern geopolitics is the fantastic notion that God bequeathed the "land of Israel" to the Israelites in perpetuity. If you believe that (and so many do) you should rush home, put your wife in her place, sell your daughters, beat your slaves and execute that pesky kid who won't get off the X-Box.

This little fantasy got a free ride during the Bush-era, the Era of Darkness, but it's turning into jello now that Obama has taken the reins. Asia Times Online reports that storm clouds are gathering between the US and Israel:

Iran, with which President Barack Obama has pledged to engage in a "constructive dialogue", and the future of its nuclear program will no doubt be the greatest source of tension between the two allies. The new president's commitment to achieving real progress on a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict may also provoke serious friction. This will particularly be the case should a reunified Arab League launch a major new push for the adoption of its 2002 peace plan, which provides for Arab recognition of Israel in return for the latter's withdrawal from all occupied Arab lands.

Last week's election produced a clear majority for right-wing parties led by the Likud Party of former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has repeatedly declared his opposition to a settlement freeze, territorial concessions and the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

Obama and his Middle East Special Envoy George Mitchell may indeed be willing to exert pressure on Israel - among other things, by tabling their own views about a final peace agreement and how precisely it might be achieved - especially if ongoing Arab efforts to reconcile Hamas and Fatah in a new coalition government succeed.

If all goes well on that front, the Arab League, fortified by a developing rapprochement between Syria and Saudi Arabia, could announce the latest version of its 2002 peace plan at next month's summit in Doha, according to Marc Lynch, a George Washington University specialist on Arab politics.

"If you have a unified Palestinian government and a unified Arab move for peace," added Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, "then it's much more likely that Obama will step up his own efforts - ideally, working with an Israeli government that's ready to go along with a serious peace process, but, if not, being willing to make his disagreement [with that government] known."

The result could be a serious test between the next Israeli government and its influential US advocates. The Obama administration clearly believes that real progress toward resolving the 60-year-old conflict is critical both to restoring Washington's credibility among the Arab states and curbing the further radicalization of the region's population - particularly in the wake of Israel's recent military offensive in Gaza.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/KB21Aa01.html

Don't Blame Me, It's Bush's Fault - Harper

Isn't this the same guy who described the fight against global warming as a "socialist plot?"

That, it seems, was then, this is now. There's a new sheriff in town, a guy named Obama, and Canada's prime minister is busy trying to re-arrange his spots on climate change.

According to Stephen Harper Canada dragged its heels but only because Bush held us back:

“In Canada, we've been wrestling for the last decade or so with our desire to try to have a regime, a regulatory regime, that would diminish our own carbon emissions. But we've been trying to do so in an integrated economy when the United States has not been willing to do so,” Mr. Harper said in an interview to be broadcast in two parts yesterday and today.

“I think quite frankly the fact that we have a President and an administration that wants to see some kind of regulation on this is an encouragement.”

What's the term I'm looking for? Oh yeah, Bald-Faced Liar. Or is "weasel" better?

Spending for a Better Tomorrow

Just how good is Harper's recovery/stimulus plan? There's one way to measure our Furious Leader's proposals. It's Obama's Recovery and Reinvestment Act that's due to be signed into law tomorrow.

Here's a peek courtesy of the Center for American Progress:

Unprecedented investments in clean energy are a central element of the recovery plan. The bill includes $71 billion for clean energy programs—more than three times the current spending for these same programs (download the breakdown here (.xls)). H.R. 1 also adds $20 billion in clean energy tax incentives. The bill would “spark the creation of a clean-energy economy” that President Barack Obama promised during his inaugural address.

The Recovery Act intends to quickly put Americans to work undertaking the essential task of reducing our use of energy and oil, which would strengthen our economy and security. It would also boost investments in clean renewable energy generation from the wind, sun, and other clean sources.

The World Resources Institute determined that there is a significant job creation differential between traditional infrastructure investments and those focusing on clean energy initiatives. Every investment of $1 billion in clean energy programs creates nearly 5,000 more jobs than traditional infrastructure spending. These are some of the most important initiatives in the recovery package.

Under the recovery plan, the Weatherization Assistance Program would receive an additional $5 billion to install efficiency measures in low-income households. This amount could weatherize 1 million homes, and, directly and indirectly, create 375,000 jobs. Low-income families will save an average of $350 annually in reduced energy costs. .

Another clean energy program, the federal green buildings program, would receive $4.5 billion in funding from the plan. Modernization and energy efficiency upgrades of federal buildings would put people to work and save taxpayers millions of dollars a year in federal energy bills.

President Obama recently noted that efficiency for federal buildings could save taxpayers “$2 billion,” asking, “Why wouldn't we want to make that kind of investment?”

Energy efficiency and conservation grants for energy efficiency in residential and commercial buildings would gain $6.3 billion. This is in addition to a new program with the Department of Housing and Urban Development for energy efficiency retrofits of low-income housing that would receive $250 million. This funding would directly and indirectly generate over 1 million jobs, and many would be construction jobs—a sector hard hit by the recession.

The bill supplies $8.4 billion for transit projects, and an additional $8 billion for high-speed rail. There are an estimated 787 ready-to-go transit projects eligible for funds from the programs to purchase buses and equipment needed to increase public transportation and improve intermodal and transit facilities. These would also put Americans back to work to the tune of nearly 20,000 jobs for every $1 billion invested in mass transit.

There is also $20 billion in clean energy tax incentives, including a three-year extension of the Production Tax Credit for wind and other renewable energy projects. Due to the credit crunch and recession, many wind projects have had difficulty attracting investors. To address this problem, the bill “provides grants of up to 30 percent of the cost of building a new renewable energy facility to address current renewable energy credit market concerns.”

So that gives you an idea of the direction in which Obama wants to steer his nation. How does Steve Harper's bold vision stack up to Obama's?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/recovery_plan_captures.html