A few random items worth mentioning:

1. Shoot! This YouTube video contains a segment from Sarah Palin's reality series in which she shoots a caribou under the tutelage of her father. Those who know about such things say that this video proves that Sarah Palin -- despite her claims -- is no hunter. See here.

I don't hunt. But I'm a carnivore, and I have no issues with hunters who act responsibly. In this instance, I was rooting for the caribou.

2. The deficit. Many nations now face deficit problems, thanks to the Wall Street deregulation debacle. Joseph Stiglitz tell us how to combat the problem. He sets out the context of the problem:

-- a massive increase in defense expenditures, fueled by two fruitless wars, but going well beyond that;

-- growth in inequality, with the top 1% garnering more than 20% of the country’s income, accompanied by a weakening of the middle class – median US household income has fallen by more than 5% over the past decade, and was in decline even before the recession;

-- underinvestment in the public sector, including in infrastructure, evidenced so dramatically by the collapse of New Orleans’ levies; and

-- growth in corporate welfare, from bank bailouts to ethanol subsidies to a continuation of agricultural subsidies, even when those subsidies have been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization.

As a result, it is relatively easy to formulate a deficit-reduction package that boosts efficiency, bolsters growth, and reduces inequality.

Not easy politically, alas.

3. Nazis. On this date, it would be well to recall Project Paperclip, the secret post-war program to import Nazi scientists and war criminals into the United States. Even if you feel that you have been well-schooled on this subject, you'll find new and shocking material in this excellent series by Hank Albirelli. A sample:

Dr. Gerstner’s Texas cancer patients never for a moment suspected that their treatment at the hands of Gerstner and his associates was not in their best interest or aimed at curing their illness. Even when they became deathly sick with constant vomiting, dehydration, skin lesions, and rapid weight loss, Gerstner’s patients did not suspect that they were being administered an extreme amount of X-ray dosages that would eventually kill them.

Once a Nazi, always a Nazi. And that is why we must always oppose fascists -- foreign and domestic.

4. Farewell, America? This piece forecasts the end of the dollar's dominance. China and the US are facing off -- and China may hold the stronger position.

Alfred W. McCoy (best known for his seminal The Politics of Heroin) projects trends into the future -- the near future.

Despite the aura of omnipotence most empires project, a look at their history should remind us that they are fragile organisms. So delicate is their ecology of power that, when things start to go truly bad, empires regularly unravel with unholy speed: just a year for Portugal, two years for the Soviet Union, eight years for France, 11 years for the Ottomans, 17 years for Great Britain, and, in all likelihood, 22 years for the United States, counting from the crucial year 2003.

And the Romans...? McCoy left them out. That's because it's not easy to say when the collapse of the Roman empire began -- although many would say that the period of decline lasted from 395 to 476 (AD). Rome's great rival, the Parthian empire, began to totter around 114 AD but managed to hang on for another hundred years. Then there's the Mogul Empire, which got onto a downward trajectory in the early 1700s and formally came to an end in 1857.

So be of good cheer, folks. Contrary to McCoy's dire warning, it is possible for us to sludge our way into slow oblivion! Yes we can!

5. Graphics. A reader informs me that the previous attempt at a New Deal poster/t-shirt/whatever may have been unclear. We don't want anyone to misinterpret the storyline.

So here is a revised version. Hope this pounds the message home in an unmistakable fashion. (Click to enlarge.)

By the way -- many thanks for all the feedback on these graphics. The general sense seems to be that the "red and blue arrow" logo is punchier. On the other hand, it doesn't work in black and white -- and the "pyramid" logo does.

Besides, the pyramid thingie will make the Alex Jonesians shriek. You gotta love that. Permalink

I'm thinking t-shirts. (Click to enlarge.) Permalink

I just received a spam email from the "campaign director" of the Daily Kos. They want to mount a campaign to support Bernie Sanders' potential filibuster of the Great Obama Tax Cave-in.

With the Daily Kos community voting 3-1 in opposition to the deal, we need to show our support for the progressive members of Congress who are not caving. Give them that support now by signing our petition, and sending words of encouragement.

By all means, let's support the Congressfolk who oppose Obama on this -- but for crying out loud, don't let the Daily Freakin' Kos take credit.

More than any other single internet entity, Daily Kos is responsible for creating the Obama cult. Everyone knows that Markos Moulitsas' wildly popular forum functioned as an extension of the Obama campaign, continually publishing smears and distortions and Fox-like attacks directed against any perceived foe of the splendiferous Mister O.

In a sense, Moulitsas bears as much responsibility as Obama does for the deal to keep those millionaire tax cuts in place. Headline writers refer to those cuts as "Bush cuts. Maybe we should call them "Kos Kuts."

That's why we need to get the "New Deal" movement up and going. (And rest assured: Things are happening.) We need a force to reform the Democratic party. Markos Moulitsas -- Obama's Jagger-lipped former bedmate -- has no right to lead that charge.

Speaking of the New Deal...




Turns out that some folks really like the first design, and some really like the second. You think we can somehow use both?

Also: Obama's symbol also uses the sunrise motif. I'm not sure if that's a problem

In a speech, Abraham Lincoln once noted that painters cannot easily differentiate a rising sun from a setting sun. Look again at Obama's symbol: I think we all now know which way the sun is going. Permalink

Polls tell us that the majority of Americans do not want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. At least one poll revealed that the majority of Republicans do not want those cuts extended. I'm not even sure that the majority of millionaires want the cuts extended.

Yet Obama's compromise extended Bush's tax cuts for millionaires, for two years. In practical terms, the cuts are permanent, because Republicans will control Congress two years from now. Structurally high deficits will make it impossible to pass any legislation that might aid the recovery. Bad economic times will be great for the Republicans in an election year.

Quoted in the Washington Post, Obama said:

"Sympathetic as I am to those who would prefer a fight to compromise, it would be the wrong thing to do," the president said. "The American people didn't send us here to wage symbolic battles."

He seems unwilling to engage in any battles, symbolic or otherwise. And that aversion to conflict is itself symbolic -- of a failed presidency and a failed party. If this is the sort of wimpified governance we get while the Dems still control Congress, what may we expect next year?

Symbolism? Let's talk pragmatism:

But he could easily have killed the Bush tax cuts and thereby done more good for our nation’s fiscal situation than anyone will be in a position to do for many years to come. Killing the tax cuts would alone reduce the national debt by roughly as much as the deficit commission’s entire proposal. And killing the tax cuts was the path of least resistance. Obama could have done it by doing nothing. Or he could have done it by taking a strong negotiating position and being willing to walk away from the table.

The Democrats could have forced the Republicans to engage in a genuine filibuster -- the kind that makes 'em stay up all night while wearing Pampers. That would have made great theater: The Republicans fighting for tax breaks for millionaires while the Dems fight for continuing unemployment benefits. Dramatic? You bet. But that drama wouldn't have been merely symbolic; it would have been a matter of life or death.

As I keep telling people, a little-noticed Senate rule would have allowed the Democrats, during such proceedings, to change the rules on filibusters. No one has ever pointed out a flaw in my argument.

Speaking of filibusters, Bernie Sanders may mount one against the Obama/GOP plan. Good for him!

It seems that Taylor Marsh (up with whom I have not kept) has turned around yet again on Obama:

Harry S Truman would have told the Republicans to go pound sand.

William Jefferson Clinton would have gotten something real for the trouble, while sticking it to Republicans by letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Because back in the early ’90s, Bill first showed Republicans who was boss before he compromised.

But can we now all agree that Republicans don’t give a damn about the deficit?

Republicans won't agree. They live in mythworld -- a fantasyland in which Ronald Reagan reduced the deficit and Clinton expanded it.

Drudge's headline: "The New Obama -- Surprise Tax CUT move!"

Why the surprise? Why the word "New"? The stimulus bill was largely a tax cut bill, not a jobs bill. Republicans won't tell you that fact -- in fact, they'll tell you the precise opposite of the truth. Worse, the citizenry prefers GOP propaganda to lived experience:

Only 12 percent of the public say that the Obama administration has lowered their taxes since coming to office, despite the fact that the White House's stimulus package cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, a new opinion survey found.

In addition, the CBS/NYT poll found that 24 percent of respondents said that their taxes had actually increased under the Obama administration -- which is, again, not true.

If Fox News and Rush Limbaugh said that horses can talk, would people believe them? Probably.

Obama, an allegedly gifted communicator, could not gain political capital from a tax cut bill. Democrats cannot even persuade the public that such a bill was passed and signed. And now Obama has delivered a handout to millionaires, enriching the affluent while afflicting the destitute.

Symbolism? That's for French film-makers. I want to see combat. Permalink

I met a traveller through antique blogs
Who said: “A vast and cheeto-colored trove
Is Google-accessible. In '08, the progs --
Haughty, power-mad, resembling Rove --
Told all to bow before an ad which flogs
An image Photoshopped by someone chic.
They read into that face a promise bright:
The change we long for and the HOPE we seek.
And then a half-term senator, resume-free,
Said: “I am Obamandias, bringer of light:
You all have been waiting for us -- for ME!”
Nothing of that remains. It wasn’t real.
From that colossal ego we must flee.
We need new blood and a new NEW DEAL.”

(Apologies to the shade of Shelley. Anyone may reprint the poem or image without asking my permission. I'd appreciate a link back to this site -- or maybe here. Incidentally, "Obamandias" is pronounced OH-bah-MAN-dee-yass.)

Update: This piece of tripe on Salon pooh-poohs the "dump Obama" movement, claiming that our Dear Leader remains beloved of Dems. To prove the point, the writer glowingly quotes Andrew Sullivan, who is here proffered as a spokesperson for All Democrats Everywhere.

Andrew Freaking Sullivan. The cheerleader for Dubya, the Iraq war, Ron Paul and libertarianism. For some reason, establishment pundits keep trumpeting this man as someone important, as someone who counts, as someone worth reading. Damned if I know why.

Salon says that Andrew Sullivan represents you. Does he? Permalink

Ever have one of those days? Everything I've designed this weekend looks...wrong. Even the soup stain on my shirt seems aesthetically inferior to previous soup stains.

Still, maybe this will work as a logo for the new New Deal movement. Both the font and the decorative element come from the Art Deco movement -- the FDR era -- yet they look modern. (Please don't mention Shepherd Fairey. His sunrays are way different.) This design works in black and white, and in many different sizes.

If you came in late, scroll down a few posts for the New Deal manifesto. We're starting a new movement -- a Democratic analog to the tea party movement. Weirdly enough, the exact same idea seems to have occurred to a number of different bloggers over the course of a single weekend. It was downright spooky. See, for example, Blue Lyon and Riverdaughter and Anglachel and Sky Dancing.

The dispensers of conventional wisdom still pooh-pooh the idea of primary challenge to Obama. From the New Republic:

Most importantly, who would run? Hillary Clinton has ruled it out categorically. Al Gore’s electioneering days appear to be long over. There’s been talk of Russ Feingold running (mainly based on a misunderstanding of an “I’ll be back” statement he made on election night which seems to have referred to a future Senate race). Dean would win headlines, but has a poor reputation in Iowa, where any progressive challenge would have to be launched. There are no guaranteed primary vote-getters out there like Estes Kefauver in 1952, and certainly no one close to the stature of Ted Kennedy. And there's a reason no incumbent president has actually been defeated for re-nomination since the nineteenth century.

So that's it. What we are likely to see is a marginal opponent: a Dennis Kucinich, or a Harold Ford, or some celebrity who hasn’t held office but is willing to spend some money. More serious comers will be chased away by the hard, cold reality of what it would take to mount a presidential campaign against the White House in places like Iowa and Nevada and New Hampshire and South Carolina.

My response? There are quite a few Democrats in this country, and most of them would like a Democrat to vote for. Obama may have a (D) next to his name, but his policies are rated (R).

The New Republic makes the mistake Democrats always make: They accept the terrain as it is. The Right doesn't do that. They get out their bulldozers and remake the political landscape.

Go thou and do likewise.

Build a movement and leaders will appear.

Update: Carolyn Kay hipped me to this amazing piece by Clarence B. Jones, Scholar in Residence, Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University -- at HuffPo, no less.

It is not easy to consider challenging the first African-American to be elected as President of the United States. But, regrettably, I believe that the time has come to do this.

The pursuit of the war in Afghanistan in support of a certifiably corrupt Afghan government and the apparent willingness to retreat from his campaign commitment of no further tax cuts for the rich, his equivocal and foot dragging leadership to end DADT, his TARP for Wall Street, but, equivocal insufficient attention to the unemployment and housing foreclosures of Main Street, suggest that the template of the 1968 challenge to the reelection of President Lyndon Johnson now must be thoughtfully considered for Obama in 2012.

And there's the ultimate answer to those who tell us that challenging Obama will strengthen the Republicans. If Johnson had run again in 1968, he would have done worse than Humphrey did -- and certainly worse than RFK would have, had he lived.

HHH came thisclose to victory; he failed only because the anti-war left could work up no enthusiasm for Johnson's veep. That's why Biden can't be the standard-bearer in 2012. (I'd love to vote for him, but I seem to be the only one.)

To those who think purely in terms of shirts-versus-skins -- to those who say that if you don't love Obama you must love Palin -- I say: Look at history. We are hardly the first Democrats saddled with a disappointing leader. The protesters yelling "Hey, hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?" were not right-wingers, and did not want to see Nixon in office. They protested because conscience required protest, and history justified their stance.

Bobby would have won.

Johnson would have lost.

And Obama...?

PS. I just noticed something striking about the "blue sunrise" logo above: If you squint a bit, you could say that this design resembles the old "eye in the triangle" motif which plays such a huge role in right-wing kook literature. That should drive the far-right conspiracy wackos nuts. Free publicity! Permalink

I give you the final form of the New Deal logo. Well...maybe the final form. (See the previous two posts for a preview of this important upcoming project.) Many, many thanks to those who offered feedback on the earlier versions.

(Update: Now that I've been looking at this thing for half a day, I don't like it. Sometimes it takes me a few hours to "fall in hate" with a visual idea. Back to the drawing board!)

There has been some question as to whether the arrows denote "right versus left" or "past versus future." The former was my intention. Frankly, though, I'm not bothered if anyone sees the blue arrow as a pointer to the past -- because the Democratic past deserves admiration and emulation.

Maybe that's one reason why I came to dislike the term "progressive." Progress toward what?

The term "radical" also has unnerving connotations. The Nazis were pretty damned radical. So are the teabaggers and the libertarians. The tea party movement is funded by the Kochs, who ultimately hope to end the very idea of government. Somalia is their utopia.

The right no longer deserves the term "conservative." They don't want to conserve anything. Like Tyler Durden (a fictional character who demonstrates the way anti-establishment rebellion can morph into fascism), the libertarians want to destroy civilization and start afresh. That was the program in Iraq; that was the program in Yeltsin's Russia; that's what they want to do everywhere else.

When people ask for a quick definition of my political stance, I tell them that I am an Eisenhower Republican -- which means that, by modern definition, I am a Bolshie. That's a joke, but it's a joke with truth in it.

In Ike's day, both major political parties shared a basic understanding of how to maintain prosperity. I want a return to that economic consensus; so do many other people. (But I do not want a return to unjust, foolish and stultifying mid-century attitudes regarding race and sex.)

Look again at the blue arrow in the logo. Is it pointing left or is it pointing to the past? Either reading works for me.

Let's go back. Back to the future.

And let's start with a primary challenge to Obama. The idea gains momentum by the hour. Look at the compendium of opinion in this superb post over at Sky Dancing. Today, the only argument is whether Obama went rightward by intent or by incompetence. As longtime readers know, I came to the conclusion early on that he leans right by nature. But if we want to form a mass movement, we must forgive those who woke up late.

One thing is for sure: Fewer and fewer liberals count Obama among their number.

Will Democrats lose black voters if they field another candidate? The depressed black vote during the midterms indicates unhappiness with the way Barack Obama is doing business. Fewer black voters support him than ever before, and those who still do seem (in my view) much less enthusiastic. I suspect that many African Americans are no longer for Obama; they are against Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich or Romney.

I feel the same way. That's why we need a New Deal.

Black unemployment is now up to 16 percent -- and as we all know, the real unemployment figures are always substantially higher. Eventually, African American voters must ask themselves: Which is more important -- having a job or supporting Obama?

Barack Obama is hardly the only American politician who hails from a minority group. There are plenty of talented people in the African American, Latino and Asian communities, and most of those potential candidates have a genuine commitment to liberal principles.

Face it: We elected a Dem who ain't no Dem. Time for a New Deal. Permalink

What do you think of the logo? Can you see this on T-shirts?

Unless there are major objections, this logo (or something similar) will appear on the forthcoming site discussed in the post below.

Just in case anyone reading these words cannot understand why we need a modern New Deal movement, check out this Politico story: "Barack Obama's deals may leave liberals behind." When have they not?

Democratic divisions make this task harder since the necessary compromises by Obama will almost certainly come at the expense of the left.

UPDATE: And here's another example. During the campaign, Obama said "I will take a backseat to no one in protecting net neutrality." Now, his FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski (who headed Obama's telecommunications working group during the campaign) has revealed plans to end net neutrality. Big telecomunications companies will now soon be able to prioritize web traffic, creating a "pay to play" internet that will censor the unfunded.

Has there ever been a campaign lie so brazen? Well, yes -- Obama's Great NAFTA Hoax. Remember that?

Hey hey ho ho: Mr. O has got to go. It's time to fight back.

There was some surprisingly respectful discussion of the "New Deal" proposal on Democratic Underground. As you know, many of the commentators there have become disillusioned with Obama -- but some don't want to see him wounded in the general election (presuming he prevails in the primary).

My response:

1. Although Jimmy Carter was a better president than Obama, I've never regretted my vote for Teddy Kennedy during the 1980 primaries. Kennedy represented my values. At the convention, when Kennedy spat out the name of Zbigniew Brzezinski (who was Carter's Kissinger), the crowd responded with a standing boo.

The ever-Machiavellian Brzezinski later mentored Barack Obama.

2. If Obama can't turn this economy around pronto, he can't possibly win. If he sensibly takes the LBJ route and bows out of the 2012 race, we'll need Democrats ready to hop in. Lets make sure that they are New Deal Democrats -- Democrats who can claim that they are not cut from Obama's cloth.

3. Yes, even I must admit that there is a considerable difference between Obama and Palin. Yes, there's a difference between Obama and Huckabee. Yes, there's a difference between Obama and Gingrich.

But between Obama and Romney...?

4. If the previous three reasons do not impress you, consider this: The tea party propagandists have convinced at least half the population that Obama is a socialist. The only way to counter that canard is to mount a vigorous challenge to Obama from the left.

We need to pound home the message that Obama's stimulus went to tax cuts, not to job creation. We need to pound home the message that Obama's health care plan was nothing like the one we favored. We need to condemn Bush and Obama alike for not buying the troubled banks outright and firing their chief officers.

5. The Republicans revivified their party and succeeded in 2010 not by going centrist. Playing to the center simply does not work. Bipartisanship simply does not work.

What's that? You say that you would prefer to mount a third party challenge?

Pheh. Come on -- think about it: Have libertarians working within the Libertarian party ever accomplished anything? No. But libertarians working within the Republican party have accomplished astonishing things. Astonishing and horrifying.

We must mirror their tactics if we want to undo the damage they've done.

The best image we can present is that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the man in the wheelchair who kicked Hitler's ass. No image can be more radical -- or more American.

Visually, I'm going to drape the modern New Deal movement in red, white and blue. The Republicans have been taken over by the tea party fascists, and the tea partiers are talking secession. They want revolution. Unless and until the Republicans in Congress condemn Ron Paul for his endorsement of disunion, they do not deserve to carry the American flag.

For years, wimpy progressives and moderates have told conservatives: "It's our flag too." Here's a stronger message: "It's OUR flag -- PERIOD." If the right won't commit to the union, then they have forfeited their claim to the stars and stripes.

Have you noticed that the rightists no longer call themselves "the patriot movement," as they did in Clinton's day? I suspect that they have already become psychologically dislodged from our union.

Some cynics say that we cannot return to New Deal ideals. They say that times have changed. I ask those cynics to look at the video below. Times were even tougher then -- yet those years produced a president like FDR.

Permalink

Should Obama face a primary challenge? A growing number of internet pundits embrace the notion. As the previous post indicated, we don't have a candidate -- yet.

But we can start a movement. Once a movement gets going, candidates will come forward. Build it and they will come.

Construction starts today. Keep watching this space.

That's right: An eccentric and notoriously cantankerous writer running a third-tier blog -- a dweeb who would much rather crawl into an attic and draw pictures all day -- actually intends to start a movement to remake the Democratic party.

Fortunately, I'm not alone. More about that later.

The name of this movement? New Deal.

You may have heard that term before. Why re-invent the wheel? And why hide from a proud history?

New Deal Democrats. If you don't feel comfortable with that phrase, maybe you need another blog. Another party. Another nation.

The new New Dealers will soon have a website. A forum. With luck, we'll have a news magazine. If all goes well, the site will soon feature lots of good writing by people other than yours truly.

The trick, of course, will be to keep contentious factions together: The Hillary hailers, the Gore groupies, the Kucinich kids, the friends of Feingold -- not to mention people like my ladyfriend, who has always had a soft spot for Carol Moseley Braun. There will be those who say that the best strategy for the new party is to go radical; others will prefer a more centrist approach.

What will unite us is this slogan: Anyone but Obama in 2012.

No. I tell a lie. It has to go deeper than that.

This isn't about a presidency; it's about an entire party that has taken the wrong direction.

Right now, we are led by a president who talked like a populist before the election then gave the economy over to Larry Summers and Tim Geithner. In all the controversy over health care "reform," single payer was refused even a moment's consideration. Our Senate leader took money from Abramoff and our House leader sold out on the public option. Only Hillary Clinton called for a new HOLC to keep people in their homes -- and then she was shunted off to the State Department.

Have any Democrats really pushed to end outsourcing? Have any Democrats pushed for tarrifs on cheap imports? Have any Democrats proclaimed that unfettered trade is a failure? Have any Democrats called for government investment in new American factories?

How many Dems would dare to tell you that Toyota would still be a minor maker of looms if not for the massive help it received from the Japanese government?

Today, the Dems are poised to cave on tax cuts for millionaires, even though polls show that the majority of Republican voters don't want such cuts.

The Democrats now stand damned as "socialists" -- yet they continue to run from the FDR legacy. Health care was given over to the insurance vampires. Dems may soon fulfill Dubya's dream of destroying Social Security. We continue to spend our treasure on needless military adventures. The congressman who will probably be the leading Dem on the House Communications Subcommittee wants to end net neutrality. The architects of the Iraq debacle remain uninvestigated and unpunished. Democrats on the intelligence committees never investigate the agencies they should be overseeing. Warrant-free electronic eavesdropping continues.

When citizens facing foreclosure woke up to the fact that the mortgage holders don't actually possess the required paperwork (due to their incessant financial shennanigans), the Obama Dems did not side with the little guys. They sided with the bankers.

The "stimulus" bill was really a tax-cut bill, not a jobs bill. Yet our propagandized citizenry has been taught to view it as a "Marxist" measure. If Democrats are going to take that kind of heat, they might as well have something to show for it. They should have produced a bill that actually puts people back to work.

We need Democrats who will boldly say that capitalism can work only if money is siphoned away from the Swiss bank accounts of the Wall Street vampires and put into the wallets of the struggling many. People who lost their $18 an hour jobs are now competing for $8 an hour jobs. If the average person has no spending power, how will the economy recover?

We need Democrats who will boldly say that those who control 90 percent of the wealth should pay a commensurate share of the taxes. The top tax rate under Eisenhower was, in fact, 90 percent -- and the country did great. Under Reagan, it was 50 percent. Today, it is 35 percent. Strange as it sounds, anyone advocating a "return to Reagan" policy would now be labeled a New Dealer.

How did this happen? Why is the previous norm now considered unthinkable?

We allowed the most radical conservatives to commandeer the national conversation. This must stop. We need Democrats who will regard Republicans, libertarians, secessionists and theocrats as blood enemies.

The GOP has been taken over by tea party fascists who simply do not believe in democracy. They talk about secession. They speak of violent revolution. They have mired themselves in the tar pits of fanaticism and Birchite conspiracy theories. They don't believe in taxation with representation. They have written their own history books -- bizarre revisionist histories which recognize no substantive difference between West Germany and East Germany, between Swede and Soviet.

Until the Republicans cull these monsters from their midst, there can be no bipartisanship.

The Republican base has become indistinguishable from the followers of Francisco Franco and Mussolini. FDR treated fiends of this sort contemptuously and ruthlessly, and we must do likewise.

We need Democrats unafraid to call right-wing zealots by their proper name. If Coughlin deserved to be called a fascist, then so does Beck. The F-word must re-enter everyday political discourse.

Our enemies wrap themselves in the flag and speak of patriotism, even though they seek to end the democratic experiment and turn this country into a Dubai-like hell-hole of indentured servitude. Libertarianism is the true road to serfdom -- yet the Tea Partiers demand a libertarian dystopia at any cost. As Milton Friedman's grandson stated in an unguarded moment, libertarianism is not compatible with democracy. Judson Phillips, a leader of the tea party movement, has called for removing the voting rights of anyone who does not own substantive property. The main funders of the tea party movement, the Koch brothers, are anarchists who believe that the United States government should be abolished. "Dominionists" have actually called for a return to slavery.

Can we ever make peace with the mad zealots who think this way? No.

Bipartisanship equals appeasement. Obama, Pelosi and Reid refuse to let go of Neville Chamberlain's umbrella.

They're not the only ones carrying brollies. The "new media" organs which created the cult of Obama are run by libertarians-in-disguise and by snooty, cappuccino-sipping Whole Foods shoppers who disdain the working class. Look and see: Markos Moulitsas, Arianna Huffington, Andrew Sullivan. These are the people who have helped to ruin the Democratic party.

We need a return to Roosevelt. A return to principles.

A new New Deal.

The Obama Democrats -- a breed which long preceded the advent of Obama himself -- have always allowed the Republicans to frame the issues. This damnable blundering must cease. Our enemies never begin with concession. They always seek to reconstruct the terms of debate.

In 2008, as the economy collapsed and the full scope of free market theft became clear, the world suddenly understood the dire results of unrestricted laissez faire. Pundits said that the Republican party would either become more moderate or fall into dust.

Today, the apostles of Ayn Rand stand poised to take over all three branches of government. How did they accomplish this task? By changing the terrain. By refusing to accept the political landscape as it then stood.

We must do likewise.

Right now, we are in the germinal stage. Your help is needed.

What should be the ten guiding principles of the New Deal?

(As a postscript, let me add this personal note. I intend to help the New Deal movement get started -- and then I'll step away. An eccentric and ornery writer should not form associations. Blogging becomes no fun when one must watch every word for fear that an unpopular opinion may taint others. So fair warning: Once the tyke can stand on his or her own, I'll be a runaway father. But that's a consideration for the future.) Permalink

Riverdaughter of the Confluence has an excellent post up today. She links, in turn, to pieces by Paul Krugman, Anglachel and Ian Welsh. All four writers sound variations of the same theme: Obama has wounded -- is wounding, will continue to wound -- the Democratic base. Enough is enough. A primary challenge is mandatory.

I disagree with Riverdaughter on this point:

Because, like it or not, there is only one person *at the present time* who can take on Obama and win. Even if you are still suffering from CDS psychosis, I urge Obots for the sake of UNITY to join with us and push back.

The reference goes to Hillary, of course. Alas, she will be -- perhaps already is -- too tainted by her links to this administration.

The "Obama as socialist" canard, though utterly insane, has penetrated the American psyche. Any primary challenger who hopes to prevail in the general must therefore package herself or himself as a new Democrat, as an anti-Obama Democrat -- as, God help us, an anti-socialist Democrat.

Hillary can't do that. She reeks of Obama's funk.

Then there's the damage to Hillary's reputation wrought by the Wikileaks data dump -- which, by the by, has not yet run its course.

No, it won't be her. Sorry. Who, then?

Two obvious names come to mind: Al Gore and Wesley Clark.

Al Gore, sorry to say, has been tainted by allegations of sexual misconduct. The "massage groping" claim may have some validity, and will likely injure his appeal to female voters -- especially if he were to run against a female Republican nominee. There is some talk that his marriage ended due to an affair with another woman. I don't know if the story is accurate and I don't really care. But after the John Edwards imbroglio, who wants to revisit such tawdry territory?

Clark is not my favorite candidate. And he's not a young man. A lingering rumor holds that he had some link to the planning of the Waco siege. Although I have seen no evidence for this claim, any sudden disclosures along these lines could do serious political harm.

Aside from that, he has many points in his favor. First: He's a military man from the south. Although he won't win any states down in Dixie, his military background will blunt the enthusiasm of all but the craziest teabaggers. He opposed the Iraq war. He is pro-choice. He's pretty good on the environment. He has been consistent in his opposition to a strike against Iran.

Before we go any further, let us savor an historical irony: In 2004, Joe Lieberman said that Clark's decision to register as a Democrat was due to "political convenience, not conviction."

Joe Lieberman said that. Joe Lieberman, ladies and gentlemen.

Clark may not have the ability to hypnotize the Kos krazies the way Obama did -- women won't swoon at his rallies -- but he's one Democrat with built-in protection against the "socialist" smear. The word just won't stick.

Outside of these two obvious choice, what possibilities do we see?

Well, there's Howard Dean. My main problem with Dean is that he still reeks of Moulitsas.

Evan Bayh is unnervingly hawkish on Iran. His sudden decision not to seek a third term in the Senate (despite oodles of money and a lead in the polls) led to speculation about a skeletonized closet. His last-minute decision to drop out made it impossible for any other Democrat to get on the primary ballot. This move cannot have endeared him to the party.

One outsider worth considering is Peter DeFazio of Oregon. He opposed TARP. He opposed the stimulus bill. He was the first Democrat to call for the firing of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner. He is a strong opponent of free trade agreements.

All of this means that he can position himself as the UnObama. He has taken positions pleasing to the party base -- yet his voting record instantly disarms tea-stained attackers. In fact, he has railed against what he calls "corporate socialism," which is the sort of rhetoric that could impress certain factions within the teabagger movement.

DeFazio opposed the Iraq invasion. He offers serious opposition to free trade agreements such as NAFTA. He did honorable military service. He is "reasonably religious." He opposes gun control. He comes from a "purple" state, not a true-blue one -- a largely rural state populated by guys who hunt, drink good beer and wear plaid flannel shirts.

The vote against the stimulus bill may play out in odd ways, because the bill as it exists in the public imagination differs from the actual legislation. Incessant tea party propaganda has convinced much of the populace that the stim bill was somehow "Marxist." In fact, it was largely a matter of tax cuts to individuals and corporations. Almost nothing in that bill went to jobs creation; an insufficient $100 million went to infrastructure.

DeFazio opposed the legislation because he felt that cutting taxes at a time of falling revenue would worsen the deficit. Which it did. Thus, the fact that he voted against the bill may play well with the right, while his reason for that vote may play well with the left.

As I wrote earlier:

No-other left-wing Democrat -- not even Kucinich -- has so consistently and loudly opposed Obama's economic mismanagement. In 2012, many disillusioned progressives who had once backed Obama will thank all of heaven's angels that Peter DeFazio has compiled such a principled resume.

His major problem is one of image: He is not a stirring speaker, and he looks like he should be playing a grocery clerk in a '60s sitcom. (His face could benefit from a beard. Something Sebastian Cabot-ish.)

In many other ways, however, he's a good choice. I think that this could be the guy. Permalink

I chose a deliberately provocative title. A headline about net neutrality might have served this piece just as well...but it wouldn't have made so sharp a point.

Please meet Congressman Bobby Rush, pictured on your left. He hails from Illinois. Interestingly, he is the only person in history (so far) to defeat Barack Obama for elective office. This quote, from that 2000 race, bears repeating:

"Barack Obama went to Harvard and became an educated fool. Barack is a person who read about the civil-rights protests and thinks he knows all about it."

Rush truly does know all about it: As a young man, he took part in civil disobedience campaigns in the segregated south and helped to found the Black Panthers. He voted the right way on Iraq.

So far, I like this guy. But.

Rush now has something in common with the teabaggers: He wants to end net neutrality.

The teabaggers are conducting a massively deceptive propaganda campaign on this issue. They want to convince the populace that net neutrality is some strange new "socialistic" scheme by which Barack Obama hopes to achieve control of the internet. The truth: Net neutrality is the way things are right now.

The opponents of net neutrality hope to get rid of our present system, where the funded and unfunded -- the big and the small -- have equal standing on the web. The monster corporations want to replace this happy land of equal opportunity with a new scheme called tiered service.

Under this proposed plan, websites from big corporations will load up super-fast, while websites from Charlie Nobodies will load slowly, or not at all. Unless you're willing to pony up big dough, fewer eyeballs will see your internet offerings. Ordinary folk will probably have to pay higher monthly internet bills in order to access sites like the one you're reading right now.

The likely results: Ruination for small business. The end of cheap VOIP telephone service. Political debate will be restricted.

You know damned well that the websites run by (for instance) Andy "Big Asshole" Brietbart will load up immediately, while unfunded websites will putter and sputter like a Model T running on corn syrup. Right now, on the left side of the internet, Daily Kos and The Confluence reach your retinas with equal speed. If net neutrality dies, it'll be all Moulitsas, all the time. Hell, we'll be lucky to get that.

The people pushing this crap offer casuistic and deceptive arguments. They tell us that a tiered internet will offer more rapid downloads of movies and TV content. Sure, you'll give up your internet freedom -- but hey, you'll get FOX News faster. So it all evens out, right?

What the propagandists don't tell you is that broadband already works much faster in other countries than in the U.S. Right now, if you're in the UK, you can watch high-def programming from the BBC over the internet in real time -- and the shows look great.

Other nations did not have to give up net neutrality in order to achieve lightning-fast download speeds, so why should we?

The big communications companies have spent heavily to purchase lawmakers. Among the recipients of this largesse, I am sorry to say, is Bobby Rush.

He wants to become the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. At the moment, the leading Democrat on that committee is Rick Boucher. The Republicans will take over next year -- and you know damned well that they will stand united against net neutrality. Rush will stand with the GOP and the teabaggers.

A group called Color of Change, headed by one James Rucker, doesn't want Nancy Pelosi to give Rush this appointment. Rucker hopes that you will call Pelosi's office -- (202) 225-4965; (415) 556-4862 -- and tell her to avoid the Rush:

“I have grave doubts that Congressman Rush is capable of being an honest broker on important telecommunications matters,” Rucker, who headed grassroots mobilization for MoveOn.org Political Action from 2003-2005, wrote. “AT&T, America’s oldest and largest telecommunications company, has long been one of the largest donors to Congressman Rush’s campaign committee and leadership PAC.

“In addition, from 2001 to 2004 the company donated $1 million to a community center Rush founded in Chicago – an off-the-books donation that could lead one to wonder about the prospect of quid pro quo regarding the Congressman and AT&T,” Rucker added.

During his congressional career, Rush has received $78,964 from AT&T. The telecom giant is Rush’s second largest career contributor, which is also true for the leading Republican candidate to run the committee, Fred Upton (R-Michigan). Rush’s other top donors include the National Cable and Telecommunications Association ($43,499), and Verizon ($42,000), according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

As Jerry Brown (between governorships) once told Gore Vidal during a broadcast interview: "It's amazing how little we sell out for." Those words apply across the whole of Congress, good and bad, D and R.

So why did I choose the "in your face" headline that stands atop this post? Because some Rush defenders have chosen to racialize the issue. Their argument: Bobby Rush is an African American who did laudable work in previous years -- therefore he can't possibly be corrupt now.

Using the old, “you can’t trust them because they take money from corporations trick”, the group’s executive director James Rucker asks Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi to oppose Rush’s candidacy...

That's a trick? A freakin' trick?!? Jesus H. Kee-rist, who writes this gunk -- Maxwell Smart?

Here's how Rush's defenders describe Color of Change:

Color of Change is a 5-year old advocacy group that is known best for its ground-breaking work on three campaigns: 1. assisting the Jenna 6 defendants get the case dropped against them; 2. helping Hurricane Katrina victims’ and 3. organizing an internet campaign that resulted in some corporate sponsors pulling out from sponsoring Glenn Beck’s Fox News television show over the race baiting Beck does on his show.

Sounds good to me. One doesn't have to reach back across decades to find positive things on this resume. But the Rush backers are not impressed.

Let’s see… hmmm. Who to trust? Who to believe?

The head of a 5-year old group that has abandoned its previous mission of empowering people of color through real tangible means in exchange for championing one issue about arcane network prioritization, a “problem” that is NOT on the minds of any jobless, undereducated, disempowered and underemployed person of color…

or...

Or Bobby Rush. For all of the man's previous accomplishments, the fact remains: Power corrupts.

As long-time readers may know, one of my pet theories holds that the movie Lawrence of Arabia contains a quotation appropriate to every occasion. In this case, the quote comes during an early scene between Peter O'Toole and Anthony Quinn: "The servant is the one who takes the money."

Rush takes the money. Even his defenders admit it.

True, the jobless and the under-educated may not have net neutrality uppermost on their minds right now -- but that's only because they haven't heard the news about what lies ahead, or because they can't visualize the pay-to-play internet that the big corporations have in store for us. They don't understand that the telecoms want internet service to be like cable TV: For a certain price you get certain websites; for a higher price you get even more websites...

The end of net neutrality will be another libertarian nightmare. It will be the ultimate disempowerment device. Minorities will be hit particularly hard by a new internet in which the axiom "money talks" determines which sites pop into your browser.

Yeah, my skin is white and Rush's is black. So? In the end, this issue is not about black or white -- it's about green.

The servant is the one who takes the money. Permalink

Most of you have not paid the slightest attention to the last year's coup in Honduras. You should. For at least four reasons:

1. Wikileaks released a July 24, 2009 State Department memo which makes clear that the Obama administration knew full well that the Honduran military acted illegally when it removed the (mildly) left-leaning Honduran president Mel Zelaya. Obama tried to square the circle -- tepidly condemning the coup while continuing to do business as usual with the new (extra-legal and despotic) government.

This all happened on Obama's watch. And on Hillary's, sorry to say.

2. The administration's lukewarm and vague response to the coup managed to piss off both the right and the left. Tea party types castigate Obama as a friend to Zelaya, whom the rightists (predictably and stupidly) picture as the very incarnation of Marxism. Meanwhile, many people in Central and South America consider Obama the secret author of the action against Zelaya.

One side damns Obama as a commie; the other side damns him as an imperialist bastard. It takes talent to fuck up on that level.

3. The "imperialist bastard" label is probably much closer to the truth.

The real powers behind the coup were two companies, Dole and Chiquita. Chiquita was previously known as United Fruit -- and if that name doesn't ring any bells, you should read up on your CIA history.

Zelaya pissed off these firms when he moved to raise the minimum wage above bare subsistence. This article by John Perkins tells the story...

I was told by a Panamanian bank vice president, “Every multinational knows that if Honduras raises its hourly rate, the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean will have to follow. Haiti and Honduras have always set the bottom line for minimum wages. The big companies are determined to stop what they call a ‘leftist revolt’ in this hemisphere. In throwing out Zelaya they are sending frightening messages to all the other presidents who are trying to raise the living standards of their people.”

Here's a cute little data-point you probably didn't know:

President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder had been a Covington partner and a defender of Chiquita when the company was accused of hiring “assassination squads” in Colombia (Chiquita was found guilty, admitting that it had paid organizations listed by the US government as terrorist groups “for protection” and agreeing in 2004 to a $25 million fine).

(The firm of Covington and Burling lobbies for Chiquita.)

Eric Holder, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner -- guys like that can be found all over Team O. Yet half the American population thinks that Obama is some sort of socialist. That's because half the population is bugfuck nuts.

4. On a deeper level, this coup is about drugs -- the great unmentionable factor in American politics. (The trade takes in $300 billion annually.) Zelaya took real action against the drug lords, which may have been his greatest "sin." Colombia's drug thugs use Honduras as a trans-shipment point.

Most people in the United States would be shocked to learn that Chiquita's ships have transported cocaine. Our neighbors to the south are better educated about such things. Dig:

Drug enforcement agents and customs officials in Belgium and the United Kingdom found a total of more than a ton of almost pure cocaine hidden in at least seven Chiquita ships in 1997, according to European custom services and Chiquita sources.

The seized cocaine is worth up to $33 million in its pure form, and valued at more than $100 million if sold on the streets, according to Van Quarles of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Washington, D.C.

Spokesmen for the DEA, and customs agencies in Belgium and United Kingdom, confirmed that sei-zures of illegal drugs there in 1997 were made on Chiquita ships and not on those of its competitors, such as Del Monte, Dole or the Irish company Fyffes, that also ship fruit from South and Central America.

Also see this piece from last July about a lawsuit against Chiquita:

These plaintiffs come right out and accuse Chiquita of direct involvement in drug and weapons shipments, to demonstrate a close link between the Chiquita payments and other actions, on the one hand, and acts of kidnapping and murder, on the other.

There's more after the jump...

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

This morning, a press release popped into my inbox. That's not unusual; most press releases can safely be ignored. But this one -- from something called the International Action Center’s Committee in Solidarity with Latin America & the Caribbean -- makes for genuinely interesting reading. Yeah, you'll find some lefty boilerplate here, but there are also many points which deserve further investigation.

The bottom line of this argument comes to this: The Obama administration engineered the coup.

Will Markos Moulitsas allow any mention of this on Daily Kos? Will any so-called "progressives" shout "Oh my God! Get this to Keith!"? I doubt it.

And away we go:


Latin American solidarity and anti-imperialist activists around the world, as well as the people of Latin America did not need WikiLeaks’ “leaked” documents to tell them what they already knew: the U.S. government was well aware that the June 28, 2009 ouster of democratically and legitimately elected President Jose Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was illegal and unconstitutional.

This “leaked” information however is far from the whole story.

Not only did the U.S. government know that the ouster and kidnapping of President Zelaya was against all kinds of legal and political norms, there is ample proof that sections of the U.S. government and Pentagon were behind the coup.

The 2000 cables on Honduras are part of over 250,000 cables that WikiLeaks provided to several mainstream media outlets including The New York Times. Information revealed include documents that expose the fact that the “US is using its embassies around the world as part of a global spy network and asking diplomats to gather intelligence.” Somehow this is shocking “new” information.

It is not known, however, how many “Top Secret” documents have never been revealed. In addition, none of the media outlets that received the information are actual critics of U.S. imperialism.

The Obama administration and the bourgeois media are nonetheless up in arms about the leaks, which are said to be sending shock waves throughout the diplomatic world.

The mainstream media is repeating again and again how the leaks are placing U.S. soldiers and other government representatives in danger, somehow overlooking the fact that it is war and imperialist intervention that puts U.S. soldiers in harms’ way, not information about the lies used to justify the war.

US Imperialism & Latin America

For countless decades, U.S. imperialism has treated Latin America as its “backyard.” The U.S. government has found innumerable ways to intervene in the region. All its plans have been made in order to dominate and control the area, exploit its workers and steal its riches.

When the people’s struggles get in the way of U.S. plans, imperialism will stop at nothing to continue its domination.

U.S. aims in Honduras are no exception.

The take in several news sources on the WikiLeaks released documents are that U.S. Embassy officials spin on the June 2009 developments in Honduras prevented cutting aid to Honduras at the time. The U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa refrained from calling the kidnapping and ouster of President Zelaya a “military” coup. By merely calling it a “coup” U.S. aid could continue.

The coup was condemned by every multilateral Latin American body, as well as the United Nations, the European Union and many others. The Organization of American States and the UN General Assembly called for the immediate and unconditional return of President Zelaya. Most Latin American governments, including Venezuela and Bolivia, refused to recognize the government after the coup.

The U.S. Ambassador to Honduras at the time was Hugo Llorens, a well known enemy of the peoples’ struggle in Latin America. Llorens is Cuban American and very hostile to the Cuban Revolution.

The cable he signed dated July 24, 2009 said that elements in the Honduran legislative and judicial branches “"conspired" with the military to remove Zelaya from power. Llorens also admitted that President Zelaya’s letter of resignation was a pure fabrication.

But Llorens will not admit U.S. military complicity in the coup, which he knows about and may have even organized.

Well-known researcher Eva Golinger however demonstrates how in the weeks after the coup the U.S. base Soto Cano in Honduras played a fundamental role in the downfall of President Zelaya.

And according to many sources, including Rolando Valenzuela, a minister in Zelaya’s government who was assassinated in Honduras after the coup, Llorens knew about the coup before it occurred.

On November 29, 2010 exiled President Zelaya said the leaked cable demonstrated "complicity" in the coup on the part of the U.S.

The resistance in Honduras also writes about the WikiLeaks information:

“The transnational media outlets would never dare to seriously damage the interests of the U.S. The first important Tegucigalpa cable dated 2009-07-24 appeared in El Pais clearly shows a dismissal of significant information of the story told from viewpoint of Hugo Llorens in which he appears to be arguing on the basis of only one topic; the golpistas’ argument on the legality of the coup as if they never made it to sell a credible story on the Honduras crisis.

“The message seems to focus blame on how the oligarchy of Honduras failed on doing a smarter job completely. However, we wonder, is this really something we would have had to wait years or decades to see otherwise?” End of quote from Honduras.

Solidarity with Honduras resistance decisive

The U.S. role in Honduras is not just an exercise in constitutional law.

There is a bloodbath going on in Honduras today. Unionists, teachers, students, campesinos, women and youth are being beaten, tortured, killed, disappeared and exiled. An illegal government is carrying out U.S. imperialism aims in order to hold back the peoples movement in Honduras.

President Manuel Zelaya attempted to put in place policies that would help the people, policies like raising the minimum wage and nationalizing certain industries. This terrified and angered capitalist interests, especially from the U.S.

This is why the coup occurred.

The coup also took place to send a message to the movements of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and the country of Cuba: do not dare to fight back against U.S. imperialism.

Not only the people throughout Latin America but the people of Honduras are defying that message.

No illegal U.S. orchestrated coup will hold back the peoples struggle in Honduras or throughout Latin America. There is only one way out of the dire conditions the Latin American masses face: and that is the struggle for a better world, free of the shackles of U.S. imperialism.

Solidarity with Honduras and all the struggles in Latin America are decisive.

The movement in the U.S. is especially important, as it is this government that is behind all the misery in Latin America and the Caribbean as well as all the world. We cannot wait for another “leaked” document to raise the clarion call “U.S. imperialism out of Honduras! Victory to the Honduran Resistance!” Permalink