Someone once described Havergal Brian's Symphony No. 1 as "All gong and no dinner." That pretty much sums up the Obama administration, doesn't it? Dakinkat has asked me to direct your attention to Joseph Stiglitz' brilliant piece on how to solve the world economic meltdown.
The prescription for what ails the global economy follows directly from the diagnosis: Strong government expenditures, aimed at facilitating restructuring, promoting energy conservation, and reducing inequality, and a reform of the global financial system that creates an alternative to the buildup of reserves.
It isn’t hard. Find a die hard Tea Partier or die-hard left wing Anarchist for that matter. Convince them that “the Man” has to be taught a lesson. They don’t even have to shoot anyone. Just fire some shots in the air and run like hell...
A wide spectrum media campaign to discredit the OWS movement. From all directions, not just Fox News–about corruption in the OWS leadership, tax evasion, jaywalking, whatever. This will come first, as it is needed to turn public opinion against OWS.
When a leader emerges -- that's inevitable, and don't pretend otherwise -- the Fox Newsers will do their oppo research, and eventually they will find something. Maybe they'll discover that the leader ran over a cat in 1983. OWS will then be labeled the "cat-killer movement." Sean Hannity will deliver his broadcasts backed by footage of cute little kittens.
Watch it happen.
Where did the money go? I don't agree with everything written here, but the piece reminds us of the reason we're in trouble. It wasn't the stimulus package: That was $700 billion, much of which went to tax cuts. It wasn't TARP: A lot of that was paid back -- although you'll find varying data as to how much was repaid. No, we went bust because we went into needless battle:
America’s two wars of choice in the Middle East have cost $1.3 trillion in direct costs, thus far. The long-term costs will total over $3 trillion.
On top of that were the irresponsible tax cuts on the wealthy and a whole lot of pork spending throughout the Bush years. (As I often pointed out at the time, the red states were surprisingly happy to suck government teat.)
War, deregulation, red state pork and tax cuts. That's how we fucked ourselves. But you'll never get a Republican to admit the obvious. In fact, it's often quite hard to get Dems to admit it.
All of which brings me to today's new recommendation to the OWS goal-seekers. I favor a Constitutional amendment to insure that if we go to war, mandatory tax increases will kick in. Such an amendment would transform us into the most peace-loving nation the world has ever seen.
Permalink
Red state pork. That is sacred, how dare you question Government largesse bestowed upon God-fearing white Americans who depend on their military base for their God-fearing living? Commie.
posted by Anonymous : 6:02 PM
Tax increases, war bonds, tariffs, national sales tax, anything to pay for those stupid wars. Those wars were such a bad, bad idea. We are going to be broke, our infrastructure is crumbling as we speak, and our military is much, much weaker due to us using up our equipment, weapons and soldiers. It is going to take years and years to restock and rebuild.
posted by gregoryp : 9:57 PM
Your last paragraph contains the best idea I've ever seen to promote peace.
Until we can achieve a Constitutional amendment, and even if we cannot, we could still argue to pass right now a war tax, to help defray the current costs of the wars still on-going, plus the dead lost costs of the wars for the past 10 years, plus beginning to pay for the tail end costs in the coming decades (the long-term care costs of the veterans, and the interest costs of borrowing all that money for war in the intervening years.
As this would be a call for national sacrifice for the holy cause of war (it's not that, but it's treated as that), it would of course require the contribution of the rich.
XI
posted by Anonymous : 8:43 AM
if we go to war, mandatory tax increases will kick in
I love it!
posted by Sophie : 10:19 AM
It's too late to even talk about "go to war" ever again. Obama has already taken care of that with his predator drone warfare. No declarations, no media coverage, no"war zone" ----just CIA-run targets. And drone bases.
The preceding post has received a fair amount of attention, much of it surprisingly respectful. The biggest surprise of all was this mention by BooMan, the masochistic frog-wrangler who, in the past, has received a fair amount of ribbing in these cyber-pages.
Joe Cannon makes a compelling case for why the Wall Street protestors should make Tim Geithner's resignation one of their core demands. He does it, however, without making any argument whatsoever about what Geithner has done wrong. He simply states that he's been "awful." It's more about the symbolism, and I can't say he's wrong.
I've made the case for his awfulness in previous posts, and many other writers have made the argument more persuasively. At this stage of the game, there is no need to argue the obvious, just as one need not consult a professional hydrologist before stating that water is wet. But BooMan makes an excellent point...
I can make a solid argument that the real problem is with Eric Holder at the Department of Justice, who hasn't done enough to hold the banking criminals accountable for their actions.
And yet, for some reason, the public doesn't seem pissed off at Holder. The film Inside Job mentions Geithner and Summers by name. Holder goes unreferenced, even though the Justice Department gets slammed. Why is that?
Let's get back to Geithner:
Part of this is about realistic expectations. I don't know that we've ever had a Treasury secretary who was an adversary of Wall Street. That's not how our system functions or has ever functioned. The equivalent would be to hire a secretary of Defense who was implacably opposed to defense spending.
To an extent, this is reasonable. But 2009 was a special case. The people wanted radical action, and instead they got...Larry and Timmy.
Here's another reason to mistrust Timmy. Put him in a purple suit and spray his hair green, and he'd look an awful lot like a certain supervillain...
Y'know...since the marvelous Heath Ledger is no longer with us -- and Hollywood will probably never stop making Batman movies -- maybe Timmy should see his upcoming retirement as more of an opportunity....
Permalink
If you take aim at Eric Holder I suspect one aught to have a good hard look at the SEC, and the two way traffic between the SECs and the banksters. Why would anyone work for the SEC if they didnt have the carrot of a nice Wall Street job waiting for them. Is that really what the Pecora Commission was calling for? Self-regulation?
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 12:16 PM
When Booman agrees with you, it's time to start running the other way, IMO.
I agree that the Wall St. bankers are for the most part terrible people who did (and are doing) terrible things to the other 99% of us. But "obvious crimes?" Complaining that they are not in prison just begs the question: what sections of the U.S Code are you alleging they violated? I read the article you linked to and there is no answer there. Matt Taibbi is a cute kid, but his schtick is to stir up trouble to sell magazines, not come up with actually prosecutable crimes.
One reason the bad guys get away with what they do is they have bought and paid for Republican lawmakers to "repeal and deregulate." The awful stuff the bankers do is no longer illegal. I'm not suggesting that absolutely no Dems. went along with this, but they are few and far between. The blame is no where near even.
The other reason they get away with their bad acts is that corporations are not people -- they are set up specifically to be shields to personal liability.
If we want the laws changed, we all need to vote EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. And not for third party spoilers -- that's just an emotional outburst that might as well be another vote for the very problems we all decry. And we need to organize. It's not an either/or choice. We need to do both.
By the way, I'd still like a non-visceral explanation for why you hate Geithner so much. I get it that you don't like the shape of his face for resembling a comic villain (I happen to think that drawing looks more like Eric Cantor). But what else?
posted by BetterDays : 3:24 PM
It's even worse than I suspected in re: Our local affiliate of OWS.
I've become a member of their FB (I know) group and they're talking about fluoridation and the Rotschilds. When one of them complained they were starting to veer into craziness, the leader of the crazies responded with her college credentials - 3.75 GPA, Deans List, etc, etc ad infi-nothing.
With losers like the members of the Little Rock branch of OWS this thing is doomed.
posted by Penelope Pennebaker : 3:35 PM
To Penelope Pennebaker:
I like "ad infi-nothing"! Thanks for a great phrase (which I will be borrowing liberally) and a laugh.
I think there is hope for OWS. Organizing is hard work. But once some smarties decide to do it, the crazies and lazies will slink away and quit gumming up the works. Fingers crossed, anyway.
posted by BetterDays : 4:46 PM
Re: Penelope Pennebaker
I felt somewhat similarly when I read about the local "Occupy" faction where I live.
At the beginning of a meeting in the First Unitarian Church on Morewood Avenue, moderators tried to describe an elaborate system in which attendees would vote on proposals by agreeing, agreeing with reservations, standing aside, disagreeing or attempting to block an idea entirely.
Each option came with its own signal -- waving two hands in the air, creating an X by crossing one hand over the other -- and everyone would show their symbols at the same time.
After some shouting and a few groans from the crowd, moderators eventually decided instead to count the number of people who raised their hands when asked if they agreed with an idea. The group then had to define a consensus, which they set at 75 percent.
"It's important that everybody is heard," Ms. Houser said. "We don't want anyone to feel ostracized or left out." ~~
Sure, the local newspaper could be making this up, but it doesn't seem fabricated. It sure as hell doesn't inspire confidence in the "local chapter."
I know why I hate Geitner. When this crisis emerged, he was the main coordinator of the government response. There were really two broad strategies that could be followed. The first would involve nationalising banks, and extinguishing the claims of private capital. Subordinated debt issued by banks would have been worth zero. Shares issued by nationalised banks would have negligible net worth. However the banks themselves would have been rescued, and the bank holding companies stripped of value. To do this needed some pretty aggressive and brave decision making and possibly a little new law. But it would have avoiding being in the current situation where new credit is just not going to happen for the next 20 years unless government changes it. Banks were bailed out unconditionally with public money and with no punishment for the executives that failed. They continue to pay themselves and they continue to fail. Their banks will continue to shrink and credit creation will be in reverse for 20 years. And banks will continue to resist the changes which are required to revitalise the economy as these changes would dilute their ownership.
This choice has pretty much guaranteed a depression. That's good enough to hate him. In a choice between the public good and the status quo, they chose the status quo. Shame on them.
In addition, Geitner was a prominent member of the failed policy consensus that brought us to this sh*tty place. It was his championing of bank sponsored deregulation (among others). Same as Summers or Rubin. All of the same cloth. Its just that Geitner is still in office.
That consensus was wrong. It is pernicious. It will lead to ruin. It needs to be consigned to a dustbin and its ideas need to be ridiculed. Credit creation needs to be regulated. Banks need to be regulated. Utility businesses should make utility profits. If we dont reject it we will never be prosperous again.
They bailed out the banks in a way which ensured that no one was punished for failure. They gave them capital on non-economic terms. The banks used that grace to exploit and destroy their weakest customers who had already suffered their worst predations.
Shame on the UST and the Obama administration. Corrupt from the top to the bottom. Its a Bankocracy, and it cannot be tolerated.
So stop asking why Geitner? You are just revealing you havn't been paying attention for the last 10 years.
OWS: Here's the message you've all been waiting for
Lots of people, including this writer, have criticized the Occupy Wall Street movement for lacking a concrete goal. I have found it. I've come up with a single, clear demand -- easily stated and easily realized.
What I propose is not a final step but a first step. A demonstration of power, if you will.
If you are part of the movement, ask yourself: Do you truly want to gain power -- to get things done -- or do you just want to complain? In my experience, most leftwingers tend to view the exercise of power as a form of bad taste. Yes, power does corrupt -- but without it, what can be accomplished?
I propose that the OWS forces make a muscle and land a solid initial punch, aimed at a specific target.
Timothy Geithner. The Secretary of the Treasury must go.
Not only that. The world must understand that he was fired because the Occupiers demanded his removal. The man's termination notice must bear the initials OWS.
Here's how to do it: Every single time our beloved president appears in public to ask for cash, the protesters should screech: "Fire Tim or we'll fire you." Scream at the president rudely and ruthlessly until he capitulates to this demand.
Simple, no? Eventually, even Obama will have to heed the message.
Will firing one bad appointee solve all problems? Of course not. It may not even solve any problems. Tim Geithner has already done the worst of his damage -- both to the economy and to the Democratic party. Besides, Obama may well replace him with someone worse.
What, then, is the advantage of this tactic? I'll give you six good reasons for going this route.
In the first place, forcing a president to do something he clearly does not want to do establishes true power. It tells the world: "Meet the new boss -- not the same as the old boss. The new boss is us." When the ancient Romans took over a province, they would nail up a few potential troublemakers just to demonstrate that they could do a thing like that with impunity.
Second: Forcing Obama to take an unwelcome step establishes once and for all that the OWS movement is not a stalking horse for the Obama campaign. It says to the world: "We don't work for this president. Either he starts working for us, or we'll find someone who will."
Third: Demanding that Obama fire Geithner forces the president to make a choice. Right now, he's trying to square the circle, solidifying the base while asking the Wall Streeters for cash. Obama can have one or the other but not both.
Fourth: Tim Geithner's policies have protected the miscreants while impoverishing millions. Yes, he is but one man, but he symbolizes something larger: He is the face of the Obama administration's soft-on-Wall-Street agenda. That's why the tea partiers rarely target him (except in a lackluster, pro-forma fashion). Forcing his removal signals a new era of populist intolerance for finance capitalism's ruinous greed.
Fifth: It's do-able. Not just desirable: Do-able. Let me explain.
The protesters have proffered all sorts of ideas, many of which are excellent. But they cannot be accomplished soon; these demands cannot establish immediate clout.
Without clout, you are simply a gathering of mice discussing the need to bell the cat.
For example, one of the early OWS organizers said that a primary goal should be to increase taxes on the wealthy. Do I concur with that sentiment? Of course; I must have written hundreds of posts advocating a steeply progressive tax policy. But this goal is for the longer term. Like it or not, Congress has power of the purse -- and even if the OWS movement were fifty times stronger, it could not get that kind of legislation through this House of Representatives.
If the OWS movement says "Vote Democratic and we may be able to have a better tax policy," the movement becomes an appendage of the party. Mistake.
One acquaintance tells me he'd rather get rid of the insufferably corrupt Clarence Thomas. That's not do-able, alas -- at least not in the short term. But Tim Geithner serves at the pleasure of the president; put enough pressure on the president and the man is gone.
Some say that Geithner wants to leave anyways. Fine. But if he goes, it is best for him to leave with an OWS boot-print on his rump. Once the movement scores a big first win, the second win becomes easier.
Some organizers have called for a "presidential commission" on separating politics from the corrupting influence of big money. Of course I believe in electoral reform; I've argued in favor of radical reform since the 1970s. Cleaning up our elections may be the single most important step this democracy could take. But reform won't happen soon, not with Congress the way it is, and not with the courts the way they are.
Besides, everyone knows that "commissions" are established by people who want to insure that nothing gets done. Sorry, but we're still in "Let's bell the cat" territory.
Ah...but showing Timmy the door? That we can do. That particular cat is very, very bellable.
Ending his career may be but the first move in a long, long game of chess. Still, that move will establish power.
Power is attractive. Power begets power. You know why so many dolts pay good money for shirts and bags and hats sporting corporate logos? Because those logos are totems of entities considered influential and successful. On a primal level, people want to associate themselves with the large, the impressive -- the powerful.
Force the president to fire Tim Geithner. Force Obama to do one major thing that he clearly does not want to do. Afterwards, both he and all other politicians will take the protesters ultra-seriously.
Oh...I forgot to mention the sixth reason to demand the canning of Timmy: He's awful.
I particularly like it 'cause we can scream it at any Obot who dares suggest that Obama and his motley crew support OWS (e.g., try to own it - that includes DKos and his Obots).
And you're right. It's not just doable. It is very very desirable.
What other immediate actions can we demand?
posted by Anonymous : 2:55 PM
You are so right. Timmeh G. must be fired. Not allowed to resign, but be fired and the reasons you state are good starters. He allowed this mess to happen, he has stood in the way of cleaning it up and he is emblematic of what this administration is ..corrupt and incompetent.
Brilliant.. but the kids (sorry, Riverdaughter and fans, it is the KIDS and we're just supporting them, whether by presence, words or food/clothes/supplies delivery) are pretty dead set against demands.
Will be back later to post some links in support of your idea.
Ooooo, I like the suggestion. Maybe Geithner is feeling the chill--he came out and said he 'understands' the anger of the Occupy protesters. Hahaha! Too little, too late and the damage is massive.
But forcing the issue would be sweet, very sweet. And yes, a demonstration of people power without any love-juice for the current Administration or his deranged, rabid fans.
Peggy Sue
posted by Anonymous : 5:36 PM
It's a good idea, but the moment it happens, then the momentum turns against OWS.
Then the choir will start whining, "They got what they wanted, why don't they go HOME!"
Having demands that can be met, is the first step towards tearing the movement apart.
I get your point about the left's hesitancy to wield the levers of power, but that is not where my objection is coming from.
I just feel that OWS works better as the facilitator of change, but not it's engine.
"Then the choir will start whining, "They got what they wanted, why don't they go HOME!"
Having demands that can be met, is the first step towards tearing the movement apart."
Aeryl, I don't get that at all. In fact, I think this is dangerous thinking.
How many times have I seen this since the 1960s? "It's better, purer, if we don't actually accomplish anything." In other words, you want a whiners' club.
Screw that. I want no part in such a thing.
In fact, that's why I'm wary of the OWS thing -- I've seen the left erect many, many "whiners' clubs" over the decades. A whiners' club is purer, and need never trouble itself with responsibility or governance.
That's why lefties always fall for the myth of "consensus decision-making." They love it precisely because it can't work. Such people want to fail. They consider actual power to be in bad taste.
And that's why the movement purists will be disdainful instead of welcoming to any politicians who want to hop on board. They will see working with politicians as "selling out" instead of an exercise of power.
Screw that.
People are hurting. They need results.
I've seen the same damned mistakes made SO MANY TIMES BEFORE, the same rationalizations trotted out SO MANY TIMES BEFORE. This time...I'm saying NO. I want no part of crappy tactics that have failed every single time they've been tried before.
To paraphrase a noted after-dinner speaker: Progressive purists merely whine about history; the point is to change it.
A good, big win will energize a REAL movement. People won't just pack up and go home. They'll dig in for the next fight, because they'll know that THIS time, something is actually being DONE.
You know why you're dying to argue against me? You won't admit it to yourself, but you don't want to win.
I think its time we demonstrated the full power of this battle station.
posted by Anonymous : 6:38 PM
Great Idea Joseph. Just looking at Timmy makes my blood boil.
Is there any demand that OWS could make of Republicans too that is doable? It would be great to put a boot on the Tea Party faction of the GOP while demands are being made. They do control the HOUSE.
FYI...OCCUPY meetups are being organized and actually happening in the deep red SOUTH. This sort of movement would have been totally undoable just 4 short years ago. Unemployment and underemployment are very, very high in the south. Teenagers cannot find employment, older workers who've been laid off can't find employment and young adults are working several jobs just to stay afloat. Minorities are totally out of the employment picture in the south. We're in a helluva shape down here.
posted by ANonOMouse : 6:41 PM
Brilliant idea! Focus all their efforts on something pointless that would quickly become attempts to harass one man, knowing full well that OWS is joined at the hip with antispeech foreign criminals. Brilliant! That would not only fully discredit OWS, but might be a great way to discover the IDs of their criminal allies.
"I'd ask for the treasury to be completed emptied of any one that's worked for Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan too. posted by dakinikat : 3:27 PM"
Terrific Idea.
posted by ANonOMouse : 6:50 PM
People are hurting. These spoiled white kids at their cool get-together only feel pain when their parents can't support them anymore. NOBODY outside their group has sympathy for them. Come to my neck of the world and I'll show you real people going through real pain and trying to survive....that means buying food, not taking out another student loan to buy the latest I-phone.
Geithner may have a ton of problems but dammit, he is on our team. Your proposal will do nothing other than gravely weaken the President, to the delight and the great advantage of the Republicans.
Fricken' retarded is a better way to put it.
posted by Anonymous : 7:10 PM
Anon, you're obviously a stranger to this blog. Obama never was on our side. I've been trying to expose him since the beginning of 2008.
Everyone else...
In the films "Tree of Life," we hear that there are two ways through this world: The way of nature and the way of Grace.
Well, speaking as someone only a little younger than Terence Malick, I'm here to tell you that there are two ways through left-wing politics: The way of the hippie and the way of FDR.
The hippies accomplished nothing. I know: I was there -- very young, but still aware of what was happening. Even at the time, I knew what they were doing wrong.
The hippies were very pure and inclusive and I guess they thought they were being virtuous. They were colorful and fun. But they accomplished nothing. Many of them ended up as Reagan supporters.
The New Dealers, by contrast, created Social Security. They created millions of jobs. They created regulations on finance capital. They won the war against Hitler.
They got things done. They created the basis for thirty years of post-war prosperity. FDR, and his legacy, improved the lives of millions.
If OWS is a hippie movement, count me out. No: Count me as an opponent.
If OWS is a New Deal movement, count me in.
And before you say it -- no, there is no third way. Stop hallucinating; stop rationalizing. Get real.
Do you want to be a hippie, or do you want to be a New Dealer?
Yes Joseph, I do like your suggestion about the boot print on Timmy's backside...I think that the OWS movement does need to embrace a demand that is doable now.
I would also add Immelt to the demand as well. He needs a swift kick in the ass...out the door.
It reminds me of what we saw happen in Egypt after the ouster of Mubarak. Egyptian protesters demanded the ouster of various corrupt interim cabinet ministers. One resignation followed another.
Actually, Peggy Sue, Geithner said a curt "no" when asked if he sympathized with the Occupy protesters. He then went on to the White House official response that he did feel "sympathy" for people who were feeling frustrated, etc....Bernanke gave that same answer.
Geithner went on to whine about how he can't understand WALL ST not supporting Zerobama after everything that was done for them, so yeah....the White House is very eager to get the fat cats on Zero's side.
Which is why I think putting out an easily satisfiable demand(you think Obama wouldn't love to find a scapegoat in all this? I know you're smarter than that) is a recipe for disaster.
They are winning the narrative war right now, mainly because the MSM has ignored them, and the actual facts on the ground are what people have been learning about(actual age of attendees aside *ahem*) because of the viral videos that have been done.
If they went after Geithner, the media focus will shift(he's one of their own after all, the 1%) and then that's when the negative narratives will start, like how they are provoking the police, and Obama already acquiesced to their demands and they won't go home, what are they terrorists?
You just watch.
Yes, there are benefits to achieving an easy victory(once again, I think Obama would love to have someone to throw under the bus on this), but I think they far outweighed by the risks.
It's not that I think the occupiers would go home if they won, from what I've seen demonstrated so far, they have the tenacity to stick with this thing for the long haul.
No, I've just seen too many entities fall under because the MSM directed their fire at them(see Hillary Clinton, Al Gore). I don't want to lose this movement.
So their plan of specific policy demands works better to keep the cohesion, because there is no way in hell they will get it all. Which gives them a perfectly legitimate(in the eyes of the media) reason to continue doing what they are doing.
You want them to achieve some flashy victory for the benefit of the camera. But as the signs down there say, The Revolution Will NOT Be Televised.
The greater victory is in the fact that this is growing, and lasting. And that is a victory that resonates with people, because it's the same thing we do everyday. We get up and go to work, with no reason to believe things will get better, but we do it anyways. Because we have hope, and we know this isn't the way things are supposed to be(regardless of the fact that this is the way things have been for much of history).
We have more in common with OWS than we ever will with the New England Patriots, and to turn them into Super Bowl champs is a mistake.
I hate playing cheap games. People should be smarter. Still, this isn't a bad idea. Geithner is our enemy.
posted by Anonymous : 5:47 AM
Good idea - but maybe it's be wise allow the movement to grow even bigger and stronger first. It's still in its infancy really. I'm confident that it has its roots in good fertile ground - it WILL grow, it has to.
It's really all down to Citizens United. Overturn that ruling, and you've made a really solid first step. Without that, things will not change at all.
posted by Anonymous : 7:47 AM
Interesting post over at Firedoglake about how the OWS might be brought down: http://my.firedoglake.com/spocko/2011/10/06/techniques-the-corporate-powers-will-use-to-destroy-the-ows-movement/
posted by Anonymous : 8:29 AM
I see some people are not convinced. For what little it is worth I agree entirely. We need to demonstrate to the power brokers in Washington that the mob exists and the mob has power. We need to make an example of one. Once we get one we can get others. Once that happens people will step forward to represent our interests.
I think you are 100% right on this.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 12:07 PM
This is silly. The reason that Geithner is still in office is that the Republicans in the Senate will make it impossible to confirm a replacement who is not many times worse. (And with Congress always in pro forma session, it is impossible to make a recess appointment.) If you think we are in bad shape with a Treasury Secretary you don't like, wait and see how 99% of us will suffer without one. Economic chaos is no friend to people already living paycheck to paycheck (if they are so lucky).
Anyway, it's not really clear that your problems with Geithner are factual rather than emotional.
Please stop arguing for shooting yourself in the foot because you end up hitting my feet too.
posted by BetterDays : 1:26 PM
Ridicuously stupid suggestion. I find it hardthat believe that you aren't someone just trying to make an ass out of these kids. Any moron would know getting rid of Geitner would just mean Obama replacing him with another corporate hack.
posted by Anonymous : 8:49 AM
Anonymous, you didn't read the piece, did you? I STIPULATED that Obama would probably replace Geithner with someone just as bad. I gave six OTHER reasons for taking this course of action. You may not agree with those six reasons, but you have to read them before dismissing them.
You also did not read the rules for posting, or you would not have posted anonymously. I've been lenient about that rule lately, but no more. Try that again and you will not be published.
Asking for Geithner to be fired without demanding a specific person to replace him shows a lack of resolve. Obama has to know we're looking for more than a token victory.
(The original version of this post was appended to "Bad revolution; good revolution" below. I've expanded those sentiments into this piece.)
I'm sorry, but the kids are not all right. The Occupy Wall Street protesters must be supported -- provisionally -- if only because, right now, they are the only game in town. They have the potential to be this country's salvation. But their demands, to the extent that they have been articulated, are insufficient. They aren't talking like FDR; they aren't even talking like Ike.
Their "vision thing" has been compromised because so many of them remain ideologically mired in the Libertarian thing.
Time and again, I see interviews with (or comments from) protesters who make odd, semi-admiring references to the Tea Party, to the Ron Paul zombie battalions, to the Alex Jonesian numbskulls and to the worshipers at the altar of the Divine Ms. Ayn.
A lot of people see OWS as an outgrowth of the Tea Party. They mistakenly believe that, in the beginning, the Ron Paulite teabaggers represented something pure and utopian which the Fox Newsers co-opted. They think that OWS offers a way to recapture the true Libertarian magic. See the commentary here:
This 'divide and conquer' approach must end.
See this clip of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader interviewed together on common interests...
I'm sorry, but the division is, must be, fundamental. If Nader is working with Paul, then I feel justified in my long-held detestation of Ralph Nader.
There can be no unity with those who think that Wall Street deregulation was a fine idea. Anyone who tries to forge that linkage is Lucifer. And yet there is persistent talk of uniting with the hordes of Hell:
Seriously. What do you think are the possibilities for working togehter? Could you bring Tea Partiers out in support of Occupy, so long as both decided publicly that we would only focus on what united us?
Now that the Tea Party is on the wane and the OWS movement is ascendant, a new myth is taking hold: That there was once a good, pre-lapsarian Tea Party which the "corporatists" co-opted. Some of the myth-makers would even have you believe that both parties were equally responsible for the rape of teabagger innocence.
We cannot allow this false history to take hold. Even in its gestative form, the Tea Party was the enemy of the working class.
If you read the above-linked comment thread carefully, you'll see that the infiltrators are offering up two recurrent memes which the OWS protesters are asked to accept as gospel truths:
1. Working with Democrats -- any Democrats -- is always wrong.
2. Working with the Tea Party and the Libertarians is always right.
Listen. Can you hear it? That is the voice of Satan. Satan is talking. Here:
Remain AWARE of anyone who CLAIMS to be the VOICE of the "Occupy Wallstreet Movement" Coming from a Libertarian / Voluntaryism / Anarchist perspective, I have seen all kinds of moments (Tea Party, Anarchist, Marxist, Liberal, Environmentalist, etc) become hijacked through various subversive means.
Also beware anyone, any website, or any group that claims to be the voice of the "occupy wallstreet" moment. They will start non-controversial, accurately reflecting the language of the movement, and then distort it. Please trust me when I say you should remain decentralized as you started, like the group anonymous. Please support diversity of within the movement; if you truly are "the 99%" then significant diversity should exist.
I think it could be extremely powerful to have it openly known and perceived that the movement is home to both socialists and libertarians. I hope there never comes a point when this movement decides that certain groups don't belong due to their political beliefs - so long as they can contribute meaningfully to the discussion.
Libertarians cannot so contribute. Libertarianism created the continuing economic catastrophe. Libertarianism is what the Wall Streeters want. Libertarianism is an absolute evil.
(And we can no longer tolerate this absurd Libertarian redefinition of the word "socialism," which is far removed from any historical usage. Anytime you hear that term blithely misapplied, know that you are in the presence of an enemy -- even if he pretends to be your friend.)
Here's another message from the Stygian deeps:
As a conservative, it was a hard intellectual leap for me to make and I wasn't so sure that my message would be well received here. Thankfully, I was pleasantly surprised by the willingness of these OWS folks to hear me out.
The idea of government intervention in business being just as bad as business intervention in government seems like an uniting thread. Ultimately, I made the pleasant discovery that OWS was as anti-fascist as the tea party was.
A comment of this sort indicates that the OWS movement is doing something terribly, tragically wrong.
Yet how could we expect anything different? The OWS kids see things in Libertarian terms because those are the only terms they know. They are like trout who can't imagine a life outside water.
Their easily boggled brains are the end result of a lifetime-long propaganda barrage. They have heard repeatedly that economic deregulation is some sort of holy untried ideal instead of the shitty idea that destroyed our middle class. They don't even know what the New Deal was.
And yet these youngsters are -- God help us -- the left.
Subversion? I've very familiar with it -- in fact, being an oldster, I've seen it happen time and again. For example, back in the 1980s, the anti-CIA activists attracted to the Christic Institute were subverted by the sirens of conspiranoia, which at the time seemed fresh and intriguing. ("Forget the La Penca lawsuit! What's really important isRoswell!") Yeah, I saw that process up close and personal. Similarly, in the 1970s, I saw the anti-War left subverted into support of Ronald Reagan. In the 1960s, the protestors were subverted by the CIA's LSD peddlers with their message of "turn on, tune in and drop out." Much more recently, I saw the outrage over Enron's rape of California subverted into support for Arnold Schwarzenegger. I saw the online blogosphere subverted by Markos Moulitsas and Arianna Huffington, Libertarians both. And I saw the anti-war movement subverted by the Obama cultists in 2008.
Yeah, I know all about subversion. And now I'm seeing it again. The voices warning the OWS protesters against subversion are themselves the subverters. (Moreover, I suspect that some of the commentary quoted above may well be bought-and-paid sock puppetry; see the post below.)
I'm sorry, but the OWS movement must define itself as anti-Libertarian -- using that term. And they must do so now.
If the protesters want power (and if they don't, they are nothing but yowling crybabies), then they must be willing to work with Democratic politicians without fear of becoming beholden to them. Working with politicians is a good thing as long as the politicians are the ones feeling beholden. On the other side of the aisle, the teabaggers now exact ideological fealty from all of the major Republican candidates. That, my friends, is how power is attained. Go thou and do likewise.
There must be no linkages -- none -- with the Ron Paulites or the Tea Partiers, no matter how sweetly the devil sings his infernal songs of false unity. If someone made an admixture of piss and lemonade, would you want to drink it? Let us have done with these recurrent hallucinations that the Tea Party was a formerly "good" movement which an amorphous conspiracy of bad guys managed to commandeer. At all times, the Tea Party Libertarians were in favor of allowing the finance capitalists to have the freedom to commit the evils documented in Taibbi's Griftopia. At all times, the Libertarians opposed both Medicare For All and the public option. The Occupiers must understand and denounce the evils wrought by the Tea Partiers and their ideological brethren.
If the OWS movement cannot say these things, do these things, then I stand against it.
If they favor strong regulation of finance capitalism, if they have the courage to say that democratic government is the solution and not the problem, if they learn to emulate FDR, then I stand with them.
I doubt that I have the words to get through to these young people; I am not of their generation. But someone has to penetrate their consciousness. Let's save the kids so they can save the rest of us.
The republicans have two factions, the Fiscal Conservatives and the Social Conservatives. The Fiscal wing wants government out of the boardroom, the Social wing wants that and the government to intervene in your bedroom.
Could there be room in the OWS movement for a Social Libertarian, one who believes the government has no business how you run your personal life?
Is that concept even feasible?
posted by Mr. Mike : 6:48 AM
On one hand, I'm something of a "social Libertarian" myself. On the other hand, I recognize that Social Libertarianism is another of the Devil's siren songs of seduction:
The Devil was purring: "I'll make thee a deal Smoke dope all you want. Thy wallet I'll steal.
I'll march by your side if you march against war. But say not one word when jobs go offshore.
Sleep with woman or man; I cannot care which. But regulate Goldman? Go fuck thyself, bitch!"
was at the OWS march yesterday. Very heartening experience. But it occurred to me as I read the signs being held up i.e. "Tax Wall St. transactions"; heard the chants: "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out", that the demands being made are being made OF THE GOVERNMENT, not Wall St; even though Wall St. is the target.
So which politicians will align themselves with OWS and risk the wrath of their Wall St. benefactors? I don't see how Obama or any other politico, even Ron Paul, gets to horn in on this.
As to the Libertarians, their philosophy is diametrically opposed to what OWS stands for. I don't see how they bridge that gap. They would indeed make strange bedfellows.
posted by joanie in Brooklyn : 7:34 AM
"if you truly are "the 99%" then significant diversity should exist."
That's not easy to argue against.
Thing is, so many people still don't "get" what the real problems are, so that the 99% includes a lot of "sheeple" and some who, though sincere, have the wrong ideas for making things better (as we see it).
It's a conundrum. If some well-known figure would take up the fight, identify the anomalies loudly and clearly, it would help.
I'm sure there must be some politically savvy young people in the OWS general assembly, but they'll have too little experience in coping with any craftily organised potential undermining of to their cause.
From what I can gather by reading the twitter feeds, watching livestream vids and picking up articles of on the ground protesters, the libertarian strain is really at odds with what the movement is pushing for: a government responsive to the public, not the corporations and Wall St financiers.
There have been multiple complaints that this protest should have been centered in DC. The DC arm of Occupy starts today. But an argument could be made [and has been made vociferously] that Wall St. is the seat of power, that massive infusions of money have completely captured and corrupted our political system. Personally, I think that's true.
I'm less worried about the libertarian strain winning the day or snatching the message than I am of the Obamacrats infiltrating the movement and turning it into another campaign vehicle. I see both political strains as wickedly dangerous and destructive.
We shall see. But I have to tell you, at the moment it inspires me to see this energy on the ground collecting and growing. People can only be pushed so far. This is the public expression of that.
And btw, at Obama's press conference this morning I heard for the first time a question [think it was Tapper] about the lack of Wall St. prosecutions. Obama tap danced around the answer but it's the first time I recall the question even being asked publicly.
It's a small thing. But it's a start.
Peggy Sue
posted by Anonymous : 9:24 AM
I really wish you'd stop with the "OWS kids" formulation. It's not just kids.
Have you read Riverdaughter? She was there last night and in her words, every generation is well represented.
For someone who advocates so strongly against accepting the established narratives, I find it hard to believe you've swallowed this one(that the occupiers are nothing but a bunch of dope smoking punks who want student loans forgiven) hook line and sinker.
You are doing the media's work for them by portraying the occupiers as "kids" who can be easily ignored and written off.
Have you been to the website? Have you seen the pics of the 90 year old grannies wearing anti war ponchos? The pics of the library where people are bringing books to share, almost all of them of a lefty/socialist bent?
The actual young'uns down there are getting an education better than anything our public schools offer, if they have any libertarian leanings, those will be thoroughly expunged.
I got an email from Mary Kay Henry President of SEIU asking me to hit a website and sign up for a local OWS meeting. I was all gung ho (our backasswards state is always a decade or two behind the rest of the country) until I hit the site and it was ... ORANGE!!!
Now I don't know what the hell to do. If Kos and the rest of his Lightbringer worshipping fools are trying to take this over I want nothing to do with it.
Here is site SEIU sent me to: http://action.seiu.org/page/m/18a1cf99/1670870/5e37e490/3891e7a/2059721204/VEsF/
posted by Pennelope Pennebaker : 12:19 PM
Joseph, did you write that poem? Excellent....I especially like the sly familiarity of "thy" etc. For uniformity's sake, I'd convert the second stanza's pronouns to thine and thou to match the other two. That Satan reminds me in tone of Seuss's Grinch. Maybe you could reference that if you illustrated the poem?? It might make a good flyer to post/hand out!
Other than that, it's impossible to talk to young people about this. My son's an engineer. He's surrounded by people who are making it and who are embracing Libertarian identities. I can't even point to Ron Paul's male supremacist's plot to make a Constitutional amendment giving fetuses personhood...because none of these misguided geek hipsters subscribe to that and so attribute it to RP's problem, not theirs.
My point is, he's not personally interested in any Libertarian identity, and is on the opposite end of that spectrum. But, he refuses to denounce it because he knows other young friends and colleagues he respects who embrace the label and he knows they share the same social outlook.
Naked Capitalism helps our understanding of how well-funded propagandists can commandeer the national conversation via comment trolling.
And blogs have eroded the control of the officialdom over discourse, and also provide independent analysis. Matt Stoller, in his days as a Congressional staffer, said blogs helped undermine the monopoly of lobbyists and government officials on information about the financial services industry.
One of the ways the powers that be push back against independent voices is via attacks in the comment section, either to undermine the credibility of the argument made of of the author. Readers have no doubt seen in happen here in post on unions and on libertarians (particularly when the Koch name is mentioned). There are too many comments early in the thread by first time commenters who are unnaturally persistent for this to be organic.
I saw a lot of this during Weinergate. Much of the hostile commentary was no doubt legit. Still, my suspicions were raised by the "concern trolls" who claimed to be distressed long-time readers wanting only the best for me -- despite their demonstrated unfamiliarity with my work. They often presumed me to be a supporter of Barack Obama or a fanatical acolyte of Hillary Clinton or a die-hard fan of Anthony Weiner. They presumed that I had financial ambitions for this blog. A real long-time reader would have known that none of those notions were true.
When that shit happens, you know that a machine is in operation.
Here's the part that Yves doesn't mention: This machinery is not a new phenomenon. The trolls created the Barack Obama movement in 2008.
Permalink
So the whole Obama thing was created by trolls. This explains everything.
NB the fact that Obots and O-holes misread you--saying you're a Hillary supporter and whatnot--doesn't necessarily mean they're paid agents. The Obama people tend to misread even the simplest statements, and your writing is often subtle and complex.
It may well be the Obama folks are simply the stupider progressives. They thought Obama was brilliant, so they must be dumb.
I've been hanging around Huffington Post, which is infinitely nicer now than when it was run by progressives. Now that election season seems to have arrived, I keep waiting for the place to go bad, like it was in 2008. I hope the corporate folks are more resistant to the Obamacrats' tactics than the hapless progs were.
I wonder if this is one of those Bangalore things. Perhaps I should try and set up a Trolling business. I would imagine one calls it an online PR agency. I would probably need some fake credentials, and access to a workforce of cheap online people fairly fluent in english, but none of those strikes me as a problem.
Then I can take cash for astro turf. And think of all the interesting clients I would have? I wonder who would use such services extensively.
Maybe I should ask Mr. Axelrod?
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 6:47 AM
It's a disjointed lot, and I can agree with almost every one of the protesters' signs that mentions a specific problem with Wall Street, corporate greed, austerity, union rights, etc. But the more I think about it, the more I believe that campaign finance reform is the one solution that will permit all those other problems to be solved. If I had to choose a message to encourage the protesters and others to unite behind, it would be to demand that the $$ be taken entirely out of political campaigns.
For a while now, the Republicans have pushed two memes: The working class pays no tax, and the poor must be kept from voting. Now the themes merge. Representative Steve King offers the initial outlines of a plan to keep alleged tax dodgers -- that is, underpaid workers, the elderly and students -- from voting.
Now I don't think they're paying taxes. But many of them are voting. And when they vote, they vote for more government benefits.
This is precisely the point Sharron Angle made during her abortive run for Reid's seat: If democracy grants the people the right to push for things like Social Security and Medicare, then democracy must go. (She justified this absurdity by muttering some hallucinated nonsense about the Founding Fathers.)
Is King daydreaming? No. I think he has been tasked with sounding a theme that conservatives will be repeating frequently in months to come. These people want a revolution. They want to remake the country from the ground up.
The outlandish pronouncements of radicals like King and Angle are the reason why I react with both horror and sympathy (and more of the former) when someone like Ian Welsh says something like this:
At this point in time only radical solutions will work. That means radical: everything must go. Every institution in American society has failed. Every single one. They must all be shut down and the purposes they were meant to serve must be assigned to new institutions.
It's easy to guess how a King or an Angle (or their masters) would respond: Yes, by all means. Everything must go. We need a fresh start.
A "fresh start" will mean waking up in Ayn Randland. The Libertarians have their shit together; we don't. They have nearly limitless funds. They also have numbers, the passion of the petty, a formidable media infrastructure, and an unholy alliance with the religious right. (The last-mentioned item would have annoyed Ayn, but she had a Machiavellian streak wide enough to accept the compromise.) Any revolution will quickly become their revolution.
This is why I get the cosmic heebie-jeebies whenever I see a lefty posit the need for a new Constitutional Convention. And who would fill that convention hall? Guys like Representative King, that's who. Never flatter yourself with the pathetic delusion that the revolution will consist of people who think as you think.
Permalink
The willingness of OWS people to listen does not necessarily mean that they will be co-opted. One means of deflecting a force is to be unresistable and then stepping aside. The force thinks it's landing, but it really just slides on by.
That's not to say that you couldn't be right but you aren't assuredly right. There are other possibilities.
Barbara
posted by Anonymous : 4:52 AM
Barbara makes an interesting point. These protesters are definitely doing it their way. I see them again and again on the forums for Occupy Boston saying "not all of us are liberal." But then they painstakingly forge an all-inclusive pact of tolerance that would make a rightwinger run. It's really slow and long-winded and frustrating to watch from afar, and one of my favorite comments from a reader was "I hope he realizes Libertarians are not his friends."
But this is their show. They are doing something new, their way.
The right wingers strongly believe that "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
The quote is sometimes attributed to Alexis de Toqueville, but apparently it was not he who said it, and it may even have been invented in 1951. http://bit.ly/oZDmTe
The important thing to realize is that in the history of democracies, it has never happened. What has happened many times over, however, is that the RICH have coopted the political system for their own personal benefit, and to the detriment of the rest of us.
A short while ago, I said that I was confident that Anwar al-Awlaki was an evil bastard. While I remain confident that the sentiments he has expressed are evil, everything else about the man now seems mysterious. Is he dead? Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the notorious crotch-bomber (and subject of several previous posts) has claimed that Anwar is still alive. It's unclear whether he spoke metaphorically.
Still, it's fair to ask if we have proof of his death beyond the word of the U.S. government. According to the Guardian, the drone attack left physical remains:
A senior tribal chief who helped bury the bodies in a cemetery in Jawf told the Associated Press that seven people were killed in the strike, their bodies completely charred. The chief said the brother of one of the dead, who had given the group shelter in his home, had witnessed the strike.
According to the chief, the witness said Awlaki was travelling in a pick-up with six other people on their way to neighbouring Marib province. They stopped for breakfast in the desert and were sitting on the ground to eat when they spotted drones, so they rushed to their truck. A Hellfire missile fired from a drone struck the truck, leaving it a charred husk and killing all of those inside. The chief spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be connected to the group, and he did not identify the witness.
Why would they rush to the truck? Seems to me that the wisest course of action would have been to spread out in seven different directions.
Frankly, this story doesn't add up. Why didn't they eat breakfast in the home of the brother? Why did these men get in the truck, travel a very short distance, then get out and eat? They cannot have traveled far, because they were observed by the brother.
This eyewitness account seems more than a little odd. At any rate, since the remains were unidentifiable and the witness is also unidentified, we really don't have proof that al-Awlaki was killed.
For whom did he work?This far-right site notes oft-heard reports that al-Awlaki was recruited by the CIA. A ludicrous claim? Maybe. Maybe not.
After the announcement of al-Awlaki's death, quite a few people pointed to this bizarre story which appeared in the U.K.'s Daily Mail a year ago. The headline: "Dining with the enemy: Al Qaeda leader linked to 9/11 hijackers 'was invited to the Pentagon for lunch after attacks.'"
New documents have been obtained which apparently detail how Anwar Al-Awlaki, the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, rubbed shoulders with high-ranking military personnel just months after the atrocities.
Fox News claim to have acquired documents that state that Awlaki was taken to the U.S. Department of Defense's headquarters as part of the military's outreach program to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks.
American-born Awlaki, of Yemeni descent, 'was considered to be an up and coming member of the Islamic community'.
'After her vetting, Aulaqi (Awlaki) was invited to and attended a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Army's Office of Government Counsel'.
Awlaki was apparently interviewed at least four times by the FBI in the week after the September 11 attacks because of his links to the three hijackers.
Nawaf al-Hazmi,Khalid al-Mihdhar and Hani Hanjour were all aboard Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon.
Al-Awlaki was a former chaplain at George Washington University -- which just happens to have longstanding ties to the CIA. (Example.) Could American intelligence have recruited him at the time, or earlier?
Facebook. Al-Awlaki communicated with jihadis via Facebook, which I consider pretty damned suspicious behavior. How likely is it that an alleged Islamic holy warrior would use Facebook, an internet service which is notorious for compromising the privacy of users? A service funded by the CIA and owned by a Jew? A service which requires users to divulge their cell-phone numbers in order to gain an account, even though modern cell phones have GPS tracking devices baked in?
Arguably, al-Awlaki's Facebook account provided Uncle with an easy way to track the names, addresses and physical locations of any young dimwit who might be attracted to jihadist rhetoric. Let's get back to the crotch bomber. After the incident, Al-Awlaki spoke at length about the putative bomber:
"Umar Farouk is one of my students; I had communications with him. And I support what he did."
This is jihadi boilerplate, and not very informative. Why didn't he address any of the many mysteries surrounding the crotch bomber case? See, for example, here and here and here.
In particular, I'd like to know who videotaped the flight. I'd also like to know how Farouk got aboard the flight in Amsterdam without a passport. Originally, we were told that a well-dressed accomplice helped him board as a "refugee;" strangely, both the accomplice and the "refugee" story soon disappeared from official accounts.
The Timeline.This site offers a rather thorough overview of al-Awlaki's life. History Commons also provides valuable details. Let's look at some noteworthy entries:
June 6, 1990: Applies for Social Security card. Claims he was born in Sana’a, Yemen.
June 8, 1990: SSN 521-77-7121 issued to Awlaki.
He was born in New Mexico in 1971, a fact which he might have mentioned to the folks at the Social Security office. His family moved to Yemen in 1978; he came back to the United States on June 5, 1990.
In 1991, he started attending at a university in Colorado, and was graduated in 1994 with a degree in civil engineering. However, he spent much of that time period popping in and out of the country.
1993: Awlaki visits Afghanistan. “My impression was that he didn’t like it there,” Abdul Belgasem, a fellow student at CSU, tells Time magazine. “He wouldn’t have gone with al-Qaeda. He didn’t like the way they lived.”
Shortly after he got his degree, al-Awlaki began his career as an imam. It seems likely that al-Awlaki was one of the Denver operatives who, in 1994, set up secure communications for Osama Bin Laden using U.S. Army lines. See here.
However...
August 1996: Busted for soliciting a prostitute in San Diego. Pleads guilty to a lesser charge. Enrolls in HIV and AIDS education program and fined $400.
Time uncertain: Arrested by San Diego police “for hanging around a school.”
There was another prostitution bust in 1997.
Starting in 1998, he was the vice president of a charity accused of funding Al Qaeda. This fact makes his visit to the Pentagon all the more remarkable.
January 1999: Enrolls in San Diego State University master’s in educational leadership program. SDSU spokesman says the school does not have records showing Awlaki earned a degree.
Why would he enroll in such a program?
1999-2000: During its investigation, FBI learns that Awlaki knows individuals from the Holy Land Foundation and others involved in raising money for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Sources alleged that Aulaqi had other extremist connections. (9/11 Commission Report)
February 2000: Four calls between Awlaki and Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi who helped Al-Hamzi and Almihdhar find an apartment in San Diego. An FBI agent tells 9/11 Commission staff he is “98 percent sure” that the two hijackers were using al-Bayoumi’s phone at this time.
Early 2000: Visited by a subject of a Los Angeles FBI investigation closely associated with Blind Sheikh [Omar Abdel] Rahman. (Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11)
Early 2000: Several sources tell FBI that Alwaki “had closed-door meetings in San Diego” with Alhazmi, al-Midhar and another unidentified person “whom al-Bayoumi had asked to help the hijackers.” (Congressional Joint Inquiry)
March 2000: FBI closes its investigation, stating “the imam … does not meet the criterion for [further] investigation.”
One wonders what the guy would have to do to meet their criterion. According to History Commons, al-Awlaki served as the "spiritual guide" to the San Diego-based hijackers.
As most of you know, many mysteries surround those two men, who, if you believe certain reports, even had the ability to be in two places at the same time. They lived in an open, above-ground fashion -- with an FBI informant.
Here's what I wrote them on an earlier occasion:
They clearly had dangerous histories. The FBI knew all about them from taps on the father-in-law's phone. Supposedly, the CIA gave the FBI a data dump on the two, although the documentation may or may not have gotten lost in the mail. They were allowed to fly in and out of the United States, meeting with all sorts of dubious characters, and living on nobody-knows-what source of income. Evidence suggests that they may have been in (and out of) the country since 1996.
They had a listed phone number, accessible to anyone with internet access. They had a California DMV record. They had a U.S. bank account.
And they were shacking up with a freaking FBI informant.
You probably could have found them in about ten minutes, even without FBI authority. They did everything short of sending Christmas cards to the Hoover building. Nevertheless, Bob Fuller of the Bureau couldn't find them.
Back to our timeline. In early 2001, al-Awlaki moved to Virginia (home of the spooks) and began his career at George Washington University, where he pursues a PhD in "Human Resource Development."
April 2001: Al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour arrive in Falls Church and attend Dar Al-Hijra mosque. Awlaki denies having contact with the men in Virginia.
August 2001: According to NY Times, Awlaki tells neighbor Lincoln Higgie, “I don’t think you’ll be seeing me. I won’t be coming back to San Diego again. Later on you’ll find out why.”
On that same occasion, he said that "something big" was going to happen, and that he had to be out of the country -- in fact, he had plans to go to Kuwait. (Why Kuwait? He had family in Yemen.)
Before Sept. 11, 2001: Awlaki returns briefly to San Diego (9/11 Commission MFR) “Reportedly acted suspiciously by declining help with boxes he was transporting in a rental car (driven only 37 miles) and by refusing to provide any local address to the rental agent.”
September 2001: German authorities find Awlaki’s phone number in the Hamburg home of Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni who was a leading figure in the 9/11 plot.
Given his clear connections to the San Diego team members, you would presume that Al-Awlaki would have scooted out of the country -- as he had announced he would do. But no. Naturally, he was interviewed by the FBI after the terror attack. And with unnatural ease, he sailed right through their questioning -- even though he clearly seems to have lied about his relationship with the hijackers, since his story contradicted the evidence of his cell phone records.
(Wasn't Martha Stewart forced to do jail time for lying to investigators about a much less important matter?)
Yet even though they let the guy go more than once, the FBI would later tell foreign governments that they want to question al-Awlaki!
There was another prostitute bust in 2002. Despite which...
Feb. 5, 2002: Awlaki delivers lecture to senior Defense officials at the Pentagon on Islam and Middle Eastern politics and popular culture.
Go here for a DoD memo about that luncheon. Attendees had a choice of seafood, beef or chicken.
His name came up in the abortive Operation Green Quest investigation. He was placed on the terrorist watch list. Shortly after that, a judge issued a warrant for his arrest on a charge of passport fraud.
In October of 2002, the warrant was rescinded and the criminal case was dropped. He was allowed to fly into the U.S on October 10, 2002. Customs detained him until the FBI told Customs that al-Awlaki was taken off the watch list just the day before.
History Commons draws the following info from a 2004 U.S. News and World Report story:
Al-Awlaki then leaves the US again. The FBI will later admit they were “very interested” in al-Awlaki and yet failed to stop him from leaving the country. One FBI source says, “We don’t know how he got out.”
The pattern is unmistakable: The FBI told everyone that they were "very interested" in the man -- but only when he was out of the country. If they were so desperate to talk to him again, why didn't they pay him a visit when Customs had detained him at the airport?
Dec. 18, 2003: British MP Louise Ellman tells House of Commons calls Muslim Association of Britain is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood; says Awlaki “is reportedly wanted for questioning by the FBI in connection with the 9/11 al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.”
Yeah. Funny thing about that, Louise: The FBI did question him twice, both before and after he 9/11 attacks. They let him go, despite clear evidence of his involvement. And they let him fly in and out of the country, even though lots of innocent people (lefties, mostly) were put on the "no fly" list during this same period.
In 2006, he was in Yemen. The authorities there arrested him on kidnapping charges. (Al Qaeda in Yemen was going to kidnap a U.S. official.) The U.S. requested the Yemenis to hold him.
In October of 2006, an Al Qaeda gunrunning ring in Yemen was raided by the authorities. Al-Awlaki was part of this ring, using the name Abu Atiq. This fascinating story in The Australian almost comes right out and admits that "Abu" was an "inside man" working for either Yemeni or western intelligence:
...the key to the raids appears to be a Yemeni known as Abu Atiq, who was arrested about six weeks before the October 17 swoop. Abu Atiq was allegedly an associate of two of the September 11 hijackers and a protege of the virulently anti-Western Salafi cleric and head of Islamic studies at al-Islam, Abdul al-Majid al-Zindani, who the US wants arrested on terror charges. But Atiq's biggest claim to notoriety is his alleged role in a foiled al-Qa'ida plot to bomb oil and gas facilities in Yemen.
The strong implication here is that Al-Awlaki was scooped up on kidnapping charges, cooperated with the authorities, and blew the whistle on the gunrunners. The Australian notes that those who run afoul of Yemeni authorities usually are tossed into rough detention at the Central Security Prison in Sanaa, where torture is often used on suspects.
Al-Awlaki was confined for 18 months, kept away from the other prisoners. We don't know if he was tortured, but he probably was not -- if he had been, he would have advertised the fact during his propaganda broadcasts.
During his imprisonment, the FBI questioned him about his contacts with the 9/11 hijackers. This, despite the fact that they had already questioned him about that in 2002 and decided that he was unworthy of further attention.
Even though many smaller fish disappear into Yemen's prisons, never to be seen again, al-Awlaki was let go. He then began his career as a jihadist rabble-rouser, media figure and Facebook personality.
By the way: The drone strike represents only his most recent death. In December of 2009, the Yemenis reported that they had killed him in an airstrike.
I don't claim to have a proper "Theory of al-Awlaki." But there is definitely something about this guy that we have not yet been told.
Permalink
I struggled through this, and bless you for keeping all the names straight (I was particularly confused by one pronoun in your clips box ..."After her vetting..."). But the storyline came through and I particularly appreciated the Martha Stewart reference, thank you!
Keeping the world safe from the evil Martha Stewarts of the world seems like the utmost the bozos in charge can do. Do you mind if I borrow that moral yardstick for a sign for Occupy Boston?
I've seen several honest examples of people (whatever) diving into vehicles as choppers, planes, and drones approach. Terror doesn't make for logical thinking.
I wonder through what magic 8- ball (maybe his own) that ye olde crotch bomber gets his unerring intel?
What is it with 'terror' oppressive men and prostitution? Makes one wonder about 'sexual' issues, anger and OUTBURSTS (OK, 'outbursts' is to simplistic, but the point is they seem to present a danger to self or OTHERS!).
Why would the FBI and CIA leave such a man loose and about? Odd, very odd and up until reading this post I believed he was an American guy who had gone off the road into the cultish parts of religiosity (Many groups like this, have cultish links/behaviors etc).
The crotch and shoe guys both had very low self esteem and had thought they were going to have a better time in the here after...etc...blah, blah...
Are reporters really reporting these days or are they asleep, and why didn't we know about the arrests?
myiq2xu said... Jesus only came back from the dead once. ............ Why didn't the media report about his 'drone strike kill' in 2009 by Yemen? Was he already dead, or is he pretending now, was it a play for political moves? Who benefits from such 'Tough Actions'???
Great piece -- just a thought here. A lot of contact points that eventually end up somewhere around Al-Hamzi have a Saudi intelligence aura. Our own intel guys seem to go blind when the Saudis come marching thru. BTW, Anwar def had a party-hardy handle on American culture.
Another brilliant piece of well-sourced, carefully explained conspiracy theorizing, Joseph!
I'm so glad you refused to passively, trustingly, stupidly accept the government's version of this highly suspicious and credulity-straining story.
Your longtime admirer, Andy Tyme
posted by Anonymous : 6:43 PM
Martha Stewart was Deterrence, a term used by Baudrillard. We libs tend to catalogue these instances as indications of stupidity, scapegoating, and so on, but what they really are is Deterrence, to throw us off track from what they want to throw us off the track of.
The media does this all the time. It surrounds us with information that obscures the "knowing". The information becomes the event, not the event.
I am sure everything you wrote is true. Your problem is that you are trying to find a logical meaning in this soupy mess. The secret is that there is no logic to it. All this is just a mess of discontinuous events in his actions. There is no linear development or progression that he is moving towards.
We expect the FBI to be logical. They are not. It is like the traffic cop who tickets the parking meter while the house nearby is being robbed or its owner is being murdered. You can't fault them as they are busy working. They are busy doing nothing to obscure the fact that they cannot do intelligence, and they cannot protect us.
Thank God she's coming home. This entire case has been a travesty.
For me, the primary lesson of this outrageous episode concerns a conflict of archetypes. For as long as I can remember, citizens of the United States have either flattered or amused themselves with the belief that Americans are sexually prudish and innocent, especially when compared with Europeans. Europeans (we have long told ourselves) are far freer, far more knowing, far more experimental, far more worldly, far more tolerant, far sexier. Think Mary Pickford in her petticoat versus Sophia Loren in her slip -- Marie Osmond versus Laura Antonelli -- the all-American corn-fed farm girl in pigtails versus the topless countess walking her ocelot in St Tropez.
Those stereotypes remained lodged in our minds before, during and after the sexual revolution. We've told this story to ourselves so often that it comes as a shock to realize that Europeans have a very different narrative lodged in their heads -- a story about sexually rapacious Americans who pose a threat to the virtuous sons and daughters of the homeland.
Amanda was the victim of a psychological (or literary) construct of which she, like most other Americans, was previously unaware. Of the case itself, I can only repeat the words published here on December 4, 2009:
Rudy Guede has already been convicted in the death of Meredith Kercher. Nothing links him to either Knox or Raffaele Sollecito. If he were part of a conspiracy, why would he not lessen his sentence by testifying against the others? To this day, he insists that Knox was not present. (Frankly, the evidence against Guede might not have held up in an American court.)
The case against Knox is laughable. No genuine physical evidence links her to the crime. None. Neither is there any eyewitness testimony against her.
I'll say it again: An American woman has been convicted of murder despite a complete lack of forensic evidence or eyewitness testimony. There is no evidence that more than one person committed the crime. Another person, unconnected to her, has already been convicted.
The entire case rests on the twisted imaginations of the investigators, who formed their bizarre theories early on, and who refused to rethink their presumptions even after Guede came to their attention.
The prosecutor actually put these words into Knox's mouth as she allegedly assailed Kercher:
“You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex.”
It is ludicrous to presume that any American would talk this way. This piece of dialogue was purely imaginary -- an example of bad screenwriting which should never have been allowed in any courtroom.
Judge Claudia Matteini suggested that Knox and Sollecito had been seeking to "experience extreme sensations, intense sexual relations which break up the monotony of everyday life..."
The judge is obviously a sexual fantasist. Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini (under indictment for misconduct in another case) is another sick fantasist with a history of seeing inane Satanic conspiracies everywhere. This deranged freak actually believes that Amanda Knox was involved in some form of devil worship, even though no evidence indicates that she ever took any interest in any form of occultism, and no evidence links occultism to this crime.
At the very end, the prosecutors seemed to go even madder:
Why are italian lawyers calling amanda knox “satanic” and “lucifer-like” – is it because their evidence has fallen apart?
Defenders for Raffaele Sollecito spent most time rehabbing Amanda Knox’s character after she was called she devil, Nazi, dirty etc. They have alibis until 9:20 p.m. Murder probably happened around 9 p.m. Lawyers say no reason to believe this was group attack, point to Rudy Guede and the grave evidence against him, indicating lone killer.
Ugliest quote of entire trial: ”Amanda was muddy on the outside and dirty on the inside. She has two souls – the clean one you see her before you and the other … She is borderline. She likes alcohol, drugs and she likes hot, wild sex.” (By civil attorney Carlo Pacelli, representing falsely accused bar owner Patrick Lumumba, who employed Knox as barmaid.).
The astonishing thing is that Amanda was not (by modern standards) any kind of erotomaniac. She is a studious, ambitious young woman who knows several languages. Alas, she served as a blank screen onto which many Italians projected their sick anti-American fantasies.
It’s official, Amanda Knox is a witch of deception and a Nazi, according to the prosecution. She’s survived three days of insults as well as nonstop pandering to convicted murderer Rudy Guede. How careless were the Italian cops who collected the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele Sollecito? See Injustice in Perugia’s fascinating video.
Many, both inside and outside of the U.S., seem to be under the impression that fundamentalist religious mania exists only in this country, especially in our depraved southern states. But the disease has also made its presence known in Italy. Anyone who has (for example) read Paolo Apolito's book about the bizarre events in Oliveta Citra in 1985 will know that Italy is not immune to outbreaks of mass weirdness. Mignini's thinking was colored by a reactionary subculture every bit as bizarre as anything you'll find in Mississippi.
The vindication of Amanda Knox comes not long after the release of the West Memphis Three. Taken together, these cases demonstrate that Western society is finally starting to understand the dangers of falling back into the brutish irrationality of Medieval thinking. We have come to the edge of the cliff and we are pushing our way back to safety.
Then again...
The continuing popularity of Perry, Bachmann and the Tea Party reminds us that we remain haunted by monsters of the unconscious.
Permalink
I have been fascinated by this case for some time. Im not as sure as you that Knox is innocent. I know there is no reliable forensic evidence tying her to the crime. But to me it is odd that there is actually no evidence that she ever entered that room. Wouldnt you expect some evidence of her to be in the room since she lived in the house?
There is reason to believe that someone staged a break in. That someone might have been Guede, but he doesnt seem to have had a good motive to stage a break in. There are also some very odd statements, implicating people with alibis. When those statements where made, she knew that it was a murder case. Me personally, I would stick to the truth in a murder case. The stakes are just too high.
Sollecito called the Carabinieri and reported a break but asserted that nothing had been taken. The investigating authorities found this odd because several rooms were still locked and hadnt been entered. How did he know?
Nothing here is conclusive and perhaps that the key point. But both Sollecito and Knox have clearly changed stories or flat out lied on several occasions.
I wouldnt let the issues about the prosecutor worry too much. Its true the prosecutor has made absurd statements and has impaired credibility. But the judges in the case made it clear they dismissed some of his more fanciful statements. They didn't believe the rubbish about satanism, and they didn't think immorality was relevant. They just thought Knox was lying.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 7:01 PM
Ah, the sick twisted minds of those raised in a Catholic culture. Makes you wonder how many of Knox's accusers were boinked by their parish priest.
posted by Mr. Mike : 7:52 PM
I'm glad Knox was acquitted. I wonder what, if anything, the US would have done if she had been locked away again. I get scripts of Prison Break running through my head.
Joseph tells the acquittal of the accused, and Amanda Knox is due to the lack of forensic evidence, and as if hit by a bias of the accusers mediaval Amanda and showing the following sentence "It is ludicrous to presume That Would Any American talk this way "because only American girls is just pure and chaste! . Only the Europeans are vulgar! Joseph wrote that the trial of Amanda Knox is guilty only of prejudice mediaval Italians who go hunting for witches in the Middle Ages as not telling the truth. In Italy, people have many more problems than the case of Amanda Knox, corruption, nepotism and not at all happy to be Represented by politicians thieves and scoundrels who rob every day, but the case of Amanda Knox seems an acquittal due to the pressure of big business chauvinism and promise a large income to his return to exclude the fact that she is acquitted good for her. In Perugia, a girl is dead and the only culprit is a black guy that has good lawyers.The bias of the writer is like that of Italian Catholics hated, but the shadow of no milionarie business milliardario that is not seen nel caso di Amanda Knox then we all go to protest on Wall Sreet only because we are pure and good!
posted by Anonymous : 6:44 AM
I didn't follow the case very closely but I never thought they had a plausible story line or a shred of evidence to demonstrate their story line. How she was convicted in the first place is beyond me. I guess it was just Knox paying for the sins of our country with Iraq, Afghanistan and the whole "entitled" and "spoiled" Americans mind set some Europeans seem to harbor.
What surprises me is that it has only been 4 years since she first got convicted and went to prison. Seems like much longer than that. I really hope they didn't abuse her horribly while she was in prison. That had to be a hard 4 year stretch no matter how they treated her.
posted by gregoryp : 7:30 AM
Greg,
It just isnt so clear cut. There is no motive. However there was also no alibi. The only alibi was that the lovers claimed to spend the night together. However Sollecito's initial statement was that he could remember whether he was with Amanda or not. He also claimed to have used his computer to watch cartoons and Amelie with Amanda. However there was no activity on his computer between 9.10pm on Nov 1, and 5.32am the next morning. They also switched their cell phones off in roughly the same time frame. Both of them. They switched them back on at 6am.
I dont see proof that they murdered that kid. However I cant see anything which exonerates them. I guess its about burden of proof.
I guess I am less sympathetic cos in her "confession" she pinned the murder on her boss at a local bar, a black guy called Lumumba. He was arrested and only released when a Swiss businessman heard about his arrest and came forward to say he had been drinking in his bar with him in the bar at the time.
What kind of person puts someone they know in the frame for a murder? Even were she were innocent of murder, she commited perjury to incriminate an innocent party who had done nothing but help her.
Finally, what makes you think Italian prisons are worse than American one? I think thats a rather odd assumption. Im absolutely convinced the food is better in Italy.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 9:00 AM
Ok, Harry she is guilty. She didn't have an ironclad alibi to prove her innocence. No real person can positively account for every second of every day. Just not possible. We all go places and do things but can't prove that we did those things. It is called living.
Also, how can anyone not believe that a solitary male criminal could overpower a young woman, sexually abuse her and then murder her? Goodness, that happens every freaking day and quite frankly I find it strange to think that people are just so flabbergasted that a "black" man is the only person paying for a crime that he obviously committed. Like it really matters what freaking color a person is if they are indeed guilty of a crime. Completely ludicrous.
In order to actually believe the storyline as described by the prosecution you have to throw out common sense and be willing to believe, as many here in Texas do, that the prosecutor is always right and convict no matter how unlikely or preposterous, without merit, evidence or testimony. People need to get reacquainted with the concept of Occam's razor.
posted by gregoryp : 11:07 AM
I think she is far from innocent. If she did not actually commit the murder, I believe she contributed to the conditions causing it (accessory), was present and was responsible for the presence of Guede. When young people do stupid things involving sex and drugs in another country (release of restraint), there can be unfortunate consequences. The thing I find most damning was that she was up so early in the morning with Sollecito buying cleaning supplies (receipts are part of the "circumstantial" evidence against her). Who does that after a party or night out? She didn't do it because she was a neat freak (judging by her roommate's prior complaints about her). She strikes me as an irresponsible piece of work being portrayed as a child by her defense and family. Maybe she will learn something from the experience (including jail) but celebrating her release seems inappropriate, especially given that the victim clearly did not deserve to die and does deserve justice, fully as much as Knox.
posted by Anonymous : 11:39 AM
Greg, I am not saying she is guilty, I am saying that there were reasonable grounds for the original conviction and Italian courts are not Mickey mouse courts. In my (albeit unimportant) opinion, an American girl in Italy accused of murder has a much better chance of justice than a black american in Texas.
"Also, how can anyone not believe that a solitary male criminal could overpower a young woman, sexually abuse her and then murder her?"
I can believe it. In fact he would have found it very easy (he was a gifted basketball player). However how does the possibility equal proof that that is what happened? As for reference to the prosecutor, well its true he is a clown. I just dont see how that proves she is innocent either. Sometimes people are prosecuted by dumbass prosecutors. That doesnt make them all innocent.
What I am saying is that there are numerous oddities in the account of events as presented by Sollecito and Knox which do not tally with evidence. They explain these by saying that there were bullied into lying and making up things by the Italian investigators. Ok, maybe. Maybe not. Me personally I cant imagine making stuff up during an interogation regarding a murder case. I would be afraid that might come back to haunt me.
And since there is very little to prove she is innocent, why not consider the (remote?) possibility that a murderess is about to make 10mn dollars doing the interview circuit and discussing her treatment at the evil Italian authorities.
Like anon above, I suspect she didnt actually use the knife but was responsible for Guede's presence. But I dont KNOW this. I am merely connecting dots in a way which makes sense to me.
Once again, I dont think the evidence proves she did it beyond all doubt. But I do know she has lied on multiple occasions and perjured herself to put an innocent man in jail. So forgive me if I dont consider her trial a travesty.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 4:52 AM
I am sorry I brought it up but the reality is that skin color has nothing to do with convicting people where I live regardless of what the statistics show. The problem they have is that the good folks of Texas love them some authority figures and believe what they are told. Also, while the justice system in this country is rigged to be beneficial to the wealthy it is doubly so here.
It really is about socioeconomic status here and understanding how to deal with the various law enforcement people and agencies. This is going to sound bad but in many cases people get sent to the clink when they shouldn't simply because they lack sophistication and funds.
The Knox trial and conviction was a catastrophe. I still have heard not one meritorious argument in favor of her confinement. As Joseph laid it out and as Dakinikat beautifully discusses the topic there is just nothing "there" to the case. Pure conjecture and misogyny and anti-American fervor.
posted by gregoryp : 8:15 AM
I didn't spend much time following the case and only just now reviewed the affair on Wikipedia. But I have to say about to those who still want to insist that Knox was guilty--people will always believe what they want to believe. To take just one example from anon above:
The thing I find most damning was that she was up so early in the morning with Sollecito buying cleaning supplies (receipts are part of the "circumstantial" evidence against her).
Actually, there were no such receipts introduced at trial (I had to look around to find that out, but I ask anyone asserting there was a receipt beyond claims in a tabloid that police claimed to have seen one to show evidence of one.) Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the cleaning supply evidence:
A Perugia shopkeeper testified that Knox had gone to his supermarket at 7:45 on the morning after the murder, at a time when she was, according to her account, still at Sollecito's.[97] The shopkeeper first informed police of his recollection months after the crime occurred at the prompting of a reporter who was his friend.[98][30] A worker in the shop testified that she had not seen Knox.[5]:286[58]:84
That Knox implicated Lumumba or made self-incriminating statements--statements, btw, that she recanted later that same day--seems at least partially understandable after a 14-hour interrogation without a translator or lawyer present with police who repeatedly asserted that they could prove her guilt. Of the initial interrogation, we do know this much from Wikipedia:
The Italian Supreme Court later found that Knox's human rights were violated because the police did not tell her of her legal rights, appoint her a lawyer or provide her an official interpreter and that her signed statement was inadmissible for Knox's and Sollecito's criminal trial.[41][53][54] However, the court allowed the statement to be used in the concurrent civil, calunnia trial in which Lumumba prevailed against Knox. Both trials had the same jury which heard Knox's confession.[55]
Again, it's extremely unfortunate that Knox implicated Lumumba. But Lumumba had called her on the evening of the crime to tell her not to come to work because of a lack of business--under extreme duress falsely accused people will often envision whatever alternative scenario they can think of that could possibly exonerate them. Maybe you or I wouldn't come up with a story like that under pressure, but it has certainly been known to happen.
As to Guede's involvement, we also know this from Wikipedia:
DNA matching Guede's was found both on and inside Kercher's body[31][63] and on her shirt, bra and handbag.[64] A bloody handprint found on a pillow under Kercher's back was also matched to Guede.[31][65]
That some here want to see Guede as the victim of a miscarriage of justice rather than Knox seems inexplicable, other than that some people enjoy invisioning her as a cold-blooded murderess.
This certainly doesn't mean that the Italian court system holds a candle to ours with regards to miscarriages of justice. The fact Knox was eventually acquitted while Troy Davis was executed proves otherwise.
posted by Inky : 9:31 AM
Well, again, there's a parallel to the West Memphis Three case, where the entire case hinged on a "confession" by one of the three -- a slow-witted fellow under extreme police duress.
During the Weiner affair, I took a lot of heat for suggesting that people under pressure will confess to things that never occurred. But it happens all the time, for reasons both psychological and practical.
I do not see Guede as being the victim of a miscarriage of justice at all. If anything I think his sentence is way too short. I dont know how you got that impression I thought different.
I just dont see it as being quite as obvious that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. Rather it seems difficult to prove guilt. That is a different thing.
For example, Sollecito's computer was switched off from 9.15pm to 5:30am(from memory). Think about that. How many kids do you know who switch their computers off while they are at home from 9:15pm? How many students do you know who would get out of bed and switch on their computers at 5:30am after a night of love making and marujana? Being the suspicious type, I cant help but think that he did what I would do. Switched it on when he got home.
As for Lumumba, I would hope that if you are questioned by the authorities for murder, you would not respond by making up random allegations against people you know. Lumumba is very lucky he is not in prison for life. I cannot imagine doing that under any circumstances. But then I am not a teenage girl and I have never been accused of murder. I can imagine the possibility of confessing to a crime I did not commit, but I doubt in practice that could happen to me. I am probably far too much the curmudgeon to ever give the police a statement. But I cannot imagine stating that someoone else committed a crime.
Remember, in Italy, appeals are not based on the totality of the evidence but on its weakest element, or so a BBC new report I just read said. Apparently Italy has the very large number of successful appeals and a very low prison population - lowest in the EU per capita. I dont suppose thats cos their murder rate is the lowest, but it might be.
Gregoryp
"I am sorry I brought it up but the reality is that skin color has nothing to do with convicting people where I live regardless of what the statistics show. The problem they have is that the good folks of Texas love them some authority figures and believe what they are told. Also, while the justice system in this country is rigged to be beneficial to the wealthy it is doubly so here. "
Im sorry. I had no idea you were from Texas. I dont back away from my comment, but I didnt mean to be rude. Im sure you are right, and it isnt racism but an excess deference to authority and wealth. However that doesnt make Texas top of my list of places to live. After all, the why doesnt really matter so much does it, not to the prisoner?
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 10:23 AM
Hey Harry,
I didn't mean to imply that you thought Guede was innocent--it was another comment from above, which upon rereading I now find so incoherent that I'm not even sure it implied as much. Nonetheless, I still think you are torturing the known evidence to try cast doubt on soundness of the acquittal. For instance, your latest argument:
For example, Sollecito's computer was switched off from 9.15pm to 5:30am(from memory). Think about that. How many kids do you know who switch their computers off while they are at home from 9:15pm? How many students do you know who would get out of bed and switch on their computers at 5:30am after a night of love making and marujana? Being the suspicious type, I cant help but think that he did what I would do. Switched it on when he got home.
Frankly, I may not be a kid anymore, but I sometimes turn off a computer that I left on earlier when I come home at night. And even more often, I'll turn on a computer if I wake up early or have a bout with insomnia, just so I can check out my favorite blogs and the like. I just don't see that as being incriminating evidence or establishing any sort of suspicious timeline.
And when you say this:
As for Lumumba, I would hope that if you are questioned by the authorities for murder, you would not respond by making up random allegations against people you know. Lumumba is very lucky he is not in prison for life.
I already said that I don't think you or I would have made such allegations, but then I tend to flatter myself on my stubbornness of will and contrarian streak. I do know that people do make such allegations under extreme duress. Remember that Amanda was a stranger in a strange land who could barely speak Italian and had spoken with Lumumba just shortly before the alleged crimed was supposed to have taken place. Given that context, I can see how Amanda's explanation for incriminating Lumumba, per Wikipedia, could have occurred:
She later claimed that she underwent a hostile interrogation of 14 hours, that she was struck and yelled at, denied food and water, and caused to make incriminating statements.[41] In the end she signed a statement in Italian saying, in part, that she had seen Patrick Lumumba (Knox's boss) and Kercher enter Kercher's room.[41] Knox stated that during her interrogation the police asked her to imagine what might have happened at her flat had she been there,[42] and that she explained this vision of Lumumba at the crime scene in response to that question.[41][43]
I'm sorry, but this is what can happen when improper interrogations are allowed to take place. It's also the reason why many police departments now film interrogations.
What I don't get is that even you are coming to acknowledge that her guilt can't be established, and yet you seem terribly displeased that she was acquitted.
posted by Inky : 12:43 PM
I can't believe any of the posters here swallow the hogwash from the tabloids and Mignini.
AK and RS didn't do it. Period. They got the culprit, Guede. Deal with it.
The Italian forensic team were not as good as they could be. However one of the conclusions of the investigating pathologist was that two knives were used in the attack. There were, I think, 49 separate stab wounds and cuts with two different blades. The conclusion the investigating judges came to was that there was probably more than one person involved in the attack.
One could choose to ask whether the Italian pathologist was mistaken. But if you believe that two blades were used in the attack you might well believe that there were two attackers. It seems a little odd to stop and get the other blade halfway through.
This is not to say that Amanda Knox is guilty. I don't know. What I do know is that a British family lost their daughter to a sexual attack and involved bleeding to death slowly having suffered 49 separate wounds. They don't know what happened to their daughter. But you can see there is reason to believe that someone involved in the murder has not been brought to justice.
Please don't get me wrong. Innocent people shouldn't rot in jail for crimes they did not commit. Me personally I don't know whether Sollecito or Knox committed any crime. However I just don't think it an obvious miscarriage of justice. It might be a miscarriage, but surely its not that obvious is it? Its not like there was any alibi. Tell me how you know within reasonable doubt she didn't do it? Knox might well be innocent. She might not be. If she was, why would I celebrate her going free? That's the thing about a burden of proof. Its a burden. Failure to meet it doesn't prove innocence. It merely fails to prove guilt.
If she is innocent, I'm sure she will be fine. She will reportedly earn some $10mn in the near term. She will only have to pay E18k of that in compensation for putting a black guy in the frame when interrogated. My problem is when I consider the possibility that she is guilty I find the prospect that she will make $10mn distasteful. And yes, I do know its my problem.
I guess I had better pray that she and Sollecito are innocent?
I must say, I appear to be in a very small minority of opinion. Whenever you are in such a minority there is an enhanced chance of being totally wrong. So be assured that I am not certain I am right. But its what I am thinking. I had better just deal.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 8:30 PM
PS
I know I am obsessed, and no one else cares. Also I am grateful to people for fellow commentors for taking the trouble to debate this one with me. I was concerned about the sourcing for several of my prejudices so I went and did some googling. I strongly recommend this piece. It is a translation of the Judges report.
I havnt completed reading it but so far I have become more depressed rather than less so. To me the case did not seem as weak as the Knox PR seemed to suggest.
The Libertarians -- in particular, those who follow Alex Jones -- are spreading crappy conspiracy theories about the Occupiers. Yes, it's all a plot by Evil Soros! Also see here:
Despite their honest intentions, many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are being suckered into a trap and calling for the very “solutions” that are part of the financial elite’s agenda to torpedo the American middle class – higher taxes and more big government.
Actually, government action and higher taxes on the financial elite created the middle class in the first place.
I may have to re-think my cynical attitude toward the Occupiers. Kids, you have made the right enemies. To that extent: Bravo.
I like some of what I'm reading here. We still need an official statement of demands and grievances. I contend that such a statement must contain a clear denunciation of Libertarianism, using that term.
Permalink
"Fox news co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle bashed the protest, saying it was composed of “people with absolutely no purpose or focus in life.”"
The TEAPARTY/GOP/Libertarian Network goes after Occupy Wall Street. As you've noted that is enough reason to support the kids. And then there's the fact that the future is theirs and it's finally dawning on them that they must fight for it. By the way, watched some video of the protests and there were quite a few silver headed and bald headed people joining in. So they're not all kids.
I suppose a GENUINE movement of the people (especially young people), that's not organized by Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin,The Koch Brothers, NOM and a bunch of middle age religious Zealnuts who are afraid of "teh gay" is a scarey notion to FOX NEWS.
As soon as the wave moves South, I'm joining the kids, lame arm and all.
Anon is right. It makes sense that the spearhead of this movement is being waged by the kids--it's their future that's being squeezed and twisted. Besides they have more energy and better feet :0).
Soros and all the other conspiracy backers don't need to tell the working class that they've been screwed royally and that the powers-that-be would just like them to go away. Besides, there are other groups joining now: veterans, pilots, postal workers, etc. A number of the protest kids have reported that many of the cops have actually said they support the movement. Let's face it: anyone who actually works for a living is part of the 99ers Naked Capitalism has a piece on the Occupy Boston protests and Corrente has an article up on Occupy Everywhere, which shows the protests springing up across the country.
It may not be a perfect protest but it's a beginning. And yes, anyone howling about the libertarian/neoliberal destruction in the country is on the right track.
Peggy Sue
posted by Anonymous : 8:23 AM
"We still need an official statement of demands and grievances. I contend that such a statement must contain a clear denunciation of Libertarianism, using that term."
I get where you're coming from, but - like my disagreement over the 'progressive' vs 'liberal' labels - I don't think the word carries the connotations for others that it does for you. I don't think nitpicking over the usage of the word is a winning strategy or worth fighting over.
My suspicions are that many people associate the word 'libertarian' with civil liberties rather than as a proto-Fascist economic doctrine, and that many who self-identify as Tea Partiers consider themselves equally as concerned with civil liberties as economic/taxation liberties (difference being nobody ever stokes up a Two Minutes Hate on cable news for civil side).
Another issue is the For/Against dichotomy: 'Libertarian' directly implies (or at least is widely understood to suggest) a small, hands-off government. Setting oneself or ones' movement in direct opposition to the term leads the rationally handicapped to assume that the opposition must stand as an inverted concept: Big Government sticking it's nose in your bidness - economic and otherwise.
It's basically the same argument I made over Prog/Lib - it's not just about the principle, it's about the message. Message wins far more battles than Principle. Together they're a dynamic duo, but Principle without Message is like sending Robin out to clean up Gotham's streets while Batman takes a powder. Sadly, the GOP seems to pay Batman better, and Democrats seem to think Robin can win the day... even when he has to fight Batman. That metaphor's for you, Joe.
Also: if you effectively demonize Libertarians in the public mind, they'll just change labels and regroup. Isn't that the Tea Party?
So I say: Let us not concern ourselves with labels, but rather pair Message with Principle and deploy both. Don't denounce Libertarianism, denounce the foundations of it's philosophy: Denounce it's anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-Social Security, anti-Medicare, anti-worker ideology (use lots of Anti's - e.g. they're not Pro-Business, they're Anti-Worker).
I'd also think that this would get us closer to debate on substance and policy rather than broad, ill-defined philosophies on governance - and it's in the details, in policy, where Liberal governance wins the day. The GOP/Rand wing have bumper stickers and slogans, but Liberals own policy analysis and it's implications... or at least the stuff that can be shown to the public.
A final note: Debating over policy & it's implications can lead to a "gotcha" moment, whereas debating over a broad philosophy of governance never will.
So, in sum, I think it's better to fight the policy and philosophy fights than the label fights.
And if you've read all of what I just pooped out onto my keyboard... I'm sorry.
You are right...I have seen trolls infiltrating the Occupy Boston boards. Over and over they punch the meme "What is your message? What is your goal? What are your demands? What is your end game?" I prefer a more focused message myself....and the kids' crunchy granola kum baya attitude toward one and all is a bit wearing on one's patience (there are plenty of bushy-eyed clueless kids calling themselves Libertarians there) ----but I'm still supporting their fledgling emergence. We're long overdue for street action. My favorite slogan I saw today was "The Beginning is Near" ---but that sign was painted by an old-time protester. I recognized his name!
What happens next? Really. This is the start but what is the middle and what is the end? I hear and see what can be done to disrupt the movement/action/protest. That stuff is old hat but effective old hat. What can be done to deal with the expected monkey business? That is where leadership and organization come in but I am still impressed that the protests are still going strong and even growing without clear 'leadership/decision makers'. It would be very cool if all of this work affects this country by achieving something close to, say "30-40%" of the demands. Very cool. No more fence sitting for me. I'll be at Freedom Plaza Thursday. HOT DAMN!!
The Libertarians have pointed to Solyndras as evidence of Obama's alleged "socialism." So why don't they point at Rick Perry?
The Texas Emerging Technology Fund (ETF) is practically Perry’s own, personal multi-million dollar fundraising machine. When it comes to doling out money to private firms he doesn’t have to beg anyone for anything.
Here’s a successful Texas investment strategy. Put a $1000 of your own money into a business. Invest $75,000 in the Governor’s campaigns. Then fund the rest of your business with a $4.5m taxpayer funded grant from the Governor’s ETF. That’s not a loan like Solyndra received, that’s cash on the barrelhead, delivered from the state and never to be repaid.
Big Perry donor Charles Tate helped to run the ETF. The fund gave to a Tate enterprise called ThromboVision, which failed a few years later. Remember: Perry doled out grants, not loans.
Permalink
The Economic Cycle Research Institute says a new recession is unavoidable. This probably means that the Republican nominee will be the next president.
It also means that we will likely be entering into a proto-revolutionary period. This gives fringe-dwellers their big chance to take over. The Libertarians have their act together -- "sacred scripture," organization, a robust media infrastructure -- while the left does not.
Thus, while I fear this new recession, I fear even more what comes next.
Permalink
Just what we need, loons with a nuclear arsenal. Think Land of Confusion by Genesis only Perry or Bachmann instead of Reagan.
posted by Mr. Mike : 8:11 AM
There's a financial tsunami headed our way. Will it be 2012, 2013, etc? Don't know. But it's coming and all the king's men and all the king's horses refuse to acknowledge the danger. If they did? The NYC occupation would truly be child's play.
Peggy Sue
posted by Anonymous : 10:28 AM
First of all we don't have a new recession coming. We have been in a depression and are still there and will be there for quite some time to come.
This is what they want you to think. What they want you to write about. What they want the media to flout.
The powers will be will tell you they are all different recessions. They will tell you that cos there are different remedies for depressions rather than common or garden recessions. If its a recession the situation is normal. If its a depression the situation is exceptional and requires exceptional measures - a new new deal perhaps? With the path the authorities are going down - restricting growth of money (or failing to offset the natural contraction of credit if you prefer), and limited fiscal intervention, then yes this next phase of recession is inevitable.
Joseph, I have warned about this for 4 years or so. It is clearly happening now. The only way out is massive intervention, of a form which will involve massive wealth transfer. But the politics here wont tolerate it. So instead you must have a depression.ly the same as Japan.
Barack Obama used military drone weapons to kill reputed terror leader Anwar al-Awlaki, who happens to be American-born. I have little doubt that al-Awlaki was a very bad guy, and I do not mourn his passing. But this assassination of an American citizen was extrajudicial and illegal. He received no trial. We don't really know the true nature of the evidence against him; we must take the government's word.
Hate to admit it, but Ron Paul is right about this one.
"Al-Awlaki was born here, he's an American citizen, he was never tried or charged for any crimes," Paul said. "To start assassinating American citizens without charges - we should think very seriously about this."
Whenever government officials decide to erode the protections of due process, they always begin by targeting someone genuinely detestable. Anyone who criticizes the assassination of an al-Awlaki may stand accused of being a terrorist sympathizer.
Much the same thing occurs when the government uses "Big Brother" tactics to spy on (or to entrap) a pedophile.
Terrorists and child molesters. Those are the big, scary monsters used to goad us into giving up our civil liberties.
Americans are asked to accept, and even to applaud, the end of the rule of law and the right to privacy, because terrorists and child molesters are just so damned evil that any counter-measures are justified. Well...yes. They are evil. But if we do not extend legal protections to our worst citizens, then very soon those protections will be denied to everyone, especially to those whose only real crime is dissent.
Republican congressman Peter King defended Obama's action against al-Awlaki:
"It was entirely legal. If a citizen takes up arms against his own country, he becomes an enemy of the country..."
Those very words could be used to justify the assassination of militia members -- or even the assassination of G. Gordon Liddy, who once counseled his listeners to fire "head shots" at federal officers. They could even be used to target Ron Paul, who has flirted with advocating secession. (Al-Awlaki was not accused of literally bearing arms against the U.S.; he offered advocacy, instigation and planning.)
On a related note: A couple of days ago, a Florida customs official was arrested for possession of child pornography on his computer. Most people read such news stories and automatically presume the charge to be true. Frankly, so do I -- in this particular case.
But step back for a moment. How do you really know that the charge is true?
In the 1980s (according to an oft-told story), a gang lord stood accused of being involved with the cocaine trade. The government proved that cash in his possession tested positive for trace evidence of the drug. The defense countered by proving that all folding money contains trace evidence of cocaine.
Similarly, perhaps your computer has kiddie porn imagery nestled somewhere on it. Perhaps most computers do.
We all download freeware programs -- including the firewall ZoneAlarm, which is provided to you gratis by people who are at least rumored to be connected to Israeli intelligence. There are numerous other free apps out there: Video converters, music players, anti-spyware, registry utilities, so on and so-forth.
How do you know -- how can you be 100% certain -- that these apps do not place a tiny illegal image in some deeply hidden folder on your system? Perhaps the program automatically erases the illegal image seconds after placing it on your computer. The image would still be visible to a cop or federal agent doing a forensic analysis of your system.
From the standpoint of a totalitarian ruler, it would be very useful to engineer a society in which nearly everyone can (potentially) be proven in court to be a lawbreaker. Let's posit that the "Occupy Wall Street" movement whelps up an actual leader. To discredit him, the government need merely gin up an accusation of pedophilia -- and lo, the evidence will appear on his system. The forensic computer detective who examines the drive will believe that he has made a legitimate find.
Something similar happens on the streets everyday. In most places, the cops tolerate a flow of traffic about five m.p.h. above the posted speed limit. This situation turns everyone into a lawbreaker -- and that, in turn, gives cops the right to pull over anyone they choose, for reasons that have nothing to do with speeding. (Such as "driving while black.")
The Florida customs official referenced above was probably a legitimate threat to society. I feel confident that al-Awlaki was an evil bastard.
Nevertheless, I advise my readers to question everything.
Recently I had a chance to use a small amount of personal experience to gently chide a conspiracist...We were two strangers, far, far, from Chicago, talking about long ago Mayor Harold Washington. My new acquaintance noted: "You know, I think they had him killed." Now I was working in an ER on the South Side at the time of his death. Washington was downtown at the mayors office that morning. (We thanked God it was Northwestern that got him and not us.) I knew the guys who tried to rescusitate him, I knew the guys who put him on the bypass pump. Maybe someone secretly tried to shorten his lifespan but from the way things went down I am perfectly satisfied that it was Twinkies, not the white establishment that did this great mayor in. Mayor Washington was a massive heart attack waiting (which it didn't) to happen.
So I suppose that out there somewhere is someone who has had enough personal experience to tell me that, in fact, al-Awlaki got everything he had coming to him. But come on, the guy gave interviews on CNN. To me he looks to be a government plant whose "death" serves to keep the whole Al Qaida charade at a simmer.
posted by lastlemming : 12:34 AM
Last two posts very thought-provoking.
Bear in mind sex offenders include teenaged boys barely over the majority, with girls their age, barely under "consent."
@prolerzee...teenage boys don't fit the whole boogeyman idea. The middle aged man who might kidnap your little son or daughter and molest him/ her does. Those guys titillate and grab the eyeballs of the public, teenage boys titillate and grab the eyeballs of cougars.
posted by Aleealee : 6:29 AM
I had the same thoughts, a user could download an app that had photos and a program to email them to anyone in the address book. Not a government plot but that of a malicious prankster.
Locally there was a case of sexting that ended up with the kids involved in real trouble. They were charged with a felony.
posted by Mr. Mike : 8:07 AM
I love this quote.
"It was entirely legal. If a citizen takes up arms against his own country, he becomes an enemy of the country..."
Its so obviously bogus reasoning that the idiot who uttered it needs a slap in the face and some media attention. Why do people say dumb stuff like this? Why do people let them?
If something is legal, then show me the law. Its simple. If you dont cite law you are talking bull.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 8:41 AM
We absolutely agree on the question of al-Awlaki. I was stunned when Obama put out the kill order on the man. And now the press and political rah-rah men are cheering the hit.
It's certainly not because I think al-Awlaki was a good guy or even that I've entertained the conspiracy edge but because every time we kick the Rule of Law to the curb, we become weaker. If we rely on the capricious Rule of Men [or Women], it's all over but for the weeping.
Btw, I heard yesterday on the radio that the Administration could have stripped al-Awlaki of his US citizenship for plotting against the country, thereby squeezing within the Law. Guess they didn't feel the need to even go through the motions.
Peggy Sue
posted by Anonymous : 8:46 AM
Aleealee, I meant consenting teenagers are sometimes caught up in the net of "sex offender" and then are tarred for life... the "boogie man" theme does make people judge without thinking. Eventually, tho, when the overreaching reaches a critical mass, perceptions change. The "war on drugs" is an example.
The U.S. government has no problem killing its own citizens. The first people ever lynched (by Judge Lynch)were white Southerners judged Loyalist by their neighbors. Tens of thousands of citizens were killed in the Civil War, long before anyone was called an enemy combatant. The due process of today is being labelled an enemy combatant.
I feel confident that al-Awlaki was an evil bastard.
Well I feel confident the guy was jerk. Don't you think calling Awlaki an "evil bastard" sort of plays into the whole propaganda line of government? My bet is most of what the public has been told about the guy is total bullshit.
The profitability of the entire industrial military terrorism fighting complex rests largely on the reputation of a handful of evil madmen.
Regarding Al-Alwaki, where's the evidence? The US government arbitrarily upgraded his rank in Al-Qaeda right after they assassinated him. Surely that's only the tip of the propaganda iceberg.
I think everything about this guy's alleged infamy deserves to be challenged. Where's the evidence? Since he's dead now, surely they can present "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence sufficient to convict on capital offense charges.
Thanks, Joe, as always, for saying what others fear to say. We all need to diligent about covering our tracks online and keeping an open mind when other people's suspicious tracks are uncovered.
posted by Trojan Joe : 11:51 AM
Jotman, spot on. Everything, and I mean everything we supposedly know about al-Awlaki comes from "the administration" or "government sources". No judge has seen any evidence, neither has any media figure (at least, none has indicated they've seen any hard evidence). We are expected to just take the government's word that is was for the best that this guy was assassinated without any trial, without even any formal charges. I don't see why anyone would trust the government on this one. The founding fathers didn't trust government, that was why they created all the checks and balances they did. Obama has eliminated those in this case, to become judge, jury, and executioner. I can't believe more people are not appalled by this development.
Sorry about the lack of posting. I've been busy with lots of stuff, including helping a friend move. (She's going to Vegas. A gruesome idea, if you ask me -- which she didn't.)
Our last post, on the Occupy Wall Street movement, made a lot of people feel queasy. I'm queasy about it too. Theodore Roosevelt's "In the Arena" quote haunts us all: If you're just a spectator, what right do you have to sneer at the warriors?
Then again, perhaps this blog constitutes a form of fighting.
Part of the problem stems from personal history. My only first-hand experience of protest marches occurred during the movement to end America's covert wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Those marches seemed ineffectual, silly and depressing; worst of all, they offered a glimpse of the thin line separating mass action from mob action. I neither liked nor trusted many of the people with whom I marched.
On the other hand: Just how ineffectual were those protests? Reagan never did send American troops into open warfare, although he clearly wanted to do so. When polled, the American public always remained anti-interventionist. I'm not sure that the protest marches played any role in keeping us out of war. How can one judge such a thing? But perhaps they helped.
We still haven't processed the lessons of the Reagan revolution.
I never will forget that the Reagan movement was created by people who once protested the Vietnam war. For that reason, whenever I look at the Occupiers, I see Tea Partiers, or at least potential Tea Partiers: The opposites look more like equivalences to these jaded eyes.
The thirst for rebellion will always -- in the long run -- serve the cause of reaction, because conservatism is revolutionary. James Kwak at the Baseline Scenario makes the point. Never forget that Boulanger, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco were all rebels. So was Reagan.
I noted, in the earlier post, that the political history of the 1970s came down to this progression: The slogan "Don't trust the Pentagon" turned into "Don't trust the government," which turned into "Don't trust the very idea of government," which turned into "Vote for Reagan."
Today, the "occupiers" have no universally agreed-upon program beyond an outrage over police brutality. Watch it happen: "Fuck the police" will turn into "Fuck the government," which will turn into "Fuck the very idea of government," which will turn into "Let's live in AynRandLand." Alienation from power is always a sentiment that the Libertarians can work with.
I suppose that support for the protesters depends upon one's level of discouragement over electoral politics. If you are a liberal, how can you not be discouraged right now? The "liberal" label has been misapplied to a bad president who is anything but a liberal.
Nevertheless, I have always counseled New Deal idealists to work within the Democratic Party with an idea toward an eventual takeover. This is how the Libertarians took over the Republican party. Why not emulate a successful strategy?
Today, as in the Vietnam era, the protesters seem to think that elections can solve nothing because the candidates have been purchased by the powerful. Look, we're all angry at the corruption which has ruined so much of the American political system. But if you have given up on electoral politics altogether, then what are you for? The only alternatives are fascism and/or AynRandLand.
If fear of future regulations and taxes is holding business back, as everyone on the right asserts, why didn’t the Republican victory in the midterms set off a surge in employment?
The right has been insanely successful in convincing the populace that prolonged unemployment is due to something other than lack of demand.
Horatio Alger laughs at you: Gore Vidal once wrote an essay -- I forget which one -- in which he noted that, during the Depression, every person who lost a job blamed himself. In the play Death of Salesman, the unsuccessful businessman must listen to innumerable tales of smart go-getters who made it big. Our culture offers a thousand daily jabs at our egos: "You're not talented enough. You're not good enough. That's why you're not rich."
Ever since the early 1980s, I've noticed that every recession is marked by a propaganda barrage designed to convince the public that bright, upbeat up-and-comers can still make it in America. The Horatio Alger myth just won't die. We're always being told that personal success has nothing to do with inherited wealth and everything to do with pluck and ambition.
Here's an example. Yahoo News runs a story like that nearly every day.
I think that the cumulative effect of these stories is not positive. The message is not "You can do it too." The message is "Lost your house? You have no-one to blame but yourself."
Permalink
Never forget that Boulanger, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco were all rebels. So was Reagan.
So were Washington, Paine, Mandela, Walesa, Gandhi,and Havel. Revolutions (and revolutionaries) come in all types. Reactionaries tend to have money and power on their side - so yes, they have very high odds of success.
There's ample evidence to know that corporations, especially financial institutions have Americans by the short hairs. This has only been possible with the help of the politicians in Washington. The Wall Street protestors may not understand how Wall Street works, but they have a sense that something is wrong and that those who run Wall Street institutions have something to do with what is wrong with our economy. Wall Street and Washington should pay attention. One day a leader will tap into the discontent, and hell will break loose. DM
posted by Anonymous : 6:59 PM
Hell indeed. I agree, DM.
Sextus: Washington and Paine operated against a background of the Enlightenment. Today's rebels are trying to speak to a generation which knows nothing of enlightenment values; their only reference points go to Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul and Alex Jones. Do you really expect to find ANYTHING nourishing in such a cultural stew?
"The thirst for rebellion will always -- in the long run -- serve the cause of reaction, because conservatism is revolutionary." Joe Cannon
"Conservatism arises in reaction to something, and it oftentimes perceives itself to be the underdog." Corey Rubin author of "The Reactionary Mind" in interview with Thomas Rogers of Salon http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/02/reactionary_mind_interview/
Great minds think alike.
posted by Penelope Pennebaker : 5:42 AM
I certainly take your point, Joseph. But I also feel in my gut that these protests in NYC, what will happen very shortly in DC and the satellite marches and demonstrations growing through the country is a direct expression of an unresponsive government that is unwilling or incapable of telling any truth to its citizenry.
On the financial side, we haven't had our Pecora moment. A relatively small group of financiers brought down the world through greed and lies. And yet, no one has been held accountable, short of Bernie Madoff [a piker in comparison].
We have endless, stupid wars that have bled the country of treasure and blood. I was listening to Book TV last night, a presentation of a former CIA agent on the subject of 'enhanced' interrogation and what we've lost in terms of who we're 'suppose to be over the last dozen years. And who is touring the country with books and more propaganda? Cheney and Rumsfeld.
In terms of elections, we've had three compromised elections in a row: 2000 where GW was installed by the Supreme Court, 2004 where the results in Ohio were highly suspicious and never answered adequately and a botched primary in 2008, which gave us Barack Obama [because frankly the Dems could have run Happy and Clown and won].
Money has corrupted the legislative process, corporate abuse has become the norm [think BPs outrageous behavior in the Gulf] and people--the working-class, the middle-class--are hurting be it through unemployment or a health system that's obscenely expensive and ruled by the insurance industry.
So, when I see the livestream of these kids in the street, my eyes register the unsettling nature of it but my heart knows that if I were a kid [one of the fetuses] and had possibly watched my father lose his job, my family lose our house, my mother sick but unable to get adequate treatment, my school loans coming due and I'm without a job and with no prospect of finding one? I'd be in the street, too. Because I'd feel I had no alternative.
Unsettling yes. But the choices are pretty miserable.
Peggy Sue
posted by Anonymous : 8:18 AM
Peggy Sue,
I have noticed the same thing. I think I know the reason. The reason there has been no Pecora moment, is because they continue to be in control. We continue to live in a bankocracy. Jamie Dimon is one of our leading Oligarchs. We do not matter. Only our banking masters matter because it is only with money that you can take political power.
You are absolutely right Peggy Sue. And consider the recession that is coming. What will that end up doing to us? Where will this process end?
