There are a lot of myths about the Pearl Harbor attack -- chief among them being the pernicious idea that FDR allowed it happen. That lie, which originated with post-war American fascists, has gained a lot of traction through sheer repetition. Rather than engage in a point-by-point refutation of that myth and other fables, I'd like to provide a few links.
This page from 1996 -- a vestige of the "old" internet -- offers a lot of useful, detailed information.
Slate's piece "Who Lost Pearl Harbor?" from 2000 is excellent (if you can ignore the last line). It must never be forgotten that the people who originated this conspiracy theory were enemies of the New Deal -- and, too often, apologists for Hitler.
The motivations were at least threefold. First, the GOP, then as now, disliked the principle of civilian control of the military, and many were convinced that higher-ups in Washington were scapegoating honorable fighting men. Second, the right's ideological hatred of Roosevelt ran deep—conservatives, refusing to use FDR's name, called him "That Man in the White House"—and Pearl Harbor presented another emotion-filled occasion for partisan attack. Third, many on the right remained defiantly isolationist even after the war began, and they believed that the American people would never have licensed entry into the battle had Roosevelt not hoodwinked them.
...historians for the National Security Agency concluded in a history released last week that decoded messages buried in Japanese-language weather reports, meant to alert Japanese diplomats to destroy codes, did not reach U.S. officials prior to the attack.
Peal Harbor and 9/11. A good piece by a self-proclaimed "independent historian." One comment is worth quoting:
The conspiracy theory about FDR and Pearl Harbor doesn't even make sense on the face of it.
Even if he had known about the attack and known exactly when it would occur, Roosevelt would have scrambled the American military and fended it off. The U.S. ould thenceforth be at war with Japan--and FDR would look like a hero.
So, even if FDR knew, there would be no need to let us get clobbered.
Revisionists and wacko conspiracists will nevertheless continue to push their lies. They know that they can win minds by never standing down, never rethinking, never conceding territory, never admitting the possibility of error. That's how Reagan created the "welfare queen" myth; that's how the fundamentalists have convinced half the nation that Creationism is science; that's how so many young idiots were duped into the belief that the mythical "Illuminati" controls rock music. The people who spread these myths don't have facts on their side, but they do have inexhaustible energy.
Added note. Here's a little-known fact about Pearl Harbor that the right-wingers prefer not to discuss: Japan was controlled by the zaibatsu, monopolistic financial cliques which were usually family-owned. We were, in short, attacked by corporatism.
Permalink
The quote about the craziness of FDR letting himself get clobbered was one of mine, and it still seems sensible to me.
I'm amazed at how often conspiracy theories don't even make sense as scenarios--i.e., if you saw it in a movie, you'd ask for your money back. Example: the 9/11 Truthers, whose theory maintains that international bankers funded a plan to shut down Wall Street. I want my refund!
The weakness of so many conspiracy theories as stories shows you how strong the desire to hold on to a conspiracy theory is.
And the zaibatsu took back over during the US occupation. Nowadays I don't think they are all as family-controlled as before.
Out of interest, if the US right don't mention the zaibatsu, who do they say did own Japan before WW2? Don't tell me...they say it was "socialist"?!?
posted by b : 11:44 AM
b, I don't think that the residents of Glenn Beckistan have ever been forced to address that question. But if you were to put it to them -- yes, that would be their answer.
Ever notice how the print and broadcast media is silent in the face of this lunacy from the republicans?
Ask yourself, is it because they don't want to dignify this conspiracy crap with a rebuttal, or is it because its spread some how benefits their corporate masters.
There is a conspiracy, it's the media working in concert with Wall Street/Corporate America to get Joe and Jane Sixpack to vote against their self-interest. They have been trying since Reagan and hit their stride in 2000.
posted by Mr. Mike : 8:03 PM
You're sounding more like Webster Tarpley every day, Joe.
(Not that that's such a bad thing, IMHO.)
He's been trying for many years to get the FDR crew off the "Pearl hook" for goading (via their act-of-war oil blockade) the imperialism-besotted Nipponese into a first strike.
Now Dr. Tarpley's got a full-length book in the offing with just that purpose.
Have you read any of his previous books? He nailed the mendacious and Wall Street-controlled Obama, very early on, in not one but TWO, thoroughly documented "hit" volumes (which of course, the chain bookstores wouldn't carry and the prestigious reviewers wouldn't touch).
Now he's writing an exculpation book on FDR and Pearl Harbor.
Is it exculpatory to deny he 'let it happen' when he actually CAUSED it to happen?
One or another of the CFR study groups that recommended all pre- and post-WWII US foreign policy* recommended our pre-war policies with regard to Japan, stated that these policies would probably lead Japan to go to war against us, once the penultimate step of boycotting oil was performed.
We wanted their economic dominance which they called their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere rolled back so that we could enjoy those markets for ourselves, and keep profit margins high.
------------
Some of the sanctions imposed included the following actions:
[...] [T]he Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939 the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.”[2] The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in southeast Asia.
An Untenable Position Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[3]
...
As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the war cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”[5] After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief ... that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.[6]
Citations from George Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, pp. 322–23, 327–28.
*Shoup and Mintner, published in .Trilateralism, ed. Holly Sklar. CFR policy study group recommended and adopted policies included Destroyers for Bases, Lend-Lease, and the creation of the entire post-WWII international edifices of the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.
XI
posted by Anonymous : 10:22 AM
The conspiracy theory links the Fed's involvement as well. If battle ships are sunk, new ones have to be built, this puts people to work and lets the Fed loan out a ton of money as well.
Is there a new Obama? Robert Reich seems to think so. He quotes Obama's recent Kansas speech, which certainly hit some of the right notes...
We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or sometimes even understand them. Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets - and huge bonuses - made with other people’s money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.
It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility across the system. And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we are still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs, homes, and the basic security of millions - innocent, hard-working Americans who had met their responsibilities, but were still left holding the bag.
To which Reich responds:
Precisely – and it’s about time he used the term “wrong” to describe Wall Street’s antics, and the abject failure of regulators (led by Alan Greenspan and the Fed) to stop what was going on. But these “wrongs” were only the proximate cause of the economic crisis. The underlying cause was, as the President said before, the breaking of the basic bargain linking pay to productivity.
In this speech, Obama used Teddy Roosevelt as his touchstone. Unlike (I suspect) many of you, I admire TR a great deal -- although we must always be careful to stipulate which TR we're talking about. If ever a man contained multitudes, he did.
Obama's speech references TR the trust-buster and corporation-tamer. Karl Rove, by contrast, is famed for his admiration of TR the imperialist world-beater and empire-builder -- the guy with the Big Stick. That's the Roosevelt I don't care for.
Imperialist Teddy never bothered me too much, because he manifested himself primarily in speeches, not in practical action. As President, Roosevelt didn't start wars, although he did negotiate the end of one, and won the Nobel Peace Prize in the process.
Which brings me to my point. Speech and action are two different things.
That's why I -- unlike Reich, unlike Steve Kornacki -- remain unimpressed. Obama may have decided to shore up the Democratic base by talking like TR the corporation-tamer, but speech is speech, action is action, and that man in the White House can't hide the fact that has had three years to do something about Wall Street perfidy. The "malefactors of great wealth" are still malefacting.
If we look at actions, not words, we see that what Obama has really given us a modern version of Imperial Teddy. Actually, that assessment is not fair: Obama has done things that Roosevelt, even in his silliest fits of macho hallucination, would never had dared. Obama has maintained two unpopular wars and involved himself in a third. He has threatened Iran with covert actions and rattling sabers. Gitmo remains ongoing. Surveillance has worsened. The U.S. has alienated Pakistan.
Obama is no Theodore Roosevelt. TR talked like a warrior but delivered reform. Obama talks like a reformer and, so far, has given us nothing but war.
Kornacki references Obama's 2004 speech to the DNC, but refuses to note the most significant thing about it: Obama (unlike Kerry or Clinton -- and yes, I looked up their speeches) refused, on that occasion, to condemn the invasion of Iraq. I seem to be the only person who has ever noticed that omission. Everyone else who heard that speech presumed that he said words which he did not actually utter. Throughout 2003-2006, Obama refused to say that the invasion was a bad idea. He did not speak at anti-war rallies; he did not write anti-war opinion pieces. Yet in 2008, he ran as a war opponent.
This experience taught me not just to mistrust Obama's words; I rarely trust the words of any politician. More importantly, I learned not to trust the way Democrats interpret his words. The "want to believe" factor clouds judgment.
Sorry, Mr. Reich. But too much time has passed; too much has happened -- and not happened -- since the election of 2008. Remember, we're dealing with the same politician who told Ohio voters that he would renegotiate NAFTA. Not only has he refused to renegotiate, he has gone around the world to promote even worse sell-outs of American workers. Barack Obama is, in short, a proven liar. Just because he says the right words doesn't mean he is the right man.
Added note: There's a lot of talk about TR in pundit-land these days. Krugman likes to point out that today's Republicans aren't content with reversing the New Deal -- they want to go back to the era before Progressive reforms. We can't get back to "Eisenhower normal" if half this country operates under the ludicrous delusion that America was doing just fine until guys like Teddy screwed up everything.
Permalink
Wow! Somebody must have told the emperor he has no clothes.
Too bad he's a day late and a dollar short.
posted by Mr. Mike : 7:24 AM
Thanks, Joseph. I too remained unimpressed by the "new" Obama--seeing this as just an empty attempt to impress those progressives who have fallen away. Sadly, I also regard the State Department's new emphasis on gay rights as a cynical play for the progressive vote. Postponing the Keystone XL decision until after the election was an attempt to secure environmentalist votes--I have every expectation that Obama will approve it shortly after his reelection. I suspect that we'll see much more similar pandering before the election.
We should all take to heart those immortal words: "fool me once, shame on--shame on you. Fool me--You can't get fooled again."
posted by Lea : 7:29 AM
We need a REAL Teddy R to step up!!! If all the "third party" dreamers could find someone to dust off the Bull Moose party, Teddy actually made a new party that worked, at least for him. (On a hilarious note, the CEO of Exxon gave the commencement speech at my son's college and romantically named Teddy as his favorite president. We guessed it wasn't his trust-busting fervor that was the "favorite" part.)
As for Zero's non-antiwar stance, a ton of us were trying to point that out to those huffing the hopium in 2008. The O-fluffers flogged one antiwar comment made to a small crowd, but that wasn't even caught on tape. They really spun it with absolutely no evidence.
We can never remind them enough how much they projected onto their OMessiah, especially as they fall again for the campaign rhetoric.
Obama can't be trusted as far as one can throw him. I refuse to vote for him next year, given his absolute hostility toward public education.
This is bedrock, people. If you don't support public education and engage in a relentless attack on the teaching profession, you don't support democracy. I don't want a "Democrat" in there who doesn't support it.
Education is only one issue of many where Obama has failed as a president and as a Democrat.
Spot on, Joseph! TR had many admirable qualities pressed against silly macho and despicable supremacist positions. To be fair, TR was a man of his times.
But one of the things the struck me about TR's Kansas speech [and yes, I've read it] was his clear condemnation of rabid financiers and that 'words count for nothing except in so far as they represent acts.'
This is something Obama has never and will never understand. His 2008 'just words' speech [a steal from an earlier Deval Patrick speech] says it all--the man ascribes to flapping his lips, and then leaving the stage. Something else TR said was that progress is dependent on the destruction of special privileges.
Hahahaha! Wake me up when the 'O' man takes that one up! Reading the Obama script, you might think there were no laws on the books to bring the Beast of Wall St. to heel. Au Contraire! The rules/laws are on the books. The will to enforce is not.
The speech [IMHO] was a cynical attempt to rebrand Obama as the New Populist. Considering the lame and/or crazed group of candidates the GOP has trotted out it just may work because the electorate may support the Devil they know over the one they don't.
Peggy Sue
posted by Anonymous : 9:55 AM
Obama reminds me of an abusive spouse. After he seduces you with his charm and tells you exactly what you want to hear, he beats you and reveals himself someone other than who you thought he was. Now, he's in the "make up" phase where he'll bring you more lovely words, charm and flowers, and unfortunately, too many will be seduced all over again. Obama is an empty, hollow and craven abuser.
posted by Mary : 10:17 AM
I missed the 2004 speech to the DNC. But because of all the PR, I paid attention to his first senate speech. He talked about the war - how we shouldn't look back and think of how we got there, but forward to what to do now to "win". That's when I knew about the "fairy tale"
The Occupy movement is heading to Congress.This could be fun...
After arriving at the Capitol, marchers say they intend to fan out for meetings with representatives and "occupy" Congressional offices until closure.
For more, visit Progressive Maryland. Republicans who dislike both Romney and Gingrich. Apparently, some movers-n-shakers behind the scenes in GOP-land want an alternative to both of the front-runners. Taylor Marsh -- boy, when was the last time I cited her? -- asks:
The question remains, with the momentum Newt Gingrich has today, how do Republicans stop him?
Only a flood of negative ads against Newt in Iowa, but especially South Carolina, will get it done. But someone better pull that trigger fast.
Personally, I think support for Gingrich is one of those mile-wide-inch-deep things. Everyone understands his negatives and few really like the guy. Besides, the hardcore libertarian ideologues mistrust him. That's why I've always presumed that his surge won't last.
That said, there is definitely a space in place for a new face this race. (And if you ever see me write a sentence like that again, shoot me.) Steve Forbes? I've been mulling over that possibility for some time. Forbes endorsed Rick Perry, and thus cannot enter the contest until the Texas Titan formally calls it a day.
More "job creator" bullshit.Here's another opportunistic, deceptive and manipulative libertarian propaganda piece on CNN designed to convince us that the jobs crisis results from over-regulation. Are people really so dimwitted as to believe that regulations are vastly more onerous today than they were in (say) 1998? Are we really supposed to believe that there are fewer regulations here than in Germany, which is taking over Europe?
Regulation isn't killing jobs. What's killing jobs is the lack of demand. People don't have money to spend.
The above-cited piece was written by the CEO of the parent company that owns Red Lobster. These days, who can afford lobster?
Speaking of Germany... Here's Ian Welsh on the new German dominance of Europe...
It is true that the Euro requires fiscal union. It always did, shared currencies don’t work without union. However, if fiscal union is to occur, then it should occur with each member state’s population voting for it, especially as this fiscal union’s purpose is to impose corporate friendly austerity measure’s on the populations of countries that would almost certainly vote against them.
I will note that this is not going to redound to Germany’s favor in the not-very long run. Permanent European depression is not to Germany’s advantage. Who, exactly, they think is going to buy their high-end goods is beyond me. They shouldn’t expect India and China to play along, those countries are creating their own auto industries and do not intend to be dumping grounds for Western goods.
Bringing the drones back home:Glenn Greenwald reports that the drone weaponry which has made us so beloved in Muslim countries is now going to be used on the domestic scene:
Employing them for domestic police actions is following the model quickly being implemented in surveillance-happy Britain, where drones are used for “the ’routine’ monitoring of antisocial motorists, protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance.”
Even leaving aside the issue of weaponization (police officials now openly talk about equipping drones with “nonlethal weapons such as Tasers or a bean-bag gun”), the use of drones for domestic surveillance raises all sorts of extremely serious privacy concerns and other issues of potential abuse. Their ability to hover in the air undetected for long periods of time along with their comparatively cheap cost enables a type of broad, sustained societal surveillance that is now impractical, while equipping them with infra-red or heat-seeking detectors and high-powered cameras can provide extremely invasive imagery. The holes eaten into the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure protections by the Drug War and the War on Terror means there are few Constitutional limits on how this technology can be used, and there are no real statutory or regulatory restrictions limiting their use.
They're going to justify all of this surveillance as part of the ongoing war against crime, which is nonsense. Non-lethal weaponry has always been political.
There is no question that domestic political unrest is a major concern of law enforcement officials at every level. A new report released today by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development documents that “the gap between rich and poor in OECD countries has reached its highest level for over over 30 years,” and, as an OECD official said, “the social contract is starting to unravel in many countries. . . Without a comprehensive strategy for inclusive growth, inequality will continue to rise.” As The Wasington Post said today: the report “comes as rising dissatisfaction with economic inequality has spilled over into street protests in dozens of cities around the world.” Moreover, “the United States, Turkey and Israel have among the largest ratios between the incomes of those at the top and the bottom, roughly 14 to 1. ”
Drone technology is but the latest War on Terror weapon to be imported onto U.S. soil, and the dangers should be manifest. One article prominently touted on AeroVironment’s website hails the “Switchblade,” which the author excitingly describes as “an ingenious, miniature unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that is also a weapon” and “the leading edge of what is likely to be the broader, even wholesale, weaponization of unmanned systems. ”
Well, at least most of the commenter's share your views, which is a good sign. The drone issue is a scary one, but that's what you get when you let fear guide you and you buy into war propaganda. When I was in High School, we actually were taught about how propaganda was always used by both sides in wars to dehumanize the enemy (yes, we even saw examples from the USA in WWI and WWII). Nowadays, I guess people have stopped learning to think and evaluate such things for what they are.......propaganda to keep the war machine rolling.
posted by Gus : 10:56 AM
Butbutbutbut...war creates jobs! Bring the war home and we'll have those jobs back home!
There has been a very good libertarian series of posts on naked capitalism by Andrew Dittmer. When I say Libertarian I should say exposition of Libertarian doctrine. It has been eye opening to me. I had no idea of precisely what these people believed. Now I see why they are in fact Nazis and must be stopped.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 11:35 AM
The Occupiers should be making special overtures to the war vets, many of whom know they were had.
posted by Anonymous : 1:30 PM
If Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are silent about the erosion of our civil liberties then they are for it. What prominent Democrat has spoken out against domestic surveillance in any form?
Where is Chris Matthews' usual bluster, or Olbermann's for that matter?
Since Obama, Pelosi, and Reid seem to be for the use of drones to spy on citizens the usual gang of "journalists" are too.
A short while ago, we discussed comic book writer/artist (and alleged representative of Hollywood) Frank Miller and his scabrous remarks on the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Annoying as his views are, what really bugs me is his prose style. Everything he says nowadays sounds like a bad imitation of Frank Miller. This guy probably can't even write down a recipe for potato soup without resorting to unimaginative tough guy patois: "All right, scumbags -- peel the spuds right or I'll use your guts in my next cassoulet. What, are you retarded or something? I'm the goddamned entremetier!"
A reader directs our attention to a new interview with Alan Moore -- the other big name to emerge out of the comics world in the 1980s. Right now, he's working on a book called Jerusalem, which I eagerly await. (And I'll be very pleased if this book does not have a long opening chapter written in caveman-ese.) A few highlights:
Well, Frank Miller is someone whose work I’ve barely looked at for the past twenty years. I thought the Sin City stuff was unreconstructed misogyny, 300 appeared to be wildly ahistoric, homophobic and just completely misguided. I think that there has probably been a rather unpleasant sensibility apparent in Frank Miller’s work for quite a long time. Since I don’t have anything to do with the comics industry, I don’t have anything to do with the people in it. I heard about the latest outpourings regarding the Occupy movement. It’s about what I’d expect from him. It’s always seemed to me that the majority of the comics field, if you had to place them politically, you’d have to say centre-right. That would be as far towards the liberal end of the spectrum as they would go. I’ve never been in any way, I don’t even know if I’m centre-left. I’ve been outspoken about that since the beginning of my career. So yes I think it would be fair to say that me and Frank Miller have diametrically opposing views upon all sorts of things, but certainly upon the Occupy movement.
The characterization of comics professionals as right-wingers goes against the reports I've heard from others. Perhaps those reports are out of date.
As far as I can see, the Occupy movement is just ordinary people reclaiming rights which should always have been theirs. I can’t think of any reason why as a population we should be expected to stand by and see a gross reduction in the living standards of ourselves and our kids, possibly for generations, when the people who have got us into this have been rewarded for it; they’ve certainly not been punished in any way because they’re too big to fail. I think that the Occupy movement is, in one sense, the public saying that they should be the ones to decide who’s too big to fail. It’s a completely justified howl of moral outrage and it seems to be handled in a very intelligent, non-violent way, which is probably another reason why Frank Miller would be less than pleased with it. I’m sure if it had been a bunch of young, sociopathic vigilantes with Batman make-up on their faces, he’d be more in favour of it.
"Very intelligent"? Not always. There were many missteps at first. The protesters were wrong to insist on consensus democracy, and wrong to distrust of the very idea of leadership. Worse, too many of the OWS-ers were -- and are -- attracted by libertarian solutions, which would only make things much worse. But the strategic errors proved unimportant; the country simply needs a movement like this one.
Obviously, the emphasis on non-violence is something we should all applaud.
When asked what aspects of our current system need to be changed, Moore responded:
Everything. I believe that what’s needed is a radical solution, by which I mean from the roots upwards. Our entire political thinking seems to me to be based upon medieval precepts. These things, they didn’t work particularly well five or six hundred years ago. Their slightly modified forms are not adequate at all for the rapidly changing territory of the 21st Century.
We need to overhaul the way that we think about money, we need to overhaul the way that we think about who’s running the show. As an anarchist, I believe that power should be given to the people, to the people whose lives this is actually affecting. It’s no longer good enough to have a group of people who are controlling our destinies. The only reason they have the power is because they control the currency. They have no moral authority and, indeed, they show the opposite of moral authority.
I can't agree. Neither, for that matter, do most of the OWS protesters. In a previous post, I mentioned a poll which revealed that more protesters favor a flat tax (Rick Perry's big idea) than favor a radical revamping of the entire economic system. The numbers were five percent versus four percent, if I recall aright.
I don't believe in anarchism. We need a return to the "New Deal normal" that held sway during this country's most prosperous years -- the decades between Roosevelt and Reagan. Those policies created our middle class.
Moore would probably find my stance naive, bourgeois, perhaps even reactionary. Many Americans, however, would consider me a radical socialist. In the U.K., the political center is located in a very different place.
Permalink
My view is ANY ideology which can serve to destabilize the elite status quo in the short term is worthy. You seem to have more imo petty grievances which don't allow for this possibility.
posted by Ken Hoop : 5:28 PM
Right, Ken. In other words: "I know how to put out this fire -- MORE GAS!"
Libertarianism is NOT an untried solution. Libertarians always present their scehme as some great untried ideal -- and this is pure bullshit.
Just move to Somalia, why don'tcha?
I think the website you want it run by Glenn Beck.
Me -- I think I'm going to create a cartoon image of me slitting Ayn Rand's throat, which I'll post in the upper corner. Just to let guys like you know what I REALLY think of libertarianism.
I would agree with Moore on your stance. In order to make a return to some kind of New Deal arrangement workable, you'd have to create conditions that would enable American corporations to begin paying decent and rising wages again; to wit: 1) wipe out most of the industrial base of the rest of world, to eliminate global competition and the inevitable race to bottom that goes with it; 2) Undo the liberation of women from the household to as to make the supply of skilled labor drop significantly and 3) unplug all the computers everywere, so that the demand for labor would increase significantly. The list goes on.
You must know that the only reason the American Oligarchy played along with the New Deal was that they feared their system was on the brink of total desintegration before then. But boy did they work relentlessly to undo everything FDR did... and since in general terms they control the strings that make society move, they were ultimately successful. Why advocate a model that has aready failed to hold?
posted by moshe : 3:20 AM
Just capture a photo of Silvia Sidney cast as Juno in Beetlejuice for your Ayn Rand.
posted by Mr. Mike : 5:47 AM
Well, I agree that we are currently working with mostly medieval social and political structures. Rich elites control everything from government to religion. However, despite some allure in the freedom aspects of Libertarianism, I've realized (with some help from you Joseph), that Libertarianism is a very primitive form of governance (if it can even be thought of as governance at all) and is completely incompatible with Democracy as we know it.
We are starting to find that cooperation is a very big factor in species evolution, yet most humans want to go to the "every man for himself" model, something that has never worked to improve the lot of humans as a whole. I think it's odd how "socialism" has become such a dirty word, when it really just describes people working together to make a better life for each other. The American ideal of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is admirable, but in our current system always involves pushing several other people (at least) down into the mud while you do it. Authoritarianism is what seems to appeal to those on the right the most, regardless of their profession of Randian values of independence. They want the government small, but the military huge. Even then, they don't want the parts of the government they like to be small at all. Anyway, I'm obviously not an anarchist,but can appreciate the appeal in an unreachable, utopian way. If all people were honest, caring, just and pure, anarchy would be a great way to live with no leaders or power structures. Of course, that is not how humans work and probably never will be.
posted by Gus : 6:39 AM
"1) wipe out most of the industrial base of the rest of world, to eliminate global competition and the inevitable race to bottom that goes with it; 2) Undo the liberation of women from the household to as to make the supply of skilled labor drop significantly and 3) unplug all the computers everywere, so that the demand for labor would increase significantly."
All of this is silly. A lot of people seem to forget that there was plenty of trade during and before the New Deal era. After the war, Europe rebuilt very, very quickly, even as it lost its colonies -- mostly through the sort of mixed-economy, Keynesian solutions which are now considered discredited.
The argument you make about women in the work force was once made about black people. Same with your argument about computers: We heard similar things about every labor-saving invention.
Yes, there was a lot of international trade during WWII and afterward during the New Deal (if that's what you meant by 'plenty of trade') but it was mostly in terms very, very favorable to the United States, even viz Europe and Japan. The US ran huge trade surpluses from the beginnig of WWII until the mid-sixties, if I'm not mistaken. That was because, to pick an example, US car makers didn' t have to compete with Volkswagen, BMW, Toyota, Fiat (which now owns a big chunk of Chrysler) in the US market, but the Europeans and the Japanese had to buy almost all their capital goods from the US; and there were many other imbalances like that. Breton-Woods and the Marshall Plan were, after all, all about taking advantage of that unprecedented industrial, comercial, financial and military hegemony enjoyed by the US after the war.
So Europe didn't rebuild itself from the ground quickly like that on its own: it was by and large rebuilt with American capital: not only machinery, raw materials like oil (remember when the US was the largest oil producer and exporter in the world? Those were the days, man) and know-how, but the US provided and controlled the financial arragements that supported the whole system as well.
By the mid-to-late sixties everything changed: then, and only then, Europe and Japan began to catch up with the US in terms of product quality and efficiency and so the one-man race for the international markets was over. In those circumstances, the worst thing that could happen for the interests of the so-called American "middle-class" (considered from a purely 'sharing of the social surplus' perspective) was the popularization of the integrated circuit coinciding with a huge increase in the labor force. Yes, you and I have heard all about that regarding every labor-saving innovation and yes, that is the truth: under capitalism labor-saving techniques are really a curse for the working class.
Also, very importantly, something that I should have mentioned in that numbered list: in 1971 US domestic oil production peaked, but consumption kept rising and rising (the American Dream and all that). That was the point in history when all these factors effectively doomed the New Deal social contract. In the long term, there can be no welfare state if there are no consistent yearly trade surpluses, period. That was true for the Soviet Union and it's true for the United States of America. I feel your pain, Joseph, I really do, but the US simply cannot afford a private enterprise based New New Deal now.
To paraphrase J.P. Harvey, America's dancing days are done. You guys will have to rebuild your society from the ground up; may I respectfully suggest that this time you put a little more emphasis on cooperation and conviviality?
posted by moshe : 9:22 AM
heh, "J.P." Harvey was a good one - it's P.J., for Polly Jean, Harvey.
posted by moshe : 10:00 AM
Yeah right, Joe, Beck's such an critic of Israel. And you're a better strategist than both Cockburn and Greenwald.
Actually, I agree with this posted here that libertarianism in the long run leads to monpoly capitalism. We're talking short-term destabilization, however. It's actually GOOD that Frank and Kucinich work with Paul on key issues. Hillary wouldn't/didn't in their position.
1 Comment » 1.How do you know the perhaps purposefully advantageous corporate contribution to the “over-complexity” etc. didn’t precede the government control? Libertarianism leads ineluctably to monopoly capitalism of the fittest.
Of course to prevent any of this we have to have a political class, a ruling elite, with a true national-patriotic ethos–not one of greed.
(From Moore:) "Our entire political thinking seems to me to be based upon medieval precepts. (...) We need to overhaul the way that we think about money, we need to overhaul the way that we think about who’s running the show. As an anarchist, I believe that power should be given to the people".
This is just vacuous crap - not too extreme, but just woolly and if anything, too moderate. Give a celebrity a microphone, and he'll give you his words of wisdom - whatever the subject. BORING!
posted by b : 5:43 AM
Joe - I can't agree with the statement that the computer is a labour-saving invention - except in the obvious senses.
Most computers are used in offices, so how come the number of office workers hasn't gone down?
It can't seriously be argued that office work now makes a greater contribution to production than before, thus allowing production to become more efficient.
You may support a more humane form of capitalism. I support demands for reform too. But whatever the good sense in avoiding the twittery of shouting "revolution now!" at all possible moments, capitalism is still essentially insane. It is insane considered statically, and it's insane considered in terms of its historical dynamic. It can't not be insane. It's fuckin' mad, having all those people working in offices sitting in front of computer monitor screens. And it's mad having millions of fuckin' cars, mostly with one person in them, on the road for 1-2 hours a day. And millions of people wasting time watching TV for 4 hours a day, and so on. Mad, mad, mad!!
Labour-wasting device might be nearer the mark.
It could be argued that in non-exploitative conditions a computer could 'save' a lot of labour (so people can do what, exactly?), but first, that's very debatable indeed, and second, well who said there could be a third 'economic' term alongside capital and labour? It's often not that useful to consider technological means abstracted from the society in which they are used.
(Which admittedly doesn't shed much light on the curious Antikythera mechanism! :) )
PS Alan Moore is a fine example of someone who wants to have his cake and eat it, albeit at an 'advanced' level. Some of what he says is just superficial, celeb-in-front-of-mic stuff. "No-one is in control" is ridiculous, whatever fancy layout is used to express it.
posted by b : 7:31 AM
b -- oh, stop it with bashing Moore as some sort of "celeb." You sound jealous. It's not as though the guy is releasing a sex tape video or doing shows with Jonathan Ross every month. The man is a writer, not a celebrity.
I should address the "no-one is in control" remark. That was said in response to the response to his work "Brought to Light," a piece on CIA abuses done on behalf of the Christic Institute back in the late 1980s. I'm sure it made him something of a hero to the conspiracy crank crowd, and I think he reached a point where he had to fob them off. God knows I reached that point too.
As for the computer as labor-saving device -- you gotta be kidding. What are you and I doing right now? In the pre-computer days, it took one hell of a lot of work for someone to make his views known to the world -- to do the research, to write the words physically, to interest a publisher, to build an audience. Now, I can do each and every day the kind of work that previously would have required months of effort.
Just look at the "research" part of the equation. It's so bloody easy, these days. While researching a piece I may write on Umberto Eco's latest novel, I stumbled across a copy of Maurice Joly's autobiography. There are, what, maybe five hard copies of that book in existence. Previously, I would have had to travel to Europe and visit the Bibliotheque Nationale if I wanted to speak intelligently about his life. Now, I can download what I need at 3:00 a.m. in the comfort of my attic in Baltimore.
I call THAT labor-saving.
And let's not even talk about what I do for a living. Everyone who does Photoshop complains about making selections -- but I can recall the days of laboriously using exacto blades to cut out figures from photos, then painting the edge to hide the cut marks. And the results STILL looked crummy.
He's a celebrity in that he gets interviewed on subjects about which his thoughts are of no particular worth or profundity, he doesn't mind, and then his words get published as though they're worth listening to. He's extremely conscientious about what he does in his trade. What I've seen of his work, I've liked. Some of it is brilliant. If any middle class tosser is as good at their research as he is, and as careful to make such a high-quality product, then I haven't encountered them. So hats off to him for that. He does a far better job even than, say, Umberto Eco. I should imagine he's probably also done some cash-in stuff (as has Eco), but if so, I haven't seen it, but then I'm no comics-head. But remarks such as "our entire political thinking seems to me to be based upon medieval precepts" and "we need to overhaul the way that we think about money" and "as an anarchist, I believe that power should be given to the people" are what I said: vacuous. I don't care who says these things - they're a product of mouth before brain. Whose political thinking? What does it mean for ideas to be based on precepts here? What medieval precepts? It just doesn't stand up; it's not worth listening to. Turn on the TV or radio to hear talking heads go on about 'what we think today', etc. His hero Aleister Crowley - no left-winger - would never have uttered such careless formulations about anything. Moore's theory of time is a bit embarrassing too, although I don't doubt he believes it and has thought a lot about it, and it's not vacuous.
His 'no-one's in control' may have been motivated in opposition to conspiranuts, but it got used (by him) as packaging for the false idea that capitalist society is 'chaotic'. "The truth of the world is that it is chaotic" indeed. No it isn't.
The analogy between society and the mathematics of stochastic dynamic systems is false. Just as false as the idea that sociobiology is justified because order 'emerges' in the 'self-organised' way that it does in certain mathematical models.
The computer does save labour in the way you say. But it hasn't cut down on the overall amount of drudgery in the society, the number of labour-hours worked in wage-labour - not even in administrative work in offices, which is where most employee-hours are spent in front of computer screens. It has deskilled a lot of this work too. Revolutions in spinning technology meant 10 workers put more yards of cloth per hour out of the factory door. Computers in offices...well a lot of the output could go straight in the bin and it wouldn't make any difference. You do investigative and creative things using your computer. But a lot of people have to sit staring at screens, and then when they type something it's likely to get squiggly-underlined, and if they try to turn off squiggly-underlining they'll get laughed at or told off. Deep down they must be thinking they'd like to throw the damn thing out of the window.
Me, I don't find research easy even with a computer. I always get to the edge and want to go further...
As for Eco - a shady character, too clever by half; been wondering what he really knows about the hircocervus!
posted by b : 5:05 PM
I said I couldn't agree with the statement that the computer is a labour-saving invention, "except in the obvious senses".
A related point: the digitalisation of library holdings has gone hand in hand with the removal of access to a great deal of material from a very large number of people.
It used to be the case that almost anyone, so long as they didn't look homeless or appear too unsure of themselves, could walk into an academic library, ask for a day pass, get issued one, and find whatever academic journal they wanted on the shelves. They could even photocopy articles if they had the money.
Nowadays, most journals don't appear in print editions, and access is restricted to those with university accounts. The rest of us can in principle open accounts with information companies privately, but that costs the earth.
In practice, unless you're rich, you have to have an academic post, or a friend in an academic post who'll tell you their password.
You can still get inside the building, but when you do, if you want to read an article published fairly recently, you'll need a password - which you won't have. Thanks, Elsevier! Thanks, universities!
So WHAM, most of the world's journal articles have been taken out of the reach of most people.
There are exceptions to this. The above doesn't apply to national libraries. They're much better than university libraries. But there ain't so many of them! :-)
posted by b : 3:22 AM
The New Deal gave us the SEC and helped pass Glass-Steagall. That regulatory structure created almost half-a-century of stable financial policy, maybe not all of it good, but protective of the middle class. That alone, w/o mentioning FDR's jobs and housing policies (and working Democrat majorities in Congress), makes me pine for the old days.
Not long ago, I saw a television documentary which replayed that famous clip of JFK proposing to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. That declaration was presented (as it is always presented) as an example of the American "can do" spirit. In short: The clip is used to engender nationalism.
Here is the part of the story that they never tell you: JFK wanted the US and the USSR to go on a joint mission to the moon -- an exercise in cooperation which would have done much to end or to mitigate the cold war. Just ten days before he died, JFK codified this approach with National Security Action Memorandum 271, which you can read here.
He also gave a speech to the UN on September 20 on this topic. I don't know if footage of the speech exists -- if it does, the people who produce television documentaries are either unaware of it or prefer to keep it hidden.
"...Finally, in a field where the United States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity -- in the field of space -- there is room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the moon."
"Space offers no problem of sovereignty; by resolution of this assembly, the members of the United Nations have forsworn any claims to territorial rights in outer space or on celestial bodies, and declared that international law and the United Nations Charter will apply."
"Why, therefore, should man's first flight to the moon be a matter of natural competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research construction and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries -- indeed of all the world -- cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending some day in this decade to the moon, not the representatives of a single nations, but the representatives of all of our countries."
This blog usually concentrates on current events. But in this era of historical revisionism, we should occasionally try to educate today's young people about what actually happened. JFK's dream was not fulfilled; his course was changed.
Permalink
Interesting stuff. But remember the USSR was ahead in the space race then.
Nikita "we will bury you" Khrushchev was bigged up as threatening in the US, including on the Sep 1961 cover of 'Time' magazine...but this was the guy who on coming to the UK avowed that if were British, he'd vote Tory (as if anyone sensible thought otherwise).
That film of Khrushchev's shoe looks fake - although the incident did occur.
posted by b : 12:39 PM
JFK saw his nuclear agreement as the crown jewel of his first term along a number of executive actions that moved his agenda along in education, health care and labor. Revisionists try to paint him as a reactionary these days. In a Simpson ep, Fox News announces that the dead JFK was a Republican.
It's very curious to me, Joe, that you referenced the posthumous-tribute website of master conspiracy theorist L. Fletcher Prouty for this JFK quote, rather than the primary source that Prouty himself used, which was the ol' standby of pre-Internet political research, "Vital Speeches of the Day".
From time to time, you still hear people argue that what the banksters did (in the run-up to the great unpleasantness of 2008) was legal. No, it wasn't. In this fine piece on the secret $7.7 trillion loan to Wall Street, writer Cynthia Kouril lays down the law:
And then there is this excerpt from NY GBS §352-c:
6. Any person, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association, or any agent or employee thereof who intentionally engages in fraud, deception, concealment, suppression, false pretense or fictitious or pretended purchase or sale, or who makes any material false representation or statement with intent to deceive or defraud, while engaged in inducing or promoting the issuance, distribution, exchange, sale, negotiation or purchase within or from this state of any securities or commodities, as defined in this article, and thereby wrongfully obtains property of a value in excess of two hundred fifty dollars, shall be guilty of a class E felony.
Seems to me that this wording applies to anyone who sells shady, snakey financial instruments that have been mis-rated AAA even though they were based on crap mortgages. The wording applies to Moodys and the other rating agencies, and to the Wall Street firms that told the rating agencies what to do.
Permalink
Obama, Pelosi, and Reid had their chance but didn't want to bite the hand that feeds them. We expect this behavior from the republicans but it breaks my heart that my former party does it too. I hope they don't expect any help this next election cycle because the amount I contribute will reflect the amount of help they gave the little guy.
posted by Mr. Mike : 3:01 PM
I wonder if you are refering to that NYT oped piece I assume it was an op ed cos they didnt allow comments.
Its an interesting question and one I wish you and others would debate more often. Was a crime committed and why isnt it prosecuted?
I happen to agree with Bill Black on this one. What we see is a pattern of control fraud. Moreover it is an ongoing control fraud is continues to this day. Another point worth making is the spectrum of sin. Errors of omission vs comission. And then there is fact that the law has been allowed to be sufficiently vague to allow behaviours which were clearly disasterous for society as a whole. So why didnt the police (SEC) raise the alarm before? Who did congress not act? I have a very simple answer.
Bank Robbers are people who believe that the penalties for robbing banks are too high. If you let them lobby I am pretty sure they will lobby for lighter sentencing guidelines and fewer police.
I happen to believe that illegal acts took place. I am pretty sure that the people who structured deals took legal advice when they structured them. This legal advice would have ensured that they at least had a fig leaf defense in place for any offense committed.
The burden of proof is the wrong way round for these financial crimes. The asymmetry of information to great to allow people to shelter behind the conventional burden of proof. Make them prove their deals are legal, rather than making the SEC prove they are not. And stop SECers moving backwards and forwards. Otherwise its just a Wall Street gravy train.
That would stop this nonsence once and for all.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 10:33 AM
Of course they were illegal - that should be obvious to anyone with a decent understanding of what was going on in high finance at the time.
I'm not sure I understand the point of those who argue otherwise. Is it:
A) These practices were not illegal because they should not be? (seems a hard one to defend)
B) Those engaging in such behavior shouldn't be held accountable, because they were following the law as it stood at the time, which was inadequate? (so where does the fault lie - insufficient gummint regulation? how did THAT happen, and can such a thing be a "problem" rather than a solution? Perhaps socialistic Democrats or the all-powerful Welfare Queen lobby made it so).
I'd say the real take-away of the blatant illegality is what Glenn Greenwald's new book focuses on - it's not about "what law was broken?" it's about "who broke it?"
There's a small but powerful group of people in this country who are effectively above the law. Or, to put it another way, the "law" is a weapon to be used against the powerless by the powerful.
Sometimes I wonder if American people's belief in their enduring democracy is the only thing keeping it alive, and that by having that belief trampled upon is the only way for it to be re-asserted and re-established.
posted by Hoarseface : 2:12 PM
Bush banned the states from protecting consumers. No US federal agency regulates mortgage lending, that's a province of the states. In 2003 when 50 state Governors, Republican and Democrat, collectively sought to legislate against predatory bank lending practices they were blocked by the US Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency acting on Bush's advice.
In Oct 2008 Mr Lynn Turner, former chief accountant of the SEC, gave evidence to the US House Oversight Committee investigating the collapse of insurance giant AIG. He testified that the SEC Office of Risk Management, which had oversight responsibility of all US securities, including swaps, had been progressively cut by the Bush administration from 146 personnel. By Feb 2008 only one person was left for assessing corporate financial risk management for the entire US securities market!
In Oct 2008 the New York Times reported on Justice Department data showing "prosecutions of frauds against financial institutions dropped 48 percent from 2000 to 2007, insurance fraud cases plummeted 75 percent, and securities fraud cases dropped 17 percent." -- all on the Bush watch.
The powers that be, the finance markets, the regulators, and the political elite have all wanted it this way. More here.
posted by wxyz : 3:34 PM
I dont think its quite so easy, although I share your conclusion.
So when I have discussed this with friends in the market they say
a) caveat emptor b) full disclosure was adhered to. The investors just didnt read the small print. c) It was takes two sides to make a trade. You need a willing buyer and seller. If there was full disclosure of all relevant issues then on what basis can anyone sue? If there was not full disclosure then any investor can sue and will win.
So in answer to Hoarseface,
1) Yes. These transactions should be legal cos no one did anything wrong. People lost money but thats cos they did a stupid trade. That happens all the time.
2) Yes, the law as it stands was followed.
So while I agree with you, I dont think its a gimme. I think that the issues sailed very close to the wind in their disclosures and behaviours. Whether they crossed the line is subjective but I think they did. But you need to demonstrate this. Which behaviour do you think was illegal?
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 6:46 AM
I dont think its quite so easy, although I share your conclusion.
So when I have discussed this with friends in the market they say
a) caveat emptor b) full disclosure was adhered to. The investors just didnt read the small print. c) It was takes two sides to make a trade. You need a willing buyer and seller. If there was full disclosure of all relevant issues then on what basis can anyone sue? If there was not full disclosure then any investor can sue and will win.
So in answer to Hoarseface,
1) Yes. These transactions should be legal cos no one did anything wrong. People lost money but thats cos they did a stupid trade. That happens all the time.
2) Yes, the law as it stands was followed.
So while I agree with you, I dont think its a gimme. I think that the issues sailed very close to the wind in their disclosures and behaviours. Whether they crossed the line is subjective but I think they did. But you need to demonstrate this. Which behaviour do you think was illegal?
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 6:46 AM
Harry, I disagree. Caveat emptor is the usual standard to apply when claiming that no-one was deceived. But courts have long recognized that ordinary consumers of complex financial services are not always in a position, legally or financially, to fully assess offerings made to them. That's why we have consumer protection laws. That's what 50 State governors were trying to do when they passed laws in 2003 to protect consumers from predatory banking practices, laws that Bush knocked down. The law also recognizes that if you offer a contract to someone that they have no reasonable prospect from the outset of fulfilling then the contract is void in the first instance (ie no contract exists) since the ingredients essential to form a meaningful contract are not present. Moreover, if such a contract is offered in the expectation that the other party will fail and that you can then obtain a benefit courts can and do regard such behavior as fraudulent. There is more than sufficient evidence that US banks were selling 'liar loans' and 'no-doc loans' knowing full well that these were going to fail and that they were, accordingly, fraudulent.
The banks believed that their liability had been removed for two reasons: (i) because they had on-sold the risk through the process of pooled mortgage funds or securitization, and (ii) they had every reason to believe that a US Federal reserve made up of their own in-house bankers would bail them out via the tax payer if the worst happened, which it did. Moreover, this culture of criminality on the part of the big banks has been demonstrated from multiple credible sources.
Bill Black, former chief prosecutor of crimes in the US Savings and Loans meltdown of the 1980s, has written extensively claiming that the GFC was wall to wall corporate crime.
Richard M. Bowen, former chief underwriter for Citigroup’s consumer-lending group, said he warned his superiors that the mortgage loans the companies were selling to customers and then "securitizing" (ie pooling to place on the investment market) were, essentially, fraudulent.
"In mid-2006, I discovered that over 60 percent of these mortgages purchased and sold were defective," Bowen testified on April 7 before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission created by Congress. "Defective mortgages increased during 2007 to over 80 percent of production."
Citibank knew home borrowers were unlikely to pay after two years of low teaser rates that morphed into killer rates yet they lent the money anyway – knowing they (or subsequent owners of the mortgage) would foreclose and get the house and the share market investors in the securitized products would lose their shirts.
It was the same Citibank that in the last two years sought to bail out Greece with loans, and then went out and bet the derivatives market that those loans would fail! That's inherently fraudulent behavior.
And don't forget MERS and the presentation to the courts of hundreds of thousands of false affidavits by foreclosing banks, affidavits claiming ownership or the sighting of mortgage documents proving those banks had a claim on the properties, documents they mostly never held. The chain of custody of the mortgage deed was broken by MERS which simply transferred ownership in their database, overlooking the fact that legal ownership is only achieved when the property transfer is registered with the State and stamp duties paid.
And don't forget AIG and their insurance swaps -- for which they had insufficient backing capital!
All of this is black letter law fraud, top to bottom. Nothing to do with buyer beware. The major US banks were engaged in playing the markets fraudulently and expecting a taxpayer bailout on any collapse.
posted by wxyz : 11:44 AM
And if you want something that should scare the living bejeezus out of you then consider this. Under George Bush's 2005 bankruptcy laws, written by the big US banks for the big US banks, ordinary plebs suddenly found it impossible to declare bankruptcy, things like student debts at usurious interest rates keeping people in debt bondage for life.
But if you thought that was bad, under the same 2005 'reforms' derivative trade claims are placed in front of cash depositors or trust holdings in a business failure - including a bank failure. Just a month or so ago Bank of America placed $77 TRILLION of derivatives trades (many of them losing trades) in with ordinary bank depositors funds. When those trades explode or the bank goes under then ordinary cash depositors will lose ALL of their money in an instant.
Now normally, margin call funds or cash deposits held by banks are bailed out by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation but even the FDIC has no chance of meeting demands for $77 trillion, or a significant part thereof.
So the US banks are essentially placing a thermonuclear device on the kitchen table, telling the US government "allow us to run dodgy bookwork and fleece the public, pay off all our debts over the next 30 years with massive austerity measures and the looting of public assets or we will simply bring down your entire banking system and the global economy." Got the picture? This is class warfare with the gloves off.
posted by wxyz : 6:56 PM
I agree with both of your points wxyz. But you havnt said anything about the recent Citibank deal that Judge Rakoff recently ruled on. Similarly there is a Goldman Sach's Abacus deal with was partially on behalf of Paulsons hedge fund.
These specific deals were between similarly skilled (supposedly) market professionals. It is claimed there was no criminal deception (I have my doubts on this point - there is a point that economy with truth is deception). The guiding principle is caveat emptor. None of these counterparties needed to do these trades if they didnt want to.
Re the disclosure point, in both cases the counter parties claim that it was disclosed that these were synthetic CDOs. That means that someone would have to write CDS on the underlying credits by definition. The issue is whether it was made clear that Citi/GS/Paulsen always intended to short the credits. It seems clear in retrospect that they did, but the banks concerned take different lines. Citi says it did not make a final decision on how to hedge the transaction untill after it did the trade - but it depended on market conditions. GS says they did it on behalf of their client (and subsequently themselves). This is important because its all about what you intended to do. If you intend to short the credit then you should probably disclose that to the client. If you ended up shorting the credit cos it was the best way to do the trade how could you disclose that?
There are other much better points that one can make about why these trades are criminal. Part of the problem is that Robert Khuzami is up to his neck in these trades. He would have approved a bunch for DB when he was head of legal there.
Speaking of the initiating mortgage brokers, like Countrywide or the hundreds of smaller brokers who committed criminal frauds, well every last one has now put itself into bankruptcy or been bought by some sucker (Bank of America for example). There is no one else to sue now. Thats the joy of limited liability. The corporate entity is dead. The owners walk away with the money.
You need to prove a criminal enterprise to get the money back. But proving a criminal enterprise in a control fraud type situation is very very difficult to do. The defense will always be "Whocouldanode?". You can prove incompetency but that isnt a crime. You have to prove deliberate fraud. Tough.
What can I say? A stupid system set up by stupid people which benefited clever unprincipled people, supported by politicians who are obviously dumb-asses themselves.
What did him in was sloppiness, in how he responded to those stories and how he bumbled other ones.
Oh, just stop it. What did him in was sex. What did him in was the fact that our dimwitted electorate, which cannot force itself to care about anything other than sex, became convinced that Cain had inserted his penis into a woman other than his wife.
Permalink
Some contrary evidence came from some right wing people I know.
They wholly discounted the first harassment revelations, and weren't convinced by the press conference of Gloria Allred's client, and yet quite before this latest allegation, had abandoned ship on Cain (although previous supporters of his candidacy).
Why? They said the Libya non-answers were disqualifying, in their view. This is not an after-the-fact revision of their reason, but what was stated to me in the period of time after the Libya non-answer and before this latest development. Note, before this one, there was no adulterous sex actually alleged.
So there's that. Which is a more widely true reason, influencing the greater proportion of the GOP primary voters? Perhaps we'd need to await polling to be sure?
XI
posted by Anonymous : 8:33 AM
You know, it is interesting that moreso than the accusations of abuse, it was the revelation of a long-term affair that toppled Cain.
I wish the abuse had been more heinous in the public eye than the affair...altho, for me, it was his response/s that nailed him as a worm.
But your focus on the media is dead on. In the middle of revelations that the banks received massive secret bailouts and as congress moves forward the "battlefield" bill which declares all of the US to be a battlefield and allows the military to indefinitely detain any citizen suspected of terrorism with no trial, the biggest tool out there, Rachel Maddow, had this to say:
...that she was covering the latest Cain sex scandal because there was "nothing else going on in the news".
Cain had so many stumbles that he became irrelevant. The worst I think was how he handled the question on Libya or when he was asked to define Medicare benefit plan or premium support, he turned to Newt and said: "You go first Newt". http://youtu.be/3cPJXVz6TP0
Cain demonstrated he's a joke. The sex was the last straw. DM
posted by Anonymous : 12:02 PM
I am seconding the 'straw that broke the camel's back' theory stated above.
XI
posted by Anonymous : 1:28 PM
The difference between Cain and other sex scandal situations is that Cain was in the position of authority, and, appears to have inquired about sex in exchange for employment or financial gain.
Even Lewinsky actually approached the president and allegedly made the first move by flipping her skirt up over her waist.
Carrier IQ, smartphone spying, and the CIA connection
(Note: This post contains original research into the links between Carrier IQ and the CIA. If you're impatient to get to that stuff, scroll down. Then spread the news.)
If there's one thing I cannot abide, it's knee-jerk defeatism when it comes to questions of cyber-privacy. "Oh well -- that's the world we live in. Nothing we can do. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about..."
Bullshit. There's a lot we can do. And just because you're a law-abiding citizen doesn't mean you should put up with snoops who trample on your rights.
(If you're not doing anything wrong, why not let me install a video camera in your bedroom? Why not let me plant mics in your home and car? Why wear clothing? Are you hiding something?)
I strongly urge you to read this and this. Yes, I just linked to a piece by Farhad MooJuice, who is often wrong on tech issues and obnoxiously complacent about the threat of cyber-spying. If Mr. Passiveis worried, then it's time for a nationwide panic reaction.
The culprit is a piece of software called Carrier IQ, which installs a rootkit on your smartphone. It can track your location, your apps, your texts, your every keystroke.
For more on the controversy, see here and here. Predictably, CBS News has come to the defense of Carrier IQ -- which may be all the evidence you need to understand that the software is no damned good.
The Information Week piece (written in the second person, addressed to Carrier IQ) is particularly helpful:
Eckhart has two big concerns: First, your app appears to be seeing everything he does, from HTTPS strings in the browser to actual keystrokes. He wonders if the app logs this sensitive data, or transmits any of it to your servers? Second, he's concerned that the data being tracked by your servers could easily identify individual handset users. Accordingly, "I would like to know exactly who has seen this data, what data has been recorded, and who has recorded it. This data should also be subject to some clear privacy policy," Eckhart says. Without that clarification, he argues, the software is simply a rootkit: unwanted, hidden, hard to delete, but running with root-level access.
But instead of embracing the spirit of full disclosure, you send Eckhart a draconian cease and desist letter, threatening him with $150,000 per count of copyright violation (for the manuals) and warning that unless he bends over backwards to take back everything he's said about your company, you'll make him pay--big time.
If Carrier IQ weren't spying on users, they would never have responded in that fashion.
Allegedly, this software exists to "serve you better."
Bullshit. This is Uncle. He's spying on you, on all of us.
I own a tiny old cell phone which is used to make and to receive phone calls -- nothing else. (You can send me a text message, but don't expect me to text back.) Even if cost were not a factor, I would never "upgrade" to an Android or iPhone. It's not that I'm a Luddite or a technophobe -- I've repaired iPhones (on a modest scale), even though I would never own one of the damned things.
Why? Because you can't remove the battery of an iPhone, at least not easily. The iPhone was designed this way because governmental agencies can use your phone to track and triangulate your location every moment of every day. The only sure way to defeat GPS is to take out the battery.
Can "they" track you in other ways? Perhaps. But why make life easy for the people trying to spy on you? I say we should toss sand in their eyes whenever we can.
In truth, I live a rather innocuous life. But purely as a matter of principle, Americans should defend their privacy to the greatest degree possible. Even if you're a soccer mom and the president of your local PTA, live like a fugitive when you go online.
DO NOT BELIEVE the software and hardware providers when they say that they will not misuse the information they gather. They are lying. They can never, ever be trusted.
Only laws -- combined with much greater operational transparency -- will stop them. In their press statement, Carrier IQ tells the public that they are operating within the laws. They don't tell you that current law is woefully insufficient.
Let's start with CEO Larry Lenhart. Hmm. How does this resume sound...?
Before his CEO experiences, Larry was a managing partner at Deloitte Consulting and at AT Kearny, where he provided strategic and operational expertise across the globe with such clients as EDS, AT&T, New Jersey Bell, E-Trade, Novell, Federal Express, GM, Saudi Aramco, Bank of South Africa, DuPont, and many others.
I must say, this was a particularly quick game of Spot the Spook. Almost too quick; I wanted more of a challenge.
Deloitte Consulting, eh? All righty, then. The question before us comes down to this: Is Deloitte a spooked up company? Are we dealing with one of those oh-so-special "private" firms which just happens to be plugged directly into our nation's intel community?
You betcha.
One of their senior managers was recently appointed Inspector General of the CIA. The IG is not a position for outsiders; the job usually goes to a "good old boy" veteran of the intelligence world -- someone who can be depended on not to rock too many boats.
Also see here. Carmen Medina of Deloitte (she's the nice lady in the photo reproduced above) also served as the director of the CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence. If you're trying to come up with an innocent explanation as to how such a thing might happen -- save your breath. And grow the fuck up.
Of Deloitte’s 45,000 employees worldwide, more than 5,700 work in this federal practice. They provide solutions regarding business strategy, operations, technology, risk management and human capital. The division works with a host of government contractors and agencies such as the FBI and CIA.
Federal agencies trust Deloitte to address their most critical information and technology challenges -- and we deliver by providing measurable business value through IT.
With deep Federal and commercial industry knowledge, Deloitte is well positioned to support the FBI by leveraging our extensive IT experience in hardware, software, operations, maintenance, and technical and development services. Deloitte's Federal technology professionals offer a broad range of implementation and advisory services to support the FBI in its efforts to better manage critical business information and support mission objectives.
Our FBI service team is led by professionals who possess broad technical and consulting experience coupled with deep knowledge of the Federal law enforcement environment
Deloitte has the experience and professional knowledge to support the FBI's needs under the IT SSS contract. This includes: * A deep bench of practitioners with active security clearances and extensive project management certifications * Demonstrated performance and experience through the FBI Program Management and Support Services (PMSS) contract vehicle as well as other large vehicles with the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense
Deloitte is obviously thisclose to the intelligence/security apparat.
And that means we should be pretty damned scared when we learn that a former Deloitte head honcho suddenly got the funding needed (from In-Q-Tel, perhaps?) to start up a company which just happens to plant a "spy on everything" rootkit in smartphones everywhere.
Back in the '70s, nobody would have put up with that kind of shit. I fear that today's Americans are far more passive.
This is yet another reason for me to avoid buying new hardware unless I can wipe it and install open source community firmware and software. My phone runs Maemo 5 which isn't open (yet), but at least it predates Carrier IQ, and everything I run on the phone is open source. It's my first and probably the only smart phone I'll ever own. They're just overpriced, awkward micro computers whose only standout feature is GPS reception.
If you haven't heard about it yet, you may be interested in the Cyanogenmod community project. I'm running 7 on a rooted Nook Color tablet with apps from the fdroid GPL repository. I set that up as a budget wifi netbook for travel.
posted by Zolodoco : 12:17 PM
Make a Faraday cage with aluminum foil; cover it with entirely with aluminum foil. The signal strength is almost entirely eliminated. In essence you are cutting signal strength by a factor of about a million. (I'm guessing here on the math; I know it is possible to do some tricks to pull a signal out of a Faraday cage but it is not easy and you have to be within a within a foot or so.)
husband of catlady
posted by Anonymous : 1:13 PM
I don't even own a cell phone and if I ever do get one, it'll be just a basic one to make calls in emergencies. People really do need to wake up and realize all the dark forces in this country that are circling us. I'm careful what I put in my e-mails, because I know they're being monitored. Welcome to United Soviet States! I certainly will support Franken on this one.
posted by Megan : 2:30 PM
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 7:49 AM
Never owned a cell phone of any kind, and certainly won't start now. My lady friend has one, but she can only make calls and text, no "smart" capabilities thankfully. I originally shunned them because I didn't want people to be able to reach me by phone anywhere and everywhere, now I have even better reasons to avoid them. Someday, when the hard lines are gone, I might have to get one, but it will be the most basic I can get, calls only.
The real problem with the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" mentality is that the govenrment keeps adding "wrongs" to the law code at a rate that most Americans can't hope to keep up with. So, sooner or later, you will do something the government considers wrong, and they will come for you eventually (or your children, or your money, or all of the above, etc., etc.).
posted by Gus : 7:29 AM
This is an intriguing post and set of comments.
I am only remotely techie, remote being pre-wifi, so this new stuff which is probably dated to real techie intrigues me, but I'm basically clueless.
Since my pc is slow, I'd love to switch to linux but scared that I'll completely wreck my computer.
I wanted to get a Nook Color but I read that it's an Android product and now I wonder about it.
This is my roundabout way of saying how about doing a post for non-techies on fixing up computers, tablets, phones to reduce the amount of intrusion that has been built into it.
I guess a few words about the end of the Cain campaign are in order. What annoys me is not Cain's sexual history, which is not my business. I'm annoyed at my fellow Americans for caring about this man's private life.
Not many years ago, Americans used to kid themselves whenever a sex scandal erupted. Because we did not want to seem puritanical or prurient, we relied on a familiar euphemism. "It's not the sex that bothers me; it's the poor judgment." Remember that one? It was very popular during Monicagate and the Gary Hart affair.
Nowadays we are more honest. It is the sex. Nothing else. We are completely unashamed about our lurid and indefensible interest in what a candidate does with his weewee.
(Please understand that my sentiments here are directed at news accounts of political figures involved in consensual affairs. Allegations of sexual abuse belong in a different category. Such charges are a legal matter, and their veracity should be determined by a court of law, not by a cable news host. In the past, some feminists have become very angry at me for pointing out that a man is innocent until proven guilty.)
I don't care whether Cain had an affair, and neither should you. Only his political beliefs -- which I personally find odious -- should matter.
The intriguing question is why the alleged mistress came forward at this time. What was her motive? Clearly, Cain felt that he could depend upon her silence, or he would never have dared to run in the first place. It is telling that her story broke on Fox News -- which would never have pursued the story if the Republican party leadership wanted Cain to be the nominee.
Permalink
Ginger White came forward with the story because there had been a leak in the media about it. http://m.ibtimes.com/ginger-white-herman-cain-wife-gloria-video-260290.html
Its Cain that bothers me. And his backers the Kochs. Having Fox hate him is a plus but not not enough of a plus.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 4:55 AM
Sex was a lucky break for the GOP. They got the chance to get rid of a candidate without facing charges of r*cism (Hey, he was leading in the polls - GOP is A-OK!). I wonder if they allow the scandals to grow sufficiently as to overshadow the "R" question, before actually taking steps to pull the plug
Not having traveled much, I'm under the impression that our attitude toward anything to do with sex is less healthy than the other developed nations. See the Penn state scandal for example, is pedophilia so prevalent in other countries?
Anyway, Cain's tax plan would have put undue stress on lower income families and that's a deal breaker for me.
posted by Mr. Mike : 6:26 AM
The harassment allegations are credible enough for me to have questions about his character.
If it was just a consensual affair, without his record of condemnation and hypocrisy about other folks sexual orientations and choices, not so much. It matters to me because of the hypocrisy.
posted by babama : 1:32 PM
I am glad someone mentioned the Penn state scandle. I was quite puzzled by the lack of massive public out rage at what happened there and Sericuse too. It seems that consentual sex acts get more public attentions than children sexual assult. What is wrong with people. I thought there will be something close to a popular uprise against college sports and demands for investigations flying around from different organizations etc but games are going on as usual and people continued to watch without any care. Is that normal
posted by Anonymous : 3:34 AM
Look at the difference in the physical appearances of the women he has had consensual sexual relationships with (e.g., his wife, Ginger White) and the women he is accused of sexually harrassing. Then think about the statement that sexual attacks are not about sex but about power and anger. It is not surprising that someone with Cain's background would have racial issues and anger that he must act out in indirect ways, but I do think his "issues" are relevant to whether he should be president. This is not about sex.
posted by Anonymous : 7:48 AM
What do you mean "lack of outrage" over Penn State? You obviously haven't been following it.
By the way, I have come to the conclusion there is FAR less to the scandal there than what meets the eye, hence Sandusky's seeming foolishness to talking to the media.
The thing to keep in mind in regards to the PSU "scandal" is that he has not been proven guilty of anything in a court of law. No one has. Why should "college sports" have to change when nothing has been proven? I think people are a bit quick to forget the Duke "rape" case, which turned out to be a complete fabrication by the alleged "victim". I'm not saying that is the case with PSU, but why would every college in the country, let alone PSU, overreact to something that has yet to be proven. Obviously, there has been incredible amounts of outrage over it, by people who might want to hold off until all the facts are known.
As to Cain, good riddance. I think Joseph has a point, even if many here claim otherwise. There were a lot of things against him for those on the left, who would likely have never supported him regardless of harassment or affairs. This country as a whole most certainly has an archaic and messed up sense of morality, where it is an unforgivable offense to have an extra-marital affair, but it's a-okay to kill thousands of innocent children in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of "freedom".
(Click on the image to enlarge.) Y'know, I never want to lead the various movements that this site either endorses or tries to get off the ground. I'm no leader; by nature, I'm a sidelines grumbler. But fiddling with the graphics is fun. What do you think? This is meant to look a bit like a 1969 issue of The New York Review of Books.
Added note: I just wrote the following in an email to a friend...
2012 will be a revised version of Mort Sahl's best joke. Sahl said: "Reagan won because he ran against Carter. If Reagan had run unopposed, he would have lost." Reagan = Romney; Carter = Obama.
Permalink
Try something more like: http://www.takepart.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2011/02/obama_0.jpg
More choices here: ttp://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+frown&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=eD3YTv3iHeLa0QGW2oC7AQ&ved=0CDIQsAQ&biw=1363&bih=894
How ironic that the ultra narcissistic progressive wing of the democratic party won't see this as a repudiation of their 2008 democratic race bullshit tactics.
There is a growing contingent of potential voters who truly want tremendous political overhaul and who also believe that both the democratic party and the republican party are just hand puppets, that it just doesn't matter who is elected.
This growing contingent believe the federal reserve actually caused both world wars and any political group that still supports the federal reserve is still part of the problem.
I only bring this up to point out that while I think it would be amazing if Obama actually did not run again, those who already don't believe in the system will just yawn while those of us who still want to believe in the system would think it an amazing feat.
I hope your design takes off and all those who are unhappy with Obama and have an internet presence post the image.
Although nowadays that could qualify us an enemy of the state.
My only quarrel is the same one prowlerzee has - the picture of Obama is way too flattering. It looks downright heroic, which is not the effect I think we desire.
The image is far too polite. Maybe a picture of a boot kicking him in the ass would work, if you don't want to get really dirty.
posted by Anonymous : 3:42 AM
Super graphic! How about making it a small "d" in Democratic though? That might draw in more left-wing Indies like me. (Or would it, perhaps, simply encourage right-wingers?)
I disagree with the comments about the O-graphic. Anything less flattering will be termed racist by those desperate to keep their puppet in power.
The image of a man gazing at the horizon fits, especially if hes waiting for a new job to appear.
posted by Mr. Mike : 6:27 AM
Frankly, I was thinking of the trouble Sheperd Fairey got into for using an AP photo as the basis for an artwork. (As I've argued in a previous post, Shep did not simply "use filters" on the photo; he made a new raster drawing.)
I THINK that this particular photo is fair to use.
I should also mention that the whole question is of some importance to me, since my old pen-and-ink teacher, Nancy Ohanian, used to use lots of photo reference for her newspaper editorial drawings. It would be great if one could ask famous people to pose for a drawing -- but that's almost always impossible, especially if the deadline is overnight.
I'm happy to see that Nancy is still working -- but does it have to be for the Washington Times? Yow!
Joseph, your copyright concern about images drawn from photographs is valid...I offered the frown image as an example. I was thinking if you scrolled thru the images of various frowns you might be able to come up with a composite.
Oh hell -- at this point, I suppose I could just draw Obama from scratch. But that would be too much like work. If Fairey can earn gazillions working from photo ref, then it's good enough for me!
I demand a bumper sticker with "O must go" and "because we want a Democrat"
What part of Dems don't cut Social Security and Medicare do they not understand?
--NWLuna
posted by Anonymous : 12:48 PM
The logo should include a web address, either a Facebook page, twitter account, etc. Email must be reinforced with social networking as everyone gets too many emails. #OMustGo.
posted by Anonymous : 4:43 PM
Any "O Must Go" campaign will just result in the election of a Right Wing Republican, with the elimination of Social Security and Medicare, and the eventual enslavement of the 99%. If that's your goal, fine, but if you want progressive ideas to succeed then you must vote for Democrats including Obama. As for Social Security, the retirement age should be keyed to the average life expectancy at time of retirement minus 20 years. If we all expect live to the age of 90 then we can retire at 70. Those who can not work can retire earlier. Medicare (with a public option) for all, until then ObamaCare will do.
posted by Anonymous : 6:35 PM
The key is to get the metaphor right, because the point, I think, isn't to use the images to comment on Obama's past performance.
Rather, it's to build a positive message about Obama's departure, to show that leaving would reflect well on his character. That a man of such noble character as Obama would choose no other course of action.
The great guest leaves before he has overstayed his welcome; the great performer walks off stage when his act is done; the great cowboy who rides off into the sunset...
The "Hillary for VP" post below -- it's really an "Obama must go" post -- evinced some pretty strong responses, both public and private. Now I'm thinking: Is it possible? Can we really allow ourselves to think this way?
We would have all of one month, maybe a little more, to do it -- to mount a "Dump Obama" movement within the Democratic party.
The tipping point for me was this story about former Democratic congressman Charlie Wilson of Ohio (no relation to the guy who inspired the movie Charlie Wilson's War). He's trying for a comeback. His opponent is the man who bested him in 2010, Republican Bill Johnson.
What startled me was his method of attack: Wilson, the Democrat, attacked Johnson, the Republican, for supporting Barack Obama. The support concerned the issue of free trade. (Obama's under-discussed policies in that area will, in the end, do far more harm to this country than will the alleged political sins that Republicans prefer to talk about.)
"I am disappointed that Congressman Johnson supported President Obama's free trade agenda this year. These agreements will ship even more of our jobs overseas," Wilson told WTRF-TV.
In conservative-leaning districts like Johnson's, Democrats will have to increasingly distance themselves from the president if they want a chance to win. We've started to see that with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., retiring Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif, and a handful of other Democratic elected officeholders. But expect that trickle to become a stream if the president's approval ratings don't tick upwards.
They won't tick upward. The economy will likely get worse -- soon -- due to the strains in the Eurozone. Obama simply cannot win. Whether you like or dislike him is immaterial: He can't win.
(Romney and Obama are statistically tied in the polls -- but those polls don't take into account the strange dynamics of the electoral college, which gives an advantage to the red states. Romney's numbers will rise once the party makes a firm decision that he's the guy.)
And yet the Republicans have become so unbelievably vile that this country cannot reward them with control of the House, the Senate and the White House -- an outcome which now seems likely. In the comments section of the afore-linked story, one reader notes that Wilson's opponent, Congressman Johnson, went on a right-wing talk show and claimed -- insanely -- that Democrats are "not only hostile to the Christian faith, they’re hostile to America, period." (Other readers supported Johnson's absurdity.) That's but one example; one could cite a million more.
A form of political rabies has infected the GOP. The choice between Democrat and Republican has become a choice between a bad dog and a mad dog.
At this time, we can improve this situation only if we insist on a new top dog.
I propose a sudden, serious "O must GO!" movement.
Even if it fails, as it very well might, an attack on Obama from the left would help to rewrite this country's political narrative. Right now, the Republicans want the country to believe that Obama's alleged "socialism" has alienated the public. We must undo that bizarre ideological framing. Creating a new narrative is even more important than is making sure that Barack Obama does not have another four years to sully the Democratic brand name.
So I'm asking readers for ideas:
How can we convince the Democratic leadership to call on Barack Obama to step down from the 2012 race?
I want practical suggestions; further complaints about Obama's failed presidency are unnecessary (though understandable). We really need to find a way to bell this cat. So far, here's what I can come up with:
1. We need a mailing list. A BIG one. Right now, I know nothing about compiling such a thing. Do you?
2. We need an "O must GO!" web site.
3. We need a presence at Occupy Wall Street protests. The two movements -- "O must GO" and OWS -- cannot and should not become too closely linked: There will always be OWSers who still support this president, and there will be anti-Obama Dems who believe the propaganda about "smelly hippies." (For example, I imagine that quite a few Dems in Charlie Wilson's neck of the woods think that way.) Still, some linkage would certainly be helpful.
4. This must be a movement -- a rebellion, if you will -- within the Democratic party. All third party fantasists will only alienate the party movers-and-shakers whom we are trying to reach. If all you want to do is bellyache about how much you hate Democrats ("They're all in the pay of Wall Street!"), don't bother commenting at all. This is no place for you.
5. This must NOT be a "Draft Hillary" movement. Sorry, but many foolish Dems still despise the Clintons; the stench of the 2008 propaganda campaign lingers. Right now, the movement must be identified as anti-Obama, not pro-SomebodyElse.
That said, Hillary supporters will understand that she can have a chance to step in only if Obama does the same honorable thing that LBJ did. The Dems can't win without the working class in places like Pennsylvania; right now they hate Obama and love Hillary.
6. Unpleasant thought: We would have to make nice with the Kos Kids and the D.U. crowd, even though they will never apologize for their abominable behavior in 2008. Yes, they screwed up royally -- but by this point, most of them have seen Obama for what he truly is.
You don't form a movement by turning people away at the door.
Permalink
At an Occupy event, an Obama supporter admitted to me that she and her boyfriend realize now that I had been right about Zero.
I think we're already in move-together-forward mode and I have dumped the diehards who don't recognize this opportunity...and you are correct, Joseph, in that this move is necessary in order to seize the political narrative! We need a challenge on the left in order to do that....we need a full Dem primary.
Whether or not Zero gets it that he needs to step down, we need Dems in this race in order to reframe the issues. Hillary is the obvious choice, but that is end-game, not the rallying cry.
"All third party fantasists will only alienate the party movers-and-shakers whom we are trying to reach."
Use the third party meme as a wedge issue: "If you continue to abandon your core constituency - the middle and working class - as you did in 2008, what choice do you give that constituency but to look to a third party. If you want to win in 2012, you must get Obama to step down and select a candidate who will return to the traditional values of FDR."
Barbara
posted by Anonymous : 7:40 AM
I just have one reservation....
The African-American vote?
posted by Anonymous : 8:31 AM
Convince the leadership?
The Dem leadership is delusional, they won't give up on Obama.
Go to their website and your Dem Senators and Representatives to let them know you will sit out or vote Independent in 2012 if they support Obama. If enough of us do that then perhaps they will start to worry.
Next we have to figure a way to throw a monkey wrench in the big city Dem machines by getting the foot soldiers to go AWOL.
If you belong to a union write your leaders and let them know that Obama is not a friend of labor and you will be disappointed if he gets their endorsement.
posted by Mr. Mike : 9:22 AM
I'm not a registered Democrat (I registered Independent when I became a US citizen, 'cos I'm socialist at heart and couldn't see anyone but the routinely ignored and ridiculed Kucinich saying things that resonated for me in 2008).
I'd support your effort to get O to stand aside though, in any way I could. I'll keep an eye on your posts (as always) to note how your idea progresses. :-)
I like the idea of a website - "Obama - Resign" (just an example).The website could possibly have postings from progressive leaders in economics, environmentalists, jurists, etc. There are plenty of them who are calling for him to do an LBJ.
A big part of his election campaign involved social media (which I detest), but perhaps it could be a big part in the movement to get him to resign. A Facebook page could be started and linked to YouTube (I'm not an IT person so don't know specifics).
It doesn't hurt to write letters to Dem. party "leaders" stating we want Obama to resign or face a primary challenge. Our voices need to be heard.
"O Must Go" resonates with me. I think we need, as voters, send the message that if Obama is the nominee we will not vote for him. I will vote for the village idiot before I vote for Newt, Romney or Obama. DM
posted by Anonymous : 2:22 PM
I can't resist pointing out the obvious: The "O Must Go" can be cut down to the abbreviation "OMG", which you may have seen used somewhere (I have a vague hatred of it myself, but still, it could be useful).
"OMG" and "OWS" are pretty close; same first letter and an upended second letter. Lots of possibilities there.
posted by Hoarseface : 2:25 PM
"I just have one reservation....
The African-American vote?"
Two answers:
1) I'm not sure of the percentage, but many if not most African Americans are middle or working class.
2) If it was the poor you were thinking about, the safety net that the middle and working classes want to save/expand also help the poor ...
Medicare for all Social Security and related social programs Keeping people in their homes
I think one of the results of the financial crisis that most people from middle class to poor find themselves in is the awareness that the path from middle class to poor is closer than they thought and that taking care of society in general benefits everyone and is therefore good. It even benefits the 1% though they don't think so. It prevents their greed from imploding not only on us but on themselves ultimately.
The 1% will always be able to afford lawyers, public relations people, whatever to pursue their interests.
Our government needs to pursue the interests of the rest of us.
And our job as citizens is to never forget, again, that democracy is not a spectator sport.
Barbara
posted by Anonymous : 2:40 PM
Some national Hillary 2008 delegates may have email addresses, phone numbers, etc. of their Hillary state delegates. That would be a BIG group of people to reach. I have all of North Texas, myself.
Many do not support OBama and would love to see him go. Even better, if Hillary is the end game. Some are probably on Facebook now. Could be a start.
posted by Anonymous : 6:56 PM
I find this notion unwise and its very suggestion dispiriting.
I've seen third party bids, and I've seen inter-party challenges. I haven't seen any really work.
The inter-party challenger cannot win, so doesn't win, while making the target of the inter-party challenge lose, putting the opponents into power.
We've been through this in the '00 race with Nader, seems to me. How well did that work out?
What is the purported end-game sought with this idea? Have a different Democrat elected president this cycle? Scare O into moving toward the left?
State the purpose so that its prospects will be more clearly shown for what they'd be-- slim to none, in my view.
XI
posted by Anonymous : 11:41 AM
XI, you may be right. But I still think that Kennedy would have beat Reagan in 1980 -- and that if LBJ had continued his run in 1968, he would have lost by a much larger margin than did Humphrey.
