Goin' Balls Out

This is absurd. But this IS America, so why should I be surprised?

Terrorism charges lodged against protesters at GOP convention
Prosecutors in Ramsey County, Minn., have formally charged eight alleged leaders of the RNC Welcoming Committee -- one of the groups organizing protests at the GOP convention in St. Paul -- with terrorism-related charges, The Times' P.J. Huffstutter reports.

Monica Bicking, Eryn Trimmer, Luce Guillen Givins, Erik Oseland, Nathanael Secor, Robert Czernik, Garrett Fitzgerald and Max Spector, face up to 7 1/2 years in prison under the terrorism enhancement charge, which allows for a 50% increase in the maximum penalty they could face.

It appears to be the first time criminal charges have been filed under the 2002 Minnesota version of the federal Patriot Act.

The RNC Welcoming Committee is a self-described anarchist group that has worked for months planning disruptions at the convention. Police blamed the group for sparking violence during Monday's antiwar protest in St. Paul. Although most of the estimated 10,000 people at the march were peaceful, police say a splinter group of about 200 people harassed delegates, smashed windows and started at least one fire.

Police have arrested nearly 300 people during the confrontations this week, according to the Associated Press. Huffstutter reported on the protests for the blog Tuesday. And this morning, we told the story of journalist Amy Goodman's arrest at Monday's march.

-- Kate Linthicum

Protest and civil disobedience are now officially Terrorism in this country. As we knew would happen once Joe Biden's Patriot Act and all the various tweaks to the various surveillance bills had settled in.

Protest? Yes, sure, as long as you have the approval of the Government and protest in approved ways, about approved topics, under approved surveillance, and then return to your jobs and families.

Civil disobedience?

Off to Gitmo with you. Or to one of the domestic camps.

I've been in an uncommonly nostalgic mood these last few days, maybe ancestral memories of Chicago '68 roiling my brain, but these latest charges of terrorism for planning to protest and be disobedient, remind me a bit of the hoopla around the Lodi Terror Cell (that few remember) which was broken up by intrepid FBI agents and a paid informant. There was a trial. The Pakistani ice cream truck driver was released after a mistrial. His son, who had gone to Pakistan to fetch a bride, and was charged with attending a terrorist training camp, was convicted. On the testimony of the informant. And an FBI agent who lied.

A summary of the
sorry tale.

Central to the case was a Pakistani immigrant and former Lodi resident whom the FBI recruited in Bend, Ore., where he was working as a convenience store clerk. The informant, Naseem Khan, 32, got the FBI’s attention a month after the terrorist attacks when he told agents he saw Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, worshiping and lecturing at the small mosque in Lodi, where Khan lived in 1998 and 1999.

In three later interviews, Khan said he saw two other terrorists – wanted in connection with the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania – frequenting the mosque.

FBI agents said they quickly dismissed the claimed sightings as highly unlikely. Most terrorism experts and federal officials do not think that Zawahiri ventured outside Afghanistan or Pakistan after 1995.

But despite concluding that the claims were unreliable, the FBI in November 2001 hired Khan – who speaks Urdu and Pashto, two of Pakistan’s languages – to infiltrate Lodi’s large Muslim community.

During the three years leading to the arrest of the Hayats, Khan was paid nearly $230,000 in salary and expenses.

Defense attorneys Griffin and Mojadiddi relentlessly attacked Khan’s credibility in his multiple appearances on the stand. The approach eventually forced prosecutors to admit to the jury that they had no evidence Zawahiri had ever been in Lodi.

The prosecution, meanwhile, leaned heavily on the confessions of the two Hayats obtained after hours of interrogation at Sacramento FBI headquarters and on satellite photographs of a location in Pakistan that matched one of the varying descriptions of the camp that Hamid Hayat said he attended.

When the Lodi case broke last June, government officials initially said they had uncovered a full-blown terrorist cell.

Keith Slotter, then-head of the FBI’s Sacramento office, said that “various individuals connected to Al Qaeda have been operating in the Lodi area in various capacities, including individuals who have received terrorist training abroad with the specific intent to initiate a terrorist attack in the United States.”

An early U.S. Justice Department affidavit, later withdrawn, implied that the arrest of the Hayats was just the beginning, saying that “other individuals in the Lodi community” had been programmed in Pakistani camps to attack hospitals and food stores.

And the imams who supposedly led this cell of terror? They went back to Pakistan without charges.

Um. Hm.

Police State America

[The image above, of course, is of the Pentagon Protest in 1969... or was it 1967? One loses track...]

Here is a very recent example of many examples of The American Police State in action.

Police break down doors in night-time raid on anarchist meeting

From: The Twin Cities Daily Planet

And so it goes.

According to the story, the Ramsay County Sherrif's Department and the St. Paul Police Department "executed a search warrant" -- ie: broke into a Downtown St. Paul building rented by the RNC Welcoming Committee, an anarchist group -- around 9:45pm last night, with guns drawn, detained fifty or more people who were inside the building at the time for questioning, throwing them on the floor, handcuffing them, demanding they identify themselves, photographed them and released them. Then they cleared the building of all non-police personnel, confiscated literature and other materials, and had the building boarded up.

It is assumed the search warrant -- which claimed there were Molotov cocktails and other items in the building intended for violence at a demonstration planned on Monday to protest the RNC Convention -- was issued pursuant to a tip by a police informant and/or other infiltrator into the group. Whether any such materiel has been found has not been revealed, but we can confident that if any was found, it was planted by the police or one of their informants. Unfortunately, police departments throughout the country have a wretched reputation for just such planting of evidence, and to assume they would not do so in this case is a stretch.

Which is not to say that our anarchist friends weren't up to some mischief. They have an unfortunate reputation as well, although in many cases -- for example, the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999 which became the trigger for many of the intense police repression actions since then -- the violence and acting out attributed to anarchists is claimed (by witnesses as well as some of the anarchists) to be the work of provocateurs who were assumed to be working for or part of the police forces themselves.

Alert individuals have noted that this action in St. Paul, coming just before the Republican National Convention (if it happens, hurricanes permitting) was intended to intimidate and coerce potential protesters in the city. It has been estimated that as many as fifty thousand people will show up to protest the Republicans and their bloody misrule these many years, and for reasons that will be left up to history, the Authorities have an overriding interest in stopping or interfering with any sort of "leftist" or "anarchist" protest movement in this country at all. They simply cannot abide such things, as we saw in Denver when a relatively small group of protesters was gassed and peppersprayed and arrested en masse by newly uniformed and militarized police forces needing something to do since the massive protests predicted failed to materialize.

This sort of suppression of (leftish) free speech and assembly rights has been going on in this country routinely for a decade, and sporadically well before that. There is and has been almost no interest by the Authorities in suppressing wingnuttery and right wing protest demonstrations. A curiosity, to say the least.

The police have fired on numerous demonstrations, using "non-lethal" weapons, "bean bags," rubber bullets, wooden dowels fired from guns, pepper spray, and various gasses, and they have bludgeoned, run down, assaulted and mass arrested tens of thousands of demonstrators and bystanders alike. They have close links with the military and have routinely spied upon and infiltrated anti-war and anti-corporatist gatherings and protest events, spied upon and infiltrated church groups and social organizations for the elderly, often lying about it even when it is obvious what they have been doing.

Raids such as the one in St. Paul last night are not uncommon, and though there was immidiate contact with lawyers (NLG), according to the story, and there have been many successful past suits of police departments and city, county and state authorities which sponsor these sorts of actions, resulting in millions and millions of dollars in awards to plaintiffs for police violations of civil rights, yet the raids and violations continue without let up. If anything they intensify.

One wonders why the People don't rise up. Well, this is one reason why. They have been intimidated.



A question, however, is why are Americans so easily intimidated by police tactics such as this while peoples in democracies all over the world are not?

e.g.: The Media Narrative

Our major mass media functions as a propaganda organ as surely as Pravda and Tass once did in the Former Soviet Union. Their main propaganda tool is the Narratives, into which all political and social issues, and all candidates are first divided and then fit.

Jodi Kantor writes such a Narrative piece for the New York Times. In my local paper it was headlined: "Self-Discipline fuels Obama's image as aloof"

You know it is a Narrative piece because of the phrase "Obama's image as aloof." This "issue" does not arise from the People, not from Obama supporters, and not from Obama's critics. The "issue" of Obama's "aloofness" is entirely the media's Narrative about Obama, some of which is derived from Republican talking points, but most of which is adopted throughout the mass media coverage of Obama from a synthesis of pundit observations and reporters' reactions and gossip.

Thus: McCain is the Mavericky Man of the People, a Garrulous and Funny Old Man, Always Available to the Media Covering His Campaign on the Straight Talk Express. They like him.

Obama, on the other hand, is Distant, Aloof, and Presumptuous, Obsessed With Stagecraft and Message Discipline, Ascetic, Messianic, Arrogant and Uppity. Not only does he not know his Place, he's gotten so far Above Himself, ordinary people have no idea Who He Is.

To quote from Kantor:

In the way Mr. Obama has trained himself for competition, he can sometimes seem as much athlete as politician. Even before he entered public life, he began honing not only his political skills, but also his mental and emotional ones. He developed a self-discipline so complete, friends and aides say, that he has established dominion over not only what he does but also how he feels. He does not easily exult, despair or anger: to do so would be an indulgence, a distraction from his goals. Instead, they say, he separates himself from the moment and assesses.

“He doesn’t inhale,” said David Axelrod, his chief strategist.

Indeed. Here we have the Narrative that includes a possible allusion to Celebrity -- by referring to his training as much as an athlete as a politician. Refering to his self-discipline as so "complete ... that he has established dominion over not only what he does but also how he feels" feeds the Narrative of Obama's Messianism. He's an Ascetic because he shows no emotion, for that would be an indulgence and a distraction. He separates himself from the moment. And assesses, as if from On High.

He doesn't inhale? ?? Wuhhh??? (And this from Axelrod, who should know better...)

Or this:

There is little about him that feels spontaneous or unpolished, and even after two books, thousands of campaign events and countless hours on television, many Americans say they do not feel they know him. The accusations of elusiveness puzzle those closest to the candidate. Far more than most politicians, they say, he is the same in public as he is in private.

And somehow this is meant as a Bad Thing. Who are these many Americans who say they don't feel they "know" him? Well, if they exist at all, they are being fed their ignorance by a media that insists nobody really knows this uppity, alien, exotic. Nobody. Nobody can. He is too foreign.

Or here:

Last month, while visiting Jerusalem, Mr. Obama crammed a note in the Western Wall that was promptly fished out and posted on the Internet. The message was elegantly phrased, as if Mr. Obama, a Christian, had anticipated that his private words to the Almighty would soon be on public display.

Crammed, did he? As if in Disrespect for Where He Was? Ah. Of course. He is a, [spit], Christian, [spit], and his words, while "elegantly phrased", obviously were meant for public display. There is no sponteneity here, no private worship of the Lord as Scripture commands. But no. Obama is incapable. Too Full of Himself.

Kantor goes on:

Because he betrays little hint of struggle, Mr. Obama can seem far removed from the troubles of some voters. Older working-class whites may be uncomfortable with his race — he is the son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya — and his age. But they may also find it hard to identify with him, even though he tries to assure them that they have much in common, mentioning that his mother relied on food stamps at times and that he worked as a community organizer in Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods. His command of crowds of 75,000, his unfailing eloquence and his comparing himself to Joshua and Lincoln can belie his point.

The point being? That his humble beginnings and his present Celebrity are too diametrically opposite one another. Joe Sixpack cannot relate? A black man who is unfailingly eloquent simply cannot have much in common with the white working class, whereas a bumbletongue like Bush (though born to the Purple) obviously is in his element on the factory floor? What is this crap?

She goes on:

Nearly a decade ago, Mr. Obama joined luminaries like George Stephanopoulos and Ralph Reed for regular seminars, organized by Robert Putnam, a professor at Harvard and the author of “Bowling Alone,” about the deterioration of American community ties. As a young state senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama was one of the less prominent members of the group. But soon everyone was referring to him as “the governor” — a friendly smack, said Mr. Putnam, at Mr. Obama’s precocity and drive.

From an early age, Mr. Obama was taught by his mother to think grandly about his potential to help others. Once he reached adulthood, admiring teachers and mentors reinforced the message, steadily directing his sights higher and higher. As a law student, he mused about wanting to be mayor of Chicago; as a law professor, he talked about running for governor of Illinois; not long after that, he was running for president.

Ah! So he gets it from his mother! I knew it! "Think grandly!" His sights always higher and higher. Wanting this, wanting that, wanting something else. Is there no end to this man's desires?

She's not done:

Both allies and critics sometimes concluded that Mr. Obama was too gifted, or in too much of a hurry, for the tasks that consumed others.

Too gifted, too good, too much of a hurry. Whereas the Former POW and plane crasher McCain is Old and Seasoned, eh? Awaiting his Turn like he should. Like Obama should, but he can't wait. Not him.

Kantor again:

The McCain campaign has seized on this pattern, mocking its opponent as a self-consumed star, even suggesting that he has a messianic complex.

Mr. Obama has heard the accusations before. Long before the presidential race, some around him seemed to resent his ability to galvanize a following. “Bluebooking is not important for celebrities,” fellow students joked about him in the law review parody, referring to the tedious process of checking citations.

As for the messiah accusation, Michael Madigan, the speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives and a Democrat, once publicly called Mr. Obama the same thing.

You see! You see! They all say it!

Kantor continues:

If there is one quality that those closest to Mr. Obama marvel at, it is his emotional control. This is partly a matter of temperament, they say, partly an effort by Mr. Obama to step away from his own feelings so he can make dispassionate judgments. “He doesn’t allow himself the luxury of any distraction,” said Valerie Jarrett, a close adviser. “He is able to use his disciplined mind to not get caught up in the emotional swirl.”

As opposed to the towering temper of McCain (and some others we could name.) So we are supposed to infer than a disciplined character like that of Obama's is somehow inferior to the indifference and temper of someone like McCain? How things have been turned inside out.

But wait, there's more.

Kantor:

While he speeds along rope lines, Mr. Obama sometimes connects better one on one. In spare moments, he will surprise supporters — a doorman who scraped together a small contribution, an elderly woman he had heard enjoyed his memoir — with an out-of-the blue phone call. Waiting backstage to speak to 20,000 people in Seattle in February, Mr. Obama grew so absorbed in talking to a retired Michigan couple that he had to be reminded not to miss his entrance cue.

Once in a very long while, Mr. Obama will relax his guard completely. Two years ago at a party celebrating the publication of his second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” the new senator rose to say a few words, recalled Ms. Jarrett. As he talked about what his new job in Washington had cost his wife and two daughters, tears began to course down his face, leaving him unable to continue.

Michelle Obama rescued him with a kiss, and after a moment, everyone started to applaud.

But. But. But. She's just spent endless inches of column space describing his lack of emotion, discipline, aloofness, uppityness, and here -- at the very end of her story -- she belies all of it with a simple anecdote that shows the Candidate is not only human, but very much connected with his family, his supporters and the public, fully able to show emotion, deeply moved by his own good fortune.

In other words, practically everything she's written up to this point has flowed from the Narrative of Obama, not from the man, and when she gets to the point where she actually has to question the Narrative, she can't do it. Instead, she presents anecdotes that contradict the Narrative... without comment.

Kantor in summation:

Mr. Obama is often called a perpetual outsider — racially, geographically, politically. But his story is more complicated than that. “He’s been an outsider at Columbia and Harvard,” said Matthew McGuire, a friend. “He was an outsider but within the ultimate insider clubs.”

Within those and other powerful institutions, Mr. Obama has always appointed himself critic. After being elected the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, Mr. Obama gave a speech to black students and alumni that was rousing, some recall it nearly two decades later. “Don’t let Harvard change you,” went the refrain. As a community organizer, he led Chicago residents to challenge the local authorities. In the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama was not only a reformer who pushed for tighter campaign finance rules, but also an everyday skeptic who often pointed out hilarities and hypocrisies to colleagues.

Despite the speed of his rise, Mr. Obama often talks of politics as a closed system, one stacked against outsiders who lack powerful patrons or fat donor bases.

These sorts of criticisms have become the cornerstone of his political identity. Changing government, making it more responsive to citizens’ needs, has been the promise of every campaign he has ever run. Today, despite the millions of people and dollars devoted to his election, Mr. Obama insists, improbably enough, that he is still the same advocate for the poor he was 20 years ago on the streets of Chicago.

“All the time, he says, let’s keep in mind that this is not about Barack Obama,” said Ms. Jarrett, an adviser. “He still sees himself as the community organizer.”

But after he accepts his party’s nomination on Thursday night, it will be hard to call Mr. Obama anything but the establishment. As head of his party, he will preside over everything he says he objects to about politics: the artifice, the influence of special interests, the partisanship. If he wins the presidency, there will be no more rungs on the ladder for Mr. Obama to climb, only re-election. The system he says is broken will become his.

Even those closest to him are not quite sure how he would make the transformation.

“That’s uncomfortable,” said Mr. Axelrod, about the prospect of Mr. Obama’s becoming the ultimate insider. “You need to accept that role to a degree if you’re the nominee or the president.”

And yet, Mr. Axelrod said, “I don’t think that’s a role he wants to play. His idea is that you should always be challenging the institution.”

And there you have it: the ultimate Outsider, becoming the head of the very institution he believes he should be challenging.

How drôle.

Perhaps it's the start of a New Narrative....

[Note: My August Hiatus is slowly ending, but posting may still be light for several weeks.]

Nightmare over the Caucasus

Just read this over at FDL, a post taken from the Guardian article by Ian Traynor.

The basics are simple: Georgian troops and artillery attacked the South Ossetian capital, killing many and routing most of the civilian population. Russian troops responded, driving the Georgian forces back. The Georgian government in the person of its president, hollered to the heavens that Georgia was under attack. The United States government, and the Republican candidate for president of the United States, condemned Russia and urged a ceasefire and withdrawal. Eventually there was a ceasefire, but no withdrawal yet as Russian forces continue their occupation of key locations inside Georgia, and there is nothing the Georgians -- or the United States -- can do about it.

If anything, the United States has been humiliated by this little war, in a way that will have lasting repercussions.

Our Media has been incapable of reporting what is going on or the context of what is going on, because they are completely bound to a Narrative, a Narrative that appears to have been produced out of whole cloth in the right wing think tanks and was rolled out complete by all the Heritage Foundation talking heads sent out to do PR for Little Georgia.

Except this neo-con Narrative about Little Innocent Georgia being trounced by the Big Bad Bear Russia is viral and global. It is the Narrative of practically all "news" -- at least in English -- where ever it comes from.

Consequently, not only do Americans have little or no useful knowledge about what has been and is going on, world citizens have almost as little. Russia is the Bear, the resurgent Soviet Union, or the reanimated Russian Empire. Putin is the New Hitler. It is 1938 all over again. "Remember the Sudetenland!"

Well...

One might wonder why the constant neo-con focus on the New Hitler, 1938, Chamberlain, appeasement, and the Sudetenland. Why does this continue to move them so? It's got to the point where everything that happens is seen thought that prism, even though fewer and fewer alive today remember the events of 1938, and it was the conservatives of 1938 who were so anxious to "appease" Hitler. Some were actually in league with the Nazis. Conservatives.

Those who were most upset by this constant appeasement were the Communists. Ah. There we will find the neo-con motor. The neo-cons ARE the "subversives" we were warned about in the '50's.

Meanwhile, the Georgian Mistake, as it will come to be known, has destroyed Georgia as a functioning national independent entity, has enhanced the power of Russia, has put Putin into the first rank of international leaders, has humiliated George W. Bush and Condi Rice, has made mock of the very idea of borders, has helped revive imperial pretensions and Great Powers shenanigans -- quite apart from those of the United States -- and has pretty much check-mated any move in any direction the United States might choose to make, now or in the near future.

Cheney and his puppet are confined to quarters for the duration.

And McCain? Soon enough, he'll just appear silly.

Shock Doctrine

[Note: I'm still on a restricted blogging schedule. Currently in New Mexico where internet service is spotty at best. Besides it's summertime! Enjoy while you can!]

Naomi Klein is deservedly well-known for her exegesis of The Shock Doctrine as it has been used by [Milton] Friedmanites and various and sundry neo-cons and their fellow travelers to dismantle the Republic and destroy the Constitution while financially profiting from their perfidy.

True enough. And we see it in full cry with the current DRILL!!! DRILL!!!! DRILL!!!!!™ hysteria.

However, the shock doctrine works both ways. Like the flag and like religion, it's not the sole property of the spittle flecked wingnuts.

Seems to me there's an opportunity for our side to use it as well.

Just saying.

Oil!

For months we've been inundated with propaganda from the Oil Companies and their worker bees in Congress and the White House that we've got to DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!!!!™ endlessly everywhere NOW, NOW, NOW!!!™ or WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!™ and so on and so forth, to the point where hardly anyone can sort through it anymore.

Since "we" -- as in We, the People -- have nothing to do with it at all, except as passive consumers, it's startling to hear all the clarion calls for what "WE" have to do, NOW, NOW, NOW!!!™.

$4.00 A GALLON!!!!™ WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!™

Yeah. Well.

As many have figured out, this is all -- absolutely all -- hysterical hype on behalf of endless expansion of Oil Company power and profits at the expense of the American People and ultimately the people of the Whole Wide World. Not to say there isn't already plenty of power and profit accruing to the Oil Companies as it is. They want more. Effectively, they want it all, and they are trying to get it by stampeding a panicked public into giving them what they want and then some.

They may get away with it.

There is very little and very ineffective push back, much as was the case with the Enron rape of California and the West over that phony Electricity Crisis in 2000/2001 that continues to lead to unending bullshit.

First things first, this hysteria has nothing to do with "us" except for what we can be fleeced of. You can know that by all the panic that is being induced without any clarity of purpose, and with all sorts of ridiculous claims about what and how much "we" are going to "save" by giving the Oil Companies whatever they want. NOW, NOW, NOW!!!!™

Well, no. "We" are not going to "save" anything. We are going to pay through the nose, whatever happens.

What do the Oil Companies really want? They want unlimited control over all known and suspected oil and natural gas reserves in the country and on the outer continental shelf. They will say that what they want is to DRILL!!!™ for oil in these places, but that isn't what really want. And we know that because they already have huge tracts of leased lands and underwater that they aren't drilling on, nor do they have any intention of drilling on them in the near future.

They want to control all known and suspected oil and natural gas reserves without restriction. Now why do you suppose they'd want that? Hmmm?

Surprisingly enough, if you control the supply, you control the price, and under the circumstances, you can create artificial shortages -- like for example the artificial shortage of electricity in California back in the day -- which will have the salubrious effect of driving up prices even more than they already are. Give the Oil Companies what they want, and expect to pay $10 or even $15 at the pump for gas whenever they want to charge that. Sweet.

We've already seen their tactics with regard to refineries. Domestic oil refining capacity is kept low enough to squeeze the market at any given time, and sometimes, it is deliberately reduced -- by "maintenance" outages and other factors -- to raise gasoline prices. We constantly hear about all the refineries "we" have not built in all these years, but the "we" is the Oil Companies, not the American People, and the reason is simple: fewer refineries=restricted supplies=higher prices. If, on the other hand, "we" had anything to do with refinery issues (apart from relatively modest environmental issues), "we" would have nationalized the Oil Companies long ago, and "we" probably would have shifted to alternative fuels. The price of gas might still be high, but it wouldn't make that much difference, because alternatives, particularly electricity, and conservation would have made the need for gasoline that much less.

But "we" are not in charge here. The Oil Companies are.

One of the most startling revelations came through Digby's post about Obama's apparent capitulation on "drilling." As was made clear earlier, "drilling" has nothing to do with the demands being made by the Oil Companies, it is all about control of natural resources. Until yesterday, Obama seemed clear, too, that "drilling" wasn't the answer. But now, apparently, he's changed his mind and believes it might be part of the answer. So he is willing to consider "drilling" in the outer continental shelf as "part of a package," yadda, yadda.

Of course, what he should say -- and won't say -- is that the Oil Companies are welcome to drill on the leases they already hold, and when they do so, and produce oil from their drilling, which they then provide and keep in the domestic market instead of selling abroad the way they do with Alaskan oil (most of which is sold to Japan), then maybe, the American People would be willing to talk about additional leases and drilling, but not until then.

Once it's put that way, what's going on is obvious.

But he won't do that.

So Newt will take charge of this issue because of Democratic and Obaman passivity.



"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less."

This sort of thing should have been deconstructed a long time ago, but no. The majority of people -- and that includes most Democrats, and all Democratic Leaders -- are in shock over the price of oil and the shock shows. They have some half-formed ideas about what to do, but have so far been unable or unwilling to forcefully (and coherently) present an alternative to the Republican Oil Company mantra summed up in Newty's little lie.

"The need for higher production and lower prices."

In fact, gasoline prices have been declining in recent weeks along with the futures price for oil. Reason? They say it is primarily due to reduced domestic demand for oil and gasoline, a reduced demand caused by higher prices. Newt tries to make the connection between higher production and lower prices, but fails to acknowledge that reduced demand is the real reason prices are declining, and further, he doesn't acknowledge that domestic production can be increased by the Oil Companies if they would drill on leases they already hold. But they don't do it. Why not?

"Don't want any baloney..."

Indeed. Yet the whole DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!!!!™ mantra has been driven on nothing but Baloney. It's a lie from start to finish.

"Brazil has found two large oil fields in the Atlantic Ocean; you know that the Brazilians are now independent from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Russia..."

"Brazil" in this case is the state owned oil company -- that is the socialized, nationalized oil company, not a Good Private Oil Company -- Petrobras, which should be enough to cause Newt to have his aneurysm right there. Brazil is not "independent" of foreign oil, however, because neither of the new oceanic oil fields has been tapped, in part due to lack of equipment. The same lack of equipment dogs the American Quest for Oil Independence. But there is no such American Quest, in fact, because any increase in domestic oil production goes on the world market. One would expect that Brazilian oil finds would also go into the world market, if they are ever brought into production at all.

"If??!!!" Indeed, if. The high price of oil has been a spur to development of alternatives as well as reduced domestic consumption. Reduced demand is no spur to increased production. Ergo, all these exotic oil fields may never be tapped.

Newt simply lies, straight out. It's not "illegal" to look for oil, and he knows it. But a lie always serves his interests, always serves the interests of the Oil Companies, and always serves the interests of the Republican Party. So he lies.

Will The American People fall for it again? Well, if Obama and his people are willing to "consider drilling", and there is no effective counter to the Republican propaganda machine, The American People won't have much choice.

"The Terror Warriors lie all the time, about everything"

The title comes from a Chris Floyd post of July 28, Bodyguard of Lies: The Truth Behind the 'Surge's' Smokescreen.

For some time, I've wondered if Americans realize that they are being lied to by the Pentagon every single day, day in and day out, relentlessly in the matter of the Glorious War On Terror being conducted by our Blameless Forces.

Chris Floyd says:

They tell big lies and small lies, lies of omission and great big fabricated fairy tales, lies to cover up specific acts of crime in the conquered land and lies designed to obscure the big picture of the overarching war crime of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. The first instinct of the propaganda mouthpieces of the Pentagon is, always, to lie, to distort, obfuscate, confuse, exaggerate or diminish -- whatever is required in their relentless campaign to make the foulest of crimes -- mass murder -- look like a noble deed.

This should be a self-evident truth to anyone who has been paying attention, and yet, Our Noble Warriors and their spokespeople are rarely challenged on their constant lying, certainly not by the media and not by Congress, unless it is to offer a "There, there, we understand how difficult your jobs are." Instead, every now and then, when some previous lie is made "inoperative" by some new lie, rarely by new facts (ask the Tillman family), the lies are simply accepted as New Truth, with no discussion, and we go on as if nothing were amiss.

Was it even this bad during the "5 o'clock follies" in Vietnam? Was it this bad when Pravda and Izvestia were parsed from end to end for any hint of the facts of the Soviet Union?

The Pentagon's habit of lying about everything all the time, even when they don't have to lie, is perhaps the single most characteristic aspect of this Glorious War On Terror.

Long Time Gone

Several posts got started during this summer hiatus, but they still languish unfinished like so much else in our lives and our land. Like the houses that stand forlorn and half-complete up and down California, the spanking new neighborhoods blasted by foreclosure, bankruptcy and fraud.

Or like the career of the Dixie Chicks, their rise never really complete because it was blasted by the ignorant and the fools and the go-alongs, the get-alongs, the fearful and the frantic. I have seen them a couple of times and have felt they would never want for any work at all, way too much talent to be shunted to the sidelines, and yet... Too often in Modern America the best and the brightest are pushed away, pushed out, forgotten, forlorn.

I've been very impressed with Obama's Progress -- almost a Royal Progress -- through the lands benighted and enlightened this last week or so. He certainly makes a brilliant appearance, and the contrast between his openness, good humor and energy (they called it "vigor" or "vigah" back in JFK's day) and the crabbed snottiness and utter lonliness of Bush's ventures abroad could not be more acute. And yet, as he made his way from one stop to the next, it seemed like he was turning in to a Bushevik, right before our eyes, offering very little in the end that wasn't already part of the Beltway Palace Program. Actually, the Palace and the Camp Obama have been assimilating one another for some time. So much so, it's hard to find points of major difference any more. His nemisis and rival, Princess "Scarlett" McCain, even adopted his "16 Month Withdrawal" timetable, but it's a "withdrawal" so frought with caveats and leave-behinds and force protections and so forth, it quite obviously is intended to perpetuate the occupation of Restive Mesopotamia into the very long-term future.

No, the primary difference between Bushevisim and Obamism at this point is that crucial matter of Personality.




Nothing wrong with that. And yet obviously we're now dealing with a status quo candidate, not a "Change" candidate at all. Status quo at least in the context of our Imperial adventures and conquests, the irrelevance of the Constitution and so on. The Important and Serious Matters that maintain American hegemony. You see.

Obama is running for King-Emperor. Republic? Presidency? Hah. Old Fashioned. Get with the New Modern Program! Forward!

Once under way, it's very hard to stop this sort of "change". It may wear itself out in time, in fact, it probably will, sooner rather than later, as the economic situation in this country deteriorates further and the security situation of our overseas empire fails to improve. Just as the Soviet Union was undermined and brought down by this sort of internal and external bleeding, so might America's latter day experiment in Empire. The World would just as soon have it so. Our hegemony, at least under the lash of Bush and Cheney, has been a global nightmare and horror.

But there is so much left unfinished, so much still to do. We have so far to go. Still.

Don't we?

Listen to Glenn Greenwald's interview with Daniel Ellsberg on Salon Radio. If you were around back in the day when Ellsberg did something very brave, lots of memories will be jogged. If you weren't around back then, his story should curl your hair. His question: Why isn't there anyone in government now -- ANYONE -- who will do the equivalent today of what he did then? What has happened?

"Exterminate All The Brutes!"

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention our other overseas Imperial adventures in Somalia and various former Soviet Republics) are heating up again; "fighting season" they call it, like our own crippled "summer driving season." And the Imperial answer is to kill them all. Obliterate the native foe. Exterminate the brutes.

After a NATO outpost was overrun by "Taliban" in Afghanistan killing 9 American troops, wounding 15, (oddly only a day or so after yet another wedding party was exterminated by air power, 50-60 dead, dozens wounded, all civilians, all headed to a wedding) the first stories I heard about it on the radio suggested that revenge was swift, that the village where the insurgents had supposedly come from had been leveled, and all its inhabitants killed. Never heard that story again. No, later stories said the outpost had been abandoned and there was no hint of "revenge."

But these are Imperial times, and the Empire is not to be denied; we can be certain there was swift and brutal retaliation, many natives slaughtered, and so it will go until the slaughterers are exhausted, the slaughterers on both sides, for resistance to Imperial assimilation has become a very serious cause among the jibbering natives of far away lands. And they have honed their resistance efforts to cause maximum discomfort to their Imperial foe, with minimal outlay.

It's been plain for some time that a slow-motion depopulation of Mesopotamia is a desired outcome of the 2003 American-led invasion; there is no Imperial need for a "population" there in any case, only some workers to man the oil industry, and that's about it. Everyone else is superfluous, so, let them go away or die, since they have no appreciation for their Liberation, no language, no culure, no religion that would permit them to become Civilized through the gentle ministrations of chain-guns and AC-130 gunships; let them be gone.

And so it is. Millions -- millions -- of refugees; a million or more dead; many, many wounded; orphans, widows everywhere; the smell of death is the first thing people notice when arriving in Iraq. The whole place stinks of carnage.

And they call this "progress." Of course they do! The fewer Iraqi devils they have to deal with, the less time it will take to consolidate the tribute and the treasure that is the Imperial due.

The same treatment has been applied in Somalia; soon, there will be similar moves in Afghanistan, since once again, the jibbering natives don't appreciate their Liberation sufficiently to be allowed to live.

And make no mistake: this is the policy of the United States of America. You may not agree with it, but you have no effective say in the matter. Your voice will not be heard, even if your voice rises with tens of millions of others, an outcry from the deepest soul of America, it doesn't matter. Your objection is of no consequence.

The Empire is not to be denied.

But, bbut, bbbut elections!!! More and Better Democrats! O-ba-ma!

Sigh.

The naivete of "Progressives" is sometimes striking. After all these years of experience -- how can "Progressives" still believe that "elections" and/or charismatic Leaders will somehow alter the course of Imperial expansion?

Well, they say, we have to give it Time; we didn't get in to this mess quickly; we won't get out of it for many years, decades, generations, centuries. We have to keep at the task of supporting and electing More and Better Democrats and Pushing Our Agenda. Eventually this dreadful phase will be over.

In fact, we did get into this Imperial mess at home and abroad very quickly indeed, and we can get out of it almost as quickly, but there is a narrative in Progressive Blogistan that overrides everything else. It is a narrative in which losses are "wins" -- because every loss is a Learning Experience; there was no Knowledge before Progressives began to become active in politics. It is a narrative in which the metaphor of the Task We Face is "turning the ship of state" -- which obviously cannot be done quickly; it must be done in "inches" and "baby steps," ever so slowly, ever so cautiously, and it will take many, many, many years. It is a narrative in which people who are not satisfied with the pace of positive change are called "childish" for wanting everything NOW, and not "understanding" -- like adults do -- that it takes time to accomplish objectives, and there hasn't been nearly enough time for all the things we ALL want to have a chance of coming true; it is a narrative which proposes that we are up against a "Village" of gasbags and chatterati and compromised electeds who gossip and preen for one another, but who we make allowances for and gently mock and ridicule, but it's just a "Village," so there's no real reason to take it all that seriously. What can they do, after all but gossip and preen? And what's the real harm in that?

Our warriors are to be pitied for the abuses they suffer. Our banks are to be -- gently -- reregulated for their own good. The economic catastrophe yawning before us is to be parceled into discreet segments to be dealt with in turn, eventually, but a wholistic approach is to be avoided at all costs. Those who suffer are to be empathized with -- or blamed for their own misfortune -- depending on who they are and what their specific situation is.

The Constitution is to be fiercely defended, though there is no popular constituency for it.

And above all, the narrative elevates the Argument to the pinnacle of endeavor. The Argument, the Rational Examination of Opposing Views, can -- and must -- go on forever, passionately but rationally, an endless scrutiny, with never a decision or action beyond it.

While we're arguing, the Brutes continue to be exterminated.

The Perfect shall never again be the enemy of the Good.

GRITtv: Naomi Klein explains it all for you. Again.

We're experiencing another domestic episode of Klein's "Shock Doctrine" right now as Americans adjust to dramatically higher gasoline prices and our ruling classes agitate for "opening" all the protected areas to immediate petroleum drilling operations. Congress makes a pathetic attempt to say, "Wait a minute, uhhh..." and get steamrolled.

Of course, "drilling" in these protected areas is not at all what the oil companies and the ruling class are after; what they want -- plain as day -- is control of the resources in these protected areas. Thus, they are able to drive prices -- and profits -- higher by controlling market product. This is a replay of the Enron-led fraud that drove California and western states' energy prices through the roof in 2000-2001. There was no "shortage" of energy; there was, however, market control and manipulation to push prices higher and ever higher, and what amounted to a protection racket run by the electricity giants: pay up or go dark. Worked like a charm. Enron had used the tactic all over the world, before its eventual collapse, and that tactic has been the governing premise of the Bushevik regime from the get go.

We've become so used to it, however, that now, when yet another episode "shock" is under way, very few recognize what's going on, that we've been down this path before, and that we can (theoretically) stop it.



Jeff Madrick and Bhairavi Desai join the discussion.

Some observers are asking: since the tactics of the Shock Doctrine work so well (and they do) why don't We, the People turn them right back on the Neo-Cons and Friedmanites and give them a little of their own medicine?

Since we are conditioned to be passive consumers rather than citizens, and maintaining our passivity is crucial to the success of the ruling classes, actually performing the turn about is well beyond the public's capability right now. But if the signs of economic collapse we see around us make it impossible for the masses to fulfill their social role, by making it impossible for them to consume, we may just have the trigger that will spark the revolt against neo-con, neo-liberal, and Friedmanite control.

Did Obama go after the Blogosphere tonight?

And is this turning into a coordinated attack -- because of the FISA OUTRAGE!!!®?

I was listening to the NewsHour interview with Barack Obama this afternoon, and Gwen asked him about the negative reaction among some of his supporters to his advocacy of faith-based initiatives and programs, and he said something I thought was very curious (as I recall it, but I'll check the transcript when it's up):

Raised hackles among some of the blogosphere?

Jim Webb has dissed bloggers, and Harold Ford has suggested that "liberal groups" (and MoveOn) aren't representative of the American People.

So far it is only here and there, a smattering of semi-denunciation of these wild-eyed left-wing bloggers, but is it a sign of things to come?

If the reaction of some Obama supporters to the New Yorker cover is any guide, we may well be surprised at how strenuous the "coordination" of Belief® is in the Obama administration, and how rigorous the line to toe.

I also noted with interest that there was no mention of FISA "reform" at all in the NewsHour interview, even though the topic at the end was his numerous apparent filip-filops.

Since that's the biggie that the Blogosphere is really pissed off about, the failure to mention it at all is an even harsher dig at the blogs.

Stay tuned....

GRITtv Explains it All For You. Again.

Media Roundtable, with Hendrik Hertzberg, Logan Nakyanzi Pollard, and Danny Schechter, including one of the more intelligent discussions of the New Yorker Cover Flap, and plenty of news about the good, the bad, and the ugly of the last week's media crap.

OMG! Look what they've gone and done now:

I love the New Yorker, have since I was little and was stunned by those Addams Family Cartoons. In fact, before I could really read, I was captivated by all those amazingly drole cartoons that appeared throughout the magazine, and I'd save copies just for the cartoons.



I mean who wouldn't love something like the Addams Family pouring boiling oil on a group of carolers at their door?

It wasn't until I was almost out of high school before I could actually read the articles and make sense of them, and then I was startled at how good the writing was, what high calibre of wit and insight and what an abundance of information the New Yorker provided, and they did it every GD week. It was and is amazing.

So now they've gone and done this cover, provoked a full on internet hysteria episode, and have ruined, absolutely ruined their reputation among the Obamamaniacs. Ruined, I say! Cancel my subscription! NOW!

Somehow, I'm sure the New Yorker will take it in stride, and soon enough, all those who are overreacting will come to their senses and desist.

Sometimes it takes a whack upside the head from people who really know how to deliver, to defuse what a nastier than ever campaign. The hint to the Obamas here is that maybe, just maybe, mockery and derision is the appropriate response to the smears they've had to endure. Ya think? Hm.

Brazil!

There are some post-mortems going on of the FISA debacle, still a very stinging loss for the Netroots and one that could well prove to be "the" end point of the Republic.

Like other losses (cf: Lamont, Ned), this one is being characterized by many as a "victory," because it continued the learning curve of Netroots-movement activists, who are always delighted to do Lessons Learned exercises and to crow their progress in the face of the Implacable Foe. Losses? Feh. Struggle on! We may lose all the battles, but at least the battles were engaged and we've been noticed!!!, so eventually, somewhere down the road, we'll win the war! Yay!

Uhhh.... Well, maybe. I'm certainly not going to encourage anyone to give up the struggle, and every little bit helps, but what galls is the notion that losses are actually victories. They are not.

Joe Lieberman is still in the Senate, still wreaking havoc, and still parading around with his new BFF, Senator "Scarlett" McCain. The Lamont campaign was no "victory." No matter how it is spun.

The FISA campaign was another kettle of fish. There seemed to be two entirely separate tracks -- that of Congress and the Regime, and that of the Netroots; trains on those tracks bumped one another from time to time, but they never really collided, and the Congressional train to FISA "reform" was never stopped nor even in jeopardy of being stopped.

The Congressional/Regime Train could be characterised as a plush Pullman Palace Car affair, not necessarily moving at any great speed, though there were moments of acceleration, mostly just grandly chugging along, waiters and porters and such taking care of the passengers, crystal and silver shining, Power exuding.

The Netroots, by contrast, were on a handcar, bravely pumping away, constantly having to stop to catch their breath before the next burst of furious pumping to try to catch up. Which they never really did. But now and then the tracks came close enough for the Netroots to hurl a rock or two at the windows of the Palace Car, or even to bump the outside of it with a shoulder.

It was brave. And for that, kudos aplenty.

But the effect of all this bravery was minor at best, and at worst it merely solidified the intractability of the foes inside the Palace Car.

That's what happens all the time, unfortunately. The blogs have become a nuisance to the would-be aristos, but no more than that. A nuisance gets "noticed", yes, but "notice" doesn't necessarily lead to progress.

And it's never really clear that "progress" as such is the goal in any case. Everything seems to start over, from scratch, every time the Netroots goes up against the Powers That Be -- Congress, generally speaking, but occasionally corporate and media interests as well. Every action is declared a "win" even when nothing much is accomplished. And most aspects of the consolidation of power in the elites is simply dismissed in the frenzy of the current struggle.

That consolidation of power really hasn't been affected at all over the years of Netroots agitation. Instead, as the Bushevik regime winds down, their consolidation of power into an Autocracy, seems to pick up speed.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Netroots-movement is not a popular movement at all; it is an elite movement, encompassing an interest group that is largely libertarian (not necessarily "liberal"), mostly informed by lawyers, for whom the argument is the main thing, not "winning" or "losing."

As long as the argument advances, "victory" can be -- and is -- declared.

Meanwhile, in the Real World...

Marcy Wheeler has an interesting insight with regard to the FISA debacle, however:

But what we didn't do, I think, was account for the fact that a significant chunk of legislators believe they are in the business of crafting compromises, no matter how outrageous one side of the debate is. That is, while we were successful in working with key legislators (Dodd and Feingold above all) to argue that the issues at stake--and the Constitution--had to be beyond compromise, that didn't stop a solid chunk of Democrats from seeking compromise anyway.

Indeed. I'd go farther. It wasn't just compromise on this bill. The interests of legislators was much broader than that. This bill was almost a sideshow to them. What they were after was compromise that began to restore relevance to the Congress after years of being treated like the ultimate red-headed stepchild. And by their own lights, they did a superb job.

There were minor adjustments in this bill to satisfy Congressional (not necessarily public) interests, but the bigger compromise was on the War Supplemental, where Bush caved in completely on the GI Bill, VA funding, NOLA levee repairs and unemployment compensation. That's where Congress reasserted itself and won, at least to their way of looking at things, and that's why they were all puffed up with Glory over the FISA "compromise." All of this has to do with restoring Congress's prerogatives, and to some extent their constitutional role. That's the important compromise to them.

The Netroots doesn't even recognize it. The obsessive focus on the FISA measure meant that the other moving parts of this creaking -- and largely failing -- machine were ignored, are still being ignored, and what's actually happening in the broader context is practically unknown.

The FISA fight was important to Congress, but not for the reasons the Netroots may think. This was a fight over prerogatives, not over substance. Those prerogatives had been given up or taken away over many years; Congress is trying to get them back, and with them, they're trying to get back some of their lost dignity. 9%! Come on.

The Netroots doesn't recognize that.

Marcy talks a lot about wanting to influence legislation, and it's vital to understand how to do that. One of the first requirements is to understand what the real interests of the Legislators are. In the case of Congress, those real interests include preserving and restoring traditional prerogatives and forging legislation that takes into account a variety of considerations and interests, "compromise" legislation in other words.

Got a Revolution!

The Revolution has been going on since Reagan's advent; it's been consolidated and perfected under the Bushevik regime, to the point where, now, with the triumphant passage of the FISA "reform" measure, the Reagan --->Bushevik Revolution is all but complete.

There is no Republic any more, and there will be no return to what Our Founders had in mind. That experiment is over.

There cannot be a "Revolution" from this point on, at least not for a generation or more; now there can only be accommodation, assimilation, or civil war. But if there is a civil war, it will come from the darker regions of the right, not from the left, for the left has been wholly neutered. The very idea of physical struggle disturbs Modern Progressives; if it can't be argued rationally, without physical action or struggle, it is not a valid premise, it is not worthy of Serious Consideration, it is not real.

With no rising from the Left (such as remains of a Left in this country) and the only likely physical struggle against assimilation into the Imperium coming from the right, we are in for some interesting times indeed.

[Note: For those who don't click through the YouTube video above, it's a performance by Marty Balin and Slick Aguilar in April of 2008 at the Turning Point Cafe in Piermont, NY. For those who aren't old enough to remember, Marty Balin was a member of Jefferson Airplane, a seminal counterculture band of the '60's. When there was a... Revolution. "Volunteers of America" was one of the anthems of that... Revolution. And Marty's still out there performing it. Heh.]

What's Really Going On

Bewildering, innit?

A Congress that is utterly immune to persuasion by DFH's like us, but ever yielding to the Powers and to the Interests and to the Busheviks. A presidency that has been successfully and almost completely transformed into a Sovereign Autocracy, accountable to no one, not even to the Divine. Courts that persnicket on minutae, when they bother with anything. Or order vast upsets in procedures, orders that are then subverted or ignored. And -- of course -- appoint their favorites to office.

Worst of all, we have two candidates for the (Imperial) Presidency who seem to be vague at best when not openly hostile to the whole idea of a self-governing constitutional republic such as the one Americans used to take some pride in.

Our Constitution has become an option; a rough guide you might say. Law is for the Little People, and even then only selectively, based primarily on race and gender. Government continues consolidating its independence from The People, offering whatever blandishments are necessary during Election Season, then promptly ignoring them when push and shove meet.

So what's really going on? Why can't we get through to these people we put in office. Why do so many Dems turn into Blue Dogs once elected? Why are the Republicans able to control the Congress almost effortlessly under putative Democratic leadership? And why is a gravely unstable president given everything he wants and then some by a supposed opposition party?

What the hell is really going on?

Part of the answer may be found in a BBC series by Adam Curtis called "The Century of the Self" which ran a while back (2002). The proposition is that our Sham Democracy is actually a "managed democracy" in which mass psychology is used (and abused) by political, economic and social interests, using theories and techniques pioneered during WWI and afterwards by Sigmund Freud, his nephew Edward Bernays, and others, to create and maintain a society of consumers rather than citizens and to prevent -- so far as possible -- the outbreak of nationalist/populist risings in the English-speaking countries and the world (to the extent the "world" is recognized by English-speaking countries.)

Here's the first episode of four:



Links to further episodes:

Part II

Part III

Part IV

While I think some of it is superficial and even silly, there are some fundamental truths in Curtis's hypothesis that we overlook at our peril.

The Western Elites were horrified by the carnage of WWI and they were terrified by the overthrow of Tsarist Russia and the advent of the Soviet Union -- an advent which led to seventy years of "Communist Threat" to their pelth and status.

An "answer" to this threat was found in the psychological theories of Sigmund Freud and the marketing theories of Edward Bernays. Instead of "citizens" the Western ideal would be to turn the masses into "consumers" and to direct and control their darker impulses and desires, as well as their "democracies", through marketing.

The Fascists and Nazis took this basic premise way over the edge, controlling the masses almost completely through brutality, through promises of a brighter and greater future, fulfilling demands for order, for honor (patriotism), for consumer items, and by scapegoating specific minorities for all the troubles the masses had had to endure. The Fascists and Nazis used the same ideas of the Western Elites, but used them to further populist and nationalist interests. This was a threat to English-speaking countries, and there was a second phase of the War to End All Wars as a consequence. The Fascists and Nazis were crushed or absorbed; the Communists, however, made massive headway.

As a result, the West turned to "directed democracy" and spreading consumerism throughout the world as a means to co-opt the desires of the masses for control of their own futures and a better life, which they often believed were more likely through Communism than through the agency of Capitalist Democracy.

Even though the Soviet Union has been vanquished and the "Red" Chinese have become perhaps the greatest capitalists in the world, our elites still operate on the theories of Freud and Bernays, on the principles of consumerism as opposed to citizenship, and on the premise that "directed democracy" is best.

This is a major reason why We, the People are not able to get through to our elected elites, and why, in some measure, they have withdrawn behind the Palace Gates to twitter among themselves about how our future should be managed. It's one reason why Obama has seemed to do such a turn about since securing enough Democratic delegates to be nominated. It's one reason why electing more Democrats means electing more Blue Dogs, not "progressives", whether you think you're electing Blue Dogs or not.

We can do a long dissertation on why Progressivism has been marginalized, and why Progressives are ignored (except for their financial contributions to candidates), but the key is to understand what our elected officials themselves think they are doing, and why they think it is best to do that.

This series, "The Century of the Self", helps that understanding in ways that our ruling classes may not even comprehend themselves.

Brazil! Brazil! Brazil!

The Imperial Surveillance State only lacks the requisite festival in the Rose Garden to be complete.

Our Congress has abrogated its authority, the Imperial Executive has declared the Constitution "optional," and the Courts look on with frequent bemused indifference.

The People, for their part, are still largely oblivious, noticing little has changed in their daily lives except for the obnoxious intrusions of "security procedures" at airports and train stations. Well, of course, one yields. It would be rude to do otherwise.

The Busheviks have nearly consolidated their neo-con replacement for the Republic our Flag once proudly flew over and to which we pledged our allegiance. "We are an Empire now..."



And now our allegiance had better be to the King/Emperor, whomever he or she is, or... else?

Well, that remains to be seen, doesn't it?

Best to have a plan, though...

Oil? What Oil? Whatyou talkin' about, Oil?

Laura Flanders and James Paul explain it all for you on GRITtv:

Doughoregan

A collateral relative lives in the formerly rural Maryland Manor House seen above. He is a direct descendant of a Signer of the Declaration of Independence who went on to serve in the United States Senate after the Constitution was enacted. The house was built by the Signer, beginning around 1760 and continuing with various additions and adjustments until about 1820. It sits on 100 acres or so, all that is left of the formerly vast plantation acreage that once surrounded it. You can see DC/Baltimore suburban development encroaching.

This house is the only Revolutionary era residence still in the hands of descendants of the Revolutionaries who built it. And the current descendant bars public access entirely, not simply barring access to the house, but even to the edges of the property itself, having closed off the formerly public road that passes well beyond the house. In fact, the house is invisible from the road. That the public can no longer traverse. He not only bars the public, he bars other family descendants!

Yet he has the nerve to demand millions of dollars from the county and from the State of Maryland to preserve the house and its grounds, or else, he says, he'll sell it for what he can get and tell Maryland and the county to go hang. Well. All I can say is that he is true to the spitfire character of his ancestors, and to their tendency to withdraw into hermitage as they enter their dottage.

In fact, his behavior is so much like my own father's as he got up in years, I have to laugh.

My ancestors were the only Catholics who served in the Congresses that declared independence and created the Constitution. I like to think they had something to do with the urge to Revolution (they being dispossessed Irish Catholic aristocracy and all) and with the Bill of Rights, and I've read some indications that that's the case, in that their money funded the Revolutionary armies, their sense of outraged honor informed the Declaration, the religious persecution they endured led to their strong belief in freedom of religion and religious conscience, something almost unheard of, even among persecuted Catholics, back in the day.

You can see the chapel attached on the right to the manor house above. It was for many years the parish church for the area, when the manor was in more accommodating hands. But it was built as part of the manor when Catholic churches were illegal and celebrating Mass, even in private, was forbidden.






















It was built in defiance, in other words, of British restrictions on Catholic observance. A crypto-Revolutionary act well before the outbreak of hostilities between the Colonies and the Crown.

There would be many others and there would be more after Independence. The stories I heard when I was young about the conflicts and feuds between my ancestors and Thomas Jefferson -- disputes that went on for decades -- were certainly illuminating. And of course the genetic contrariness in my make up is often apparent in my own life.

I know where it comes from.

But every Fourth of July, I do think about the world my ancestors came from and the world they sought to create through the vehicle of the United States of America. It was to be, and it largely is, something better than the world they came from but only partially left behind.

As grotesquely as it has been perverted by the characters infesting the White House and its offshoots throughout the government, the idea of America, and the ideals of the Founders still resonate among the People and around the world. The Founders started us on a path that had many pitfalls, and from which we have too often veered. We may not be able to revive the Republic the Founders left us, but perhaps, just maybe, we can create a New Republic based on their model.

Right now we're stuck with Empire and all its many enervations and disasters. Americans do not do Empire well. The Republic is gone. Finding the right way forward will take time, dedication, and clear vision, something we may be blessed with eventually, but not something we can command into being.

It's a desultory Fourth all in all. I wish it weren't.

Hail! The Fourth of July, 2008

(Note: Tomorrow is my father's 107th birthday. And his father was born in 1869, and his father was born in 1833. Another generation back takes us to 1799, and the one before that takes us to the Revolution and what led up to it. I have ancestors who were more than a little involved in the doings of the day that led to the Revolution and who followed through to the establishment of the Constitutional republic we now find so nearly extinguished. I greet today's Independence Day with a heavy heart...)

Several things re: Obama and such

We're well into the full transition from Republic to Empire. The presidency has become a competitive monarchy (you could say "elective" but that would be something of a stretch, as elections really aren't what they appear to be) that the Bush crew has transformed into an autocracy. Neither of the major party candidates has any particular interest in changing those conditions. No, they would much rather use and expand those conditions to make further changes to consolidate the changes that have already been made.

There is no going back with either Barack or McCain; both see a future of Imperial Greatness. Going along with it is a fundamental of national political success. You cannot question it and become president. It's that simple.

Until recently, I thought Obama was doing what he thought he had to do to win the throne. Now I'm not so sure. His endless tacking to the right is not advisable -- and certainly not necessary -- if he truly wants to win in November. He's been moving closer and closer to McCain's positions, almost as if he is trying to take over those positions, and run as the Republican candidate. To say this is dissonant is to be charitable.

No, this is something else again. In the primaries, he ran to the right of Clinton on a number of issues, and he barely won enough delegates (pledged and super) to secure the nomination. Now he's moving way to the right, into nearly Republican territory, and he's apparently quite consciously and deliberately alienating the base that got him to where he is today. He apparently believes he does not need the support of his activist base any more.

And maybe he doesn't -- if he doesn't intend to win.

And that's what I have a deep suspicion is going on: he doesn't intend to win. Perhaps he never did, or perhaps something "changed" when he secured enough delegates to get the nomination. But his actions and behavior since then have been distinctly peculiar and widely and rightly (in my view) questioned and sometimes condemned. The spin and the excuses coming out of the Obama camp have been largely transparent.

We've all known candidates who stayed true to their principles in hard-fought campaigns and lost, or as the case may be, won. They made clear what they stood for and what they intended to do once they were in office. If they lost, they lost well; if they won, they did -- insofar as they could -- what they said they would. Candidates like this are found in all parties, and while we may not agree with them in every case, they tend to get our respect, for they at least are honest, even if they may be wrong. It is simply not true that all politicians are craven deceivers.

Well. We've got a situation with Obama where he seemed to somewhat less craven and deceptive that Clinton, and he certainly spoke in soaring and heartfelt terms about hope and possibility. He was able to put together one of the most successful internet and ground campaigns in the history of Democratic politics, and he demonstrated that the Clinton "machine" was getting creaky and running out of gas.

And now we see a candidate who has all but turned his back on the very elements that got him the presumptive nomination. Quite a transformation.

And now we see, too, the glimmerings of a movement to take the nomination from him for his acts of betrayal. Surely he understands it could happen. The nomination is not decided until the convention. Is it what he wants to happen? Some of his actions really make me wonder.

More than anything, though, it should be obvious by now that whoever sits on the Throne intends to rule, not simply reign, and the quaint notions of a self governing constitutional republic set forth by the Founders are out of step with contemporary reality.

We're not at the edge of a cliff; we went over it a long time ago, and we are nearly at the bottom, almost completely reverted to pre-Revolutionary notions of governance by fiat and decree, with periodic "advice" from representatives of the People, advice to be followed or ignored as the spirit moves the King.

Steve Schmidt

There are certain people in any political campaign who set the overall standard for the course of that campaign. Sometimes it's the candidate, but typically it is the leading campaign consultant, and the McCain campaign has just promoted Steve Schmidt to that position (he's been with the McCain campaign for quite a while, but has not been in charge.)

And who is Steve Schmidt? This is from Newsweek's campaign blog by Andrew Romano:

So what should we expect from Schmidt? A bald, barrel-chested "partisan pugilist" who labored under Karl Rove on Bush's 2004 bid--he also ran Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's reelection campaign--McCain's new guru "speaks in pre-fabricated, consumable, sharp morsels," according to Marc Ambinder. "McCain has learned from Schmidt that it's OK not to be a referee, that it's OK not to play the judge, that it's OK to draw contrasts with your opponents." In other words, he's learned to be an effective (if more traditional) Republican presidential candidate. Schmidt, 37, lacks his predecessors' deep emotional ties to the boss, so he's more likely to assess (and correct) the candidate's weaknesses with the objective eye of an outsider. That in mind, expect tighter message discipline from McCain--two other Rove vets, Nicole Wallace and Greg Jenkins, have joined McCain's communications team--and crisper, more consistent attacks on Obama, whom the campaign plans to paint as an unprincipled opportunist (in contrast to McCain, who "puts his country first"). Think more "professional." After all, it was Bush's Brain who gave Schmidt his nickname: "Bullet."

Will it help? Who knows. That said, if McCain is still trailing Obama by six points in the polls at the end of the summer, don't be surprised if he calls on John Weaver to, you know, recapture the magic of 2000.

Doesn't tell you all that much, but some personal experience might help to understand how this Rovian creep operates.

Back in 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for Governor of California against Phil Angelides. Angelides was way in the lead, though he was not well known outside the Sacramento area where he had been a successful real estate developer and served two terms as California State Treasurer. His lead against Schwarzenegger was based on the fact that he was a Democrat (and California has a large Democratic voter majority) and the fact that he had a very well thought out and laid out liberal agenda in opposition to what was then Schwarzenegger's crabbed and bullying "conservative" agenda.

The White House sent Schmidt and Matt Dowd out from Washington (where they primarily served the Cheney Office) to take care of Angelides and get Schwarzenegger re-elected in a landslide, which they immediately proceeded to do.

Dowd essentially remade Schwarzenegger's "brand" by turning him into a thoughtful, caring, compassionate quasi-liberal, while Schmidt worked the press masterfully by spreading smears and innuendo and lies about Angelides that many Californians still believe.

In fact, as soon as Dowd and Schmidt arrived in California, the media in the state adopted a virulently anti-Angelides narrative, all of them simultaneously, and obviously favored Schwarzenegger whom they had largely dismissed after his titanic failure to pass any of his "reform" initiatives in the 2005 election.

Within days we saw movement in the polls, away from Angelides and toward Schwarzenegger. By summer it was essentially over. Angelides was being crushed -- after starting out with quite a substantial lead -- and Schwarzenegger was very successfully remade from a mean and mean spirited Neanderthal into a Brand New Man.

Worked like a charm.

Obviously Schmidt's job on the McCain campaign has focused on media, and it will continue to. We've already seen some signs of what that focus can do: the utter frenzy recently unleashed by the media in response to Wes Clark suggesting on Face the Nation that being shot down over Vietnam and being held prisoner by the North Vietnamese was not in and of itself a qualification to be president.

We're seeing more of it right now: the concerted effort throughout the media to label Obama an opportunist and flip-flopper. We will see much more of it as the summer wears on, with the upshot likely to be a grand smear campaign, relentless and wearing, starting the day after the Democratic nomination.

Given the fact that Obama himself has given Schmidt et al plenty of ammunition of late, what with his various reversals and position "refinements", it's quite likely that McCain will rise in the polls as a consequence. He could well rise to the point where he is unbeatable. And it could happen very fast.

It would be nice if those who are advising the Obama campaign had any inkling, but they seem quite oblivious. They should have gotten out in front of what is to come a long time ago. Instead they have been forthrightly telling their candidate to tack to the right on issue after issue (after he already ran a camapaign largely to the right of Hillary and all the other Dems and barely won enough delegates to secure the nomination). At the rate he has been transforming himself into a Republican -- as opposed to just a conservative Democrat -- McCain can market himself as the "liberal".

It's absurd.

But there you are.

Re-Bama!

He's getting hammered. Hard. By his Base of internet progressives primarily but not exclusively. He's been "moving to the center" -- according to the politcal CW -- and in doing so has been cutting off his most enthusiastic supporters who now say they will not contribute another dime.

Indeed.

This Moving to the Center is really moving to the right, becoming more and more a neo-con enabler if not a clone. It is what Democrats do, inevitably. They have to Distance Themselves from their Base or they can't be taken Seriously by the Powers That Be, and even then, they can't win for losing.

When Obama said he'd vote for the FISA "reform" measure whether or not telecom immunity was stripped from the bill, I thought he was just doing more of what he had to in order to prove to the Powers that he was a member of the club just like them and would be reliable in the interests of Empire and Autocracy.

But then he kept doing things, such as approving Scalia-made SCOTUS decisions, supporting Bush-Dog Democrats, repudiating Wesley Clark's comments regarding McCain, condemning MoveOn.org, dissing protestors from days of yore, adopting more right wing rhetoric and cant, and promising to expand the Bushevik "faith-based" initiative, while protecting wealth and privilege. And all the time, these actions and more were being furiously spun by Obamabots as nothing to worry about, just the way things are in Politics, get used to it, no harm no foul, quit whining, etc.

No. This is simply wrong.

That's a word that's simply not used enough on our side of the aisle.

WRONG.

There's a fear that passing judgement on the action of one politician might lead to judgement being applied to all politicians, and who would want that? So Dems, as a rule, never judge another's actions. They may disagree, but to call it "wrong"? No. Too rude by half.

Yet what Obama has done is WRONG, no matter the spinning of his flacks and toadies, sychophants and fanboys. Even if this is "who he really is and has always been." Many of us know that, knew it all along, yet to see him behave this way, so transparently, is still a shock.

I understand he's walked back some of his earlier denunciation of Gen. Clark's comments, but if the Rev Wright affair is any guide, Clark will speak out again sometime, and Obama will have to issue a full throated and complete denunciation of Clark (and of course take him off any short list for the VP slot or a cabinet position, which is the whole point of the OUTRAGE~!® against what he said anyway. The Busheviks are askeert of someone like Clark in a Democratic administration.)

He is to be the Right's Bitch, just like most other Democrats. He seems to be willing enough.

Which led me to conclude he's actually throwing the game, right before our eyes. He has no intention of winning in November, he'll do whatever it takes to hand the baton to McCain, and he'll go back to the Senate a happy man. No doubt showered with many rewards. There was even a moment when I thought he wasn't even going to get the nomination.

This is not Politics as Usual. This is Post-Modern Politics, where little or nothing is as it seems, and pols and their consultants and handlers are horsetrading the nation without the consent of -- or even the knowledge of -- the People.

Many Obama supporters are claiming that their man is making brilliant plays in order to win and overwhelming victory. It's nothing of the kind. It is transparent submission.

He's given up.

Well, maybe I'm wrong. It remains to be seen.