Wednesday, January 20, 2021
Tuesday, January 19, 2021
Revealed: White House liaison sought derogatory info on E Jean Carroll from DoJ official
Revelation raises prospect that president’s allies were pressing DoJ to dig up potentially damaging info on Trump accuser
Trump with his second wife, Marla Maples, and their daughter Tiffany, around the time he raped E. Jean Carroll, 1995/1996.
Trump, Melania, and their son, Barron, around the time when Trump was having sex with porn star Stormy Daniels.
Carroll around the time of the alleged rape.
Trump, once Mr. Beauty Pageant Promoter himself, said Carroll was not his type ... even though, in 1964, representing Indiana University, Carroll won the Miss Cheerleader USA title.
Monday, June 24, 2019
Beirut-based novelist Dominique Eddé on Lebanese miracles and Edward Said
From New York Review of Books' Matt Seaton on June 22, 2019:
On Wednesday we published an essay by the Beirut-based novelist Dominique Eddéthat was an exasperated love-letter to her city of residence and her country of birth, Lebanon—a place she describes as “all extremes and all clumped together.” To this noisy synthesis of contradictions Eddé brings a delicious facility for a kind of riddling aphorism. “In Lebanon,” she writes, “everything can be explained and nothing can be understood.” By her account, “every Lebanese invents a personal Lebanon for a country that does not exist.”
In light of that, my first question for her, as someone who has lived in Rome (where she worked for a branch of the UN) and in Paris (where she worked, first, for Éditions du Seuil, and later practiced as a psychotherapist), was where she feels most at home. “Home, for me, is less a matter of a country than a matter of love surrounded by some beauty. It can be almost anywhere,” she replied. “I fully agree with [Edward] Said, quoting Adorno: ‘It is part of morality not to feel at home in one’s home.’”
All this whetted my appetite for her forthcoming book in English, to be published by Verso in August, Edward Said: His Thought As a Novel. Eddé’s same love of paradox seems evident in that subtitle, since the book sounds less a novel than an intellectual memoir about her long and close friendship with the celebrated Palestinian-American professor, who died at the age of sixty-seven in 2003. “Said’s entire mental universe is grounded in novels,” she explained to me this week via email. “Conrad’s, to begin with. James, Austen, Tolstoy, or Flaubert were as important, if not more so, than Vico or Foucault in the weaving of his thought. These novelists and their characters became major companions in his own life.”
Photo by Augustine Doublet
Among Said’s score and more of books, which—arguably more than those of any other intellectual of the late twentieth century—established the field of postcolonial study in comparative literature, Orientalism (1978) still casts the longest shadow. Indeed, that was precisely the premise of Adam Shatz’s recent essay for the Daily, “‘Orientalism,’ Then and Now.” But beside this donnée, I wondered what Eddé most cherished in his work.
“His way of moving from politics to literature to music, his love of counterpoint. His own ‘late style’ is my favorite,” was her answer, also referring to his posthumously published meditation on music and literature, On Late Style (2004). “The more he knew, read, wrote, experienced, suffered, the more subtle and precise he became. He passed away at the moment when the form and the content of his writing reached their peak.” And with this came a way of seeing, Eddé said, that had “very little hope but no resignation.”
This perception chimed with something else of hers I’d read recently, an article for the Lebanese newspaper L’Orient–Le Jour (available in English via Verso) in the form of an open letter to the conservative French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut after he’d suffered anti-Semitic abuse at the hands of gilets jaunes protesters in Paris. While expressing her sympathy yet defining her own sharp political differences with him, she talked about the need for “the renunciation of the ideal.” I was curious to learn what she meant by that—an idea of restraint, the necessity for realism?
“The ideal includes, by definition, a denial of reality that could turn easily into a denial of the Other,” she elaborated. “It can keep one trapped in adolescence, in sort of a narcissism that refuses to take death for what it is: the absolute and equal limit.”
This interested me with regard to Edward Said’s political evolution. I recall feeling perplexed, even disappointed, by what I saw then as his growing intransigence over Israel–Palestine in later years. How did she square his critical attitude toward the peace process in the 1990s with such a renunciation of the ideal?
“His rejection of the Oslo Agreements was not the luxury of a radical mind,” she argued. “It was based on facts—and it proved to be right. He was very critical of both the Palestinian Authority’s corruption and incompetence and of the Israeli and American arrogance, colonial mindset, and policies.” And yet, she insisted, “Said was much too aware of human contradictions and paradoxes not to acknowledge the necessity of taking the other side's memory into account. He struggled for a peace that would be rooted in reciprocity.”
Which returned us nicely to what Eddé describes in her essay as “the Lebanese miracle”—the unexpected, improbable moments of friendship and connection. Or, as she put it better: “A sort of shared pleasure in saying the same thing differently.”
On Wednesday we published an essay by the Beirut-based novelist Dominique Eddéthat was an exasperated love-letter to her city of residence and her country of birth, Lebanon—a place she describes as “all extremes and all clumped together.” To this noisy synthesis of contradictions Eddé brings a delicious facility for a kind of riddling aphorism. “In Lebanon,” she writes, “everything can be explained and nothing can be understood.” By her account, “every Lebanese invents a personal Lebanon for a country that does not exist.”
In light of that, my first question for her, as someone who has lived in Rome (where she worked for a branch of the UN) and in Paris (where she worked, first, for Éditions du Seuil, and later practiced as a psychotherapist), was where she feels most at home. “Home, for me, is less a matter of a country than a matter of love surrounded by some beauty. It can be almost anywhere,” she replied. “I fully agree with [Edward] Said, quoting Adorno: ‘It is part of morality not to feel at home in one’s home.’”
All this whetted my appetite for her forthcoming book in English, to be published by Verso in August, Edward Said: His Thought As a Novel. Eddé’s same love of paradox seems evident in that subtitle, since the book sounds less a novel than an intellectual memoir about her long and close friendship with the celebrated Palestinian-American professor, who died at the age of sixty-seven in 2003. “Said’s entire mental universe is grounded in novels,” she explained to me this week via email. “Conrad’s, to begin with. James, Austen, Tolstoy, or Flaubert were as important, if not more so, than Vico or Foucault in the weaving of his thought. These novelists and their characters became major companions in his own life.”
Photo by Augustine Doublet
Among Said’s score and more of books, which—arguably more than those of any other intellectual of the late twentieth century—established the field of postcolonial study in comparative literature, Orientalism (1978) still casts the longest shadow. Indeed, that was precisely the premise of Adam Shatz’s recent essay for the Daily, “‘Orientalism,’ Then and Now.” But beside this donnée, I wondered what Eddé most cherished in his work.
“His way of moving from politics to literature to music, his love of counterpoint. His own ‘late style’ is my favorite,” was her answer, also referring to his posthumously published meditation on music and literature, On Late Style (2004). “The more he knew, read, wrote, experienced, suffered, the more subtle and precise he became. He passed away at the moment when the form and the content of his writing reached their peak.” And with this came a way of seeing, Eddé said, that had “very little hope but no resignation.”
This perception chimed with something else of hers I’d read recently, an article for the Lebanese newspaper L’Orient–Le Jour (available in English via Verso) in the form of an open letter to the conservative French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut after he’d suffered anti-Semitic abuse at the hands of gilets jaunes protesters in Paris. While expressing her sympathy yet defining her own sharp political differences with him, she talked about the need for “the renunciation of the ideal.” I was curious to learn what she meant by that—an idea of restraint, the necessity for realism?
“The ideal includes, by definition, a denial of reality that could turn easily into a denial of the Other,” she elaborated. “It can keep one trapped in adolescence, in sort of a narcissism that refuses to take death for what it is: the absolute and equal limit.”
This interested me with regard to Edward Said’s political evolution. I recall feeling perplexed, even disappointed, by what I saw then as his growing intransigence over Israel–Palestine in later years. How did she square his critical attitude toward the peace process in the 1990s with such a renunciation of the ideal?
“His rejection of the Oslo Agreements was not the luxury of a radical mind,” she argued. “It was based on facts—and it proved to be right. He was very critical of both the Palestinian Authority’s corruption and incompetence and of the Israeli and American arrogance, colonial mindset, and policies.” And yet, she insisted, “Said was much too aware of human contradictions and paradoxes not to acknowledge the necessity of taking the other side's memory into account. He struggled for a peace that would be rooted in reciprocity.”
Which returned us nicely to what Eddé describes in her essay as “the Lebanese miracle”—the unexpected, improbable moments of friendship and connection. Or, as she put it better: “A sort of shared pleasure in saying the same thing differently.”
Schiff: Trump’s Top Reason For Wanting A Second Term Might Be To Avoid Prison
From HuffPo:
Schiff: Trump’s Top Reason For Wanting A Second Term Might Be To Avoid Prison
“Individual 1” could face years in prison like his fixer Michael Cohen, but the statute of limitations for that crime would run out during a second White House term.
Schiff: Trump’s Top Reason For Wanting A Second Term Might Be To Avoid Prison
“Individual 1” could face years in prison like his fixer Michael Cohen, but the statute of limitations for that crime would run out during a second White House term.
New Poll Shows Dems Crushing Trump — And Not Just Biden
And think what the polls will be once Dem voters start to be reminded of Biden's disastrous legislative and campaigning past. This poll suggests that we can safely back all of the candidates who don't have disastrous legislative and campaigning pasts ... because they are clearly more electable than racist, sexist, WS-ass-kisser, lying, handsy, egomaniac Biden. We want a Dem candidate that is significantly different and better than Trump.
From Talking Points Memo:
New Poll Shows Dems Crushing Trump — And Not Just Biden, By Josh Marshall, June 11, 2019.
"The new poll has Biden beating Trump 53%-40%, really blowout territory. As usual, Sanders is also strong but a touch behind (51%-42%).
But look at these other numbers: Harris, 49% to 41% over Trump; Warren 49% to 42%; Buttigieg 47%-42%."
From Talking Points Memo:
New Poll Shows Dems Crushing Trump — And Not Just Biden, By Josh Marshall, June 11, 2019.
"The new poll has Biden beating Trump 53%-40%, really blowout territory. As usual, Sanders is also strong but a touch behind (51%-42%).
But look at these other numbers: Harris, 49% to 41% over Trump; Warren 49% to 42%; Buttigieg 47%-42%."
An excellent argument for impeachment from The Guardian's Heather Cox Richardson
Donald Trump said he was different from Nixon because Nixon left. ‘I don’t leave,’ Trump said. ‘Big difference. I don’t leave.’ Photograph: The Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum (National Archives and Records Administration)
The historical argument for impeaching Trump
Heather Cox Richardson
Since Nixon, Republicans have pushed the envelope under the guise of ‘patriotism’, and Democrats have tolerated it because of ‘civility’
MoJo's Much-Needed Corruption Initiative
From Mother Jones:
Corruption Isn’t Just Another Scandal. It’s the Rot Beneath All of Them.
Here’s why we’re launching a new investigative project.
MONIKA BAUERLEIN AND CLARA JEFFERY
APRIL 24, 2019
No Joe! Joe Biden’s disastrous legislative legacy. By Andrew Cockburn. Harper's Magazine, June 23, 2019.
Andrew Cockburn gives us an excellent short history of Biden's disastrous career. Any Democrat who actually reads the whole article should come away believing that the idea that Biden is at all electable, and the best choice to beat Trump in 2020, is a potentially devastating myth, much like the 2016 myth that Hillary Clinton was the best choice for the nomination.
The Dem leadership seems to want to pick the most right-wing candidate possible and hope that enough liberal Dems are disgusted more by the GOP candidate to actually vote. But for Russian interference, this tactic would have worked in 2016. It will not work in 2020:
"Regardless of the current election cycle’s endgame, though, it’s safe to assume that [Biden's] undimmed ego will never permit any reflection on whether voters who have been eagerly voting for change will ever really settle for Uncle Joe, champion of yesterday’s sordid compromises."
It seems to me that it would be a lot smarter to put forward a candidate who does not have a disastrous legislative and campaigning history, and who does not say and do idiotic and morally corrupt things on a regular basis.
(All emphases below are mine.)
Senator Joe Biden huddles with Senator Strom Thurmond after the Judiciary Committee voted 7–7 on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, September 1991 © AP Photo/John Duricka
By Andrew Cockburn. Harper's Magazine, June 23, 2019.
... Despite pleas from the NAACP and the ACLU, the 1990s brought no relief from Biden’s crime crusade. He vied with the first Bush Administration to introduce ever more draconian laws, including one proposing to expand the number of offenses for which the death penalty would be permitted to fifty-one. Bill Clinton quickly became a reliable ally upon his 1992 election, and Biden encouraged him to “maintain crime as a Democratic initiative” with suitably tough legislation. The ensuing 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, passed with enthusiastic administration pressure, would consign millions of black Americans to a life behind bars.
In subsequent years, as his crime legislation, particularly on mandatory sentences, attracted efforts at reform, Biden began expressing a certain remorse. “I am part of the problem that I have been trying to solve since then, because I think the disparity [between crack and powder cocaine sentences] is way out of line,” he declared at a Senate hearing in 2008. However, there is little indication that his words were matched by actions, especially after he moved to the vice presidency the following year. The executive director of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, Eric Sterling, who worked on the original legislation in the House as a congressional counsel, told me, “During the eight years he was vice president, I never saw him take a leadership role in the area of drug policy, never saw him get out in front on the issue like he did on same-sex marriage, for example. Biden could have taken a stronger line [with Obama] privately or publicly, and he did not.”
While many black Americans will neither forgive nor forget how they, along with relatives and friends, were accorded the lifetime stigma of a felony conviction, many other Americans are only now beginning to count the costs of these viciously repressive initiatives. As a result, criminal justice reform has emerged as a popular issue across the political spectrum, including among conservatives eager to burnish otherwise illiberal credentials. Ironically, this has led, in theory, to a modest unraveling of a portion of Biden’s bipartisan crime-fighting legacy.
... In the near term, it’s unlikely that there will be further bipartisan attempts to chip away at Biden’s legislative legacy, a legacy that includes an inconsistent (to put it mildly) record on abortion rights. Roe v. Wade “went too far,” he told an interviewer in 1974. “I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.” For some years his votes were consistent with that view. He supported the notorious Hyde Amendment prohibiting any and all federal funding for abortions, and fathered the “Biden Amendment” that banned the use of US foreign aid for abortion research.
As the 1980s wore on, however, and Biden’s presidential ambitions started to swell, he began to cast fewer antiabortion votes (with some exceptions) ... Then came Clarence Thomas. Even before Anita Hill reluctantly surfaced with her convincing recollections of unpleasant encounters with the porn-obsessed judge, Biden was fumbling his momentous responsibility of directing the hearings. As Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson report in Strange Justice, their book about the Thomas nomination battle, Biden’s questions were “sometimes so long and convoluted that Thomas would forget what the question was.” Biden prided himself on his legal scholarship, Mayer and Abramson suggest, and thus his questions were often designed “to show off [his] legal acumen rather than to elicit answers.”
More damningly, Biden not only allowed fellow committee members to mount a sustained barrage of vicious attacks on Hill: he wrapped up the hearings without calling at least two potential witnesses who could have convincingly corroborated Hill’s testimony and, by extension, indicated that the nominee had perjured himself on a sustained basis throughout the hearings.
... Biden’s record on race and women did him little damage with the voters of Delaware, who regularly returned him to the Senate with comfortable margins. On race, at least, Biden affected to believe that Delawareans’ views might be closer to those of his old buddy Thurmond than those of the “Northeast liberal” he sometimes claimed to be. “You don’t know my state,” he told Fox as he geared up for his second attempt on the White House in 2006. “My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth-largest black population in the country. My state is anything [but] a Northeast liberal state.” Months later, in front of a largely Republican audience in South Carolina, he joked that the only reason Delaware had fought with the North in the Civil War was “because we couldn’t figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way.”
Whether or not most Delawareans are proud of their slaveholding history, there are some causes that they, or at least the dominant power brokers in the state, hold especially dear. Foremost among them is Delaware’s status as a freewheeling tax haven. State laws have made Delaware the domicile of choice for corporations, especially banks, and it competes for business with more notorious entrepôts such as the Cayman Islands. Over half of all US public companies are legally headquartered there.
“It’s a corporate whore state, of course,” the anonymous former Biden staffer remarked to me offhandedly in a recent conversation. He stressed that in “a small state with thirty-five thousand bank employees, apart from all the lawyers and others from the financial industry,” Biden was never going to stray too far from the industry’s priorities. We were discussing bankruptcy, an issue that has highlighted Biden’s fealty to the banks. Unsurprisingly, Biden was long a willing foot soldier in the campaign to emasculate laws allowing debtors relief from loans they cannot repay. As far back as 1978, he helped negotiate a deal rolling back bankruptcy protections for graduates with federal student loans, and in 1984 worked to do the same for borrowers with loans for vocational schools. Even when the ostensible objective lay elsewhere, such as drug-related crime, Biden did not forget his banker friends. Thus the 1990 Crime Control Act, with Biden as chief sponsor, further limited debtors’ ability to take advantage of bankruptcy protections.
These initiatives, however, were only precursors to the finance lobby’s magnum opus: the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. This carefully crafted flail of the poor made it almost impossible for borrowers to get traditional “clean slate” Chapter 7 bankruptcy, under which debt forgiveness enables people to rebuild their lives and businesses. Instead, the law subjected them to the far harsher provisions of Chapter 13, effectively turning borrowers into indentured servants of institutions like the credit card companies headquartered in Delaware. It made its way onto the statute books after a lopsided 74–25 vote (bipartisanship!), with Biden, naturally, voting in favor.
It was, in fact, the second version of the bill. An earlier iteration had passed Congress in 2000 with Biden’s support, but President Clinton refused to sign it at the urging of the first lady, who had been briefed on its iniquities by Elizabeth Warren. A Harvard Law School professor at the time, Warren witheringly summarized Biden’s advocacy of the earlier bill in a 2002 paper:
"His energetic work on behalf of the credit card companies has earned him the affection of the banking industry and protected him from any well-funded challengers for his Senate seat."
Furthermore, she added tartly, “This important part of Senator Biden’s legislative work also appears to be missing from his Web site and publicity releases.” No doubt coincidentally, the credit card giant MBNA was Biden’s largest contributor for much of his Senate career, while also employing his son Hunter as an executive and, later, as a well-remunerated consultant.
It should go without saying, then, that Biden was among the ninety senators on one of the fatal (to the rest of us) legislative gifts presented to Wall Street back in the Clinton era: the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999. The act repealed the hallowed Depression-era Glass–Steagall legislation that severed investment banking from commercial banking, thereby permitting the combined operations to gamble with depositors’ money, and ultimately ushering in the 2008 crash. “The worst vote I ever cast in my entire time in the United States Senate,” admitted Biden in December 2016, as he prepared to leave office. Seventeen years too late, he explained that the act had “allowed banks with deposits to take on risky investments, putting the whole system at risk.”
... Biden’s claims of experience on the world stage, therefore, cannot be denied. True, the experience has been routinely disastrous for those on the receiving end, but on the other hand, that is a common fate for those subjected, under any administration, to the operations of our foreign policy apparatus.
... Given Biden’s all too evident shortcomings in the fields of domestic and foreign policy, defenders inevitably retreat to the “electability” argument, which contends that he is the only Democrat on the horizon capable of beating Trump—a view that Biden, naturally, endorses.
... Another gaffe helped upend Biden’s second White House bid, in 2007, when he referred to Barack Obama in patronizing terms as “the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
... Regardless of the current election cycle’s endgame, though, it’s safe to assume that his undimmed ego will never permit any reflection on whether voters who have been eagerly voting for change will ever really settle for Uncle Joe, champion of yesterday’s sordid compromises.
Friday, June 21, 2019
Eric Anders and Mark O'Bitz release "Join the Fight"
Eric Anders and Mark O'Bitz released "Join the Fight" with the hope that one of the progressive Democratic candidates would pick it up as a campaign song. It didn't work. Bernie? Elizabeth? Pete? Kamala? Here are the lyrics and credits:
Join the Fight
(Anders, O’Bitz 2019)
From the start
If we all play it right
Shouldn’t have
To fight to stay alive
To get what we need
And to bring it home every night
Shouldn’t have to fight
For our basic rights
But now it’s time to fight, our fight
It’s our time and our rights, alright
It’s time to join the fight
I hope we set it right
From our start
There were never equal rights
“Self evident”
If “self” is male and white
Even then only money men
Ever could secure their rights
And so we had to fight
With no end in sight
And now it’s time to fight, our fight
It’s our time and our rights, alright
It’s time to join the fight
So we can set it right
And I’ve seen us falling
But maybe we were never so high
We all know what’s coming
If we don’t keep up the good fight
But now it’s time to fight
It’s our time and our rights
It’s time to join the fight
So we can set it right
But now it’s time to fight
It’s our time and our rights
It’s time to join the fight
So we can set it right
So we can set it right
Credits
released February 5, 2019
Written by Eric Anders and Mark O'Bitz
Produced and mixed by Mark O'Bitz
Assisted by Bill Snyder III
Vocals: Eric Anders
Backing vocals: Evelyn Anders, Lilah Anders, Eric Anders, Mark O'Bitz
Drums: Michael Avenaim
Piano and B3: Steve Moore
Bass: Kieth Lowe
Acoustic Guitars: Mark O'Bitz
Tambourine: Eric Eagle
Supporting Biden in 2020 is likely to end in catastrophe ... much like supporting Clinton did in 2016
... because he is a horrible candidate and would likely be a horrible president.
Some of my close friends and family members think supporting Biden's bid for the Dem nomination is a good idea because he seems to them to be the safe choice and he is associated with a very popular president, Obama.
If you insist on listening to predictions from pollsters, Nate Silver predicts Kamala Harris:
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/nate-silver-predicts-messy-2020-democratic-primary-and-picks-favorite
If you insist on listening to predictions from pollsters, Nate Silver predicts Kamala Harris:
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/nate-silver-predicts-messy-2020-democratic-primary-and-picks-favorite
My prediction is that Biden's chances of getting Trump out of office are worse than HRC's were in 2016 ... and worse than every other major 2020 contender.
My prediction is that Warren has the best chance because she doesn't divide the Dems by being too left (sorry Bernie, my 2016 choice) and because she seems to be the smartest and most able to lead. She is able to appeal to Trumpists who are starting to doubt The Orange One, and she doesn't threaten market-oriented Dems (conservative Dems) because she states clearly that she thinks "markets are good."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/23/elizabeth-warren-i-am-a-capitalist-but-markets-need-rules.html
Biden is simply a horrible candidate with huge amounts of baggage--a proven record of losing/racism/sexism/being anti-
My prediction is that Warren has the best chance because she doesn't divide the Dems by being too left (sorry Bernie, my 2016 choice) and because she seems to be the smartest and most able to lead. She is able to appeal to Trumpists who are starting to doubt The Orange One, and she doesn't threaten market-oriented Dems (conservative Dems) because she states clearly that she thinks "markets are good."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/23/elizabeth-warren-i-am-a-capitalist-but-markets-need-rules.html
Biden is simply a horrible candidate with huge amounts of baggage--a proven record of losing/racism/sexism/being anti-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Like HRC after 2016, he ran for POTUS twice and lost twice. Like HRC, Biden is a proven loser the Dem establishment argues HAS to be the nominee. Unlike HRC, Biden did very poorly in prior primaries ... so poorly that most Americans don't even know he ran for POTUS before.
His treatment of Anita Hill should disqualify him from running for any office, let alone POTUS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Backing the early front-runner, the supposedly safest moderate Dem, no matter what their baggage, is the kind of thinking that lost the presidency in 2016. Establishment Dems and the liberal punditry have been horrible at predicting who is the best candidate to beat truly horrible Republicans: Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43.
The Dem establishment is making a similar mistake on impeachment ... going with what they think is the wise, historically proven, civil approach ... when they are not wise, can't seem to interpret history very well, and should clearly stop trying to meet Republican nastiness with civility (remember Garland?!). The Dems should be talking more about the risks of NOT impeaching:
Pelosi is shirking her duty because she thinks it will keep Dems in power in the White House and in the House. What kind of track record does she have with keeping Dems in power? "House Democrats have a poor track record of winning majorities under her leadership."
Biden's track record is worse. See below:
https://www.washingtonpost.
http://nymag.com/
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Eric Anders and Mark O'Bitz release the single, "Matterbloomlight"
Eric Anders and Mark O'Bitz release the single, "Matterbloomlight." The song was inspired by George Saunders' brilliant novel, Lincoln in the Bardo. Eric sent the song to Saunders and the author replied: "Beautiful. Thanks for sending!" Eric and Mark wrote fourteen more songs with this same inspiration. They will start recording the album, American Bardo, during the summer of 2019. Alex Bush (Damien Jurado) will be producing, Josh Gordon (Damien Jurado) will be on bass, and Frank Lenz (Starflyer 59, Richard Swift) will be on drums.
The music swells deliciously, as velvety sonic textures infuse the tune with billowing misty colors.
- Randall Radic, Tattoo
Simple, evocative music with a tinge of melancholy. The kind of song that makes you want to skip town and camp in the mountains for days on end.
- Bella Gadsby, The Latest
It’s hard to ignore when these two get together and make music... pure magic at it’s finest.
- Glenn Rodriguez, Songs Podcast
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Eric Anders and Mark O'Bitz -- Of All These Things -- Their Debut Release As A Duo
Of All These Things by Eric Anders and Mark O'Bitz
Nashville Music Guide:
"Once again I have to give Eric Anders a huge 5 stars for this new release and his duo partner gets a huge 5 stars as well." - Sherryl Craig
The Weekly Spoon:
"Eric Anders and Mark O’Bitz’s album, Of All These Things, is something truly special. Melodically, lyrically and generally stunning…an outstanding piece of work.... Of All These Things is a stunning masterpiece that needs to be heard." - Made Shaw
Punchland:
Of All These Things is possibly the best mellow Americana I’ve heard all summer. Anders and O’Bitz are certainly a dynamic duo.
For more information on Eric and Mark's debut release as a duo, go to www.AndersObitz.com.
Monday, January 15, 2018
The U.S. Is and Has Always Been Racist at Its Core
The Heartbeat of Racism Is Denial, By Ibram X. Kendi.
Even Lincoln, TR and FDR ...
All of the three Big Crimes of America--slavery, Native American genocide, Vietnam--were at their core racist.
MLK knew this.
Trump's political career started with birtherism, racism. His illegitimate presidency rode a wave of racist backlash ... to Obama's presidency, and to Black Lives Matter.
Our country is racist at its core. Trump is proof of that. A slogan of "Make America White Dominated Again" would have been more honest for Trump.
Trump and Trumpists are White Nationalists, White Supremacists. Trump supporters make up about one third of the U.S. population, that's over one hundred million Americans. One hundred million racists. That about ten million more than the population of Nazi Germany.
Our country is and has always been racist at its core. Saying or believing otherwise is more of the denial Kendi writes about.
This Fire Has Burned Too Long
Even Lincoln, TR and FDR ...
All of the three Big Crimes of America--slavery, Native American genocide, Vietnam--were at their core racist.
MLK knew this.
Trump's political career started with birtherism, racism. His illegitimate presidency rode a wave of racist backlash ... to Obama's presidency, and to Black Lives Matter.
Our country is racist at its core. Trump is proof of that. A slogan of "Make America White Dominated Again" would have been more honest for Trump.
Trump and Trumpists are White Nationalists, White Supremacists. Trump supporters make up about one third of the U.S. population, that's over one hundred million Americans. One hundred million racists. That about ten million more than the population of Nazi Germany.
Our country is and has always been racist at its core. Saying or believing otherwise is more of the denial Kendi writes about.
This Fire Has Burned Too Long
Friday, September 15, 2017
The Ghost of Nixon Should Be Haunting Trump
No one ever accused Nixon of being stupid, though the Watergate burglary was clearly not a smart move. Nixon was smart enough to know when to resign, and he probably knew that resigning with the lie that he was doing it for the good of the country might give Ford more wiggle room to undermine justice with a pardon.
Of course, Nixon had not been caught in myriad other high and low crimes, so he did not need the Office of the President to guard him against a wave of indictments. Trump has clearly been using this Office to do just that.
With both Manafort and Cohen flipped, and the Dems ready to take over the house leadership, Trump’s days are numbered now in months rather than years. If he were smarter and less compulsively self-destructive--and this is clearly a big “if”--he might consider using the Nixon lie of resigning for the good of the country in order to decrease the amount of ill will directed toward him by those not in his benighted base, those who soon will be standing in judgment of him, and of Pence.
If Trump resigned before the mid-terms, he would have a much more sympathetic Congress in place to receive Pence’s pardon. Given how not a single aspect of the Steele dossier has been proven wrong, how Manafort and Cohen almost certainly have the conspiracy against the U.S. goods for Mueller, and how likely it is that Trump is guilty of something close to treason with regard to Russia, a Pence pardon would certainly not go over well after Mueller’s report comes out.
As is typical with Trump, he will make the unethical, stupid and self-defeating decision to try to ride it out--like some beach-dwelling curmudgeon refusing to evacuate as some global-warming-fueled monster hurricane rolls in.
When asked about the Watergate burglary, Nixon responded that the American “people have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook. I’ve earned everything I’ve got.” Nixon was wrong about his crook status, but he was right about the American people needing to know whether or not their president is a crook.
We clearly know that Trump is a crook at this point. This is not based on conspiracy-theory fantasies like those that still fuel the “lock her up!” idiocy at Trump’s rallies. Manafort’s flipping should be considered gratuitous evidence of Trump’s status as a crook because we knew he was a crook well before the election.
If Trump had an ounce of honor, he would resign for the good of the country. He might also resign for the good of the GOP so that his party might be able to recover by 20202 from the disgrace of enabling Trump’s illegitimate, disgraceful, "crazytown," and “fear”-ful presidency. But Trump does not have an ounce of honor--moreover, he is too unintelligent and his malignant narcissism is too compulsively self-destructive--and so he will try to use the Office of the Presidency to shield himself from prosecution. He’s going to ride out the storm, and the rest of us will suffer from this.
I hope that it will be impossible for a President Pence to pardon Trump once he has been prosecuted and convicted of his myriad high and low crimes as president, and as many of those crimes from before as possible, because the crimes will be so egregious, and so many, his true mob-boss character will be impossible to deny.
This belated revelation will also show clearly how deeply unpatriotic Trump and Trumpists have been all along at their core.
Since Pence seems to have been deeply in league with Manafort, I wonder if we all will be contemplating what a President Pelosi will do once Trump receives his comeuppance. Alas, I fear that she would go too light on both Trump and Pence as the Democrats have done all along--also guilty of enabling, and an inability to put country above party.
Friday, May 19, 2017
Duty Over Career, Country over Party, and the Dire Need for an Informed Electorate
The appointment of James Comey’s long-time colleague, Robert Mueller, as special counsel to investigate Trump-Russia has brought a sigh of relief to anyone interested in bringing Trump and his band of fellow traitors to justice.
Yet it occurred to me that no one was asking the question of whether or not Mueller could be unbiased with respect to his friend and colleague, Comey.
Yet it occurred to me that no one was asking the question of whether or not Mueller could be unbiased with respect to his friend and colleague, Comey.
The right has been seething with bile over what they perceive as the left’s and center’s hypocritical embrace of Comey now that Comey is instrumental in bringing Trump down.
This lefty has not forgotten what should be considered Comey’s crime of choosing to discuss Clinton’s email and security crimes over what Comey knew better were Trump's more serious crimes having to do with the Russians. Comey had to speculate about both crimes, circumstantial evidence piling up on both sides, but Trump's probable crime was treasonous whereas Clinton's crimes were more carelessness.
Comey knew that Russia was hacking the election in Trump's favor, and Trump had publicly asked for Russia to do so, but Comey did not know if there were any classified emails on Wiener's hard drive. His decision to send the letter was probably criminal, and his testimony was inaccurate.
In other words, Comey chose to interject his speculations about Clinton's email, rather than interject what he knew about Russian hacking in Trump's favor, and what he should have known about Trump's obvious ties and debts to Russia. No wonder Trump might think he had Comey's loyalty. It is probably more likely that Comey simply hated Clinton more than he hated Trump, like so many people on the right and in the center.
So I do not need to see Comey as some pure-at-heart dutiful G-man in order to feel very confident that the “hideous buffoon” (Andrew Sullivan) acting as POTUS obstructed justice by, first, pressuring Comey to be loyal to Trump over the law; then, second, by trying to get Comey to drop the case on Flynn (the case that will inevitably incriminate Trump); and then, third, by firing Comey.
Comey can be guilty of a crime with respect to Clinton and the election, and at the same time, be a credible witness to the bringing down of the monster he helped create and helped lift into the highest office. Comey's reported perseverating over his duty, in this case, is ridiculous. This was clearly inappropriate or should have been. Comey can also be guilty of crime along with Clinton.
Moreover, it is perfectly logical to call out Comey for a second crime that no one seems to be talking about: Comey sitting on his knowledge that Trump obstructed justice or attempted to obstruct justice in February, many weeks prior to being fired by Trump.
Doesn’t Comey have a duty to report Trump’s obstruction of justice, rather than just create a paper trail to protect himself and his legacy if he is fired? Isn’t Comey’s first duty to the country and constitution? And isn’t Trump’s obvious obstruction of justice a high crime that potentially creates a constitutional crisis? The top cop should have reported his boss's crime when it happened.
If there is something at least unethical, if not illegal, about Comey sitting on this information, wouldn’t it be up to Mueller now to make this part of his investigation? Again, can Mueller be objective?
Presidents should never be above the law, and neither should FBI Directors. If they presidents are indeed above the law, they are even more like the kings America supposedly rejected in our origin myth.
Along these lines, the former president, Obama, had a duty, if not a legal obligation, to tell the electorate that the Russians were messing with our elections. He chose not to make this public because he was worried about it seeming partisan. He was worried about his legacy, and he was confident Clinton would win anyway.
If this position is not illegal, it seems to me to highly unethical: putting career, legacy, and party over the nation’s democracy, an informed electorate, the constitution. In hindsight, it also seems uncharacteristically stupid.
Also in hindsight, Clinton seems to have been spot on when she called Trump Putin’s “puppet.” At the time, I felt like she was being brave but probably also exaggerating a bit for effect. Now it should be more than clear that she was not exaggerating at all. She probably had excellent sources (including the president) telling her what was going on with the Russians.
All of the people in the government who knew this should have told us, the electorate, the American people. We, the electorate, had a right to know in order to make a more informed choice; we have a right to this information so that we can be an informed electorate, which is crucial to any real democracy. As they say at the Washington Post, "democracy dies in darkness."
It is clear that anyone who sat on this information during the election was guilty of dereliction of duty with respect to the constitution. I also wonder if Comey was derelict in a similar way when, in February of 2017, he sat on the knowledge that Trump was obstructing justice.
The measure should be how well does one’s actions or the actions of agencies serve the constitution, not whether doing one’s duty serves one’s reputation, career, party, etc. Agencies and their directors should think about the country’s well-being in the big picture, rather than blindly following protocol while sitting on extremely important information--especially when they make exceptions to the protocol for other potential crimes.
The electorate should have known before the election what Russia had been doing all along, and what they knew about how Trump was implicated in it.
Comey is guilty of not serving the country and constitution when, as FBI Director, he does inform the electorate of election malfeasance, a corruption of the election from a known adversary.
The FBI and intelligence agencies are guilty of obstructing democracy when they don’t inform the electorate of this crucial information.
Comey is also guilty of not serving the country and constitution when, as FBI Director, he does not report a sitting president’s obstruction of justice.
Obama is guilty of not serving the country and constitution when he, as President, chose not inform the electorate of a hostile nation’s manipulation of our elections. He should have said much more, no matter how ridiculous the right’s reaction would have been … and the reaction would have made birtherism seem just and smart. But it should not have mattered. It was his duty to say more.
He should not have said more to help Clinton win. He should have said more because the electorate had a right to know. Obama did not have a right to keep that crucial information from us. He subverted democracy with his choice, and he did so because he was worried how it might impact his legacy and the Democratic Party. That is wrong.
Clinton is guilty of putting her campaign above the electorate’s right to be informed when she made the disastrous decision to be cautious with respect to her knowledge of Trump’s treason and Putin’s obvious meddling. She should have said much more than her puppet line during that debate, no matter how ridiculous the right’s reactions would have been. What she said was rather strong, but she didn't follow up on it. Putin would "rather have a puppet" as POTUS.
Comey should have reported Trump’s obstruction of justice when it happened. Obama and Clinton should have informed everyone of Russian meddling for Trump as soon as they knew about it. Trump’s treasonous extremes should not blind us to these derelictions of duty, and the right’s ridiculous and vicious responses should not shape policy as much as it has.
Hopefully, this constitutional crisis we are currently in will help us get to a better understanding of what it means to serve the constitution.
Saturday, April 01, 2017
Eric Anders Releases New Album Eleven Nine, Donates Proceeds To Lambda Legal
Eric Anders’ Anti-Trump Album Is The 2017 Rebel Yell For Liberals
"It’s not only well-written and well-produced [by Matt Brown], but a robust listen for anyone trying to find compassion or healing within the country’s political climate over the last six months. Eleven Nine is powerful on all fronts. Heavy lyrics, ... beautiful melodies, and an overall production that paints a detailed picture with every track.... [Anders'] ability to write profound lyrics and deliver them in such a mesmerizing way is certainly something to be admired.... Anders’ music may be too polarizing for popular radio. But there’s no question it belongs in documentaries, political protests, and hell, the national archive. It’s not easy to write songs that can connect with people. It’s even tougher to do so while making a political statement. Anders does it."
Eric Anders Releases New Album Eleven Nine, Donates Proceeds To Lambda Legal
"Songwriters and talented creatives such as Eric Anders use their music as a way to make powerful statements over soothing, comforting and infectious sound beds while evoking our minds to wander about the weight of the world as it continues putting pressure on our tired shoulders.... Eleven Nine is packed full of sonically tasty jams with just the right amount of Folk and Americana. After listening through multiple times ... I can guarantee you will experience uplifting, memorable and quite enjoyable tunes that not only support a great mission but make a potent statement in the process."
Eric Anders Questions, Is This Your Land?
"New anti-Trump album is full of great folk tunes ... My work may not reflect my personal views, but in some cases, I get the opportunity to stumble upon art that says the words for me. Eric Anders‘ new album Eleven Nine is one that I can completely stand behind. Growing up, I sang along with artists like Arrested Development, Sonic Youth, Rage Against the Machine, Public Enemy, Ani DiFranco, Bruce Springsteen, No Doubt, and many more who found a way to speak their minds through their music. For generations, musicians have voiced their opinions through their lyrics and melodies and us, the fans, loved every second of it. Eric Anders is no exception to this phenomenon. Eleven Nine is a beautiful and soulful album ... This album is done with class and integrity. I feel it appropriately represents everything that a lot of Americans are feeling. Eric’s gentle voice and powerful words will be echoing through me for the foreseeable future. If you fall in love with it as well, please consider purchasing it ... It is for an amazing cause and every little bit counts."
For more information on Eleven Nine, see www.EricAnders.com.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Obama: Phony Progressive ... GOP: Phonies when it comes to being Pro-Markets
This recent Truthdig article, "Why Many Cities Aren’t Allowed to Provide the Cheap, Fast Internet Obama Wants You to Have," provides a good example of the GOP's privatization fetish and our plutocratic ways on both sides of the aisle getting in the way of progress in the form of building infrastructure--and leading to local monopolies squashing competition.
The end result is that the US invented the internet but now is in 10th place for internet speeds (see chart) ... behind former Eastern bloc places like Latvia and Czech Republic ... which hurts us when it comes to competition.
Like all of Obama's recent progressive pushes, this too will come to nothing. Why didn't he do this six or seven years ago? Why all these progressive pushes now that there is no chance of them passing? Like the Clintons, Obama is a phony progressive.
This is not the first time the GOP are phonies when it comes to what really helps US business. Helping ISPs with their monopolies hurts US business in general. This would be an example of being "pro business" (pro specific business with lobbyists, eg Comcast) versus being "pro-market" (helping markets by building infrastructure that would help all US businesses compete with the rest of the world). See WaPo's "Where are the pro-market Republicans?"
The end result is that the US invented the internet but now is in 10th place for internet speeds (see chart) ... behind former Eastern bloc places like Latvia and Czech Republic ... which hurts us when it comes to competition.
Like all of Obama's recent progressive pushes, this too will come to nothing. Why didn't he do this six or seven years ago? Why all these progressive pushes now that there is no chance of them passing? Like the Clintons, Obama is a phony progressive.This is not the first time the GOP are phonies when it comes to what really helps US business. Helping ISPs with their monopolies hurts US business in general. This would be an example of being "pro business" (pro specific business with lobbyists, eg Comcast) versus being "pro-market" (helping markets by building infrastructure that would help all US businesses compete with the rest of the world). See WaPo's "Where are the pro-market Republicans?"
Friday, July 30, 2010
Obama: the Better Nightmare
Paul Krugman's July 30, 2010, op-ed on Obama is spot on, as usual. Krugman has consistently positioned Obama further to the right than his supporters would like to see him. Krugman supported Clinton during the campaign because, among other reasons, Obama's campaign proposals for healthcare didn't go far enough. Krugman saw then that Obama was not the liberal many hoped he'd be--the liberal he otherwise promised to be in the campaign. See my TBR post "Obama No Liberal" for more on this.
Krugman is also right that Obama is not showing enough support for Elizabeth Warren to lead a new consumer protection agency. Though Krugman doesn't make it clear, he knows that Obama won't support Warren because Goldman and the like don't want her as a regulator because she is smart, capable, and she knows that the banks make a lot on credit cards and other forms of predatory lending. Obama doesn't support Warren because he knows she could change all this. In other words, Banks make a lot of money on types of irresponsible borrowing that really hurt our economy, and Warren understands this. As long as politicians are bought by the banks, as Obama is, this unsustainable consumer borrowing will be encouraged. Banks buy up politicians so they, the banks, can continue to suck the economic life out of our country, and this massive sucking sound gets rationalized as "fiscal conservatism" by Democrats and Republicans alike. The banks, of course, get rich from said life sucking.
If you doubt that Obama is bought by the banks, I suggest you read this HuffPost article by Bob Osterstag: "four out of [Obama's] top five [campaign] contributors were employees of financial industry giants, with Goldman Sachs at the top of the list." Moreover, "Goldman Sachs gave Obama four times more than they gave McCain."
So it becomes clear why the administration is blocking a Warren nomination: the administration, like so many in congress, is bought up by the banks, just like they are bought up by other business interests, and what is good for the country (Warren and checks on bad lending) is bad for business.
Krugman is also right to slam Mort Zuckerman for his claim that Obama is anti-business, an obviously absurd position. Here's something from the Harper's index that supports the claim that Obama is not just bought up by Big Finance but also by other status quo powers that be. The number is significantly smaller, but it does explain why Obama adopted a "drill baby drill" position right before the worst oil spill ever:
People on the left have deluded themselves about Obama because he is smart, good looking, and seemed ethical-- and because the possibility of having a black president was extremely appealing. Obama has sold himself to business, and that is why he seems a lot like a Bush-redux.
Liberals have been fooled. It is not that surprising that we have been fooled. Obama said some very enticing things during the campaign, like what he said about the public option, a big issue for me: "any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [this] new public plan." He would later show us the real Obama: while making deals with big pharma and insurance companies before the healthcare fight really got going: "I didn't campaign on the public option."
So, like most politicians, Obama lies for political expediency, and these lies support the status quo of certain industries sucking the life out of our country in order to become rich. Bill Clinton fooled us too (campaign as liberal, lead from the right), but Obama has fooled us even more so.
What Krugman hasn't gotten right, hasn't come right out and said, is that Obama's pandering to the right, pandering to the true power of our country, goes beyond lying for political/big-business expediency. There are lots of laws being broken. Lots of crimes being committed and covered up. Certainly Goldman's government-supported illegalities would pile up if anyone did a really thorough investigation of all the secret twists and turns of the bailout, especially the particulars of the AIG-Goldman-Obama connection Osterstag makes clear.
But Obama is the top cop, and congress won't check or balance the administration's complicity in Goldman crimes because Goldman has bought congress too, GOP and Dems alike.
We don't even have to look hard for crimes that are not being investigated. As Krugman notes, torture is another area where Obama seriously let down progressives--where Obama is not just like Bush, but is protecting Bush. Since the Bush torture policy was obviously a war crime, the way Obama has let down liberals goes way beyond politics as usual, or Obama being forced to the right in order to "get things done in DC."
Like most liberal pundits, Krugman mentions "torture," but he doesn't take the obvious steps from torture to war crimes to the crime of not prosecuting a war crime to impeachment: the torture in question were war crimes, and the Bush administration should have been prosecuted, should have been impeached (at least), and avoiding this prosecution is itself a crime, an impeachable offense. As David Lindorff explains, Bush's torture policy was "in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, which as a signed set of treaties, are part of the law of the United States. Under those treaties, failure on the part of those up the chain of command to halt or to punish those who commit torture are themselves guilty of the crime of torture." Even the generally conservative U.S. News and World Report gets it:
Glen Greenwald sees this tendency to protect the Bush administration from being held accountable for some of its most extreme actions as a "growing part of the Obama legacy," but not even Greenwald seems to make the connection between this protection and an impeachable offense for Obama--though he does ask liberals why they aren't talking impeachment when Obama argues that a war-time president has the right to assassinate Americans without due process.
Even people I know, people close to me, people I know to be as left as me, seem to shudder if I make this connection, and treat what I see as a basic, simple, just and responsible position as something potentially crackpot, something that could only come from the right. It seems to me to be the big idea we liberals aren't supposed to talk about. We can't burst the bubble that Obama is basically a good guy, and our country, especially its liberal side, is not hyper-deluded. Only right-wing fanatics could whisper impeachment and Obama in the same breath.
This topic of Obama's crime of not prosecuting Bush remains unspeakable in liberal circles, despite how obvious the connection between war crimes and impeachment was for liberals when thinking about the Bush administration, and how obvious it is that not prosecuting a war crime is a crime if you are constitutionally entrusted as the top cop--that is, if you are president. David Lindorff is one liberal, who made a very thorough case for Bush's impeachment, agrees with me that Obama should also be impeached. Lindorff is the author of the book, The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing George W. Bush from Office. In an April, 2010, Counterpunch article, Lindorff writes the following:
Obama may be a HUGE disappointment to liberals and lefties like me, but this president--who is quite willing to lie and commit crimes for political expediency (the crime of sweeping Bush's crimes under the rug is just one example of many)--is a whole lot better than the nightmarish alternative criminals he will be running against in 2012. So choose your liar, choose your criminal. Which nightmare do you prefer? Or maybe we could wake up and start seeing the reality of the crimes of our two business parties. Maybe we could wake up and start applying the law to presidents and the Goldmans and AIGs and Wellpoints and BPs of our world. If not, we are left asleep choosing between nightmares. Obama is the better nightmare, for sure, but a nightmare nonetheless.
Krugman is also right that Obama is not showing enough support for Elizabeth Warren to lead a new consumer protection agency. Though Krugman doesn't make it clear, he knows that Obama won't support Warren because Goldman and the like don't want her as a regulator because she is smart, capable, and she knows that the banks make a lot on credit cards and other forms of predatory lending. Obama doesn't support Warren because he knows she could change all this. In other words, Banks make a lot of money on types of irresponsible borrowing that really hurt our economy, and Warren understands this. As long as politicians are bought by the banks, as Obama is, this unsustainable consumer borrowing will be encouraged. Banks buy up politicians so they, the banks, can continue to suck the economic life out of our country, and this massive sucking sound gets rationalized as "fiscal conservatism" by Democrats and Republicans alike. The banks, of course, get rich from said life sucking.
If you doubt that Obama is bought by the banks, I suggest you read this HuffPost article by Bob Osterstag: "four out of [Obama's] top five [campaign] contributors were employees of financial industry giants, with Goldman Sachs at the top of the list." Moreover, "Goldman Sachs gave Obama four times more than they gave McCain."
So it becomes clear why the administration is blocking a Warren nomination: the administration, like so many in congress, is bought up by the banks, just like they are bought up by other business interests, and what is good for the country (Warren and checks on bad lending) is bad for business.
Krugman is also right to slam Mort Zuckerman for his claim that Obama is anti-business, an obviously absurd position. Here's something from the Harper's index that supports the claim that Obama is not just bought up by Big Finance but also by other status quo powers that be. The number is significantly smaller, but it does explain why Obama adopted a "drill baby drill" position right before the worst oil spill ever:
Total campaign contributions Barack Obama received from BP between 2004 and 2009: $77,051.
Number of politicians who accepted more in donations from BP during that period: 0.
People on the left have deluded themselves about Obama because he is smart, good looking, and seemed ethical-- and because the possibility of having a black president was extremely appealing. Obama has sold himself to business, and that is why he seems a lot like a Bush-redux.
Liberals have been fooled. It is not that surprising that we have been fooled. Obama said some very enticing things during the campaign, like what he said about the public option, a big issue for me: "any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [this] new public plan." He would later show us the real Obama: while making deals with big pharma and insurance companies before the healthcare fight really got going: "I didn't campaign on the public option."
So, like most politicians, Obama lies for political expediency, and these lies support the status quo of certain industries sucking the life out of our country in order to become rich. Bill Clinton fooled us too (campaign as liberal, lead from the right), but Obama has fooled us even more so.
What Krugman hasn't gotten right, hasn't come right out and said, is that Obama's pandering to the right, pandering to the true power of our country, goes beyond lying for political/big-business expediency. There are lots of laws being broken. Lots of crimes being committed and covered up. Certainly Goldman's government-supported illegalities would pile up if anyone did a really thorough investigation of all the secret twists and turns of the bailout, especially the particulars of the AIG-Goldman-Obama connection Osterstag makes clear.
But Obama is the top cop, and congress won't check or balance the administration's complicity in Goldman crimes because Goldman has bought congress too, GOP and Dems alike.
We don't even have to look hard for crimes that are not being investigated. As Krugman notes, torture is another area where Obama seriously let down progressives--where Obama is not just like Bush, but is protecting Bush. Since the Bush torture policy was obviously a war crime, the way Obama has let down liberals goes way beyond politics as usual, or Obama being forced to the right in order to "get things done in DC."
Like most liberal pundits, Krugman mentions "torture," but he doesn't take the obvious steps from torture to war crimes to the crime of not prosecuting a war crime to impeachment: the torture in question were war crimes, and the Bush administration should have been prosecuted, should have been impeached (at least), and avoiding this prosecution is itself a crime, an impeachable offense. As David Lindorff explains, Bush's torture policy was "in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, which as a signed set of treaties, are part of the law of the United States. Under those treaties, failure on the part of those up the chain of command to halt or to punish those who commit torture are themselves guilty of the crime of torture." Even the generally conservative U.S. News and World Report gets it:
First, waterboarding is torture. Second, torture is a war crime. Third, the United States is obligated to prosecute war crimes. The failure to prosecute war crimes committed by your own government is an offense of the same order as the original war crime.
Glen Greenwald sees this tendency to protect the Bush administration from being held accountable for some of its most extreme actions as a "growing part of the Obama legacy," but not even Greenwald seems to make the connection between this protection and an impeachable offense for Obama--though he does ask liberals why they aren't talking impeachment when Obama argues that a war-time president has the right to assassinate Americans without due process.
Even people I know, people close to me, people I know to be as left as me, seem to shudder if I make this connection, and treat what I see as a basic, simple, just and responsible position as something potentially crackpot, something that could only come from the right. It seems to me to be the big idea we liberals aren't supposed to talk about. We can't burst the bubble that Obama is basically a good guy, and our country, especially its liberal side, is not hyper-deluded. Only right-wing fanatics could whisper impeachment and Obama in the same breath.
This topic of Obama's crime of not prosecuting Bush remains unspeakable in liberal circles, despite how obvious the connection between war crimes and impeachment was for liberals when thinking about the Bush administration, and how obvious it is that not prosecuting a war crime is a crime if you are constitutionally entrusted as the top cop--that is, if you are president. David Lindorff is one liberal, who made a very thorough case for Bush's impeachment, agrees with me that Obama should also be impeached. Lindorff is the author of the book, The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing George W. Bush from Office. In an April, 2010, Counterpunch article, Lindorff writes the following:
Sadly, it is time to say, just 14 months into the current term of this new president, that yes, this president, and some of his subordinates, are also guilty of impeachable crimes--including many of the same ones committed by Bush and Cheney.
Obama may be a HUGE disappointment to liberals and lefties like me, but this president--who is quite willing to lie and commit crimes for political expediency (the crime of sweeping Bush's crimes under the rug is just one example of many)--is a whole lot better than the nightmarish alternative criminals he will be running against in 2012. So choose your liar, choose your criminal. Which nightmare do you prefer? Or maybe we could wake up and start seeing the reality of the crimes of our two business parties. Maybe we could wake up and start applying the law to presidents and the Goldmans and AIGs and Wellpoints and BPs of our world. If not, we are left asleep choosing between nightmares. Obama is the better nightmare, for sure, but a nightmare nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)