2008 Elections

Presidential Campaign Enters the Silly Season

dlindorff — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:12:11 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

I’ve been getting some emails that refer to Barack Obama as a
“Manchurian Candidate,” a guy who is somehow hiding a secret radical
and/or Muslim jihadist agenda that will burst forth if he’s elected
president. There is a certain idiot factor at work here, since if Obama
were a closet Weatherman, who somehow learned of and adopted that 1960s
college dropout organzation’s creed at the tender age of 8, it would
have clashed badly with any Muslim teaching he might have picked up as
a student in an Indonesian public school at the same time (he attended
an Indonesian public schoolfrom the age of 6 to 8 before transferring
to a Catholic-run institution).

But since some low-wattage and conspiracy-minded people seem ready
to believe this kind of stuff, let’s consider John McCain’s early
background, and the possibility of his being a Manchurian Candidate
too. Fair’s fair, right?

Okay. McCain, it turns out, was actually born outside the US, in
the Panama Canal Zone, which in 1936 was territory leased from Panama.
His father, a Navy officer, was stationed there with his wife at the
time of McCain’s birth. Now it’s a safe bet that McCain was largely
raised—fed, diapered, and spoken to—at that age by a local Panamian
woman. That’s what, after all, you do when you are an elite officer and
the wife of an elite officer in a foreign country where low-wage help
is abundant. Who knows what subversive ideologies were poured into the
young McCain’s tender ears at that vulnerable period of his life by his
Panamanian nurse? Maybe that would explain McCain’s support for an
amnesty program for immigrants from Latin America a few years back.
Does he have a secret agenda to throw open the doors of America to
Latin American immigrants once in the White House?

And worse yet, maybe his Panamian amah was a Marxist! Lord knows
that Central America in the mid-1930s was a hotbed of revolution. The
dreaded Augusto Sandino had only just been executed in Nicaragua, just
north of the Zone, two years before McCain’s birth, following a bloody
guerrilla war against US Marines, and the region was full of bitter and
vengeful nationalist and Marxist revolutionaries bent on throwing the
US out of Latin America. Could his nurse have been one of these people,
whispering and implanting the language of liberation into the young
boy’s still unformed mind, ready to spring to life once he assumed high
office in Washington?

Then we turn to McCain’s prisoner of war days in the hands of the
North Vietnamese. Certainly his mind was weak and vulnerable to
control. While many of McCain’s fellow POWs endured five, six or more
years of torture without cracking, he is said to have begun spilling
secrets and agreeing to broadcast anti-American propaganda statements
after only four days of torture shortly after his capture. We also know
that the Communists had a sophisticated system of mind control
developed, which was shared among the Communist nations of the USSR,
China, North Korea and North Vietnam. Were these techniques applied to
the captive McCain, and did they leave him after five long years of
captivity robotically programmed to seek and win the presidency, only
then to launch a campaign of sabotage to soften America up for
Communist takeover?

This prospect seems much more likely than that some Muslim teacher got to Obama in his grammar school in Indonesia.

Actually, I find the Obama Manchurian Candidate theory much weaker
than the McCain Manchurian Candidate theory, just based upon my own
experience. I was, after all, put through some serious indoctrination
by my own family. My parents sent me to Sunday School at the local
Congregational Church, from the age of six to the age of about 11. I
can still remember the earnest parent volunteers teaching us all the
nonsense about the earth being formed in six days, about Adam and Eve,
the burning bush, the parting of the Red Sea, the Virgin birth (What
was a virgin, I wondered? They wouldn’t say…), and the crucifixion and
resurrection. None of it stuck. Despite the indoctrinators’ best
efforts, I left Sunday School an atheist and remain one today. The only
thing I really learned in Sunday School was how to smoke—something a
number of us learned together while skipping class and hiding out in
the church attic. Is Christian dogma that much weaker that it can fail
to impress a young mind while Muslim dogma can take a firm hold in an
even shorter time? What an insult to Christianity!

My daughter too, is testimony to the limits of early childhood
propaganda efforts. At the age of 7, we brought her to Shanghai, China,
where for a year, she attended first grade in a local Chinese public
school. She learned excellent Chinese there, but though there was
considerable indoctrination in Maoist theory, with special focus on the
life of the young Mao and also of the selfless workers’ hero Lei Feng
(they actually had one daily class called “Loving the Country class”
and most other subjects had a propaganda aspect), and though she also
attended a fifth grade Chinese public school when we returned to China
a few years later, for a stay in Xi’an, at 24 she is hardly a Commie or
a Maoist, I’m sure though, that should she someday decide to run for
president, some of the same people who suspect Obama of being a closet
Muslim terrorist will say she harbors secret Communist sentiments from
her early school years.

Such is the state of some American minds.
__________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. HIs
latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/36666';
digg_title = "Presidential Campaign Enters the Silly Season";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n I’ve been getting some emails that refer to Barack Obama as a “Manchurian Candidate,” a guy who is somehow hiding a secret radical and/or Muslim jihadist agenda that will burst forth if he’s elected president. There is a certain idiot factor at work here, since if Obama were a closet Weatherman, who somehow learned of and adopted that 1960s college dropout organzation’s creed at the tender age of 8, it would have clashed badly with any Muslim teaching he might have picked up as a student in an Indonesian public school at the same time (he attended an Indonesian public schoolfrom the age of 6 to 8 before transferring to a Catholic-run institution).\r\n\r\n But since some low-wattage and conspiracy-minded people seem ready to believe this kind of stuff, let’s consider John McCain’s early background, and the possibility of his being a Manchurian Candidate too. Fair’s fair, right? \r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

No Surprise in the Senate Bailout Vote

dlindorff — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:30:41 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

The US Senate did what the Founding Fathers expected it to do when
they devised the idea of an upper house of Congress. Playing the role
of Britain’s House of Lords to the House’s House of Commons, it ignored
the rabble (that’s us, the voters) and voted the opposite way of the
House of Representatives, which on Monday had voted down the Bush
Administration’s proposed $700-billion to $1-trillion give-away to Wall
Street financial companies.

The Senate vote in support of the measure, which went 74-25 (the
ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy missed the vote), reflects the fact that, first
of all, Senators, who run representing entire states, are very
difficult to unseat because of the huge cost of mounting a media
campaign against an incumbent, and second that two-thirds of them even
don’t face voters this November, (and one third not for another four
years).

The House, in contrast, which defeated a similar bill earlier in
the week by 228-205, while still largely an incumbent’s sinecure, is
still a place where every member faces the voters every two years.

So now the bill goes back to the House for a second round of voting
tomorrow, this time in a version devised in the Senate to try and
convince 12 of Monday’s nay voters to switch to yea. The sweeteners: a
rise in the size of bank deposits insured by the (already
over-stretched) Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. from the current
$100,000 to $250,000, and some $115 billion in new tax breaks, some for
business, and some for wealthy taxpayers (a raising of the threshold
for applying the alternative minimum tax).

In other words, the minimum cost of this bailout, has been raised
from the $700 billion that the House rejected last time to $815
billion! And it’s a fair bet that more sweeteners will be added once
the bill goes to the House floor. (It should be noted that neither of
the measures added in the Senate has anything to do with a rescue.
Moreover, the first, upping the FDIC insured deposit limit, is simply a
time-saver for the rich, who could have simply moved around money to
separate banks to accomplish the same thing, while the second only
succeeds in driving the US budget further into the hole.)

The pressures on House members from lobbyists, House leaders of
both parties, and from the White House, will be enormous. The question
is whether public pressure, which was unprecedented over the past week,
jamming the Capital switchboard and crashing the Capital website, will
be equally enormous.

If voters again flood their representatives with calls and emails
demanding that they not support this rip-off bill, it is still possible
that the bailout will die and Congress and the White House will have to
go back to square one to work out a more reasonable and fair way to
salvage the US financial system than simply putting the results of 15
or more years of reckless Wall Street greed all on the backs of average
taxpayers.

As I have written earlier, the proper way to go about this would be
for both the Senate and the House to schedule and hold hearings on the
crisis and on ways to develop a rescue of the economy and the financial
system. Such hearings should include testimony from the victims of Wall
Street’s misdeeds—the homeowners who are losing their houses, the small
businesses that can no longer borrow funds to finance expansion or to
meet short term cash needs, the retirees and workers who are seeing
their pensions pillaged. They should include testimony from the
hundreds of economists, including Nobel Laureates like Joseph Stiglitz,
who are warning that the bailout as currently designed will not work
and could make things worse. And they should grill executives of the
major financial institutions about how they drove things to this
perilous state.

Then they should craft a response that meets the needs of the
public, not just the bankers and their investors, that will help to
rebuild the economy and the financial system on a sounder footing, and
that will punish those who abused the system and who have brought it to
its knees.

The Senate vote (which included yes votes from both major party
presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, both the
beneficiaries of large campaign donations from Wall Street interests)
was a victory for those who caused this crisis, and who hope to receive
all the money being put on the table.

The House vote will be a test of whether the public still has any
power at all to have its interests considered in what is still referred
to as this American democracy.

The advocates of this ripoff, from the President on down, have been
using cheap scare-mongering to try to win the day, claiming that if a
bill isn’t passed immediately, the country will spiral into a
depression like the 1930s. This is ridiculous. The country has been in
a credit crisis for months, and if Congress spend another month or two
deliberating and devising a good bill, it would not put the country in
any greater danger of collapse than it is already in. In fact, this
rush to pass a bad bill is far more likely to lead to disaster.

So once again, whether or not you have called your US
representative, get on the phone and do it again. Demand that they vote
“No” and say if they do not, you will vote against them in November.
The numbers to call are: 202-225-3121, 202-224-3121 or 800-828-0498. If
you cannot get through, look up in your local phone book blue pages the
number of a local constituent office for your representative, and call
there. In fact, do that anyway, too. You can also send an email to your representative.

Today and tomorrow are the last chance to stop this travesty from happening. Act today, and don't forget to spread the word.
_____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/36551';
digg_title = "No Surprise in the Senate Bailout Vote";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n The US Senate did what the Founding Fathers expected it to do when they devised the idea of an upper house of Congress. Playing the role of Britain’s House of Lords to the House’s House of Commons, it ignored the rabble (that’s us, the voters) and voted the opposite way of the House of Representatives, which on Monday had voted down the Bush Administration’s proposed $700-billion to $1-trillion give-away to Wall Street financial companies.\r\n\r\n The Senate vote in support of the measure, which went 74-25 (the ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy missed the vote), reflects the fact that, first of all, Senators, who run representing entire states, are very difficult to unseat because of the huge cost of mounting a media campaign against an incumbent, and second that two-thirds of them even don’t face voters this November, (and one third not for another four years).\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

We Need to Demand Hearings!

dlindorff — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:03:19 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

With the Bush Administration, the two leading presidential
candidates, and the Congressional leadership, as well as a phalanx of
Wall Street lobbyists all pushing hard for a massive transfer of
taxpayer money to the coffers of banks and investment banks, the
American people need to demand a halt to this bums' rush to a bailout.

We've seen what happens when Congress forgoes the time-tested
process of deliberative and investigative hearings and simply takes a
floor vote on a Bush Administration-backed measure. First there was the
October 18, 2001 resolution for use of military force against Al Qaeda
in Afghanistan. Because there were no hearings on that measure, its
loose, deliberately ambiguous wording has been used ever since by the
Bush/Cheney crew as authorization for their global so-called "War" on
Terror, including the claim that the president has the dictatorial
power ignore treaties, US law, and bills passed by the Congress.
Shortly thereafter, there was the Patriot Act, a compendium of
anti-Democratic measures that had failed to win passage in Congress
over the years which were cobbled together in the dead of night by
Bush/Cheney zealots and passed on a voice vote the next day by a
Congress too cowed to hold hearings on the measure. Then, in October
2002, there was the second authorization for use of military force
resolution, this time against Iraq, which has ended up miring the US in
a disastrous five-year-long war without end that has killed 4500
Americans, chewed up 40,000 more, and killed in excess of one million
innocent Iraqi civilians.

Had there been serious hearings on any of these three terrible
measures, there is a chance none of them would have passed, or that at
least, had they been passed, they would have been reworded to tie the
administration's hands. The first AUMF could have limited military
actions to attacking Al Qaeda. Period. The Patriot Act's constitutional
overrides could have been exposed early, and challenged. And the
administration's lies about the alleged threats posed by Iraq could
have been challenged in public by other witnesses, plus a clear
requirement could have been included that any attack on Iraq would need
UN authorization.

Now Congress is being pressured to pass an equally horrific bill
with no hearings. We know that 200 leading economists, including at
least three Nobel Laureates, one of them former World Bank economist
Joseph Stiglitz, are opposed to the bailout, saying throwing a trillion
dollars at Wall Street won't work and will be a waste of taxpayer money
or worse. We know that it fails to address the root problem--the
housing and mortgage crisis. We know that it could be a crippling blow
to the dollar. Yet without hearings to expose this giant scam, the only
ones getting through to members of Congress are Wall Street lobbyists,
their pockets stuffed with campaign cash.

Citizens can't even get past the Capitol switchboard, which is
jammed with angry callers trying to get through to their
representatives and senators.

The point that needs to be made is that there is no great urgency to
pass a bill. The administration's claim that the bottom will fall out
of the economy and that the country will be plunged into a depression
if the bill isn't passed immediately is nonsense. The Great Depression
took years to develop after the 1929 stock market crash.

The current market could collapse, and there'd be plenty of time to
act to revive the national economy. Meanwhile, the credit crisis, which
is serious, has been underway for months and months. It is not
something that came up last week and needs to be resolved tomorrow (as
if that were possible by the mere passing of a give-away bill). There
is plenty of time to hold the kind of hearings that will let members of
Congress, and the American public, learn about the causes of the
crisis, of its impacts, and about what the various strategies are that
might most effectively address it.

So the public demand should not be for passage of a "good" bailout
bill. It should be for a halt to this rush to passage of any bill. The
demand should be for "No Bill Without Hearings!"

So call Congress (202-225-3121, 202-224-3121 or 800-828-0498) and
tell your representative and your two senators that you don't want them
railroaded. Tell them you demand hearings before legislation. And tell
them, again, that you will vote against anyone who votes for the
current bailout for Wall Street. (Hint: If you can't get through, then
call one of their local offices, which are listed in the blue pages of
your phonebook, or go visit a local office.)

Don't forget to write letters, too, to your local paper demanding hearings and a reasoned response to the crisis, not a bailout.
_________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Surprise! Congress Listened to the Voting Public!

dlindorff — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:43:24 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

The most entertaining thing about this Wall Street crisis and the
refusal of the House of Representatives (not failure but refusal) to
pass a bailout bill negotiated by the Bush White House and the House
leadership is how shocked and upset those leaders and the pundit class
have been by the idea that members of Congress would actually heed the
wishes of their constituents!

The Founding Fathers always saw the lower house of Congress as
voice of the people—the elected body that, because its members had to
face the voters every two years, would be most responsive to public
sentiment.

Because of the power of money and the role of the corporate media
in filtering the information that voters get about what is actually
going on, that close connection between public and public servant in
the House has long ago broken down. This time, however, because the
crisis hit within five weeks of the national election, and because the
crisis involved something that everyone cares about—their money—it
worked.

The public is paying attention, and most of us got it. It was
obvious that Congress and the White House were out to screw us out of
our money in order to protect the millionaire and billionaire traders
and conmen who have been running the Wall Street casino for the last
decade and a half without any adult supervision.

Now that people are paying attention, it will be interesting to see
how these corrupt leaders, Democrat and Republican, will fashion that
bailout and get it passed. Once aroused from their TV-induced slumber,
the American public may not be willing to get rolled. If the anger
grows, and the calls and emails to Congress—which brought down the
Capitol website Monday and jammed the switchboard for several days
beginning last week—continue to flood in threatening an electoral
Armageddon for those who back a bailout, Congress may yet be unable to
pass a bill.

It doesn’t get any better than this.

Now let’s make something clear. The stock market crash that
happened on Monday was no crisis. The market can rise and fall with
little or no significant impact on the broader economy, or even on
those who have their retirement income invested in equities. While
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and House
leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Minority Leader John Boehner may
point frantically to the falling Dow as a dire warning to members of
Congress to take action, it is all just scaremongering.

The real issue is not the stock market—it’s the credit markets. And
these have been shut down to borrowers—both individuals and
corporates—for months. Which means that there is no sudden urgency to
pass a lousy, rip-off bailout bill in days without proper hearings and
investigations into what is really needed.

The Bush Administration’s whole idea here from the start was to use
scare-mongering and high-pressure tactics honed in the 2002 campaign to
gin up a war against Iraq to get a bill through Congress that would
make a virtual dictator out of the Treasury Secretary, and to siphon a
trillion dollars or more out of taxpayers’ accounts and into the
pockets of the already stunningly rich financial class. It was to be
one final wrecking ball by the Bush/Cheney gang launched at the
American economic and political system, allowing the people who have
run the country into the ground over the last eight years, and their
financial backers to walk away with all the cookies.

It could still happen if the public doesn’t stay fired up and
angry. But for now, it’s at least exciting and deeply satisfying to see
the Administration, and the cowards who run the so-called Democratic
opposition in Congress, scrambling frantically to come up with a scheme
to get this ripoff passed.

What should happen? Congressional Democrats should put a hold on any action until after Election Day, which after all is only five weeks off. They should say that the voters must be heard on this critical national issue of how to rescue the economy and fix the financial system. Hearings should be scheduled in the relevant committees—oversight, banking, securities regulation, housing, the elderly, health and human services, etc. (yes, Rep. Dennis Kucinich is right in observing that given that most bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical emergencies, if the US had national healthcare, we wouldn’t have the housing foreclosure crisis)—and a special prosecutor should be established to look into the corruption behind all the recent financial sector failures. The real victims of the deregulatory orgy need to be heard, as do some of the 200 economists (including at least three nobel laureates) who have opposed this bailout. Then when the true nature and extent of the crisis and its causes have been laid out in clear public view, along with some real solutions for real people, appropriate legislative reforms should be drawn up, debated and voted upon, to be finally enacted into law.

No rush to judgment! No short-circuiting of the critical process of hearings!

The economy will survive this process.

What we cannot survive is a continuation of secret government, backroom deals and trillion-dollar bailouts.

BACK TO THE PHONES!
_______________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Weasel Watch

dlindorff — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:49:42 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

It is going to be entertaining, to say the least, to watch John McCain and Barack Obama, both of whom endorsed the crooked, stacked rip-off bailout bill being scaremongered into law by the Bush Administration.

Now that it is clear that the American public overwhelmingly
recognizes this bill as a corrupt attempt to rob them and reward the
crooks and shysters on Wall Street, how will McCain and Obama weasel
out of their endorsement of the proposal?

They can certainly count their lucky stars that the vote was in the
House and not in the Senate, where they would have already had to take
a public stand up or down on the measure, but let's be clear--both men
have said they suppport the negotiated proposal that was put to the
House today, and which went down to a stinging defeat, 228-205, despite
the solid support of the House Democratic leadership.

Meanwhile, to see how your representative voted, click here. You'll know what do to...

The Power of "No"!

dlindorff — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:53:21 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

The Congressional switchboard is jammed. You can get through, but it
takes a dedicated finger on the redial button of your phone. Operators
at the Capitol say it's been that way for a week now, as Americans
across the country have been flooding their Congressional delegations
with phone calls (and emails) urging them to vote "No" on the
Bush/Paulson Wall Street bailout.

That today is no exception, after Democratic Party leaders (and both
major party presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama)
bought into the plan after adding some window-dressing measures
designed to make it look more palatable. This shows that the public is
not fooled.

People see clearly that this is a trillion-dollar giveaway to the
very people who have been hollowing out and destroying the US economy
for over a decade or more by convincing both parties to let them do
whatever they want to get rich, free of any kind of significant
oversight or regulation.

As Nobelist economist Joseph Stiglitz has written
of this outrageous rip-off, there are four problems facing the
financial system, and the bailout proposal only addresses one--getting
the toxic mortgages off the banks' books and onto taxpayers' hands.
Left unsolved is the gaping hole in banks' balance sheets in the form
of loans made to people and companies which cannot be repaid, which
will mean they still won't start lending money again. Left unaddressed
too is the continuing collapse of housing prices, which will inevitably
lead to more bank collapses even after the bailout. Finally, Stiglitz
says there is the general loss of faith in the financial system--a
major crisis which the bailout will also not solve.

Stiglitz doesn't even address a fifth problem which is that this
trillion-plus-dollar boondoggle (and when you add in the bailouts of
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns, the multiple mega-bank
failures and the pending auto-industry bailout, you're already talking
$1.5 trillion and counting), all of it with borrowed money, the stage
is being set for a collapse in the US dollar, with consequences that
will reverberate through the economy. Consider: if the dollar
collapses, as many experts say is almost inevitable with this kind of
huge addition to the national debt, oil prices (which are set in
dollars) will soar to compensate, the price of all the other goods that
Americans import--more than half of everything we use in daily life
thanks to the decimation of American manufacturing--will rise
dramatically, and ultimately, in an effort to stem the bleeding,
interest rates will have to be raised, thus bringing what's left of the
economy to a grinding halt.

All of this is readily predictable--and indeed a group of over 200 prominent economists has written Congress
joining Stiglitz in opposing the bailout plan--but that doesn't matter
to the proponents of the bailout in Washington. What they want is to
get past Election Day, and the bailout may do that, unless the public
gets really aroused.

The tsunami of calls and emails to Congress, and last week's
nationwide demonstrations against the bailout suggest that the public
is waking up to this looming disaster and to the fact that they are
being sold a bill of goods.

If you haven't made an effort to call your two senators and your
representative to demand that they vote "No" on this bailout, do it now
(the number is 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121), and don't give up when
you get a busy signal. That's a sign that you are not alone. Just keep
hitting "redial" until you get through. At that point, get the
operator, before switching you, to give you direct numbers for your
three members of Congress, so you can bypass the main switchboard
number after that.

Unlike the 2002 rush to war against Iraq, this latest bum's rush can still be stopped.
__________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist.
His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006
and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Bush Exits with a Bang: Toxic Bailout and Two More Wars?

Heather Wokusch — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:53:09 -0400

The Bush administration is heading us towards more disaster with its 'toxic debt' bailout and destabilization of Pakistan and Iran. We can't afford to go down this road again. In this short video, Heather Wokusch provides background, context and ideas for taking action.

Links for sources cited in this video:

Bailout:

Crisis talks over $700B 'toxic debt' rescue plan

Bush: "The American people have got to know that I made this decision along with a lot of experts because it was necessary to protect them."

Pakistan:

Washington is Risking War with Pakistan

The American War Moves to Pakistan

Iran:

Preparing The Battlefield July 07, 2008

Dutch intel: US to strike Iran in coming weeks September 1, 08

Israel asks U.S. for arms, air corridor to attack Iran September 11, 08

U.S. to sell IAF smart bombs for heavily fortified targets September 14, 08

Bush could still attack Iran Sept 17 08

Does Anyone Want to Buy a Private Pension Plan? Going Once...

dlindorff — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:17:54 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

That deafening silence you hear coming from the McCain campaign is
straight-talkin’ John touting his plan for privatizing Social
Security...not.

With Wall Street banks falling like dominoes, a hundred billion dollars vanishing overnight, and the Treasury
Department scampering about trying to prop up failing enterprises
from Bear Stearns to Fannie Mae, and with domestic and global equity
and bond markets swooning, Americans are afraid to open those envelopes
that come every quarter telling them the value of their hard-earned
401(k) retirement plans.

No wonder John McCain isn’t touting privatizaton these days.

It’s not just that many of those private 401(k) plans McCain and
his ilk so love for the working stiff were invested in the very
financial institutions that have seen their share values drop to zero,
or in other financial institutions that were themselves heavily
invested in the stocks or debt instruments of the growing list of
failed institutions. It’s that the tottering US financial edifice is
shaking the broader markets, making stocks, bonds, and even giant
insurance companies like AIG look like houses of cards, and a poor bet
for funding one’s dotage.

Paul Krugman, in today’s New York Times, says that the Federal
Reserve Bank and the US Treasury Department, in letting Lehman Bros,
the nation’s fourth largest investment bank, go bankrupt, instead of
doing yet another government bailout, was a kind of financial Russian
roulette. Could Lehman’s collapse lead to a wholesale collapse of Wall
Street and the US banking system, ala 1929-31? Krugman says,
incredibly, that nobody really knows, including Fed Chairman Ben
Bernacke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

That’s not the kind of thing you want to hear when you’ve managed,
over the course of a working life, to save maybe a few hundred grand in
a tax-deferred retirement plan that is all invested in stocks and
bonds. Nor is it very comforting, if you are one of the millions of
Americans who put your money into some kind of insurance annuity,
expecting to get a guaranteed stream of income for life, to hear that
AIG, the largest insurance company and one of the biggest issuers of
such “private pension” programs, is struggling to come up with $40
billion in cash to avoid going belly up itself.

Now fortunately, for nearly all American workers, there is a
backstop: Social Security, which is not invested in any financial
instruments, and which pays out monthly benefits to retired and
disabled workers and their dependents based not upon the whims of the
markets but on the lifetime earnings of the worker in question. Unlike
a 401(k) investment, which is dependent for its size and reliability on
the performance of the financial markets in which its assets are
invested, or an annuity, which is dependent upon the financial survival
and viability of the insurance company which issued it, Social Security
is a program in which the payments of benefits are an obligation of the
federal government, and are paid from a fund of money that has been
paid into by the retiree and her employer in earlier years, by current
workers and their employers who pay a tax on current earnings, and, if
necessary, by supplemental funds allocated by the Congress. Social
Security benefits are adjusted each year for inflation (though since
President Bill Clinton, those adjustments have been reduced because of
a sleight of hand that makes inflation appear to be less than it really
is).

McCain, and Republicans in general, have been pressing for years to
have Social Security privatized, or partially privatized, with at least
some of the money taken from employees and employers for Social
Security invested in financial instruments such as stocks or bonds.
They’ve tried to sell this snake oil to young workers by pointing to
the rising stock market, and claiming ominously that some day, with so
many current workers approaching retirement, Social Security will go
“bankrupt.” Last year, the Bush Administration, which has filled the
Social Security Administration with GOP hacks, actually had notices
sent out to every American worker warning that “unless something is
done,” Social Security might not be there for younger workers when it’s
their turn to retire.

This kind of cynical scare tactic is beneath contempt, and is
designed to weaken support for one of the most significant progressive
legacies of the New Deal. The reality is that as the Baby Boom
generation reaches retirement, starting with the first Boomers who will
hit 65 in 2011, the elderly lobby, already enormously powerful, will
swell to become perhaps the most powerful “special interest” voting
bloc this nation has ever seen. Retired Americans will have the
electoral clout in another 10 years to make Social Security whatever
they want it to be.

They (we really, since at 59 I am part of that generation) will
insure that the government pays us and our fellow retirees a decent
retirement stipend, and we will also insist that reforms be undertaken
to insure that our kids also get secure retirements.

We will do this not by undermining the program, as McCain and other
Republicans have called for, by privatizing all or part Social
Security, but by making sure that every dollar earned by even the
richest of people is taxed, instead of having the social security tax
limited to the first roughly $100,000 of earnings. We will demand that
if more taxes are needed, they be paid by employers, not workers.
Currently employers and employees each pay about 7.5% of wages as a
payroll tax into the Social Security Trust Fund. There is no reason why
that split should be 50/50, though. Employers could pay a bigger share.
(Right wing economists try to argue that any tax paid by an employer
ultimately comes out of the employees’ wages, but this ignores the law
of supply and demand: workers don’t negotiate wages, or accept a job at
a certain pay level, based upon the gross wage being paid, but on what
they will be taking home each payday. Extra taxes paid by an employer
could not be automatically taken out of employee pay. They would have
to come out of corporate profits.)

The timing of the current spreading financial crisis has exposed
McCain’s call for privatization of Social Security as a bad idea
masquerading as reform. Since McCain can be expected to pursue the idea
if elected, it’s just one more reason for American voters to reject his
candidacy.
______________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist.
His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006
and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/36027';
digg_title = "Does Anyone Want to Buy a Private Pension Plan? Going Once...";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n That deafening silence you hear coming from the McCain campaign is straight-talkin’ John touting his plan for privatizing Social Security...not.\r\n\r\n With Wall Street banks falling like dominoes, and the Treasury Department scampering about with trying to prop up failing enterprises from Bear Stearns to Fannie Mae, and with domestic and global equity and bond markets swooning, Americans are afraid to open those envelopes that come every quarter telling them the value of their hard-earned 401(k) retirement plans.\r\n\r\n No wonder John McCain isn’t touting privatizaton these days.\r\n \r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

McCain/Palin Campaign Relies on Lazy Thinking and Prejudice to Win

dlindorff — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:17:45 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

I got an urgent email from an uncle of mine yesterday evening. A
sweet man, retired career military and very religious, he was genuinely
worried about an email he had received purporting to convey an article
said to have been written by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and
published on June 29, 2008 alleging that much of the Obama campaign's
"small donations" over the Internet had actually come from several Arab
sources overseas.

Now I could see before reading two paragraphs of the alleged column
he forwarded to me that it was not Dowd's acerbic and witty writing
style, but I cannot expect most people who don't even read Dowd to know
that. Two minutes at the computer, however, and I was easily able to
confirm, as anyone could do, that Dowd had never written the article. A
search of the New York Times archive showed she had written on a wholly
different topic--Hillary Clinton--on that day, and moreover, the
non-partisan truth-checking website Snopes.com had a full documented debunking of the scam.

Why this particular campaign dirty trick--and with Karl Rove in the
back seat of the McCain campaign bus I have no doubt that it originated
in the bowels of that campaign, which has not disavowed it--works, and
why the many other vile efforts, like the latest shameful official
McCain TV ad claiming that Obama backs "sex education for
kindergartners," work is that many otherwise decent Americans like my
uncle first of all are primed to believe such crap by a deep-seated
prejudice against people of color, and secondly that the corporate
media which are supposed to be informing us are afraid to call out a
mainstream political candidate for lying and deceiving the public.
Some, like Fox, actually promote these falsehoods.

Look at the news today. Instead of exposing the blatant campaign of
character assassination by the McCain/Palin campaign, it is focused on
the bogus (and frivolous) claim by the McCain campaign that Obama has
called Palin a "pig with lipstick"! (What did Obama really do? He said
that the McCain/Palin ticket's attempt to portray itself as an
anti-pork, anti-Washington, reform campaign is like putting lipstick on
a pig--a common expression used by McCain himself.) The issue becomes
not "Is the McCain campaign charge true?" but rather "Should Obama have
to apologize to Palin?"

What's depressing about this is how well the McCain campaign's swim
in the sewer is working. A nice kid I know who works at our local
garage told me that he couldn't vote for Obama, despite liking his
policies, "because he'll take his oath of office on the Koran." Aside
from the anti-Muslim bias inherent in this statement, it is based upon
false information being spread virally through the internet falsely
claiming, on the basis of no evidence, that Obama is a secret Muslim
and that he took his Senate oath of office on a Koran.

People on the left may wish that Obama were a more overtly
progressive and more expressly anti-war candidate. I certainly do. But
let's get real here for a minute. With the black-baiting that is going
on by the other side, and the gullible and terribly uninformed or even
misinformed electorate out there, and with a national media that will
simply repeat and spread whatever bilious and false charges are made by
the McCain campaign, what chance on earth would a candidate like Obama
have if he were to call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, or for a
government-run medical insurance program? Those who call angrily for
such unambiguous positions by Obama are deluding themselves.

I really have to laugh. He'd be labeled a traitor and a communist,
and you know what? Absent a real analysis and absent critical reporting
by the mainstream media, 90 percent of the American public would
unthinkingly buy that false and ludicrous characterization.

I used to have a higher opinion of my fellow Americans, who had a
reputation for common sense. I used to believe that if a candidate told
them that it made no sense to put insurance companies in charge of
their health care and that people were much healthier and less anxious
about their health and their lives, and spent less on health care in
countries like Canada or Sweden or Germany or France where their health
care was guaranteed by the state, if a candidate told them that half
the money being spent on the US military was a waste and did nothing to
make the nation safer, if a candidate told them that human life on this
planet was in grave danger if nothing was done to seriously reduce
carbon emissions by half or even more, that they would listen and vote
accordingly. I used to think that if only Ralph Nader could shoehorn
his way into the national debates, a wave of popular support would
sweep him into the White House. (And let's be honest here. We on the
left are not immune from this poison of ignorance. I cannot tell you
how many otherwise intelligent people on the left keep writing me to
say that the entire foreign policy of the United States is being
secretly run by "Israel and the Zionists.")

I no longer hold that high opinion. Sure, if this nation were
educating people to think critically--which is not being done--if we
had a media that had a core ethos of getting at the truth and making it
known--which we don't--I would have that confidence. But I think it is
clear that we have traveled so far down the road of creating an
ignorant and fearful electorate that any candidate making such bold
claims would be doomed to either a devastating loss, or to minor party
status. Nader, for example, whose ancestry is Lebanese Christian, were
he to begin to rise in the polls to become a serious candidate, would
certainly be portrayed as a Muslim Manchurian candidate, and it
wouldn't matter what he said or stood for after that.

I don't know what this dismal state of affairs means in terms of
the future direction of American politics, but it doesn't bode well for
the future of third parties, or for the Democratic Party, or for the
country, or for the fate of the world.

And that is the truth.
________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Palin: The Real `American Taliban'

dlindorff — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:33:39 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Back in the early days of the seemingly interminable Afghan
conflict, a young American, trapped in Afghanistan by the US invasion
of that country, was captured along with Taliban fighters and, after a
bit of captivity and “enhanced interrogation” at the tender mercies of
US troops, was transported back for trial in the US, where then
Attorney General John Ashcroft excitedly labeled him the “American
Taliban.”

But John Walker Lindh, railroaded into a 20-year jail sentence and
slapped with a gag order that bars him from talking about how he was
tortured for the entire length of his incarceration in Afghanistan, is
not the real American Taliban. That title surely belongs to our new
Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.

According to reporting in the latest edition of the National Enquirer,
a paper routinely maligned as a grocery-store scandal sheet, but
actually boasting a skilled investigative reporting team that makes
what passes for investigative reporting these days at most corporate
media shops look like bad jokes (it was the Enquirer that
exposed John Edwards’ extra-marital affair and blew his political
career out of the water), Palin sought to cover up, perhaps even from
John McCain, her 17-year-old daughter’s pregnancy until after she was
safely nominated. Her plan, says the Enquirer, which spoke to
acquaintances and neighbors in Palin’s hometown of Wasilla, Alaska, had
been to get through the convention, then get daughter Bristol married
off to the infant-to-be’s father, 18-year-old Levi Johnston, and only
then disclose the pregnancy.

That devious scheme was reportedly scotched by Bristol, who the Enquirer reports was “at war” with her mother over the idea of a politically motivated shotgun wedding.

According to the Enquirer, it was that paper’s disclosure
to both Palin and the parents of Johnston, that it was ready to publish
the pregnancy story, that led Palin to break the bombshell news about
the pregnancy ahead of her nomination—a move that left the McCain
campaign embarrassed and exposed to ridicule over its obvious haste and
undeniable lack of any vetting of its vice presidential nominee.

Why should we care about this domestic melodrama? Because, besides
revealing the casualness with which the 72-year-old, health-impaired
McCain is willing to treat the job of picking his alternate and likely
mid-term successor, it reveals the deceptiveness and the inhumane,
ruthless fanaticism of Palin, a candidate who is trying to market
herself to voters as “Everymom.”

Few real moms or dads in their right mind would try to force a
17-year-old daughter and an 18-year-old boy to get married, simply
because they had accidentally conceived a baby. All the odds predict
that such parentally imposed pairings are doomed to failure, with much
unnecessary trauma and psychic damage to both kids and to their future
child along the way. Is Palin afraid her fellow believers on the
religious Right would condemn her if her daughter were allowed to bear
her child as a single parent? Is she afraid the child would be a (gasp)
“bastard”?

This kind of religious fanaticism, in which the welfare of young
children is run roughshod over for the sake of biblical correctness,
has been evident and roundly condemned by Americans when practiced in
Taliban-run Afghanistan, or Wahabi-run Saudi Arabia, where women don’t
get any choices about their futures. We don’t need it coming from the
White House.

I say, three cheers for Bristol for standing up to her tyrannical mom and saying no instead of “I do” on command.

Given the domestic drama, it was shameful that the Palins dragged
their daughter and Johnston down to the Twin Cities to be paraded in
front of the nation for the sake of their self-described pit bull mom’s
political career in a faux display of family togetherness. You knew
what the real story was by the embarrassed deer-in-the-headlight looks
on the two unsmiling teens’ faces as they were on put on display. You
knew it too by the way Palin, who devoted a considerable portion her
acceptance speech to talking up her family life, said not a word about
her daughter’s impending marriage—the date for which has been left
unstated.

My guess is that the supposed wedding will be conveniently pushed
back past Election Day, after which, if those two kids are lucky, or
plucky enough, it will be quietly forgotten.

With any luck, Palin’s vice presidential hopes will be history by
then too, and with them, the era of “Just Say No” sex education in our
nation’s schools.

Teens have enough trouble making their way in this crazy,
high-pressure world without having loopy, self-involved, religious
fanatic parents mucking their lives up further. And the last thing
they, or the rest of us, need is a national “imom” pushing her Taliban-like moral agenda on the whole nation through laws and the appointment of like-minded judges.
________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35877';
digg_title = "Palin: The Real `American Taliban\'";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n Back in the early days of the seemingly interminable Afghan conflict, a young American, trapped in Afghanistan by the US invasion of that country, was captured along with Taliban fighters and, after a bit of captivity and “enhanced interrogation” at the tender mercies of US troops, was transported back for trial in the US, where then Attorney General John Ashcroft excitedly labeled him the “American Taliban.”\r\n\r\n But John Walker Lindh, railroaded into a 20-year jail sentence and slapped with a gag order that bars him from talking about how he was tortured for the entire length of his incarceration in Afghanistan, is not the real American Taliban. That title should probably belong to our new Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';