RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Wall Street's Plan to Push Obama to Betray Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=18866"><span class="small">William K. Black, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 13 November 2012 09:13

Black writes: "The safety net is the glory of America and the unending nightmare of Wall Street."

President Obama returns to the Oval Office after hearing of the shootings in Aurora, 07/20/12. (photo: Getty Images)
President Obama returns to the Oval Office after hearing of the shootings in Aurora, 07/20/12. (photo: Getty Images)


Wall Street's Plan to Push Obama to Betray

By William K. Black, Reader Supported News

13 November 12

 

Through its lobbying group Third Way and media mouthpieces, Wall Street is determined to destroy the social safety net.

he safety net is the glory of America and the unending nightmare of Wall Street. That's why Wall Street's leading "false flag" group, the Third Way (which calls itself a "leading moderate think tank"), has responded to the warnings that Robert Kuttner, AFL-CIO President Trumka, and I have made that if President Obama is re-elected our immediate task will be to prevent the Great Betrayal - the adoption of self-destructive austerity programs and the opening wedge of the effort to unravel the safety net (including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid).

Here's what you need to know about this plan to rob Americans of their future.

1. Both Democrats and Republican Oppose Cuts to the Safety Nets

Huge majorities of Americans oppose cuts in the safety nets: A majority of Republicans oppose such cuts and Democrats overwhelmingly oppose the cuts. The American people love the safety net because they know it is essential to a humane America. They know that it has transformed the nation. Before Social Security, older Americans were frequently reduced to poverty and dangerously inadequate health care that made the remainder of their lives dangerous and miserable.

The safety net does not cover only the elderly and the sick. My father, for example, died when I (the eldest of three children) was 19 and a sophomore at the University of Michigan. Even though in-state tuition was inexpensive in those days, I would have had to drop out of school. Survivors' benefits allowed me to obtain a superb education and pay back the nation with service and decades of greater taxes because education increased my income. Food stamps and unemployment insurance frequently provide the temporary support that prevent tragedy and allow Americans to obtain useful education and jobs. The safety net has made America a nation we are proud of and a nation that makes it possible for Americans to recover from hard times and tragedy and to lead lives that are vastly more productive and enjoyable.

2. Only a Democrat Can Make it Politcally Safe for GOP Pols to Unravel the Net

One of the most important reasons that more Americans support the Democratic Party than the Republican Party is that the Democratic Party is viewed as the Party that created and guards the safety net. The elements of the safety net are the crown jewels of Democratic Party policy successes.

Only a Democrat can make it politically safe for Republicans who hate the safety net to unravel it (a process that would occur over a number of years) by legitimizing the claim that the safety net must be cut. Obama may not intend to unravel the safety net. He may have been convinced by Wall Street that it is necessary to begin to unravel the safety net in order to save it. But the result would be to declare open season on the safety net by legitimizing the false Republican memes that the safety net is unsustainable and harms the nation. The Republican Party's and Wall Street's greatest frustration is that they have been unable to unravel or discredit the safety net. The Democratic Party has its Wall Street wing, but the Republican Party has been Wall Street's principal representative for decades. The Republican Party has been unable to deliver Wall Street's unholy grail - privatizing Social Security.

3. Wall Street's Schemes for Social Security Endanger the Economy

Wall Street salivates at the prospect of any privatization of social security. This would lead to them being able to charge tens of billions of dollars in fees annually. The banks that administered the privatized program would be Too Big to Fail, or what I call "systemically dangerous institutions" (SDIs) because the consequences of allowing bank failures to cause tens of millions of Americans to lose their retirement savings would require either that all such deposits be federally insured or that the failing banks be bailed out by the federal government. Privatization, therefore, is a convenient fiction. The banks' profits will be private; any catastrophic losses will be borne by the public. The SDIs' that already enjoy massive political power, often exerted through front groups like "Third Way," will burgeon.

The Third Way lobbies for Wall Street and is used to discredit Democratic polices. The Wall Street response (via Third Way) to our warning of the Great Betrayal repeats its central assertion that there is no alternative - the safety net must be cut. The Wall Street Wing of the Democratic Party alleges that if Obama wields the knife, he will do less damage to the safety net than would Romney. That, of course, does not respond to our point. Once Obama endorses Wall Street's false claim that the safety net is unsustainable and a grave danger to our economy he legitimizes future Republican assaults on the safety net. Third Way admits that these assaults would wield a chainsaw. Indeed, if Wall Street (via Third Way) is correct that the safety net is destroying our nation's ability to make productive investments, then Republicans should take a chainsaw to the safety net. Third Way, therefore, has implicitly admitted and even supported our analysis.

The Wall Street response to our warnings of the coming Great Betrayal did not attempt to rebut the point I (and many others before me) made about Wall Street's quest for the riches it would obtain when Social Security privatization began. Third Way cannot rebut the point because it proposes that we should begin to privatize Social Security. The Third Way is faithful to the interests of Wall Street.

4. It's Time to Orgazine

Obama has told us he will try to commit the Great Betrayal as soon as possible. We have to organize now to be able to act immediately to prevent it. Again, the point I and others have made in our warnings is not that Obama wants to unravel the safety net or that the initial concessions to the Republicans will destroy the safety net. The point we made is that by accepting the false Wall Street (via Third Way) and Republican claims about the safety net, Obama would be legitimizing continued assaults on the safety net by Republicans and Democrats that would eviscerate it.

Third Way warns that if Obama does not commit the Great Betrayal the Republicans will destroy the economy:

"The alternative to a grand bargain is a grand throwdown, one like the debt ceiling debacle of 2011. Only this time, the threat of default would be joined by the double threat of sequestration and tax hikes on the middle class."

Giving in to Republican extortion would only prompt repeated Republican extortion. President Clinton followed the correct strategy against similar attempts at extortion by refusing to give in to it. The extortion strategy blew up in the Republican's faces. They remember what happened. Third Way's proposed appeasement strategy would encourage relentless Republican extortion.

5. Third Way Spreads False "Moral Panic" and Protects Fraudsters

Pete Peterson, a Republican Wall Street billionaire, has long led an unholy war to eviscerate the safety net. He has pledged a billion dollars to the effort and funded many groups. The "Third Way" was founded and run by Jonathan Cowan, one of his "acolytes", and its board of trustees is dominated by Wall Street executives. Third Way refuses to disclose its donors.

Third Way represents the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party and has pushed successfully for the worst domestic failures of the Obama administration, including continuing the Bush administration policy of granting the elite banksters whose frauds drove the crisis de facto immunity from criminal prosecution. Third Way has been conspicuously silent in pushing either administration to prosecute these elite financial frauds. Its board of trustees is peppered with senior executives of systemically dangerous institutions that the federal government has charged - but only in civil cases - engaged in fraud. Third Way has applauded the administration's grant of immunity from criminal prosecution for the massive foreclosure frauds (hundreds of thousands of frauds) committed by several major banks in a November 9, 2012 press release entitled: "Third Way Lauds Landmark Foreclosure Deal."

In addition to unraveling the social safety net, Third Way is also useful to Wall Street's pursuit of other major priorities, including austerity and gaining access to tens of billions of dollars in freebie profits from beginning to privatize social security. Wall Street and Republicans use Third Way to try to discredit the Democratic Party, candidates, and policies. The repeated motif is that critics of the Democratic Party's policies cite pro-Wall Street statements by Third Way officials to "prove" that even Democrats admit that the policies endanger the nation. Third Way's specialty is spreading the faux "moral panic" that the safety net is the great threat to America.

6. The New York Times' Bill Keller and Third Way Endorse False GOP Memes

The NYT's Bill Keller recently authored a column ("The Entitled Generation") on July 29, 2012. He excoriated baby boomers based on a study specially given to him in advance by Third Way. Here is how he described this organization run by Wall Street for Wall Street. "This brings me to a soon-to-be released study by the incorrigible pragmatists at Third Way, the centrist Democratic think tank."

Keller proceeds to accept, with no demonstration of even the feeblest effort at critical analysis, Wall Street's position as gospel. Remember, he is doing this in 2012, during an epidemic of fraud and failed models when every week brings the disclosure of a new scandal by our most elite financial institutions, including those that direct the Third Way. Keller implies that he has to accept Wall Street's numbers because they are "arithmetic." Keller must have amnesia about the entire financial crisis, which demonstrated that Wall Street's "arithmetic" consisted of maximizing fictional accounting income through the famous four-ingredient fraud "recipe." That recipe produces massively inflated asset values, fictional income, real bonuses, and catastrophic losses. Each of these results is a "sure thing." Nobody does arithmetic worse than Wall Street.

Third Way is "centrist" on matters that involve Wall Street's compensation only if Keller subscribes to the view that "what's good for Goldman Sachs is good for America." Keller fails to inform his readers that the Third Way is a creature of Wall Street and that the anti-safety net policies it is lobbying for would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in increased profits (plus SDI or Too Big to Fail status and even greater political dominance) to the Wall Street firms that dictate Third Way's policies. Third Way is also a "think tank" only if one views Goldman Sachs' reports as coming from a "think tank." Keller then demonstrated why he didn't believe his readers should learn that Third Way was a creature of Wall Street. He was already afraid that his readers would reject his swallowing the Third Way report's claims hook, line, and sinker.

"Indignant readers are already revving up to tell me that Social Security and Medicare are sacred promises, that cutting them would be stone-hearted Republicanism. A.A.R.P., the lobby for people we used to call senior citizens until we realized that meant us, got hammered by the left earlier this year when its C.E.O. dared to convene a meeting of Washington insiders to even discuss the subject. No wonder A.A.R.P. shies away from supporting any entitlement reform.

But the traditional liberal alternatives - raise taxes on the well-to-do, cut military spending - are not nearly enough by themselves. The arithmetic simply doesn't work, unless we face the fact that entitlements are a bargain we can't afford to keep, not in full."

The quoted passages are revealing in several areas. Wall Street lobbyists like Third Way fear the public. AARP was not simply hammered by "the left." It was hammered by its members, who overwhelmingly opposed AARP management's trial balloon in favor of beginning to unravel the safety net. Bloomberg interpreted the management's effort as supporting a reduction in the safety net.

Actually, the "center," including a majority of Republicans, opposes such a betrayal of the safety net by the U.S. and by the AARP.

7. Unraveling the Safety Net is an Ultra-Right Position

Keller makes the claim in his article that unraveling of the safety net is the "centrist" position, but take a look how ultra-right his "center" moves in the process.

"Centrists like those at Third Way and the bipartisan authors of the Simpson-Bowles report endorse a menu of incremental cuts and reforms that would bring down costs without hitting the needy or snatching away the security blanket from those nearing retirement."

Erskine Bowles is a member of the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party. Alan Simpson is a former Republican Senator known for raging at anyone who defends the safety net, including bizarre personal verbal assaults on individual elderly citizens who oppose his proposals. Keller defines Simpson as a "centrist" and "liberals" as non-centrists. Keller needs a cartographer or some introduction to the political science literature on how vastly far to the right the Republican Party has moved over the last decade because his view of the "center" is warped.

Eric Laursen has just published a book on this marginalization of the vast majority of Democrats who oppose unraveling Social Security. ["The People's Pension: The Struggle to Defend Social Security Since Reagan" (AK Press)]. Laursen explains how the right has created the bizarre state of being that the administration and most of the media treats groups that defend the safety net as extremists - within the Democratic Party - and defines people and groups like Peterson, Third Way, and Simpson as "centrists" despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the safety nets. The supposed non-centrists include the Democratic base - the labor unions, nationally famous leaders like Warren, and other groups that are the most likely to vote for Democratic Party candidates.

8. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles are Allies of Austerity Hawk Pete Peterson

Obama appointed Bowles and Simpson as co-chairs of the commission to recommend budget cuts knowing that both were Pete Peterson allies eager to impose austerity, begin to unravel the safety net, and to begin to privatize Social Security. The Bowles/Simpson (BS) co-chairs pushed each of these three policies (though even they warned that what former President Clinton terms "austerity now" must be avoided because it would throw the nation back into recession). The BS co-chairs, however, were unable to convince the required number of members of their commission to support their recommendations. The co-chairs, therefore, simply went ahead and published a report making their recommendations.

The New York Times' Bill Keller admits, but only elliptically, that Wall Street's (Third Way and BS) proposals are "snatching away the security blanket from those [not yet] nearing retirement." That is a massive, destructive assault on the safety net and Keller's readers deserve to be told so directly. Keller's readers deserve to be told what Third Way and BS want to replace the safety net - privatized savings accounts - the holy grail of Wall Street and its false flag operation known as the Third Way.

But these passages from Keller do not represent the most extreme and destructive attack on the safety net, the American people, and the Democratic Party by Keller and the Third Way. Keller adopts Wall Street's memes for destroying the safety net. Gutting the safety net becomes not a sad necessity, but the essential act necessary to save the nation. The great threat to our nation becomes the safety net. That means that the people who guard the safety net (like me) endanger the nation.

9. In Reality, the Social Safety Net is Good for Economic Growth

Observe how Third Way talks about safety net payments and "investments" in a way that makes the makes the social safety net look harmful:

"[The Third Way study] examined two categories of federal spending over the past 50 years, representing two of government's fundamental missions. One was "investments," … helping assure that our work force is educated to a high standard…. The other category was "entitlements," a catchall word for the safety-net programs…."

Now observe how Keller adopts wholesale Third Way's asserted dichotomy and its warning that the increase in safety net payments relative to "investments" harms our nation.

"By 2030, when the last of us boomers have surged onto the Social Security rolls, entitlements will consume 61 cents of every federal dollar, starving our already neglected investment and leaving us, in the words of the study, with 'a less-skilled work force, lower rates of job creation, and an infrastructure unfit for a 21st-century economy.'"

While the numbers in the Third Way report are not accurate, note that Keller adopts the Wall Street (and Republican Party) assertion in the Third Way report that safety net expenditures "crowd out" "productive" "investments" in the public and private sectors. The asserted dichotomy between "productive" "investments" and "unproductive" "safety-net" expenditures is false. In reality, the safety net often produces some of the most economically productive results of any private or public sector expenditure, as George Romney's career showed. Health care expenditures often extend lives and "productive" work lives. More fundamentally, the entire dichotomy and claimed "crowding out effect" is false. Indeed, when we are below full employment (our most common condition), the safety net expenditures increase economic growth. What Keller and Wall Street (via their Third Way mouthpiece) are pushing in these passages is a variant of Romney's "47 percent" claim that people who receive payments under the safety net are drones who harm the productive class.

Keller ends with this proposal: "We should make a sensible reform of entitlements our generation's cause."

As a nation, we have immense needs because of how our working class and the poor have been hammered over the last three decades. Keller, and Wall Street (via the Third Way), however, urge us to make "our generation's cause" the reduction of the safety net that has reduced massively the agony of the suffering of the poor and the working class and was essential to the economic recovery we have experienced. Keller and Wall Street claim that the "centrist" position is that the Democratic Party's central mission is to lead an assault on the poor and the working class.

As extreme as Keller's position is, Wall Street's position (as expressed in the Third Way study) was more extreme. The report claims that: "Entitlements are a critical part of economic security, but without change, investments will all but dry up…."

Here is the Third Way's summary of the report.

"Public investments and entitlements are on a collision course.

Since the 1960s, LBJ's Great Society and JFK's New Frontier have competed for federal dollars. And as the cost of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security has skyrocketed, we've spent less and less of our budget educating kids, building roads, and curing disease.

In this report, we argue that the only way for Democrats to save progressive priorities like NASA, highway funding, and clean energy research is to reform entitlements. The lame duck offers Congress a "Now or Never" chance to set the terms of a budget deal that saves money on entitlements, raises revenue, and protects investments. And the heart of the Democratic brand is depending on it."

Third Way has provided another proof of our family rule that it is impossible to compete with unintentional self-parody. Only Wall Street could argue that preserving the Democrats' "heart" depends on cutting benefits to the poor and working class so that they could burnish their "brand" by spending the money instead on building roads or rockets. Some heart! Wall Street is describing its heartless "brand."

10. Third Way Slimes Elizabeth Warren for Criticizing Wall Street Frauds

Another example of how proponents of unraveling the safety net use Third Way as a false flag scheme was illustrated by the Chamber of Commerce. They ran a huge ad campaign in mid-October designed to defeat Elizabeth Warren in her run for the Senate. The Chamber's goal was to achieve Republican control of the Senate. The title of the ABC article about the Chamber's ad campaign was: "U.S. Chamber of Commerce Calls Elizabeth Warren 'Catastrophically Antibusiness'."

The centerpiece of the Chamber ad and the title was the quotation that Warren was "Catastrophically antibusiness." The person who made the statement that the Chamber quoted was one the Third Way's founders and a principal spokesmen.

"'If you listened only to Elizabeth Warren [at the Democratic Party's national convention], the message was catastrophically antibusiness,' said Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. That 'further drives a wedge between business and Democrats that may not be fair but is the way business perceives things,' he said. 'And making voters into victims is not a winning strategy.'

'As Bill Clinton used to say, you can't love the jobs and hate the job creators,' said Mr. Bennett, who worked in the Clinton administration."

Warren outraged the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party by speaking truth to power about Wall Street:

"Wall Street C.E.O.'s - the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs - still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors and acting like we should thank them."

The same article noted that "moderates" were upset that Warren was allowed to speak to the convention during prime time, but the Democratic Party felt supporting her candidacy was one of the vital steps in preventing the Republicans from controlling the Senate.

"To the chagrin of moderate Democrats, a prime-time speaker was Elizabeth Warren, the liberal scourge of Wall Street who is running in Massachusetts to unseat Senator Scott P. Brown, a Republican. Her scheduling slot reflected Democrats' zeal to capture that seat and protect their slim Senate majority."

The Chamber ad attacking Warren identified Bennett, the Third Way's co-founder, as the author of the quotation and described him as working for an organization of moderate Democrats. Note that Bennett also adopted the false Republican meme that only CEOs are "job creators." The reality is that each of us, by creating private sector demand and by creating wealth through our labor we create jobs.

The Third Way attacked one of the most praised public servants in the nation because she had the temerity to criticize the Wall Street CEOs who caused the crisis (often through frauds that made them wealthy), were bailed out by the government, and responded with insolence. Third Way not only applauds the administration's refusal to prosecute the Wall Street frauds who drove the crisis - the Wall Street Wing demands that the Democratic Party not criticize the CEOs and claims that calling for the senior executives to be held accountable for their crimes and misconduct is impermissible because it will enrage business people and because any discussion of elite frauds would have to address the fact that they victimized the public.

11. The Good News: Wall Street is Worried

The fact that Wall Street (via Third Way) is worried by our opposition to Obama engaging in the Great Betrayal by adopting austerity and cutting the safety net is good news. Wall Street knows that the public wants the President to protect the safety net from Wall Street's depredations. We need to organize now to save the safety net.



Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trickle-Up Democracy Print
Tuesday, 13 November 2012 08:57

Rushkoff writes: "I no longer look to the top tier of centralized government to solve our problems or help us grope toward conclusions together."

The US Capitol building in Washington. (photo: EPA)
The US Capitol building in Washington. (photo: EPA)


Trickle-Up Democracy

By Douglas Rushkoff, Tikkun

13 November 12

 

know we're not supposed to say such things, but I have lost faith in national politics. Yes, I'll vote in the coming elections and do my part to get the less sold-out, less anti-communitarian candidate in office. But I no longer look to the top tier of centralized government to solve our problems or help us grope toward conclusions together.

For me, big government has become as abstract as the corporations that made it possible. The more I study the emergence of corporate capitalism, the more I see central government as the other side of the same coin: a booming peer-to-peer society was intentionally dismantled during the Renaissance in order to reassert the authority of the aristocracy. This was achieved by giving "chartered monopolies" the exclusive authority to do business in their industries (cronyism) and by giving central banks the exclusive authority to issue currency. All work, trade, lending, and borrowing now had to go through the central authorities. This abstracted what we think of as commerce.

We don't buy from our neighbors anymore. We buy from the firms our neighbors may work for. We don't create value; we serve as employees. We have no relationships with our producers. We engage instead with the brands concocted to shield us from the labor embedded in what we buy. We live in a society where laborers are disconnected from their competencies; consumers are disconnected from producers; and consumers are alienated from one another.

We are taught to look up, rather than toward one another, for solutions. Our best presidents, true believers in the corporate-government partnership, try to kick-start our economy by giving banks money in the hope that they will lend money to corporations, which will in turn open factories in depressed regions so that people can get jobs. This only creates more dependence on institutions whose true purpose is to extract value.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
A Petraeus Puzzle: Were Politics Involved? Print
Monday, 12 November 2012 14:48

Mayer writes: "There seem to be some potentially fascinating political aspects of this story that have yet to be explored. Why, for instance, did this news explode publicly when it did?"

Then-Maj. Gen. David Petraeus greets old friends before handing over command of the 101st Airborne Division. (photo: AP)
Then-Maj. Gen. David Petraeus greets old friends before handing over command of the 101st Airborne Division. (photo: AP)


A Petraeus Puzzle: Were Politics Involved?

By Jane Mayer, Common Dreams

12 November 12

 

he director of the C.I.A. has resigned over an extra-marital affair two days after a Presidential election in which the Agency's role in Libya was of burning concern-what is really going on here?

There seem to be some potentially fascinating political aspects of this story that have yet to be explored. Why, for instance, did this news explode publicly when it did? Both the New York Times and the Washington Post report that the F.B.I. had found, after months of investigation, that neither retired General David Petraeus, now the former director of the C.I.A., nor the woman with whom he was evidently involved, his biographer Paula Broadwell, had broken any laws. Congressional intelligence officials reportedly want to know why they were not informed earlier that the F.B.I. was investigating Petraeus. But what I am wondering is why, if the F.B.I. had indeed concluded that they had no criminal case, this matter was brought to anyone's attention at all.

The investigation apparently began when another woman Petraeus knew-the A.P. identified her as Jill Kelley, a Florida woman with connections to the military-complained about harassing e-mails, which turned out to have been from Broadwell. It's not yet clear how directly the e-mails involved Petraeus. As an official told the Wall Street Journal, "This investigation wasn't about the C.I.A. director, it was about what looked like a cyber crime." In this case, like any other, the official went on, "There are strict rules, there is a wall, about sharing information on ongoing criminal investigations."

According to the Times, approximately two weeks ago, F.B.I. investigators confronted Petraeus personally about the matter. After talking to him, they were satisfied that there were no breaches of national security or other crimes involved. It was then, the Times reports, that Petraeus certainly became aware of the investigation, if he had not known of it before. Interestingly, he did not offer his resignation at once, raising the question of whether he would have resigned at all if he hadn't been asked to when the issue was about to become public. With the election two weeks away, and the C.I.A.'s potential intelligence failures in the fatal ambush of American's diplomats in Libya a campaign issue, Petraeus surely recognized that if he resigned, the scandal would shake the Obama Administration, perhaps giving more fodder to its Republican critics in what appeared to be an extremely close election.

The Times uses the word "murky" to describe what happened next, and there are many puzzling aspects. But according to the Times, at the end of October, a week or so after the F.B.I. investigators confronted Petraeus, an unidentified F.B.I. employee took the matter into his own hands. Evidently without authorization, he went to the Republicans in Congress. First he informed a Republican congressman, Dave Reichert of Washington state. According to the Times, Reichert advised this F.B.I. employee to go to the Republican leadership in the House. The F.B.I. employee then told what he knew about the investigation to Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader. Cantor released a statement to the Times confirming that he had spoken to the F.B.I. informant, whom his staff described as a "whistleblower." Cantor said, "I was contacted by an F.B.I. employee who was concerned that sensitive, classified information might have been compromised." But what, exactly, was this F.B.I. employee trying to expose? Was he blowing the whistle on his bosses? If so, why? Was he dissatisfied with their apparent exoneration of Petraeus? Given that this drama was playing out in the final days of a very heated Presidential campaign, and he was taking a potentially scandalous story to the Republican leadership in Congress, was there a political motive?

According to the Times, Cantor said he took the information, and "made certain that director Mueller"-that is Robert Mueller III, the director of the F.B.I.-"was aware of these serious allegations, and the potential risk to our national security." This is a strange way to explain his contact with the F.B.I. on this matter, because it is almost inconceivable that director Mueller was not already aware that the bureau he runs had examined the e-mail account of the director of the C.I.A., and, further, confronted him in person. Such a meeting between the bureau and head of the C.I.A. would have been extraordinary, and it is fairly unthinkable that Mueller wouldn't have been consulted. So what information was Cantor conveying when he got in touch with Mueller?

One obvious point of the call would have been to inform the F.B.I. director that Republicans on the Hill knew about Petraeus's vulnerability, and also about the investigation. If the F.B.I. had ever entertained hopes of keeping it secret, the odds of doing so were fast diminishing. The same message would have become clear to Petraeus, who was due to testify in front of a House panel next week.

If Cantor spoke with Mueller on Halloween, as the Times chronology suggests, what happened between then and November 6th, which is when the F.B.I. reportedly informed James Clapper Jr., the Director of National Intelligence, about Petraeus's extra-marital affair? The internal pressure must have been enormous on Petraeus during this period. Perhaps he tried to outlast the election in order to shelter Obama from the fallout of his own personal foibles. Perhaps the F.B.I. director, Mueller, who has a reputation for integrity, tried to keep the scandal from political exploitation by keeping it under wraps until Election Day. Cantor, too, appears to have kept quiet, despite the political advantage his party might have gained from going public. Why? It is possible that, because the investigation had national-security implications, those in the know needed to tread carefully for legal reasons.

A final question, at least from my standpoint, is whether Petraeus had to resign at all. It appears that Clapper, who like Petraeus is a military man, saw it as a no-brainer. Within the military, there are rules about adultery. But within civilian life, should there be? The line of the day on the morning talk shows in Washington seemed to be that Petraeus did the "honorable" thing, or "he had to resign." The old saw that, if he wasn't squeaky clean, he could be subject to blackmail by his enemies, thus endangering national security, was mentioned again and again. To me, the whole Victorian shame game seems seriously outdated. Something like half the marriages in the country now end in divorce, and you can bet a great many of those involved extra-marital affairs. Is it desirable to bar such a large number of public servants from top jobs? It certainly seems fair to question Petraeus's judgement, ethics, and moral fibre in this matter. But if infidelity wasn't treated as career-threatening, its value to black-mailers would be much reduced (the fear of a spouse is another matter). In this instance, evidently, there were no crimes. So why again did this blow up as it has? Fans of thrillers, like me, are waiting for more answers.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Veterans Day and a Caution Against a Cult of the Military Print
Monday, 12 November 2012 14:34

Garfield writes: "Does it honour anyone's sacrifice to use them to trump doubt about the justice of a war – or simply abuse them all over again?"

'It's as if the entire culture is purging its guilt from the Vietnam era, when returning military were given the cold shoulder on a grand scale.' (photo: TecheBlog.com)
'It's as if the entire culture is purging its guilt from the Vietnam era, when returning military were given the cold shoulder on a grand scale.' (photo: TecheBlog.com)


Veterans Day and a Caution Against a Cult of the Military

By Bob Garfield, Guardian UK

12 November 12

 

Does it honour anyone's sacrifice to use them to trump doubt about the justice of a war - or simply abuse them all over again?

he video is lovely, affecting and - considering the subject matter - reasonably understated.

A 60-ish guy sits at a lunch counter when a younger man, in army fatigues, walks in and orders a coffee. With no particular fanfare, the waitress serves him ... on the house. Side by side, the two men exchange glances, and the younger catches a glimpse of the elder's forearm tattoo.

As the soldier makes his way with the coffee to a table, a diner approaches him to say:

"Thank you for your service."

A little boy poses next to him for a photo with a real, live hero.

In America, such offerings of appreciation are now commonplace. A soldier in uniform can scarcely navigate an airport terminal without being accosted every 30ft with spontaneous expressions of appreciation. Because, as we are reminded again and again and again, by play-by-play announcers and presidents, men and women in the uniform are heroes defending our freedom.

Political Correctness 2.0 prohibits anyone from questioning this particular article of faith, although the truism requires a somewhat expanded definition of heroism, and a vastly expanded definition of "defending our freedom." But the buy-in is nearly universal. It's as if the entire culture is purging its guilt from the Vietnam era, when returning military were given the cold shoulder on a grand scale.

Vietnam, of course, was a stupid, costly, trumped-up war that divided the nation. And men in uniform bore the brunt of the resentment - even though they were mainly drafted into service. Apocryphal memory has it that soldiers, sailors and airmen were spat upon. No such episode has ever been documented, but nonetheless, the indignation was palpable.

After My Lai, a horrendous atrocity by a rogue army outfit, the term "baby-killer" was casually tossed around. There were no parades, that's for sure.

Hence the twist is this video. The kid who posed with the active-duty soldier now approaches the man at the counter, the man whose tattoo commemorates his Vietnam cavalry unit.

"Are you a hero, too?" the kid asks. Then, pointing back to the soldier in uniform he adds, "That man says you were."

Ah, at long last, recognition.

"I just served as best I could," the vet replies.

And eyes welled with tears throughout the land.

It's hard to fault the sentiment behind this production, by the Inspiration Network TV ministry that rose from the ashes of Jim and Tammy Bakker's PTL. On Veterans Day, it's a poignant reminder of the sacrifices - small, large and the largest - made by our armed forces. It's also a vivid reminder of how far the pendulum of public opinion has swung.

Too far. Can we not honor and respect the commitment of our soldiers, sailors and airmen without beatifying them?

When someone is declared a hero for lacing up combat boots, no matter how far from harm's way, what does that say about those who patrol the Nuristan Province under constant threat from Taliban ambush? And what does it say about the soldier who darts into the open to attend to a fallen comrade?

Are they all equally heroes? Or have we devalued the word?

This growing "cult of the military" would be vexing if it were, indeed, the result of the society acting spontaneously to expiate past sins. But the truth probably has more to do with manipulation. Think back to the invasion of Iraq, a stupid, costly, trumped-up war that divided the nation. When the public finally began to wonder what in the world deposing a Gulf dictator had to do with 9/11 or our national security (answer: absolutely nothing), suddenly the bumper stickers began to appear:

And with that, skepticism about George W Bush's invented threat, not to mention the abominable expenditure of blood and treasure, was conflated with undermining our heroes.

To question the war was somehow to question them. It was unpatriotic. It was a betrayal. And thus did the worship of the uniform serve the interests of the government. Reduced to the role of poster children, our heroes easily won our sympathy - at the expense of our reason, and ultimately their own dignity.

Is it honoring anybody's sacrifice - or simply abusing it all over again - to use them as a trump card against doubt?

There is a term for those who go into battle to serve the cynical political purposes of the powerful: cannon fodder.

Now we are at Veterans Day, when the nation is meant to honor the true sacrifices of those who have served. Whether in defense of freedom or in pursuit of corrupt adventurism, they have done their duty at risk of life and limb. But, good grief, let us think of how we honor them. I'd say start by not being simultaneously grandiose and trite. "Hero" should not be trivialized by overuse. "Defending our freedom" is on the verge of being Orwellian.

Come to think of it: "Thank you for your service" seems just about right.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Ten Females Who Cost Mitt Romney The Presidency Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=18199"><span class="small">Will Durst, Humor Times</span></a>   
Monday, 12 November 2012 11:53

Durst writes: "Here they are, the top ten females who cost Mitt Romney the presidency, each of them representing one of the myriad factors that helped construct the unelectable mosaic that became Bain's Captain of Industry."

Mitt Romney only gained ground in one of eight national polls taken on Wednesday. (photo: Jim Young/Reuters)
Mitt Romney only gained ground in one of eight national polls taken on Wednesday. (photo: Jim Young/Reuters)


The Ten Females Who Cost Mitt Romney The Presidency

By Will Durst, Humor Times

12 November 12

 

How each and every one of Mitt's failures can be traced directly to females.

oley moley catfish. Well, thank god that's finally over. Further thanks that the climax was quick and clean. Almost surgical. Not as long a night as many first thought it might be. Except for Karl Rove that is, who for all we know is still scribbling numbers to prove the call on Clinton's re- election win in 1996 was premature. And as usual, Florida did all it could to gum things up, but was eventually rendered irrelevant. And long may it remain so.

In the end, President Barack Obama trounced, er, battered, um, eeked out a victory, or to be more precise, Mitt Romney lost. Or shall we say, found a thousand ways to lose. Except for one brief shining moment in the first debate, virtually carrying with him a defeat diviner. And each and every one of his failures can be traced directly to females. The distaff of life. Single women. Married women. Old women. Young women. Ladies and divas and flappers and baby mamas; duchesses, priestesses, shorties and floozies. So here they are, the top ten females who cost Mitt Romney the presidency, each of them representing one of the myriad factors that helped construct the unelectable mosaic that became Bain's Captain of Industry

  1. Michele Bachmann. Mitt had to draft on her right wing to win the primary battle and when he tried to tack back to the center appeared not to be the Washington Outsider he claimed, but a typical politician with the core values of a hollowed out chocolate Easter Bunny. With really good hair.

  2. Newly elected US Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts. A state the former Governor lost by 23 points. Proof positive the man arouses the enduring passion of a broken garden rake.

  3. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who took foreign policy off the table making the entire election about the economy which kept getting better, gol darn it. And who can forget her husband. He certainly won't let us.

  4. Sandra Fluke who gave a face to the GOP's Paleolithic Bronze Age attitudes towards women, further exacerbated by the fact that no man in the party could seemingly shut up about it.

  5. Michelle Obama who is just darn likable. As is her husband. A stark contrast to Romney's cyborg demeanor and obvious discomfort around members of the human species.

  6. Superstorm Sandy for providing the opportunity for the President to look Presidential and for he and Chris Christie to French kiss on Atlantic City's Boardwalk crystalizing the concept that bipartisanship is not the saddest word. That's "goodbye."

  7. Ann Romney who would have made a simply terrific first lady. For Dwight D. Eisenhower.

  8. Candy Crowley who single-handedly halted Romney's momentum in the second debate by speaking way above her pay grade. Don't you hate it when the help speaks out of turn?

  9. All the Wal-Mart Moms , who never really understood that whole Cayman Islands bank account thing marking him not as the poster child for the 1%, but as the poster child for the .0001% of the 1%.

  10. And the last female responsible for Romney's loss; Rafalca the 15-year old mare who, while wearing the Romney silks in Olympic Dressage, failed to make the medal round and was probably shipped home strapped to the fuselage of a 747. Seriously, Mitt. Dressage?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3211 3212 3213 3214 3215 3216 3217 3218 3219 3220 Next > End >>

Page 3215 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN