Robin Hood vs. Bling King of The Hill

Last week, when JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon schmoozed with the Senate Banking Committee, he wore his magical Presidential Seal cufflinks to protect him from all government harm. The Bling King was back in Washington today to give a reprise of his fake apology. If you have a strong stomach, you can catch the theatrics here.

If not, you can always celebrate the 797th anniversary of the Magna Carta by signing a letter to Dimon, demanding that he share the wealth. Not that he will immediately cower with fear when he is compared to King John, not that he will lose any beauty sleep over the possibility that he might be forced to accomodate the hoi polloi. He's got a horde of Sheriffs of Nottingham protecting him, in the guise of the president, the Treasury Secretary, his SEC and Fed minions along with several hundred medieval Congress critters meekly grazing at his trough of campaign largesse. But engaging in quixotic exercises like an email to Jamie is better than nothing. If he breaks out in just one nervous bead of sweat when thousands of peasants wield their symbolic pitchforks at him, it will be worth it.

The Robin Hood tax on financial transactions is so popular that even Austerian Queen Angela Merkel of Germany likes the idea. Deposed French President Nicholas Sarkozy, another hardcore conservative, liked it too.
  

Simply put, the big idea behind the Robin Hood Tax is to generate hundreds of billions of dollars.That money could provide funding for jobs to kickstart the economy and get America back on its feet. It could help save the social safety net in the US and around the world. And it will come from fairer taxation of the financial sector.

This small tax of less than ½ of 1% on Wall Street transactions can generate hundreds of billions of dollars each year in the US alone. That's enough to protect American schools, housing and hospitals.

Enough to get local governments back on their feet. Enough to pay for lifesaving AIDS medicines.

Enough to support people and communities around the world – and to deal with the new climate challenges our world is facing.

It's a small tax with a huge benefit.

It won't affect ordinary Americans, their personal savings, or every day consumer activity, such as use of ATMs or debit cards. It's easy to enforce and tough to evade.

Sounds like a no-brainer. So why don't we hear Candidate Obama yammering for the financial transaction tax?  Simply put, he doesn't like it because his Wall Street paymasters don't like it. Of course, he won't say so in so many words. His excuse, direct from the Republican playbook of conservative talking points, is that taxing Wall Street will damage "confidence."  He prefers to levy his bank fees upfront, he says, so as not to punish investors and traders. He is afraid that the ultra-sensitive bankers will take out their wrath on the rest of us. He is afraid that banks will increase fees to consumers. He is just.... afraid!

American nurses have been among the most vocal proponents for the Robin Hood tax, most recently having marched for it in Chicago during the NATO summit.  RoseAnn DeMoro of National Nurses United explains her group's goals in an interview with Bill Moyers here.

Letters to Jamie Dimon are fine, and we should sign them every day. But what we really need are arsenals of populist arrows (and hypodermics) aimed at the political class, every member of which survives courtesy of bankster bribery.

We need to keep yammering and hammering and leave them stammering. Let's reverse the trajectory of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

(Photo Courtesy of RootsAction)

Worried Sick

It turns out that even if you're lucky enough to have health coverage, you've probably denied yourself the privilege of indulging in actual health care. By the time the profit-bloated insurance leeches have bled you dry, there's precious little left over to actually see a doctor. The USA has the unique distinction of spending the most on health care without actually providing much of it to a sizeable chunk of the population.

But the insurance leeches are sure getting richer and richer from their bloated premiums, which have skyrocketed in anticipation of the "Affordable" Care Act kicking in. Or not, depending upon the whim of nine jurists in black robes.

How sickeningly perverse is that?


The Kaiser Family Foundation is reporting today that many people are worrying themselves sick about how to pay their medical bills. They are not filling prescriptions, not going for follow-up visits, not seeing the dentist. The poorer and sicker and older you are, the more you worry, and the sicker you get.

About a quarter of Americans (26 percent) report they or a family member had problems paying for medical bills in the past year. Difficulty paying bills can lead to tough choices as people negotiate tight budgets. In an effort to allay costs, roughly six in ten (58 percent) report foregoing or delaying medical care in the past year due to the cost.

Half of those with private insurance report that increasing premiums and co-pays are causing them financial hardship. They're worried about losing their jobs and their coverage. That can't be conducive to good health.

Meanwhile, it turns out that quite a few people don't even know about the Affordable Care Act. Here's another story from Kaiser, called "Uninsured and Unaware." It talks about dirt-poor people sleeping all night in their cars to get a place in line for a free medical check-up in rural Tennessee. Patients did not seem to know that if the ACA does eventually go into affect, it would drastically increase the number of Medicaid enrollees by raising the threshhold for poverty up to $31,000 for a family of four. Woulda, coulda, might, maybe.... in 2014. People have so much gall to be getting sick right now, huh?

Everything I have read lately predicts that the Supremes will trash some, most or all of the ACA. And that Obama and the Democrats have no Plan B. It leads me to believe that their hearts were never in it in the first place. Or that they know something we don't know and are kind of hoping that, like the rural Tennesseans, we never even heard about it.

Typical politicians -- maybe if they ignore it, ObamaCare will just go quietly into that good night. As Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told Politico, there's no point in doing any planning until nine unelected people decide the fate of 330 million people.

Leaking on the Leaks

Drip, drip, drip.
Some leaker just leaked to Reuters that the drone strike and Obama Kill List leaks are not part of the leak investigation. This is because the CIA, which ostensibly is in charge of the drone program, must first file a criminal complaint bitching about somebody blowing the whistle on their top-secret shadow war. They have not yet done so, because the drone strike policy officially does not even exist. The leaks (actually better described as epic floods) coming from three dozen White House sources do not count in the grand scheme of leakdom, apparently. The CIA will never bite the White House hand that feeds it, ignores its past transgressions (torture and the destruction of videos of torture), pats it on its head, and gives the middle finger to its civil libertarian critics.

The usual suspects -- "sources familiar with the inquiries" requesting anonymity because their information is "sensitive" -- told Reuters that the government is interested only in pursuing the copycat underwear bomb plot and allegations about the Stuxnet worm being unleashed on Iranian nuclear facilities:

By contrast, the CIA did file a "crime report" following publication by the Associated Press last month of a report disclosing the foiling of a plot by Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to attack an airliner using a newly designed underwear bomb, sources said.

Officials said the second leak investigation involves a series of revelations in a book and article by a New York Times journalist about the alleged role of U.S. agencies in cyber-warfare activities against Iran. These include the creation and deployment of a virus known as Stuxnet which attacked Iranian uranium enrichment equipment.

Marcy Wheeler has written an intriguing post about the possible role that petty jealousy is playing among Congress critters who were blindsided by the revelations in David Sanger's book about the cyberwars. Dianne Feinstein, for example, is royally miffed that a mere reporter knows more about the intrigue than she herself. We peasants apparently don't have the right to know that there was some pretty sleazy foreign and domestic intrigue in the first place. It appears that Israel may have dished to Sanger about possibly letting Stuxnet go rogue without also dishing to Congress. Ergo, the investigation by the Justice Department. When the elites are kept out of the loop, they get irate. It there is anything they can't stand, it's the annoying sound of a dripping faucet. It disturbs their beauty sleep.

Feinstein, writes Wheeler, has grossly misplaced her concerns:

The US, in partnership with Israel, released a WMD to anyone who could make use of it. And the people in charge of overseeing such activities got fewer details about the WMD than you could put in a long-form newspaper article.

And DiFi thinks there’s too little secrecy?

 They only go after leakers and whistleblowers who cause them some major embarrassment -- such as Bradley Manning, with his revelations of war crimes and State Department petty intrigues via WikiLeaks.

The drone program leaks, on the other hand, are a source of great pride for the American exceptionalists, and are therefore immune from prosecution.  For one of the most opaque and secretive Administrations in recent history, their actions are painfully and politically transparent.



Après moi, le déluge (Mme Dianne Feinstein De Pompadour)



Dirty Double-Crossin' Rats

I'm not a voyeur, so I couldn't bear to watch the public orgy known as the Dimon-Senate Banking Committee hearing writhe its way to completion yesterday. I'll paraphrase what I did watch, with one hand over my eyes:

Dimon: (sounding kind of like James Cagney in one of his gangster roles, talking rapid-fire oligarchy-barky Brooklynese with a mouth full of gravel)."Sorry, so glibly sorry. But I am so huge that even a glitch like a $4 billion loss doesn't put a dent in my greatness. Yeah, yeah we might need a few regulations, but let me do the regulating, guys. I'm just too big for most people to even understand. But I got it covered, see?"

Senators: "Okay, Your Greatness. Would you like some taxpayer-funded champagne to go with your caviar? Are the camera lights creating a drop of perfumed perspiration on your lofty brow? Would you like to retire to a special room where we can enjoy our make-out session in private?"

Senator Bernie Sanders, the socialist-independent senator of Vermont, was very much a part of Wednesday's hearing although he is not an actual member of the Committee. Protesters screamed at Dimon to listen to Bernie before they were escorted out by security guards. Dimon, busy schmoozing with his gentle inquisitors, appeared unruffled by the outbreak of hoi polloi-dom. He is triply safe. He is in charge of a bank the size of a country, he serves on the regulatory board overseeing himself, and he funds the campaigns of almost every senator on the Banking Committee. He is a ranking member of the Board of Directors of the United States of America.

Sanders has just named names in a report by the Government Accountability Office, showing that Dimon is not the only member of the Federal Reserve Board who is a fox guarding the henhouse. Since the 2008 financial meltdown, The Fed gave trillions of dollars in no/low interest loans to Dimon's bank and 17 other corporations whose CEOs also just happened to have seats on the Fed.

JP Morgan, Dimon's bank, received  $390 billion in emergency Fed funds at the same time his bank was used by the Fed as a clearinghouse for emergency lending programs. Jamie Dimon's Fed gave Jamie Dimon $29 billion in financing to buy distressed investment house Bear Stearns in March 2008 after it allowed Jamie's bank to cook the books and erase Bear Stearns' risky mortgage related assests from the balance sheet. Jamie Dimon's Fed gave Jamie Dimon's bank an 18- month exemption from risk-based leverage and capital requirements. (It gave carte blanche to recklessness. It ensured that Jamie Dimon's bank would grow too big to fail, that Jamie Dimon could risk other people's money with impunity and into perpetuity.)

The GAO report says all this chicanery sure does give the "appearance" of impropriety. Ya think? They probably should have called it "Public Enemies" to give it a little more pizzazz.

Sanders, meanwhile, has introduced quixotic legislation that would try to bar banking and corporate CEOs like Jeffrey Immelt of GE from serving on the Fed board. The names of the other plutocrats who profited from their dual positions can be found here.

Meanwhile, the great Crony Capitalism World spins, a magical place where all the risks are subsidized and all the gains are privatized. The dirty rats remain at the helm of the sinking ship.

Obama Loses Miss Congeniality Title in World Pageant

Obama may be personally popular and likeable enough in the USA. But in the rest of the world, not so much. The rest of the world is not so wrapped up in glitzy presidential campaign propaganda and apparently has not developed our acquired taste for authoritarian kool-aid. The rest of the world that happens to be of the Muslim persuasion is not impressed with the Leader of the Free World's intellectualized "signature" drone strikes, nor does it buy into the canard of American Exceptionalism. (Do as we say, not as we do.) The rest of the world is not impressed with a president who can kill anyone, anywhere in an undeclared, free-floating War on Terror that includes every back yard as a battlefield. Or, if he decides to show mercy, who can imprison anyone, anywhere -- without charge or trial.

As a matter of fact, China is actually winning the world popularity contest in some of those unstable, terrorist-harboring regions. You know -- the China that imprisons and disappears dissidents, censors the Internet, pollutes its air, enslaves its workers, and is sort of repressive. Europeans now consider China, not the U.S., to be the dominant global economic power. And China itself is becoming less and less fond of the United States and the president.

The Pew Global Attitudes Project just released a report today showing that

Global approval of President Barack Obama’s policies has declined significantly since he first took office, while overall confidence in him and attitudes toward the U.S. have slipped modestly as a consequence.

(snip)

Even though many think American economic clout is in relative decline, publics around the world continue to worry about how the U.S. uses its power – in particular its military power – in international affairs.

There remains a widespread perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally and does not consider the interests of other countries. In predominantly Muslim nations, American anti-terrorism efforts are still widely unpopular. And in nearly all countries, there is considerable opposition to a major component of the Obama administration’s anti-terrorism policy: drone strikes. In 17 of 20 countries, more than half disapprove of U.S. drone attacks targeting extremist leaders and groups in nations such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

By contrast, a pretty shocking 62% of Americans polled are just fine with a president killing people overseas with drones. Probably because no other country has yet attacked us with drones, and because many of us are unfamiliar with the term "blowback." But it is only a matter of time. The unremitting bombing of civilians (aka "militants") in Yemen and Pakistan is only creating more terrorists where none otherwise would have existed. And when the relatives and friends of anonymous collateral damage do stage a revenge attack on American soil, you know what the official story will be: "They hate us for our freedoms."

Ironically, of all the countries surveyed, it is Greece that most despises the American drone program. Though not victims of predator bombs themselves, they are the victims of predator banks. It seems fitting that the birthplace of democracy only gives the Obama drone program a 5% approval rating. Sanity is alive and well somewhere in this world.

Media Cannibals and Zombie Messages

So, the Commerce Secretary got into a series of unfortunate car accidents over the weekend, seemingly stemming from medical issues. Nobody was seriously hurt, thank goodness.

But judging from the media coverage, the event -- hardly a scandal of epic proportions -- is hurting the president's "messaging". It is distracting from the "narrative".  It is making his Friday press conference gaffe about the wonderful private sector loom even larger in the public consciousness. 

John Bryson, the victim, has been lost in the shuffle of politics. He was apparently well enough to go back to work Monday morning, but by Monday night he was suddenly on an "indefinite" medical leave of absence.

The Republicans, of course, had pounced on the story immediately, only to quickly retract suppositions that Bryson was drunk (breathalyzer was negative.)  Then the press corps pounced, wondering if he had been properly vetted before being appointed, if a previous fainting incident had been the subject of a nefarious cover-up, if a seizure disorder might have impeded the secretary's task of conducting the nation's commerce. From yesterday's White House press briefing:

Q Thank you. Does Jack Lew consider the Secretary Bryson’s incident a serious one -- two car accidents? And any questions about his health?

MR. CARNEY: I think I just answered this. (he had --this was the second question about Bryson.) I don’t have a specific response to give you from Jack Lew. I think our response is what I said in general, which is concern about the incident, learning more about the incident, obviously the health-related aspect of this. But I don’t have any specifics for you and I would refer you to the Commerce Department.

Q Is health taken into consideration when the President vets somebody for a Cabinet position?

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any specifics for you on those procedures. The President obviously nominated Secretary Bryson because he believed he was capable of serving as Commerce Secretary, and he has served effectively as Commerce Secretary since he was confirmed by the United States Senate.

Q Apparently he had some kind of episode when attending a board meeting a couple of years ago.

MR. CARNEY: I have no information on that and don’t know even if it’s true.

Q Is that the kind of thing a Secretary should keep in touch with the White House on? Do you know --

MR. CARNEY: Again, you just told me something that is speculation, and now you’re asking me if it’s something he should have made people aware of. I don’t know anything about that incident, and I do not know whether or not it’s accurate.

Q Should Secretary Bryson’s office have gotten in touch with the White House earlier than last evening?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we’re in discussions with the Commerce Department about this. Again, it was a unique -- let me just step back and say, whenever a senior official is involved in an incident of this nature or any kind of incident like it, it’s obviously important that the White House find out about it. This circumstance was pretty unique in that Secretary Bryson was alone, was not with a security detail, was on private time, which is common for certain members of the Cabinet, and it resulted in him being -- both having a seizure and ending up in the hospital. So, for that reason, you have to recognize this as somewhat unique. But in general, certainly it’s important that the White House be informed as soon as possible.

And there was this third hard-hitting exchange on Hit'nRunGate, in what passes for modern adversarial journalism:

Q Jay, on Secretary Bryson, what was the timing of the seizure in relation to the accident?

MR. CARNEY: I would refer you, as I said in the past, to the Department of Commerce for more details.

Q I've been asking them for hours.

MR. CARNEY: I just don't have those details for you. So I think I would refer you to the Commerce Department.

Q Can you explain why there seems to be a parsing of -- it just seems the Commerce Department is saying he was involved in accidents and he had a seizure, but there's really nothing connecting the dots and it's really an important point.

MR. CARNEY: Well, again, as I pointed out, there was -- the Commerce Secretary was alone; he had a seizure; he was involved in an accident. I would refer you to the Commerce Department for more details. Those circumstances I think speak to some of the difficulty in getting details. But beyond that, I just don't know and I would refer you to the Department of Commerce.

Q Does it seem like it's causal, though, the seizure and the accidents?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I'm certainly not a doctor. I certainly didn't --

Q But you've seen --

MR. CARNEY: I was not a presiding doctor on this case, so I would refer you to the Department of Commerce.

Q He was involved in several accidents. You said, "an accident" just now.

MR. CARNEY: Okay, I read the reports, April. He was involved in several accidents.

Q I mean, for the record --

MR. CARNEY: Thank you for the correction. I think I acknowledged what you all have read, is that there were several accidents as part of this incident.

Q And can you speak to how the White House came to be alerted?

MR. CARNEY: The White House was informed yesterday evening.

Q By?

MR. CARNEY: By the Commerce Department. I don't have an individual for you. And the President was informed this morning.

Q Jay, one more on that. Can you say whether the Secretary is now on medical leave or if you expect --

MR. CARNEY: Can I refer you to the Commerce Department? They would have the best information on that.

Q It's the kind of thing the President would probably know about, so that's why I'm asking.

MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to the Department of Commerce.

It has come to this. The journalistic class has nothing better to do than to wallow in its own manufactured drama, taking an obscure cabinet secretary's obscure traffic mishap and making it into a monumental issue. It ranks right up there with the unemployment crisis, the Euro crisis, the impending Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare and LeakGate. From The Hill:

A hit-and-run accident involving Commerce Secretary John Bryson threw the White House off message Monday just as President Obama sought to regain his footing after a series of political missteps.

How about the accidents throwing Bryson himself for a loop? How about disclosing how the press rabble itself threw the White House off-message? How about that old Marshall McLuhan adage -- the medium is the message?

And Politico, of course, was also just being its own political self with the headline: "John Bryson's Leave of Absence Adds to Obama's Bad News."

It was an uncomfortable way to start the week, making it impossible for the White House to reset its economic message after Obama had to walk back his “the private sector is doing fine” comment from Friday. That self-inflicted wound came in a news conference meant to divert from a series of bad news cycles: the massive Democratic loss in the Wisconsin recall, Bill Clinton’s off-message adventures, national security leaks, the dismal May jobs report and his own fundraising numbers for the month showing him millions of dollars behind Mitt Romney.

Gloria Allred, celebrity attorney to the stars of media victimhood, nailed it the other day when she announced what is really important: "Cannibalism is a serious issue and is very dangerous to the health and the well-being of the cannibal and the victim.”

She was speaking, of course about that drug-crazed face-eater in Florida. But she might as well have been talking about the state of national politics in general and the Washington press corps in particular. They are not only poisoning the public discourse with their meaningless drivel, they are eating democracy alive by not serving the public interest. They are endangering our health with their stenographic reporting and vacuous questions. They are a menace to our well-being. They truly are, in the words of Allred, "the scourge of our time."

I am no fan of the Obama Administration, but press secretary Jay Carney had it absolutely right when he admonished the ravening White House press corps to "do your jobs and report context."

Too bad he also didn't suggest that they pivot to the illegality of those targeted drone assassinations by presidential decree, rather than mindlessly concentrating about who leaked what. Here's his exchange with Norah O'Donnell of CBS about LeakGate:

Q Senator McCain over the weekend accused the Obama administration of intentionally leaking information to enhance Obama’s image as a tough guy for reelection. Do you have a response to that?

MR. CARNEY: Well, my response is the same as it was last week, which is that is wrong and absurd. The President addressed this himself from this podium on Friday. He takes very seriously the need to protect classified and sensitive information, and that has been his posture since he took office.

Q How can you say unequivocally that it’s wrong and absurd? Have you done an internal investigation?

MR. CARNEY: I can tell you that this administration -- this White House, under the guidance of the President, takes very seriously the need to protect classified and sensitive information, the need to do so for our national security interests to protect our counterterrorism operations and other operations that are undertaken by our forces and our government.



Stop the Scourge of Absurd Questioning by Journalists!



Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/08/3647003/commentary-gloria-allreds-valiant.html#storylink=cpy

Phony Outrage

Let's see.... it's been more than a week since the New York Times first broke the story that President Obama has a secret list containing the names of "militants" and "terrorists" being targeted for assassination. Among other things, we learned that the president himself is the ultimate decider of who lives and who dies. Then, close upon its heels came another scoop, describing how Obama took over a secret cyber-war against Iran begun by George W. Bush.The Stuxnet virus, long suspected to be a joint American-Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, turns out to have been another program with hands-on direction from the president himself. 

Did the White House immediately issue statements denying the veracity of the information contained in these stories, and vowing to launch immediate investigations into who divulged state secrets to Times reporters? It did not. It neither denied, nor reacted in any way, other than a few brusque "no comments" due to the secretive, sensitive nature of the information that conveniently, somehow leaked out of the deepest recesses of the Situation Room.

For its part, too, Congress was initially and predictably silent. After all, the drone strikes are an open secret. Congress appropriates the money for them.Thousands have died from American bombs in Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia, many of them innocent men, women and children. The only outrage had been coming from the lonely outposts of the civil libertarian blogosphere and independent journalism. Polls have shown that most "liberals" are just fine with our President unilaterally taking it upon himself to kill Muslims, to keep us all "safe."

But when the Paper of Record sat up and took notice and spilled the beans on the Kill List and Stuxnetgate, Congress also finally sat up and took notice, howling about how that, and the drone program revelations are endangering national security. Depending on their political party, they alternately blamed the newspaper itself for publishing the articles, and accused the White House of being the source of the leaks. Democrat Dianne Feinstein is upset that such information being made public will make us less safe. Republican John McCain is livid that the information appears to have been leaked for pure political gain, to boost the president's re-election prospects. None of the power elites is complaining about the illegality of the programs, executive overreach, or the loss of innocent human life. Just the leaks, and nothing but the leaks.

And today, President Obama himself sat up and took notice. Without actually confirming that he is in fact, Lord High Executioner, he vociferously denied that his White House has been the source for the Times stories. (this, despite the fact that reporters wrote that their sources were a hefty three dozen White House insiders!) Quotes from his press con this morning:

"The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive. It's wrong.... People I think need to have a better sense of how I approach this office and how the people around me approach this office."

"When this information or these reports -- whether true or false -- surface, on front page newspapers, that makes the job of folks on the front lines tougher, and it makes my job tougher," he said. "Which is why, since I've been office, my attitude has been zero tolerance for these kinds of leaks and speculation."

"We're dealing with issue that can touch on the safety and security of American people, our families or our American security personal, or our allies, and so we don't play with that," he went on to say. "It is a source of consistent frustration -- not just for my administration, but for previous administration -- when this stuff happens, and we will continue to let everybody know in government, or after they leave government, that they have certain obligations that they should carry out."

Notice that while Obama decried the leaks themselves, he did not deny their veracity or that these were horrendous allegations in and of themselves .... only that they didn't come from him. He even claimed that the Times reporters have now said they didn't come from the White House. Actually, the reporters have said no such thing, at least publicly.

Scott Shane, co-author of the "Kill List" story, did write a blogpost this week blaming readers for misinterpreting the article. For example, he now denies ever having said that David Axelrod was present during "Terror Tuesday" meetings, even though his article did explicitly state that Axelrod was a silent observer. He also tried to run from his own lead, which had implied that the president mulled killing a 17-year-old girl. And then Shane blamed thousands of "left-wing" bloggers for starting rumors based on his reporting, strangely seizing upon the libertarian Prison Planet as an example of left wing rumor-mongering.

I have a feeling that Scott Shane, for all his hagiographic reportage on the Assassinator in Chief, got a bit of blowback from the White House after the publication did not have the desired effect. The majority of reader-commenters, far from cheering for the killing president, expressed disgust and shock. Shane subsequently made a lame attempt at some stenographic damage control, particularly on the Axelrod connection (as a campaign operative, he is not legally allowed to participate in White House policy meetings) and doing his patriotic duty to slime the left wing blogosphere that has had the nerve to be critical of the drone murders. Here's what I replied to Shane*:

With regard to David Axelrod's claim that he was never present at Terror Tuesday meetings, please allow me to quote the salient paragraph from your original article:

"David Axelrod, the president’s closest political adviser, began showing up at the 'Terror Tuesday' meetings, his unspeaking presence a visible reminder of what everyone ne understood: a successful attack would overwhelm the president’s other aspirations and achievements." Can you understand why your readers did not discern the difference between the casual Terror Tuesday meetings in which Axelrod merely hung out as a silent observer, and the real nitty-gritty meetings in which other people ultimately decided who was to live and who was to die? I was among those who totally missed the nuance -- so our bad, huh?

You are a master of innuendo. In this blog post, for instance, you gripe about the thousands of posters "from the left" who went nuts with their inaccuracies. You then use as an example the conspiracy site "Prison Planet" -- thus subtly implying that leftist blogs are kind of nuts. Prison Planet, incidentally, is run by a self-professed libertarian -- not a leftist by any stretch of the imagination.

For some real criticism from the left, I suggest reading Glenn Greenwald.

It seems to me that some kind of damage control is underway here. The White House thought revealing its Kill List would make the administration seem heroic. Instead, they are getting some blowback from shocked citizens. Good.

Meanwhile, The Times finds itself in the business of having to push back against the leak accusations, protesting that they were in no way spoon-fed the information by the White House. The articles in question were the results of hard digging over long periods of time by the reporters, insists Managing Editor Dean Bacquet.

It may be for all the wrong reasons, but the assassination program and accompanying evisceration of civil rights (both foreign and domestic) by this president is finally getting some attention from the mainstream media. For a good overview on the hypocrisy of the Administration's paranoid prosecution of low-level whistleblowers, read this piece by Josh Gerstein. (and of course, Glenn Greenwalds's continuing series exposing the hypocrisy and crime sprees.)

And in a literary approach to both the Times reportage and the Obama kill list itself, Francine Prose has written a stunning critique in the The New York Review of Books. Before Shane used his innuendo skills to semi-retract his own article, he used them, writes Prose, to pen a chilling indictment of Obama under the guise of flattery. She aptly compares the president's chief anti-terrorism advisor John Brennan to Rasputin and Obama himself to Tony Soprano. It's a short read, so don't miss it.

* I have taken to writing just a few of my Times comments under my maiden name initials in a craven effort to maintain my own sanity -- due to some recent personal attacks from the "veal pen" commentariat. I have been told, essentially, to shut up if I can't say anything nice about Our Leader. There is a band of people which literally "stalks" me on Times comments threads. It's the typical crap that Obama critics from the left have been subject to lately, and I have to say, it is getting nasty out there. One person even attacked me through my place of residence, describing my little hometown as being full of tattoo parlors and pitbulls. These are so-called liberals. The times they are indeed a changin'.

The only thing scarier than an Orwellian government are the Orwellian authoritarian citizens enabling it.