Live long, don't prosper.
 |
| Peter Orszag |
That's the advice from one of the brightest young stars in the Plutocratic Galaxy of Greed. If you're whining about being chronically unemployed, just shut up and be grateful. You'll have less risk of turning into highway splat now that you no longer have to commute to work. If you're stuck in the impoverished suburbs, you don't have to breathe in the polluted air in our big city jobs centers. If you're lucky enough to live long enough to become warehoused in a nursing home, rejoice. You'll probably get better care in an economic depression than you would during a boom time. That's because there are theoretically enough people desperate enough to take a $9/hour job emptying bedpans than would have been the case without the government austerity policies dictated by capitalists gone wild.
Former Obama budget director/millionaire Citigroup executive Peter Orzsag has written a sleazy piece citing these and other "findings" to extol the upside of a crappy economy for the little people. And here you thought austerity had been thoroughly debunked! "This is a morbid column about some unexpected and encouraging news," he cheerfully begins. (I can just envision him sitting at his engraved Apple laptop, cuddled up in a velvet smoking jacket, sipping Courvoisier as he taps out this drivel).
A reasonable estimate is that for every percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate, the U.S. mortality rate drops by 0.3 percentage point. In other words, and although it runs counter to our intuition, recessions may be bad for your our wallets but good for our health.
Orszag cherry-picks his way through various studies, noting that since destitute people can no longer afford to smoke and drink, they're being forced to protect their lungs and livers. He cites the economic collapse in Iceland, and the ensuing improved health of the inhabitants who found themselves priced right out of vice. Strangely, he does not see fit to add that Iceland actually let its banks fail and chose to bail out its people instead. He also doesn't mention that Iceland's recession has essentially ended, thanks to good public policy and a democratic system of government.
America's depression, for all but the booming stock market and those at the very top, slogs on and on and on. Its long-term health effects are just now getting some serious attention.
To be fair, Orszag wrote his plutocratic puff piece before a more recent study was released, reaching the exact opposite conclusion: Joblessness does indeed shorten lives, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. From today's New York Times:
“What is it about employment that has this huge impact
on mortality, beyond the material resources it brings?” said Jennifer Karas
Montez, the study’s lead author, a researcher at the Harvard Center for
Population and Development Studies.
The study was an attempt to explain the reasons
behind the troubling trend of declining life expectancy for the least educated
Americans, particularly women. A study last year found that white women without
a high school diploma lost five years of life expectancy between 1990 and 2008,
a measure of decline last seen among Russians in the economic chaos that came
after the fall of the Soviet Union. This year, researchers at the University of
Wisconsin found that mortality for women had gone up in more than 40 percent of
the counties in the United States since the early 1990s.
But the study raised more questions than it answered,
in particular about why employment status affects physical health. Ms. Montez
said there was some evidence that having a job offered intangible benefits that
could improve health, including a sense of purpose and control in life, as well
as providing networks that help to reduce social isolation.
Meanwhile, banker cum health expert Orszag actually thinks that statistics showing that unemployed people get more sleep is a huge plus. He either doesn't know, or chooses not to know, that excessive sleepiness is a sign of clinical depression. Or that the 30% increase in the past decade of our national suicide rate has been directly linked by the Centers for Disease Control to our unaddressed crisis of long-term unemployment. His glib conclusion:
None of which should make us plutocrats wish for economic trouble. (But it does, it does!) Higher unemployment means loss of productivity, lower income and mental anguish, and those are more than sufficient reasons to combat joblessness. There may be some small consolation, though, in learning that it probably doesn’t harm human health the way that we all imagined. (We can ease what little is still left of our Randian consciences, fellas!)
The Pete Peterson Fix the Debt cabal are going to jump all over this piece, and the dubious statistics behind it, in an effort to resurrect austerity policies in the wake of the epic scandal of the flawed Reinhart/Rogoff study. Their new, improved message: the Sequester and all the other whips and chains of gratuitous economic sadism may be painful, but a whole bunch of new cherry-picked stats now shows that they'll help all you peasants live to a shriveled old age.
The better to chain-CPI you with, my dears, said the Orszag wolf at the door. Yes, it is Orszag who's also been championing cuts in Social Security -- not because it'll actually help the economy, but because making people suffer for no good reason will magically tranform his old boss into a Profile in Courage in the eyes of Wall Street. That corner office is waiting.
From the Department of the Unintentionally Hilarious comes this observation from Senator Lindsey Graham on President Obama's ballyhooed Pivot to Peace:
At the end of the day,this is the most tone-deaf president I ever could imagine, making
such a speech at a time when our homeland is trying to be attacked literally
every day.
So here we have the top Congressional proponent of endless war on the global battlefield admitting that there is such a thing as blowback. And he actually wants it! By raining down drones from the skies, America is recklessly making itself a target for more terrorist attacks. Thanks, Lindsey, for speaking truth to power. You finally admit that we will stop getting attacked if we'd only stop attacking others. You even kind of admit that getting attacked turns you on. When you turn your country into a victim of The Other, it's so much easier for the real culprits of Corporate World to continue their stealth attack on the national economy.
Lindsey's priceless quote is tacked on the very end of a very priceless piece by the New York Times' Peter Baker. The headline is In Terror Shift, Obama Took the Long Path.
A more apt title would be The Agony in the Rose Garden. Baker, with an assist from the usual high-ranking but anonymous White House propaganda sources, is jumping on the bandwagon of the latest PR campaign that portrays Obama as a Biblical Christ-like figure at war with his other self: the wrathful Old Testament patriarch of a deity.
"Revenge is mine" saith the Paternalist in Chief about the unknown militants targeted for assassination below his watchful eye.
"Let this drone cup pass from me", pleads Obama the Son, surrounded by his sleepy disciples in the Gethsemane of the Oval Office. "But let it be as you, not I, would have it."
The only thing missing from the New York Times narrative are the bloody drops of sweat dripping from the presidential brow. His pronounced and vague sacrificial relinquishment of drone murder was "a pivot two years in the making," writes Baker. Talk about interminable spin -- this administration personifies it.
While part of the re-evaluation was aimed at the next
president, it was also about Mr. Obama’s own legacy. What became an exercise
lasting months, aides said, forced him to confront his deep conflicts as
commander in chief: the Nobel Peace Prize winner with a “kill list,” the antiwar
candidate turned war president, the avowed champion of transparency ordering
operations over secret battlegrounds. He wanted to be known for healing the rift
with the Muslim world, not raining down death from above.
Over the past year, aides said, Mr. Obama spent more
time on the subject than on any other national security issue, including the
civil war in Syria. The speech he would eventually deliver at the National
Defense University became what one aide called “a window into the presidential
mind” as Mr. Obama essentially thought out loud about the trade-offs he sees in
confronting national security threats.
Rest assured that the anonymous sources revealing the secret gyrations of a tortured presidential psyche will never be punished under new whistleblowing guidelines, nor will Peter Baker's phone records ever be seized by the Department of Justice. This journalist is doing God's work, for God's sake, acting as the earthly conduit for the glorification of the powers that be.
Current CIA Chief John Brennan is transformed by the Times into a John the Baptist figure, going forth into the desert last year to spread the drone message, pre-Obama's Sermon on the Mount speech. Barack had bigger loaves and fishes to fry, remember, worrying about getting re-elected at the same time he was having Terror Tuesday meetings to decide who'd live and who'd die. And because of grueling endless politics, he had to cast aside his inner gentle Jesus and become Big Daddy Deity:
While the agencies argued, Mr. Obama focused on
winning a second term, boasting about the same aggressive approach he was
privately rethinking. “Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top Al Qaeda
leaders who’ve been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement,” he
said in response to campaign criticism.
But here's where the latest White House propaganda narrative starts to fall apart from the weight of its own glaring inconsistencies. After all the supposed agonizing and hand-wringing on the pivot toward love and peace, the Old Testament appears to be winning out over the New Testament (or, as the Obama Administration chillingly calls his latest gospel, Archive 2.) The article continues,
Ultimately, the president and his team decided to
tighten the standard for striking targets outside overt war zones. Instead of
being authorized for any “significant threat to U.S. interests,” drone strikes
would be used only in cases of a “continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons.”
They would also be limited to cases with a “near certainty” of avoiding civilian
casualties.
The C.I.A.’s opposition to shifting responsibility for
drones entirely to the Pentagon resulted in a compromise: There would be a
transition period for the program in Pakistan, which would be reviewed every six
months to determine if it was ready to be moved to military control.
Administration officials suggest that the transfer of the Pakistan drone program
may coincide with the withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan in 2014.
Translation: the devil is in the parsing. New Testament same as Old Testament. One hundred percent certainty that a drone victim is a bad guy is replaced by "near certainty". Meaning what -- 51 percent? Hellfire missiles raining down on Pakistan will gradually subside from a raging downpour to a steady shower? And anyway, the withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan by 2014 is not going to happen. The bases, and the residual military "support staff" will stay forever.
And for all the talk about Obama's switching responsibility for the drone program from the CIA to the Pentagon, those protected, anonymous White House sources assure us that the hand of God will still be in ultimate control:
The hawks may be grumbling about it, but that’s to be expected,” said a senior
government official who supported the strategy shift. “This is a big change. But
no one is screaming.”
The hawks proposed a change of their own, suggesting,
as
The Daily Beast has reported, that the president leave individual strike
decisions in authorized areas outside overt war zones to the Pentagon and the
C.I.A. But the White House rejected that. Mr. Obama felt those decisions were
the president’s responsibility: he wanted to keep his own finger on the trigger.
Thank God for God. The exalted figure who meditates on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine before acting as judge, jury and executioner will be keeping his own finger on the trigger. Rather than repudiate the power of the president to disregard the Constitution, he simply put the kibosh on hordes of bloodthirsty professional spies and soldiers running amok with the joysticks. Father Knows Best. And without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, those same heartless creatures who voted down the triggerman's impassioned plea for gun control laws.
In the eternal internal struggle that is Obama, it looks like the murderous paternalist is here to stay, despite all the self-serving conflicted rhetoric. The Times piece concludes:
Mr. Obama was also interested in instituting an
independent review of how and when drone strikes would be conducted. Multiple
papers were prepared and multiple options evaluated. Among them was a special
court to oversee targeted killings, but the discussion became tied up in knots
about how it would work. Would a judge have to approve such strikes in advance
or after the fact? What about an independent board within the executive branch
instead? Administration lawyers argued against surrendering presidential
authority, and defense policy makers argued against giving up operational
control.
That proved to be a debate Mr. Obama could not
resolve. In his speech, he invited Congress to come up with ideas. He also
thought it was time to review the authorization of force that Congress passed in
the days after Sept. 11, 2001, and that has been the legal foundation for the
war on terrorism. But after a two-hour discussion just days before the speech,
he could not decide exactly how to do that, either.
Eventually, the president just decided to add one telling caveat to his aspirational message, the phrase that all politicians use when they want to placate the masses, yet have every intention of maintaining the status quo: Be Patient.
Change takes time, remember. Especially when the homeland is trying to be attacked, every single day.
As MSNBC host Chris Hayes discovered to his surprise and chagrin last year, you don't criticize the term "war heroes" on Memorial Day and get away with it. Here are his fateful words:
Why do I feel so uncomfortable about the word 'hero'? I feel uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect the memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.
No, he wasn't wrong about that. I actually think his words were measured, sensitive and circumspect in addressing a subject deserving of a lot more outrage and vitriol. But such was the outrage from all over the political spectrum that he was soon forced to issue an apology, which ended thusly:
But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don't, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry.
Since Hayes is one of the few bona fide journalists gracing the airwaves today, I think that his apology, in retrospect, was a relatively small price to pay for keeping his job. He was even considered ready for primetime and given a promotion recently by his corporate bosses of the media industrial complex.
This is not the usual story. There is a long history of other fine reporters who have been fired from media empires or otherwise marginalized for speaking truth to power about our great American War Machine.
The late Howard Zinn had his Boston Globe column cancelled in 1974 after he spoke out against war. On Memorial Day, no less:
Memorial Day will be celebrated as usual, by high-speed collisions of
automobiles and bodies strewn on highways and the sound of ambulance sirens
throughout the land.
It will also be celebrated by the display of flags, the sound of bugles and
drums, by parades and speeches and unthinking applause.
It will be celebrated by giant corporations, which make guns, bombs, fighter
planes, aircraft carriers and an endless assortment of military junk and which
await the $100 billion in contracts to be approved soon by Congress and the
President.
You can read the whole thing here. It remains a classic of anti-war literature, even more timely than when it was written nearly forty years ago.
Chris Hedges resigned from the New York Times rather than hang around waiting to be fired, having been booed off the stage for delivering an anti-Iraq war college commencement address in 2003. An excerpt:
Because we no longer understand war, we no longer understand that it can all
go horribly wrong. We no longer understand that war begins by calling for the
annihilation of others but ends if we do not know when to make or maintain peace
with self-annihilation. We flirt, given the potency of modern weapons, with our
own destruction.
The seduction of war is insidious because so much of what we are told about
it is true -- it does create a feeling of comradeship which obliterates our
alienation and makes us, for perhaps the only time of our life, feel we belong.
War allows us to rise above our small stations in life; we find nobility in a
cause and feelings of selflessness and even bliss. And at a time of soaring
deficits and financial scandals and the very deterioration of our domestic
fabric, war is a fine diversion. War for those who enter into combat has a dark
beauty, filled with the monstrous and the grotesque. The Bible calls it the lust
of the eye and warns believers against it. War gives us a distorted sense of
self; it gives us meaning.
I.F. Stone had already been blacklisted from the mainstream press for decades when he became the first and only journalist to challenge Lyndon Johnson's veracity on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident in the Vietnam War. Since no corporate outlet would have him, he'd started his own weekly newsletter, the archives of which can be found here. You might even call him the prototype of the independent blogger, answerable to nobody. His mantra has been largely ignored or forgotten by the sycophantic propagandists of war masquerading as contemporary journalists:
All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.
See my previous post about smoking and drones. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
But to its credit on this platitude-heavy Memorial Day, the New York Times did use the occasion to finally criticize President Obama's backdoor proposal to modernize our fleet of nukes. As I laid out in a post last month, Obama's actions in this regard once again directly contradict his campaign promises. Here's my own Times comment to help counter today's outbreak of war glorification sentiment:
According to Hans Kristensen of the Federation of Nuclear Scientists, what Obama
is proposing is nothing less than the development a stealth nuclear weapons
system, every bit as streamlined and precise as his beloved drones, one "that
expands the targets you can hold at risk from Europe, because by placing the
explosion closer to the target you can choose a lower explosive yield. That is
very important as there is less radioactive fallout. For many people this is a
great concern because it means making nuclear weapons more
'usable'."
This
should be sending a chill right up your spine, especially since there has been
little fanfare in the media about this sneaky, deadly backdoor item in the
president's budget -- not to mention lack of reaction from leaders of Congress.
If they can't even rein in gun violence here at home, I suppose it's too much to
ask that they put the kibosh on bigger, deadlier killing machines abroad.
When it comes to maintaining the military-industrial complex, no price
is too high, no weapon too lethal, no defense contractor's pocket too deep, no
politician too hypocritical.
Yesterday's endless airy words about endless treasury-depleting wars from the Motormouth-in-Chief were last seen hovering somewhere over the blighted heap of waste formerly known as the Motor City. The monstrous rhetoric cloud is now believed to be headed west toward his hometown of Chicago, where nearly 50 public schools in poor neighborhoods are being closed to make room for more profits for real estate developers and the other denizens of the ruling class. From there, it will emphysemically wheeze its way to the site of an interstate bridge collapse in Washington State.
As he exhaled his oratory on the flag-draped stage of National Defense University, Barack Obama sounded like a strung-out rambling addict who grudgingly admits that he should probably cut back on his costly and deadly drugs, but just not yet. Not today. He's still in the bargaining stage. Quitting now would provoke too much tension. He's got plenty of time. He still thinks he's invincible and America is invincible, despite all those pesky little symptoms that keep popping up: crushing poverty, crumbling bridges, and civic rumblings here at home, dismal approval ratings abroad. A condemnation from the United Nations here, blowback there. But right now, he really needs that cigarette, that drink, that snort of coke, that vicarious thrill of the joystick, that puff of smoke, that bugsplat. He promises he'll cut back, though. Really truly he does. Trust him, he says.
I suppose that once you've indulged yourself with the power to kill at will, it must be a very hard habit to break. So let the bargaining and the obfuscation begin. First, the bait and switch -- he'll transfer the drone program from the secretive CIA to the "more accountable" special ops of the Defense Department. I'd say it's like a nicotine fiend trading Camels for Salem Menthol Lights and calling it an embrace of a healthier lifestyle. But Barack is too much into the hard stuff for that analogy. He's more like the guy who promises his concerned family members that from now on, he'll smoke crack in a locked bathroom rather than in the closet of the locked bathroom.
He'll appoint yet another expendable hack to make a list of potential Gitmo transfers. He'll play Santa Claus and check it twice, and then, to great fanfare and self-approbation, repatriate a few emaciated "folks" back over to Yemen. Once there, he'll no doubt secretly arrange for them to be housed with investigative journalist Abdullelah Haider Shaye, whose imprisonment Obama himself orchestrated when the reporter got too nosy and truthy about the women and children getting killed by his drone strikes.
You see, when Barack Obama says that he loves freedom of the press, he means it in terms of their freedom to take his dictation. But when reporters ask questions of his underlings behind his back? They must be tamped down like one of his cigarettes. Shaye is thrown in jail over there, reporters are frozen out and and spied upon and threatened over here. The second-hand smoke we're allowed to inhale will be of the hygienically filtered variety, the pretense being that selective toxins are safe toxins. Barack Obama is selling you his lethal foreign policy the same way tobacco companies sell you their safe cigarettes.
He'll task another task force to draw up secret plans to set up a secret court to review his secret kill list. He'll appoint the attorney general to look into the same first amendment abuses that the attorney general himself orchestrated. That's the trouble with untreated addiction to a powerful drug. You don't even notice the nightmare quality of your own actions, the fact that your oratorical orifice is now spewing doubletalk. Just a few examples:
We must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.
Translation: Persistent efforts against specific networks the wide world over are different from boundless efforts against the specific networks taken as a whole. We will smoke only one cigarette at a time until we go through the whole pack, but we will never actually admit to smoking the whole pack. That would be unhealthy. Not to mention disgusting!
But our commitment to constitutional principles has weathered every war, and
every war has come to an end.
I may smoke like a chimney, but I eat healthy. Even when my ciggies get sucked down to the nub, I still look great and my teeth still gleam.
Now, this is not to say that the risks are not real.
Any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies and
impacts public opinion overseas. Moreover, our laws constrain the power of the
President even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the
Constitution of the United States. The very precision of drone strikes and the
necessary secrecy often involved in such actions can end up shielding our
government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can
also lead a President and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for
terrorism.
At some level, I know that smoking causes cancer. I know that my second-hand smoke will cause disease and death. I fully accept that there should be some no-smoking areas scattered at wide distances, that even I should honor. But those secretive hidey holes are so damned tempting.
And for this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight
of all lethal action. After I took office, my administration began briefing all
strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan to the appropriate committees of
Congress. Let me repeat that: Not only did Congress authorize the use of
force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes. Every strike.
If I smoke like a fiend and cough in your face and spread my poison, it's because Congress hasn't outlawed cigarettes. Every time I light up, they know or they ought to know. So it's their fault that I can't quit. They know about every strike. Every lucky strike.
I'll never be impeached or tried for war crimes, because then they'd have to impeach themselves. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and I are all safe. Now hack away hack away hack away all, and to all a good night.
The New York Times is now in the True Confessions business. In an obviously pre-approved leak immune from DOJ subpoena, the front page article by Charlie Savage can best be described as the warm-up act to tomorrow's killer of a speech by Barack Obama. To soften the Obama shocker for those who've not been paying attention, Attorney General Eric Holder is finally admitting that our government has killed four Americans in drone strikes! One of the homicides, says Holder, was the planned offing of radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
The other three, including the killing of Awlaki's 16-year-old son, were "not specifically targeted", added Holder. They were apparently in that broad category known as signature strikes, conducted solely on the basis of age, sex, and location, location, location. Nowhere in his May 22 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee does the AG express regrets for the error. Because, see, it wasn't actually a mistake. In the Orwellian mindset of the Obama Administration, all drone victims are considered guilty unless proven innocent post-mortem. And the administration hasn't yet figured out a way to put dead people on trial. Would they be Mirandized? Would a lawyer be assigned to the corpse if it is unable to afford one?
Holder actually brags about Boss Obama's "unprecedented transparency about how counterterrorism activities are conducted". In his "leaked" May 22 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he goes to great lengths insisting that Awlaki was a leader of al-Qaeda, intimately involved in the Underwear Bomber plot and instigator of the Fort Hood shootings by an Army psychiatrist. However, according to Jeremy Scahill's exhaustively researched new book, Dirty Wars, although the cleric was certainly a radical, his radicalization was mainly part of the blowback against post-9/11 American Muslim-baiting and foreign Muslim killing. There is no direct evidence that gives him any leadership role -- let alone membership -- in Al Qaeda.
Nowhere does Holder mention that the erstwhile-respected Awlaki was actually courted by the Bush administration in the days after 9/11 to act as a sane voice of reason against anti-Muslim sentiment, but was later hounded by the FBI, possibly to act as an informant against his fellow Muslims. Awlaki was eventually harassed to the point of leaving the United States. He was ultimately thrown into solitary confinement in a Yemeni jail -- without charge -- at the behest of the Bush administration. The Bushies simply didn't like what they were reading on his anti-American blog, according to Scahill. I am only about a third of the way through this stunning masterpiece of investigative journalism, and can't recommend it highly enough.
Meanwhile, here's my comment to the Savage article:
Ever so conveniently, the "evidence" that Awlaki was anything more than a
rabble-rousing blogger remains classified by the government. And if this week's
news of the Obama administration's assault on journalism is any indication, any
reporter daring to ask a federal employee for a look-see at said evidence will
be declared an enemy of the state forthwith.
Holder, who has so
speciously proclaimed that the criminal banking cartel is too big to jail, now
asks us to blindly accept his rationale for state-sponsored murder. This, while
peaceful Americans protesting their own victimization by the criminal banking
cartel are being tased and arrested right outside his office building. Can
domestic weaponized drones be that far away?
Truth-telling is being
frozen while our government wages secret wars with Hellfire missiles. "Some say
the world will end in fire," wrote Robert Frost. "Some say in ice."
From
the looks of things, the experiment known as America will end in both, unless
more people wake up and take notice of the atrocities being committed in all our
names.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has a little mind. He's also a fool. He's a grotesque hobgoblin who doesn't even have the decency to wait for scores of constituent bodies to be dug out of the wreckage before announcing that aid to his state must first be offset by cuts.
From the Huffington Post:
Coburn spokesman John Hart on Monday evening confirmed that the senator will seek to ensure that any additional funding for tornado disaster relief in Oklahoma be offset by cuts to federal spending elsewhere in the budget. "That's always been his position [to offset disaster aid]," Hart said. "He supported offsets to the bill funding the OKC bombing recovery effort." Those offsets were achieved in 1995 by tapping federal funds that had not yet been appropriated.
You do have to give the guy an A for consistency. Coburn is treating Oklahoma exactly the same way he treats the other 49 states -- with all the sadistic intensity of a Charles Dickens villain. Most recently, he voted against Hurricane Sandy relief and against increasing the FEMA budget.
Emerson, quoted above, was an American contemporary of Dickens and the pacifistic founder of Transcendentalism. But ironically, he has become co-opted by the anti-government Tea Party movement, which in turn has been co-opted with great success by the Koch Brothers/Fox News oligarchic cult of selfishness now being represented by Coburn & Co. The famous line about consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds is from the essay called Self-Reliance, written as an anti-government rallying cry for independent thought. But the Tom Coburns of the world have now twisted Emersonian philosophy into a rallying cry for slashing the social safety net, for urging Americans to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and pull themselves out of the rubble, whether it be natural or created by the global financial Mafia. Emerson's emphasis on the spiritual over the scientific also fits in nicely with the creed of climate change denialism and the anti-intellectualism being peddled by the right wing in order to keep the heaving masses in their place and the plutocracy on its perch.
In a New York Times Magazine essay published in late 2011, Benjamin Anastas actually went so far as to blame Emerson himself for the rise of pathological right-wing selfishness:
The excessive love of individual liberty that debases our national politics? It
found its original poet in Ralph Waldo. The plague of devices that keep us
staring into the shallow puddle of our dopamine reactions, caressing our touch
screens for another fix of our own importance? That’s right: it all started with
Emerson’s “Self-Reliance.” Our fetish for the authentically homespun and the
American affliction of ignoring volumes of evidence in favor of the flashes that
meet the eye, the hunches that seize the gut? It’s Emerson again, skulking
through Harvard Yard in his cravat and greasy undertaker’s waistcoat, while in
his mind he’s trailing silken robes fit for Zoroaster and levitating on the
grass.
That's quite a stretch. Blaming Emerson for the rise of John Galt is like blaming Jesus for the rise of the Christian right. The Tom Coburns of the world have always pretended to love Christianity at the same time they've thumbed their noses at the radical socialism of its founder.
It's not even about the individual liberty they profess to love. It's about their pathological love of money, and making sure that once it's confiscated from the national treasury, it finds its way into the right plutocratic pockets. It's all about their pathological hatred of humanity.
The risk of tornadoes remains high in Oklahoma today. The risk to Oklahomans of the toxic stormcloud known as Tom Coburn will remain elevated for the foreseeable future, until that magical day when they come to their senses and send him on a one-way transcendental trajectory to somewhere over the political oblivion rainbow.
This just in, from the same government watchdog group (Center for Media and Democracy) which exposed the nefarious machinations of the corporate state's American Legislative Exchange Council:
On May 20, 2013, DBA Press and the Center for Media and Democracy
released the results of a year-long investigation: "Dissent or Terror:
How the Nation's Counter Terrorism Apparatus, In Partnership With
Corporate America, Turned on Occupy Wall Street.”
The report, a distillation of thousands of pages of records obtained
from counter terrorism/law enforcement agencies, details how
state/regional "fusion center" personnel monitored the Occupy Wall
Street movement over the course of 2011 and 2012.
The report also examines how fusion centers and other counter terrorism entities that
have emerged since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have
worked to benefit numerous corporations engaged in public-private
intelligence sharing partnerships.
While the report examines many instances of fusion center monitoring
of Occupy activists nationwide, the bulk of the report
details how counter terrorism personnel engaged in the Arizona Counter
Terrorism Information Center (ACTIC, commonly known as the "Arizona fusion center") monitored and otherwise surveilled citizens active in
Occupy Phoenix, and how this surveillance benefited a number of
corporations and banks that were subjects of Occupy Phoenix protest activity.
While small glimpses into the governmental monitoring of the Occupy Wall Street movement have emerged in the past, there has not been any reporting -- until now -- that details the breadth and depth with which the nation's post-September 11, 2001 counter terrorism apparatus has been applied to politically engaged citizens exercising their Constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights.
I haven't read through the lengthy report yet, but the key takeaway from the synopsis is that (surprise!) corporations and government are one and the same entity. We're not in danger of becoming a fascist state: we're already there. Electoral politics is just the thin veneer that gives an ever-dwindling number of us the illusion that we still exist in a representative, participatory democracy.
This report chillingly coincides with the recent revelations that not only did the Obama Administration illegally seize the phone records of the Associated Press in a brazen effort to stifle the flow of information in the name of "national security", but that it also plans to prosecute journalists for the non-crime of attempting to solicit information from government sources. (We actually got a clue about this defacto policy during the Occupy crackdowns, when reporters had their cameras seized and their bodies thrown in jail to prevent their witnessing police brutality against the camps.) Our leaders have criminalized the First Amendment, and are casting a wide totalitarian net over whistleblowers and protesters and news organizations. They don't want their secrets revealed, because they don't want to be shamed and disempowered. They know that negative revelations will only create more dissent, more blowback from the victims of both capitalist predation at home and of imperialistic occupations abroad.
To the power elites, we are the enemy.The terrorist label can be applied to any one of us, at any time.
The Washington Post yesterday broke the story that the Justice Department may actually end up criminally charging the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News (!) based simply upon his asking questions about North Korea of a State Department official. As Glenn Greenwald lays out,
Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this.
That same "solicitation" theory, as the New York Times reported back in 2011, is the one the Obama DOJ has been using to justify its ongoing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange: that because Assange solicited or encouraged Manning to leak classified information, the US government can "charge [Assange] as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them." When that theory was first disclosed, I wrote that it would enable the criminalization of investigative journalism generally.
All of this coincides, too, with the next installment in the series of Obama's grandiloquent exercises in opaque transparency. In a speech scheduled for Thursday, he will attempt to justify his World is a Battlefield agenda, including his rationale for targeted drone strike assassinations and keeping people imprisoned without charge or trial for over a decade at Gitmo.
To get yourselves prepared for the coming onslaught of propaganda, here are two more must-reads:
First, Marcy Wheeler has taken the time to formulate a chilling day-by-day timeline of the White House's recent campaign of secrecy and subterfuge as prelude to the Big Speech.
And then, the indispensable Chris Hedges advises us that surrender is not an option, bluntly predicting that we either rise up, or we die.
I hope it's a nice sunny spring day where you live, whatever your geographical location in the great global Disposition Matrix.
