The Person Who Asked Why

Four years before a churlish Washington press corps booted her from her coveted front row seat in the White House briefing room, Helen Thomas had pissed them off in a big way. In 2006, she'd partnered with Stephen Colbert for his famous public skewering of the churlish Washington Press corps during his stand-up routine at their annual prom. Helen Thomas was an integral part of that show. And she had a seat at the table of honor.

Helen Thomas had to go. Why, she wasn't even a paying member of their Association!She only wrote an opinion column! She was not a stenographer to the powerful, like them. When, in 2010, she made what some considered to be imtemperate remarks -- to an ambushing rabbi with a video cam! -- on Israel and its attack on a humanitarian aid flotilla -- it was just the opportunity the Washington establishment had been waiting for. Helen was gone from her front-seat perch in a Beltway swamp minute. They could barely contain their glee. Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs courageously scolded her empty chair in order for the cameras to capture the enforced silencing of a woman who had practiced the art of afflicting the comfortable for half a century. That empty chair was eventually, and symbolically, contaminated by Ed Henry of Fox News.

Like I said, they're a churlish bunch. They were not happy when Colbert, with a hysterically cackling Helen Thomas by his side, reviewed the function of journalists in the Age of Inverted Totalitarianism:

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!

Helen Thomas was perhaps the last intrepid reporter left in Washington. So she had to go. She was not a member of the club, and did not adhere to their rules. Had she been allowed to stay, she probably would have asked Jay Carney if Obama gets a hard-on at Terror Tuesdays, as he decides who lives and who dies by predator drone. 

But now that Helen Thomas is safely dead, they're coming out of the woodwork with their effusive phony praise. She was a maverick. She opened doors. She broke the glass ceiling. She broke their precious little hearts.

Here's a quiz. See if you can guess* when the following remarks were made: whether after Helen Thomas broke the forbidden rule about speaking ill of Israel, or after Helen Thomas died:

1) "It's a shame, because Helen really was an institution in Washington." -- President Obama.

2) "Many in our profession who have known Helen for years were saddened..." -- White House Correspondents Association leadership.

3) "Michelle and I were saddened ... Helen was a true pioneer, opening doors and breaking down barriers for generations of women in journalism." -- President Obama. 

4) "Helen Thomas made it possible for all of us who followed" -- Mrs. Alan Greenspan (Andrea Mitchell.)

5.) "A sad way for her career to end." -- Mrs. Alan Greenspan (Andrea Mitchell.)

The treatment given to Helen Thomas by her colleagues a couple of years ago is  very much being echoed in the current criticism by the establishment press of Glenn Greenwald. Here's smarmy Chuck Todd of NBC -- the poster boy of fawning access reportage --  waxing hysterical about the uppity Helen Thomas in 2010:

Well, I think there were a lot of people that have been uncomfortable with the fact that she's been an opinion columnist for years now. You know she's not been a reporter for a long time. And you know the definition of reporter and columnist has gotten, the lines have been blurred now for over a decade. It gets even worse in this case in distinguishing the two. And this was something that was a topic, frankly that I think a lot, in the White House Correspondents Association, everybody was kind of avoiding. Right? This issue of talk radio. Look there's a couple of talk radio hosts that hard passes, too. They just don't have a front row seat. But they ask very opinionated, you know it's not really a reporter. You can't call them a reporter, these folks. They're really just sort of on the, you know they're columnists. They're, talk radio hosts are nothing more than, sort of, verbal columnists. And so you wonder what is the line here? And I think that this is reigniting that debate on, you know, who is there to do reporting on the White House and who is there to just write a column? No one should say that they shouldn't occasionally be allowed in the press room But do you get a front row seat? Do you get a seat at all? And I think that's reigniting that debate. And I think you're gonna see some more stringent rules form the White House Correspondents Association going forward.

And here's Chuck again, whining about Greenwald's un-clubby backtalk to fellow steno David Gregory:

Glenn Greenwald, you know, how much was he involved in the plot? It's one thing as a source, but what was his role –did he have a role beyond simply being a receiver of this information? And is he going to have to answer those questions? There is a point of law. He's a lawyer. He attacked the premise of your question. He didn't answer it.

And Helen Thomas dared ask Bush why he invaded Iraq. She dared have a point of view. She dared to be the dreaded breed known as Activus Journalistus. She belonged to that rare, increasingly marginalized species known as reporters with an independent brain: Greenwald, the late I.F. Stone, Chris Hedges. Had Helen Thomas been embarking on her career today, she would have had her own blog. Those newspapers and wire services where she got her start? Either all gone, or sucked up into the voracious maw of the corporate conglomerate.

Goodbye, Helen. You were an inspiration to me. Your star will long outshine all the feeble little winky-blinks that have sputtered to life over the years, only to choke and die from inhaling too many of their own toxic fumes.

You were a breath of fresh air. You still are.

A year after she was fired, Helen Thomas was asked how she'd like to be remembered . After tearfully predicting she'd only be remembered as an anti-Semite, she responded,

“As the person who asked why. That’s what I want as my epitaph: ‘Why?’ It’s always been my favorite question, even though it rarely gets answered."

*
1) Career obit.
2) Career obit.
3) Corporeal obit.
4) Corporeal obit.
5) Career obit.

 

Vindication: A Requirement, Not an Option

I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it's important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code. And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels. That doesn't mean, though, that as a nation we can't do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I'm still bouncing around with my staff, so we're not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus. 

In an otherwise affective "I Feel Your Pain, Because It's My Pain Too" speech yesterday, did Barack Obama just announce that federal hate crime charges against George Zimmerman will not filed? It sure sounded like it.
 

He's got Eric Holder "down there" looking into the possibility, but let President Obama be perfectly clear. The Florida jury has spoken. We have to respect the verdict. Meanwhile, among those other "things" that he is "bouncing around" with his staff is one more innocuous task force comprised of officials and athletes and celebrities (in other words, the wealthy Democratic donor class) to figure out how to help black youth assimilate. Are you kidding me?

 His claim that the federal government can't do much about institutional racism in general (it's a "traditional" states' thing) and the Zimmerman verdict in particular is pretty weak, to put it kindly. More compromising Millard Fillmore than Abe Lincoln, to be sure. (or, heaven forfend, John Brown.) The subtext of his remarks is that we should have one of those national conversations in lieu of hauling creepy-ass crackers into federal court. We acknowledge that evil exists in this world, but must remain serene in the knowledge that the younger generation to which his daughters belong are more tolerant than we are.

A Sardonicky reader named Eleanor, who is a California attorney, emailed me after Obama's remarks, noting that "under the dual sovereignty doctrine, the feds are not barred by 'double jeopardy' from bringing criminal charges against the acquitted Zimmerman based on the same facts
underlying the state case. Here's the federal  civil rights criminal statute that Obama goes to extravagant verbal lengths to  pretend is irrelevant  to the "traditionally state and local" Zimmerman criminal case.   It most emphatically is NOT."

The especially applicable points are in her bold:
United States Code

   TITLE 18 — CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

   PART I — CRIMES

   CHAPTER 13 — CIVIL RIGHTS

18 U.S.C. § 249. Hate crime acts

(a) In General (1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin — Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person — (A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and (B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if — (i) death results from the offense; or (ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. (2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability (A) In general — Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person — (i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and (ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if — (I) death results from the offense; or (II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. (B) Circumstances described — For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that — (i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim — (I) across a State line or national border; or (II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce; (ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A); (iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)— (I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or (II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce. (3) Offenses occurring in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States — Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, engages in conduct described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) (without regard to whether that conduct occurred in a circumstance described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs. (4) Guidelines — All prosecutions conducted by the United States under this section shall be undertaken pursuant to guidelines issued by the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, to be included in the United States Attorneys' Manual that shall establish neutral and objective criteria for determining whether a crime was committed because of the actual or perceived status of any person.

(b) Certification Requirement (1) In general — No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that — (A) the State does not have jurisdiction; (B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction; (C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or (D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice. (2) Rule of construction — Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

(c) Definitions — In this section — (1) the term "bodily injury" has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim; (2) the term "explosive or incendiary device" has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title; (3) the term "firearm" has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; (4) the term "gender identity" means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics; and (5) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

 Karen here: So for all the apologists and wimps out there in TV Punditland who claim it would be just too, too hard for the feds to prove that George Zimmerman had racial animus in his heart when he stalked and killed Trayvon: there is nothing in the law that says they even have to. It not the perception that counts. It's the reality. The reality that a black boy is dead. That is evidence, in and of itself, of a hate crime. A thousand character witnesses insisting that Zimmerman was not a racist would not and could not factor into any federal case.

 And then there is the issue of the Florida verdict not being in the anti-bias national interest. When it comes to hate crimes, the federal interest always trumps the state interest. The Florida jury does not get the last word, because Trayvon's death was not vindicated.

Here's the rest of the federal statute. Congress could have tailor-made it for the Trayvon Martin case:

(c) Definitions — In this section — (1) the term "bodily injury" has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim; (2) the term "explosive or incendiary device" has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title; (3) the term "firearm" has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; (4) the term "gender identity" means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics; and (5) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

(d) Statute of Limitations (1) Offenses not resulting in death — Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense under this section unless the indictment for such offense is found, or the information for such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed. (2) Death resulting offenses — An indictment or information alleging that an offense under this section resulted in death may be found or instituted at any time without limitation. ( Added and amended Pub.L. 111-84, div. E, Secs. 4707(a), 4711, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2838, 2842. )

AMENDMENTS

2009 — Subsec. (a)(4). Pub.L. 111-84 added par. (4).

SEVERABILITY

Pub.L. 111-84, div. E, Sec. 4709, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2841, provided that: "If any provision of this division [see Short Title of 2009 Amendments note set out under section 1 of this title], an amendment made by this division, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this division, the amendments made by this division, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby."

RULE OF CONSTRUCTION

Pub.L. 111-84, div. E, Sec. 4710, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2841, provided that: " For purposes of construing this division [see Severability note above] and the amendments made by this division the following shall apply: 

" (1) In general — Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow a court, in any criminal trial for an offense described under this division or an amendment made by this division, in the absence of a stipulation by the parties, to admit evidence of speech, beliefs, association, group membership, or expressive conduct unless that evidence is relevant and admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this division is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence. 

" (2) Violent acts — This division applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of a victim. 

" (3) Construction and application — Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Nor shall anything in this division, or an amendment made by this division, be construed or applied in a manner that substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, or association, unless the Government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to — 

" (A) plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or 

" (B) incite an imminent act of physical violence against another. 

" (4) Free expression — Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs. 

" (5) First amendment — Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

" (6) Constitutional protections — Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution of the United States does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence. " 

FINDINGS

Pub.L. 111-84, div. E, Sec. 4702, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2835, provided that: " Congress makes the following findings: 

" (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem. 

" (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive. 

" (3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance. 

" (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem. 

" (5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected. 

" (6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following: 

" (A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence. 

" (B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity. 

" (C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence. 

" (D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence. 

" (E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce. 

" (7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude. 

" (8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct 'races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 

" (9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes. 

" (10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes. "

For definitions of "State" and "local" used in section 4702 of Pub.L. 111-84, set out above, see section 4703(b) of Pub.L. 111- 84, set out as a note under section 3716 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

 

Karen again: We don't need a celebrity White House task force or newspaper editorials celebrating the first black president's personal agony, allowing his personal narrative and struggles to be substitutes for enforcement of existing laws and initiation of official public policies. 

 

Don't get me wrong. There was a lot to admire in the president's address. It was obviously tough for him -- he, who has always striven to rise above it all -- to give voice to some  basic, ugly truths. The usual right wing suspects are predictably pouncing, going into self-victimizing overdrive. My own criticism, from the left, doesn't preclude my being moved by his words. But I was not moved to the point of forgetting that he has done little to nothing to alleviate black poverty during his tenure. As I noted in a previous post, it took him more than two years to finally admit the Congressional Black Caucus to his inner sanctum for a very brief meeting. He may have experienced racial profiling at some points during his own life, but it has not translated into the elimination of racial profiling for the rest of the brown and black population. As a matter of fact, he has done the exact opposite.

 

He directs his drone strikes against dark-skinned people. He has heartlessly refused to explain to the grandfather of one his American victims, a boy the same age as Trayvon Martin, why he was killed as he sat outside with friends eating pizza. Just a few days ago, Obama all but nominated one of the worst official racial profilers in American history as director of Homeland Security. He has deported more Hispanics than any other previous administration, and has "reluctantly" endorsed the institutionalized racial profiling in border states as proposed in the current immigration "reform" legislation. He has intensified the War on Drugs that disproportionately sweeps up minorities into a prison system that is the largest in the world. His Race to the Top education reform program has closed schools and laid off thousands of teachers in poverty-stricken minority neighborhoods. He has remained silent on the economic implosion of predominately black Detroit.

On the same day that former Obama consigliere, Chicago Mayor  Rahm Emanuel announced the firings of more than 2000 teachers in one fell swoop, first lady Michelle just happened to be in town schmoozing it up and smoothing it over. It was a private confab for yet another P3 (Public-Private Partnership: in which wealthy individuals get tax breaks via their greed-washing noblesse oblige and therefore don't have to pay more taxes for the maintenance of the government social safety net.) This one was orchestrated by Mrs. Rahm, all about how to "career-train" and mentor -- and let's not forget empower --  a select few lucky duckies among the thousands of evicted black youths who will soon be forced to walk to schools far from their own neighborhoods. The unlucky many will be in the direct line of gunfire from an epidemic of violence in that increasingly windy city. But if there's one thing the Obamas are good at, it's salving the liberal consciences of their backers as they maintain the neoliberal status quo and pretend to do something about what Michelle calls "gang-banging."

 The first couple's image as caring, kind, uplifting meritocrats is well-crafted and camera ready. They supply the band-aids of do-gooderism to cover up some really nasty stuff, greasing the skids for the privatizers and charter school plutocrats. They are the gifted inspirational symbols for the very people they are helping to keep down. (If We Can Do It, So Can You! I've been "down there", but look at me now. So if you work hard, play by the same rules, you "should" be able to climb the ladder right behind me. We'll leave the door open for you, in any case. Your student loans will be through the roof, the Sequester is here to stay, and that chained CPI will eat right into your retirement. But we got the birth control covered. So you go, Girl!)

 

Up until his Friday afternoon chat, Obama rarely mentioned Poverty. He never mentioned fighting for poor people in his re-election bid, never campaigned in poor neighborhoods. He was fighting for the mythical middle class.... or at most, those who "aspire" to the middle class.

 

As matter of fact, on the very same day that he paid angst-ridden lip service to black poverty, he was sending out yet another fund-raising email blast to his "base" --

 I will spend the next three and a half years doing everything I can to work with anyone -- Democrat, Republican, or independent -- to fight for middle class families.

But I'll tell you what: it would be a lot easier if I had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.

(The Money Ask is inserted here.)

Thanks,

Barack.

 

Circumstances (rising public criticism by that same Democratic base of his "hidden hand" approach to crises) finally dictated that Barack Obama once again acknowledge the color of his skin while acknowledging racism. It was also time for him to acknowledge that racism is not only morally repellant, it also happens to be against the law when people act upon it. We do have to make a federal case out of it.

 

An anonymous Florida jury may have spoken. But it shouldn't get the last word. Especially when Number B-37 admitted on national TV that her mind was made up from the very beginning and she blamed a child for his own death.

The Hidden Hammy Hand

According to a puff-piece by Peter Baker in yesterday's New York Times, President Obama's perceived weakness and helplessness at the dawn of his second term is only a mirage. Behind the scenes, the latest spin has it, Barack is strong-arming the critics and facing various crises using something called the "hidden hand" approach. This is apparently a pivot from the first term's Leading from Behind propaganda that excused drone strikes, and is not to be confused with Adam Smith's Invisible Hand of the Free Market -- although as a New Democrat, Barack is every inch the Wall Street-friendly neoliberal. According to Baker, Obama  is now channeling Dwight Eisenhower -- who during his time in office was perceived as being a hands-off, bland kind of guy, but whom history later revealed to have been full-bore dynamo! If we only knew about Obama what Obama knows about himself, then all would be well with the world. So shut up.

I guess the White House and Peter Baker don't realize that "The Hidden Hand" is also a theory beloved by Illuminati conspiracists, as well as a schlocky movie about aliens taking over the government. Given the recent NSA revelations, you'd think they could have come up with a better metaphor.

Of course, it's also just a coincidence that the White House fed Baker the Hidden Hand malarkey only a day after the George Zimmerman verdict had evoked only a tepid response from the president. It was translatable as "The jury has spoken. Everybody needs to get along."

 Even though it would be unseemly for a sitting president to weigh in strongly on a case under investigation by the DOJ, the Obama administration still felt the need to proffer a self-serving excuse to stifle criticism his chronic radio silence on race. It is a fraught issue, one that the president was letting his AG, Eric Holder, address instead.

Until yesterday, that is. In a nationally televised interview with Univision, Obama actually did dog-whistle on the subject of race by effusively praising that uncrowned king of racial profiling, New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. The president all but nominated the architect of the city's onerous Stop and Frisk campaign against minorities to head up Homeland Security. Via Emptywheel:

Univision: Mr. President, New York Commissioner Ray Kelly has been floated for the next DHS Secretary. What is your take on it?

 Obama: Well, Ray Kelly has obviously done an extraordinary job in New York and the federal government partners a lot with New York. Because obviously our concerns about terrorism oftentimes are focused on big city targets. And I think Ray Kelly is one of the best there is. So he’s been an outstanding leader in New York. We’ve had an outstanding leader in Janet Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security. It’s a tough job. It’s one of the toughest jobs in Washington. She’s done an extraordinary job. We’re sorry to see her go. But you know, we’re going to have a bunch of strong candidates. Mr. Kelly might be very happy where he is. But if he’s not I’d want to know about it. ‘Cause you know, obviously he’d be very well qualified for the job.

 Coming as it did mere weeks after Kelly reportedly expressed outrage at AG Holder for filing a brief in the civil rights lawsuit against him, and only days after the George Zimmerman verdict has brought the scourge of racism to the forefront of the national conscience, Obama's "hidden hand" turned into a gigantic hunk of ham in a New York minute. For a guy whose handlers are paranoid about him raising the hackles of critics if he dares speak out on sensitive issues, Obama not only spoke out, he stuck his big foot in his big mouth. In effusively praising Kelly, he broadcast the awful truth that he tacitly supports the institutional abuse of black and brown people. There is simply no other explanation for his homage to the odious Ray Kelly. None.

Come to think of it, the schlocky Hidden Hand movie does mesh perfectly with the sci-fi specter of Ray Kelly leading Homeland Security. The man is a walking paranoid cartoon, as David Sirota cogently lays out in a piece for Salon.

Making the first black president's admiration of Kelly all the more stunning was the testimony of New York State Senator Eric Adams at the recently concluded civil trial:

“He (Kelly) stated that he targeted and focused on that group because he wanted to instill fear in them that every time that they left their homes they could be targeted by police,” Adams said under questioning by attorney Jonathan Moore, representing the plaintiffs in a class-action suit on the controversial practice.

“I told him that I believe it was illegal and that that was not what stop-and-frisk was supposed to be used for,” Adams said.

He said Kelly’s response was, “How else are we going to get rid of guns?”

How else is George Zimmerman going to get rid of Skittles?

So if Ray Kelly gets the Homeland Security job, will Stop and Frisk become the law of the land, debuting near the new militarized Southwestern border should immigration "reform" pass? Even if Shira Scheindlin, the presiding judge in the civil case, puts an end to the practice in the Big Apple, Obama and the Kelly Gang could always appeal to the FISA court to get one of those "special needs" secret rulings to keep on "Essing and Effing".

Stop and Frisk has everything to do with intimidation and very little to do with stopping crime (except that it makes it easier to jail minority youths for pot possession.) According to the American Civil Liberties Union, stops under the Michael Bloomberg/Ray Kelly regime have been rising sharply --  from 160,851 in 2003 to 685,724 in 2011. About half of the 2011 stops resulted in physical searches.

 NYPD records show that police conducted more stops of black males between the ages of 14 and 24 than the total number of young black males living in New York City. Less than two percent of the street arrests turned up concealed weapons.

If you want to know how severely and permanently Ray Kelly's abusive practices damage his targets, be sure to read an op-ed titled "Why Is the NYPD After Me?" by Nicholas Peart, one of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit. You can also watch Chris Hayes interviewing Peart here.

It's all about Security State control, keeping the downtrodden down, and the powerful protected. That's the real Hidden Hand. Reach, meet Grasp. Nothing exceeds like excess.

Yesterday, Eric Holder recounted a conversation he once had with his father about the safe and proper way for black men to interact with cops, and how he was forced to have the same conversation with his own son. I think maybe he should be having a conversation with his boss.  
 

A Thousand Points of Blight

At a time when one out of every four American children lives in a food-insecure household,  when one in three people is poor or near-poor because of unemployment and underemployment, when income disparity is at its most extreme level since the Gilded Age .... House Republicans have yanked food stamp funding from the Farm Bill, endangering the 50 million people relying on a program that is already woefully inadequate. The average monthly food stipend per person is only $136. Most recipients run out of grocery money by the third week. 

But adding insult to injury is what Republicans do. They're the psychopathic Bad Cops who, confident that President Obama and the Wall Street "New Democrat" Good Cops will never challenge them in any meaningful way, have become free to exhibit their cruelty right out there in the open. Thanks to gerrymandering and manufactured divide-and-conquer techniques that pit poor Fox News-viewing whites against a growing brown and black population, they get just enough votes to hold onto the House of Representatives. They thereby run the whole show through sheer dint of sadism, disguised as "libertarian populism." Paul Krugman wrote a scathing column on this phenomenon, spearheaded by Sen. Rand Paul, last week. My response:

Can't you just hear that lonesome Rand Paul dog whistle blow?

Paul is using Alex Jones-style conspiracy paranoia and racism to drum up poor white support for the Party of Destruction. He's betting that boiling the frogs over a low steady heat -- cutting food stamps here, unemployment benefits there -- will stop them noticing that they're being cooked right along with the black and brown people that they need to believe are stealing the food from their mouths and the jobs from their kin. The truth -- that chronic hard times are the direct result of unregulated capitalism and corrupt politics -- is not out there. Only six national media conglomerates supply 90% of everything they see and hear.

What Paul & Paul (Ryan) and the GOP don't seem to realize is that their "populism" won't do much good if their constituents can't earn a living wage. Those bills from the greedy cable monopolies just keep going up -- watching Fox News propaganda will be way out of the price range of poor white people. When jobless benefits are cut to the bone, there goes the electricity -- along with Rush Limbaugh. And once the food stamps are kaput and the Medicaid is denied, they'll be too hungry and sick to bother voting, let alone caring. The USA has now plummeted to #27 in life expectancy. 

The new GOP messaging is useless. They're are out of gas, lurching along on their own toxic fumes. Too bad they're poisoning the rest of us on their ride to the scrap heap for old clunkers.

So here's how the kinder, gentler free-market Libertarian known as Barack Obama will counter the looming forced starvation of 50 million people caused by the bipartisan compromised slashing of at least $20 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): He's invited that original Mr. Compassionate Conservative, George H.W. Bush, over for lunch at the White House today to unveil (drumroll, please) a brand new PPP (public-private partnership) that will rely on community volunteerism to feed the hungry. It's very similar to the now-defunct White House Council on Jobs & Competitiveness, made up of CEOs who lobbied for tax breaks and deregulation and did not create one single job.

 To mark the latest milestone in his corporate race to the bottom, Obama will also award a "5000th Point of Light" medal to some philanthropists who feed millions of starving African children. The subliminal message?  To get Third World America ready and prepared for private charities to take over government safety net functions, thus wielding ever more malignant tax-evading philanthropic control over the masses: 

After joining Bush to present the award, Obama will announce the formation of a new task force made up of Cabinet agency officials to identify ways that public agencies and the private sector can partner in support of national service. 

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) and the White House Domestic Policy Council will oversee the effort, which is meant to build on Obama administration efforts to promote greater community service. 

The event isn’t the first collaboration between the two presidents. Bush served as one of 16 honorary co-chairs of Obama’s first Inauguration, at which he called for a national day of service to occur on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. (to make us forget who MLK really was: an anti-war, anti-imperialism, pro-labor, rabble-rousing radical who spent his life demanding government help for the poor.)

Oh, and Neil Bush, that privateering poster child for disaster capitalism, will also be in attendance. You may remember Black Sheep Neil as the crooked ex-banker/ entrepreneur (Obama loves entrepreneurs) who cashed in big-time in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Matriarch Barbara, who will also be wined and dined by the Obamas, had made a point of offering her own money to storm victims -- with the precondition that her charity went through Neil's educational software company. 

Of course, the Bushes and the Obamas look like the Beaming Lords and Ladies Bountiful when compared to Bible-thumping Rep. Stephen Fincher of Tennessee, who literally foams at the mouth demanding that food stamp recipients work for their meals, even as he himself personally cashes in on millions of dollars in subsidies for his own farm. It's hard to decide what fictional villain to compare him to. Simon Legree comes to mind, or any one of the long list of hyperbolic villains from the Dickens collection. If Fincher's mother read him The Tale of Peter Rabbit when he was a tyke, he probably identified more with evil Farmer McGregor than with the hungry little bunnies. Not only did that Beatrix Potter bad guy chase the kids away from the food, he even stole the clothes they lost during their escape. Starve 'em, scare 'em, skin 'em and freeze 'em. It's the capitalist way.

In his column today, Paul Krugman compares the War on Food Stamps to the dystopian Hunger Games, in which people are forced to fight each other to the death for the pleasure and entertainment of the plutocrats:

So House Republicans voted to maintain farm subsidies — at a higher level than either the Senate or the White House proposed — while completely eliminating food stamps from the bill.       

To fully appreciate what just went down, listen to the rhetoric conservatives often use to justify eliminating safety-net programs. It goes something like this: “You’re personally free to help the poor. But the government has no right to take people’s money” — frequently, at this point, they add the words “at the point of a gun” — “and force them to give it to the poor.”

It is, however, apparently perfectly O.K. to take people’s money at the point of a gun and force them to give it to agribusinesses and the wealthy.

Gail Collins also took on the SNAP crisis in her own excellent column on Saturday. (But just like Krugman, she can't quite acknowledge the complicity of the Democrats, although she comes close):

And while food stamps go to poor people, most of the farm aid goes to wealthy corporations.

So House Republicans passed the farm part and left food stamps hanging.

Say what?

Tea Party conservatives have an all-purpose disdain for anything that smacks of redistribution of wealth, and food stamps are a prime target. “The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity, is to take care of each other. But not for Washington to steal money from those in the country and give to others in the country,” said Representative Stephen Fincher of Tennessee during a speech in Memphis.

So the food stamp program was the total opposite of a Tasty Bite to House Republicans. More like that Scottish thing with sheep stomach and oatmeal. But the agriculture part was billed as delicious restraint. They rallied behind the just-farm-stuff bill in a party line 216-to-208 vote.

 The larding of benefits to farmers didn’t come up during the House debate. It was all about food stamps, and Democrats asking to know why their colleagues wanted to cut aid to hungry children and old people. During an Agriculture Committee meeting on the bill, Representative Juan Vargas of California quoted Jesus’ lesson that “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

Got that?  Democrats do the Good Cop dance -- asking, cajoling, posturing on MSNBC, pleading and wondering. In the White House, they go full-bore Compassionate Conservativism.  Never do they condemn, lambast, make fun of, or deride. Maintaining the miserable status quo for the benefit of the rich is how this game is played. Here was my comment to Gail Collins:

The number of households on food stamps reached nearly 23 million this spring. This can be directly blamed on lack of jobs, stagnating wages, and the utter lack of political attention to the unemployment crisis and a wealth disparity that has sent the world's richest nation down to a dismal #27 in global per-capita income.

So, the GOP is using food stamps as one more stale variation on the Reagan welfare queen myth: blame the victims rather than the perpetrators.

Ironically, one of the biggest culprits in the financial meltdown -- too big to fail/jail JP Morgan Chase -- runs the SNAP e-card program in half the states. They just reported a 31% surge in profits! Not only do they command a bounty for each new food stamp case opened, they charge a fee every time a recipient makes a purchase or checks her balance. Where is the GOP outrage?

Nah. They love to claim that "lazy" food stamp moms (most of whom work) use their SNAP cards to buy cigs and booze and lobster tails while those moral folks have to toil for every off-brand box of cereal. Never mind that the real corporate welfare queens, like the Waltons of Walmartistan, rely on the government to supplement the income of their underpaid workers with SNAP and Medicaid cards. The Waltons own more wealth than 40% of the whole population.

One of these days, the GOP will go too far. People will finally SNAP and throw the bums out. They will land with a giant crackle and pop, before they soggily sink to the bottom of the bowl.

When you look at the grim statistics on child hunger and its consequences, the compassionate Obamas' "personal responsibility" approach appears all the more cynical. As far as Michelle Obama is concerned, kids just need to get off their butts and exercise. Struggling parents need to stop being lazy and prepare fresh fruits and veggies in between their minimum-wage double shifts.The latest Obama approach to childhood nutrition was to hold a recipe contest and a state dinner for a select group of well-fed kids. The media went wild when the president revealed that he loves broccoli. And how his "family"(read: peripatetic deceased mother and banker grandma) didn't cook his veggies up nearly as scrumptiously as his own personal chefs do today. I wish I was kidding. As much as this guy tries to cover up his authoritarian paternalism with schmoozy small-talk, it always falls as flat as a bowl of soggy potato chips.

Hey, Barack: Eat Me

Even a child who goes hungry just one time in her life is more than twice as likely to have health problems a decade after that one episode of malnutrition. Hungry children are more likely to be socially isolated, to have behavior problems and of course, they don't do well in school. They are understandably at greater risk for incarceration as teens and adults.

But maybe that's the whole plan. Well-fed children become cognitively healthy adults. Cognitively healthy adults tend to vote for their own economic interests and against corrupt politicians in service to the rich. Cognitively healthy adults refuse to play Hunger Games, where the only possible outcome is Heads They Win, Tails You Lose.  

Meet Farmer Fincher and Benevolent Barack. There's really only a pinprick of light between them.

 

Some Thoughts on the Zimmerman Trial

I was saddened, but not shocked, by the not guilty verdict for George Zimmerman in the point-blank killing of Trayvon Martin. There is a simple explanation for it: it happened in Florida. George Zimmerman had Florida law on his side. Without the relentless publicity and the pressure brought to bear by national political and media figures, there never would have been a trial in the first place.

This was in Florida, where holding such a trial would have been unthinkable even a generation ago. This was in Florida, home of the infamous Groveland Four case, in which a duly sworn sheriff and a posse with interchangeable costumes of police uniforms and KKK sheets serially tortured and  murdered a group of black men falsely accused of raping a white woman. Sheriff Willis McCall was not only never convicted, he kept getting re-elected to office. He died a free man.

George Zimmerman will die a free man too. But he will never be truly free. He will never be a neighborhood watch captain again. He'll be at least ten times as paranoid as he was the night he stalked and shot Trayvon, but maybe he'll think twice the next time he gets the urge to fire his weapon. Maybe all the other Zimmermaniacs roaming the earth will think twice about stalking and shooting every shadow they see lurking in the corners of their dull little minds.

This was in the United States of America, where even in one northern "liberal" city, a billionaire mayor and his police commissioner enforcer have legitimated racial profiling to a degree not seen since the pre-Civil Rights era in the south.

This was in the United States of America, the biggest arms dealer the world has ever known, where people still wonder why Congress couldn't even pass a modest background check law for gun purchases.

This was in the United States of America, where the Social Darwinism and financial austerity now implicit in public policy have made towns and cities so cash-strapped that they are resorting to using unpaid volunteers in their police departments. There are plenty of incipient  Zimmerman wannabes out there with guns and badges and assumptions and low intelligence and an utter lack of training and self-control. Depending on where you live, your next 9-1-1 call may bring a gung-ho intern cop to your door, only too eager to serve, protect and defend you -- for free.

Meanwhile, the human casualties and tragedies resulting from unregulated capitalism, too much money in too few hands, will continue to mount. This is a violent country, with a per-capital murder rate one of the world's highest and a per-capita incarceration rate bar none.

So, the fact that the Zimmerman trial was held at all, and that it was a fair trial, is testament that we can indeed make tiny incremental steps toward a more just system. Even in Florida -- which, despite its awful Stand Your Ground law, is one of the few states that allows cameras in its courtrooms. Every court in this country should be opened to TV cameras -- from the lowest municipal court, where judges are often unqualified, corrupt political flacks, all the way up to the Supreme Court, where just the sight of Samuel Alito rolling his eyes at Ruth Bader Ginsberg's impassioned dissent against the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act would have caused an instant national scandal.

But this is the United States of America, land of official secrets and shadows. So the fact that Trayvon Martin's name is now a household word, that the George Zimmerman trial was held and that it was covered without interruption on CNN, is thus rendered all the more amazing. Trayvon did not die in vain. And Zimmerman is not innocent.

The Temp Emp Has No Clothes

The people in charge of the USG (amerikun guvmint) are one exceedingly stupid and paranoid bunch.

If they were smart, they'd just leave Edward Snowden alone. President Obama lives and breathes public opinion polls and focus groups. So, now that more than half the population thinks Snowden is a whistleblowing hero and that the USG has gone overboard with this whole spying thing, does he let up? No, he does not. He may not be scrambling his fighter jets, but he's definitely scrambling to land on the front page of the New York Times and look like an idiot, planting a story about how he's strong-arming Latin American countries to deny asylum to Snowden. If thuggishness is how he wants to be remembered, he is succeeding mightily.

Meanwhile, Snowden is seizing the inept American moment and applying for asylum in Russia -- presumably to gain safe passage, eventually, to one of those South American countries. If the USG maintains its anal-retentive hold on the entire atmosphere, Snowden could just end up traveling overland with Vlad in a protected convoy up to the Arctic Circle, traverse it by dog-sled and ice-breaker, (assuming there's any ice left) and then head down the Pacific Coast to safe haven. (Sarah Palin can wave to them from her house as Putin rears his mighty head in her space.)

Obama may have pretended to end Bush-era torture, but he has simply finessed and expanded it. By effectively trapping Snowden, he is torturing him. In recent days, one federal judge ordered Obama's guards to stop feeling up the private parts of Gitmo detainees. And even fellow Democrats are warning him he's breaking the law by force-feeding them. And now, international human rights groups are in Russia, holding the president up to even more universal scorn for hounding the whistleblower who did nothing more than expose USG malfeasance and speak truth to power.

Maybe Congress doesn't have the cojones to impeach our temporary emperor (Temp Emp), but at long last, he and the corporate American Empire are being tried and convicted in the world court of public opinion. That has to count for something, no matter how hard the Powers That Be try to ignore it and change it and blame the messengers. The whole manufactured consent thing is falling apart at the seams. The only surprise is how long the cheap propaganda thread has held it all together.

Update: More coverage from The Guardian. And here, in its entirety, is Snowden's remarkable statement:

Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone's communications at any time. That is the power to change people's fates.

It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.
I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.
That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.

Since that time, the government and intelligence services of the United States of America have attempted to make an example of me, a warning to all others who might speak out as I have. I have been made stateless and hounded for my act of political expression. The United States Government has placed me on no-fly lists. It demanded Hong Kong return me outside of the framework of its laws, in direct violation of the principle of non-refoulement – the Law of Nations. It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president's plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum.

Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.

I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future. With, for example, the grant of asylum provided by Venezuela's President Maduro, my asylee status is now formal, and no state has a basis by which to limit or interfere with my right to enjoy that asylum. As we have seen, however, some governments in Western European and North American states have demonstrated a willingness to act outside the law, and this behavior persists today. This unlawful threat makes it impossible for me to travel to Latin America and enjoy the asylum granted there in accordance with our shared rights.

This willingness by powerful states to act extra-legally represents a threat to all of us, and must not be allowed to succeed. Accordingly, I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted. I will be submitting my request to Russia today, and hope it will be accepted favorably.
If you have any questions, I will answer what I can.
Thank you.

The Lunatic Fringe Goes Mainstream

Did you hear about that new Congressional bill creating a national park on the surface of the moon? Are you automatically assuming that its sponsors hail from the GOP lunatic fringe?

Think again. In the growing movement that I'll call the "If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em" Caucus, two Democrats have introduced the legislation:

The bill from Reps. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) would create the Apollo Lunar Landing Sites National Historical Park. The park would be comprised of all artifacts left on the surface of the moon from the Apollo 11 through 17 missions.

The bill says these sites need to be protected because of the anticipated increase in commercial moon landings in the future.

Under the legislation, the park would be established no later than one year after the bill passes and would be run jointly by the Department of the Interior and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

The measure would allow the government to accept donations from companies and foreign governments to help manage the landing sites and "provide visitor services and administrative facilities within reasonable proximity to the Historical Park."

 After one year, Interior and NASA would have to reach an agreement on how to manage the site, including how to monitor it, managing access to the sites and cataloguing the items in the park. 

Where does one even begin? Since humor and satire don't rank among the talents of our 10 percent approval-rating Congress, I simply couldn't believe at first that passive-aggressive pranksterism is at the core of this bill. At first glance, it does appear to be just one more symptom of the decline of Democracy and death of governance for the common good. We apparently have no money for the social safety net, but the sky's the limit for a Lunar Visitors' Center for the mega-rich!  

I think it was pretty much a given that the so-called Progressive Caucus had already capitulated to the right wing forces of Neoliberalism and corporate interests. But to go the whole Bachmanesque crazoid route? What gives? Well, for starters, the bill is assuredly of the camera-ready variety. It's outlandish enough to have been awarded a 21 percent chance of getting out of Committee for a formal floor vote. (Unlike the CPC's People's Budget, whose launch failed about two inches above the blast-off point) Is this the only way the Democrats can get some free attention from the corporate media?

The bill is, on its face, a huge pander to the ruling elites, the only people who can even dream of going to the Moon in their private rocket-ships. Cost for a ticket is expected to be in the $1.5 billion range. Out of the Orbitz of the casual traveler, for sure. Can you envision William Shatner doing the Price Line pitch?

Instead of fighting for the repeal of the Sequester, which has taken a big chunk out of earth-bound National Parks accessible to their constituents, Democrats seem not only to have given up -- they are fully embracing corporatism, unbelievably suggesting we just develop a Space Park for the richest of the obscenely rich, funded with public-private money. And it seems like only yesterday (it was actually two months ago) that Progressive Caucus member Keith Ellison was railing against the cuts to the parks service:

 A new report released by Rep. (now Senator) Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), details the sequester impacts to 23 national parks around the country. According to the report, U.S. national parks supply the economic lifeblood for countless communities across the United States. They contribute more than $30 billion in economic activity, support more than 250,000 jobs and generate $9.34 billion in labor income. The National Park Service faces $110 million in budget cuts, which means reduced hours and services for the nation's 398 national parks, 561 refuges, and more than 258 other public land units.

So the moon national park bill has got to be a huge practical joke. Right? There is simply no other explanation. Maybe Johnson and Edwards -- also members of the Congressional Black Caucus --  are trying to embarrass President Obama, who finally deigned to meet with them yesterday, after having avoided them like the plague for more than two years. Maybe he gave them a reprise of the spiel at his last meeting, when he ordered them to get off their duffs and put on their marching shoes for his Greater Glory. Maybe this time he told them to put on their marching shoes to forcibly march all their suffering constituents to the predations of private insurance, for the greater glory of ObamaCare.

Adding insult to injury, Obama apparently kept the CBC waiting for more than an hour as he attended to more pressing business than that of the crisis of a black unemployment rate almost double that of whites. Of course, the delegates later reported that the closed meeting had been positive. Really. Out of this world, as a matter of fact. 

Why else would two of them put on their marching shoes and introduce a bill for the construction of an outer space park for the top One Percent of the One Percent? If that isn't making a Statement, I don't know what is.

And knowing the Republicans, they'll probably add an amendment slashing Medicare coverage of oxygen supplies in order that the rich can breathe freely as they carouse in their lunar theme park. And the Democrats will give in, doing their clumsy political version of the Michael Jackson moon walk. They'll appear to be moving forward and going backward at the same time. It's called Maintaining the Status Quo.

 

What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy? -- George Orwell, 1984.