Paul Ryan's Anthem

Big Ego, Small Bulk (graphic by Kat Garcia)

Paul Ryan emerged from the ancient subway tunnel of his mind this week and unleashed his latest attempt at Ayn Rand fan fiction upon the World Council of Scholars. It was a literary hissy fit, largely and blessedly ignored because of the Ukraine crisis.

At CPAC the other day, he told the bone-chilling story of a little boy inflicted with the pain of free school lunches. And all the tyke wanted was the thrill of brown-bagging a homemade meal! The subtext, of course, is that the stereotypical Single (blah) Mom on food stamps is too strung out in her hammock in Moochville to be bothered to get up and slap some peanut butter on that wholesome,white Republican bread.

Paul Ryan has perfected the art of the dog whistle. In cynically presenting his Randian Poverty Anthem to coincide with the 50th anniversary of LBJ's War on Poverty, Ryan blew his icy cold breath all over the candles, trying to poison the whole cake in the process. It took him 200 pages and a thousand fancy footwork notes to simply proclaim that one-sixth of our population is disposable. 

(In case you hadn't already guessed, his CPAC attempt at concern-trolling poor folks was also a total fake. Wonkette took the trouble of outing him for your amusement, anyway.)

As a member in good standing of the Useful Idiot Club, Ryan enjoys immunity from peer/press oversight and accountability. He represents the far right, so the centrist "New Democrats" can represent the moderate right. And then they split their differences, as they did lately with that bipartisan $9 billion in additional food stamp cuts. With Ryan around, the corporate Dems reckon they can simply run on feebly defending the safety net rather than doing the right thing and expanding it.

Cui bono? Follow the money, all the way to the deregulated hypercapitalists running this show.

By this time (if we were living in sane times) Paul Ryan should have become a laughingstock, he is such a parody of himself And since his whole agenda was always a cruel joke, that is saying something. But since it's his Party, he can cry if he wants to, expecting everybody in the political-media complex to cry right along with him. Not the poor though, without whom there would be no distasteful Poverty and no need for the anti-poverty programs that in Paul Ryan's world are only making poverty worse for the poor. At a mere 204 pages long, his War on Poverty:50 Years Later is reportedly only a precursor, a mere novella,of the much more explicitly Galtean blockbuster expected out later this publishing season. The real drama-- boldly slashing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps -- is yet to come.

It took Paul Ryan (or an unpaid intern) 204 pages to cherry-pick from various economic reports and academic papers to arrive at the conclusion that although some government programs help needy people, the statistics are so confusing, and the road out of poverty so deceitfully web-like, that we just can never know for sure. So let's blast the whole thing to smithereens and have a debate.

The reviews are in, and as unsurprisingly usual, they are mixed. The New York Times editorial board passive-aggressively called Paul Ryan's Anthem fan-fic "small and tired."

It's easy to find flaws or waste in any government program, but the proper response is to fix those flaws, not throw entire programs away as Mr. Ryan and his party have repeatedly proposed. It might be possible, for example, to consolidate some of the 20 different low-income housing programs identified in the report, but Congressional Democrats have no reason to negotiate with a party that fundamentally doesn’t believe government should play a significant role in reducing poverty.

Um... the Democrats have not yet gotten that message, judging from their recent compromise with Paul Ryan on those food stamp cuts and throwing another three million long-term jobless people into the gutter, just so they can use them for props in their re-election bids.

Paul Krugman, widely acknowledged as the first expert to call Ryan out on his honesty problem, is similarly unimpressed with his latest potboiler:

I took Paul Ryan’s measure almost four years ago, back when everyone in Washington was determined to see him as the Serious, Honest Conservative they knew had to exist somewhere. Everything we’ve seen of him since then has confirmed that initial judgment. When you see a big report from Ryan, you shouldn’t ask “Is this a con job?” but instead skip right to “Where’s the con?”

Krugman notes that Ryan's literary style has changed somewhat with his latest flim-flam, because this time around he uses actual footnotes instead of simply spewing undocumented assertions. Of course, the con involves the research papers being cherry-picked at best, irrelevant at slightly better, and totally mispresented at worst. He's counting on folks not reading the footnotes. But unfortunately for Ryan, some people are having the chutzpah to not only read the footnotes but unsportingly notice the disconnect from reality.

Despite it all, Paul Ryan still has his legions of fans. Take The Washington Post, still grieving over the temporary shelving of a Grand Bargain of safety net cuts in Obama's own politically expedient campaign year version of a budget. In a report presented as a straight news article rather than an editorial, Robert Costa apparently found the task of actually reading Ryan's footnotes too onerous (or too scary to contemplate):

Ryan and his aides are unsparing in how they take the hammer to current federal policies. On page after page, the report casts a critical eye on how the government administers money to the poor and related bureaucracies, using a bevy of academic literature and federal studies as evidence.

Ryan said the crux of the report is the conclusion that federal programs need to be entirely reimagined, with more than tweaks or axed appropriations, and that legislation this year should move toward broader solutions that solve what he thinks are structural weaknesses in how the government supports the poor.

Costa is unsparing in his wholesale swallowing of Ryan's specious claims. Take, for example, this terse encapsulation of Caligula Caucus talking points:

According to the report, Head Start, a federal program for early-childhood education and nutrition, is “failing to prepare children for school,” and “a consolidated, well-funded system would be better.”

Medicaid, which provides health coverage to low-income families, is the object of a sharply worded review. “Medicaid coverage has little effect on patients’ health,” the report says, adding that it imposes an “implicit tax on beneficiaries,” “crowds out private insurance” and “increases the likelihood of receiving welfare benefits.”

The report also suggests that the “breakdown” of the family is one of the main reasons that poverty afflicts so many Americans.

“Perhaps the single most important determinant of poverty is family structure,” the report says. “Poverty is most concentrated among broken families.”

Costa didn't even have to look at the planted footnotes to notice the inherent "bevy" of inconsistencies  in Ryan's own report. Headstart is federally funded and therefore does not prepare children for school. So, says Ryan, let's federally fund it and prepare children for school! Also, Headstart does not prepare children for the labor force. Then again, it offers significant incentives for kids to grow up and join the work force!

If they ever decide to award a Pulitzer for "best synergy in a political novel" Paul Ryan will be the hands-down favorite.

 Ryan naturally failed to mention income disparity as a driving force in rising poverty levels, preferring instead to blame the victim instead of the predator -- especially those repugnant "broken families."  But, as Sharon Parrott of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities writes,

The poverty story over the last half-century in the United States is mixed for several reasons.  A much stronger safety net along with factors such as rising education levels, higher employment among women, and smaller families helped push poverty down.  At the same time, rising numbers of single-parent families, growing income inequality, and worsening labor market prospects for less-skilled workers have pushed in the other direction.

Today’s safety net — which includes important programs and improvements both from the Johnson era and thereafter — cuts poverty nearly in half. In 2012, it kept 41 million people, including 9 million children, out of poverty, according to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM).  If government benefits are excluded, today’s poverty rate would be 29 percent under the SPM; with those benefits, the rate is 16 percent.  Most analysts view the SPM as a better poverty measure than the “official” measure because it’s more comprehensive.  The SPM counts not only cash income but, unlike the official measure, also non-cash and tax-based benefits, such as SNAP (food stamps), the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and rental vouchers.  Also unlike the official measure, it accounts for income and payroll taxes paid, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and child care expenses, and it adjusts the poverty line to reflect geographic differences in living costs.

Even with the remedies of the increasingly endangered New Deal and Great Society programs, the United States ranks low on the global social welfare scale. As Sharon Parrott notes, nearly 50 million Americans, or at least one-sixth of the population, are now living below the poverty line in the richest country on earth. Of those, nearly 50 percent live below half the poverty line. In other words, they are downright destitute. Six out of every 10 children live in families that experience at least one financial crisis a year. According to Paul Ryan and his ilk, these children and their families are trapped in a "culture of dependency."

So how does a serial prevaricator like Ryan even survive on the national stage, let alone handily win re-election over and over again in his own financially strapped Wisconsin district?

In a nutshell, he is the Very Useful Idiot (cousin of Krugman's Very Serious Person) of the Congressional leadership and keeper of the status quo. Take away the footnotes, and his poverty manifesto is Social Darwinism presented in pulp fiction style.

Of course, his propaganda serves the purpose of making the president's own neoliberal budget look downright progressive in comparison, what with those earned income tax incentives for poor single workers balanced against means-testing Medicare recipients and reducing the benefits of disabled unemployed people. President Obama may not be calling for an expansion of Social Security, a tax on Wall Street trades, a rescinding of the sadistic bipartisan cuts to the food stamp program, but by golly, his less-cruel proposals sure do beat the swift death that Paul the Hammock Man is prescribing!

Back in his home district of Racine, Ryan's approval rating has now slipped below the 50% mark, and his one-time Democratic opponent is vowing to challenge Golden Boy once again. Ron Zerban lost the race by a slimmer margin than predicted in 2012, despite the best defunding efforts of the DCCC. 
(Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee)

As Down With Tyranny reports, the DCCC actively protects Republicans like Paul Ryan, John Boehner, and Eric Cantor who enjoy House Leadership positions by deliberately withholding campaign cash from any potential "progressive" challengers. Rep. Steve Israel (New D-NY) was appointed by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as campaign bagman for the party because he possesses the "sufficient reptilian tendencies" to make sure that only the right corporate Dems get elected. Gaius Publius of Americablog has more on the machinations.
Paul Ryan survives precisely because of the rampant complicity of all (the media political complex)  concerned.

But who knows? Maybe all those Lonesome Rhodes moments will eventually catch up with him. The $350 bottles of wine, the serial begging for funds from the very programs he pretends to oppose.

And maybe, just maybe, the serial bipartisan hypocrisy and corruption will eventually catch up with the whole lot of them. All we can do is keep shining a light.

Ukraine-O-Mania: Kerry Does Kiev

So on Tuesday (a.k.a. Kill List Day in the White House) John Kerry did the helicopter hustle in Kiev (cue the Pictures at an Exhibition music in the previous post), a bag of bribery cash in one hand, a bouquet of flowers in the other. Nobody does subtle like the secretary of state:

 

And nobody does propagandistic bathos like the New York Times:

Trudging through a damp mist, Mr. Kerry stopped first for an emotional visit to improvised memorials where protesters were gunned down last month as they voiced opposition to what was then Ukraine’s pro-Kremlin government.

Mr. Kerry placed a lighted candle at one of the shrines, which were draped with flowers and photographs of some of the victims; met with religious leaders; and listened to Ukrainians who beseeched him for help.

Later, warm and dry, the mist wiped from his eyes, Kerry yawned out the bland indignation that makes him so famous, sure to strike fear into the hearts of fellow authoritarians who would never dare tell other nations what to do, let alone invade their countries and drone their citizens to death without so much as a by-your-leave:

"It is not appropriate to invade a country and at the end of a barrel of a gun dictate what you are trying to achieve,” Mr. Kerry said. “That is not 21st-century, G-8, major-nation behavior.”

The centerpiece of the American aid package is the $1 billion loan guarantee. It is intended to cushion Ukrainian households as the new government undertakes wrenching economic changes that are expected to be demanded by the International Monetary Fund, and as it contends with the reduction of energy subsidies from Russia, which has challenged the new government’s legitimacy.

A billion bucks is mighty cheap, when you factor in the Ukrainian population of 45.6 million souls. So let's see.... that amounts to about $20 a person. It certainly would tide them over... right into the drowning pool, while the IMF imposes those Greek-like "wrenching economic changes" designed to crush the regular people caught in the middle of this epic battle of oligarch vs. oligarch, corporation vs. corporation. It's the same old neoliberal song: heads they win, tails we lose. So yes, we are all Ukrainians now, just not in the way that war-mongering friend to war-mongerers John McCain means.

And Kerry really looks like a cheap date with his IOU and his dripping flowers today, now that the EU just upped the bribery ante and offered the Ukrainian "people" $15 billion in aid. The Ukrainians are holding out for $35 billion. Do I hear $20 billion? Somebody call Christie's so we can auction off another 45 million disposable people!

Okay, so now that F-bombing Neocon Victorian Nuland and her pals at least partially succeeded in their "destabilization" efforts by fomenting the coup, it's now on to Act Two in Disaster Capitalism Theater. The global banking plutocrats will generously proffer a "stabilization" loan and demand such "hard changes" as making it too expensive for the average Ukrainian to drive. The unseemly lavish lifestyles of the hoi polloi must end, forthwith!

Meanwhile, Kerry jetted off to Paris to meet with his Russian and Ukrainian counterparts. It seems there were no five-star restaurants open in Ukraine. No word yet if Chicken Kiev was on the Paris menu.

I guess the folks from the IMF were not invited to the Paris dinner. They're still in Kiev, whetting their appetites, "poring over the menu books" to determine the who, what, when, where -- but never the "why" -- of massive pain infliction. The mystery cure of austerity dies hard, even after it's been exposed as snake oil.

A team from the International Monetary Fund is in Kiev to study the books and consider a stabilization loan. The fund is expected to demand difficult changes, including the reduction of lavish subsidies on gas prices, so the American and European money is intended in part to help cushion the blow to Ukrainian voters before new elections in May.

Can't you see the ladders of opportunity already? Working in tandem with the IMF, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup and the gang are no doubt feverishly working on manipulating gas prices and hoarding stockpiles for fun and profit even as the shadow governments speak and the plebeian pawns weep.

Update: Who could ever have predicted? Fracktopolis now rears its ugly head instead of Sarah Palin's idea of Putin: 

Republican leaders on Capitol Hill and major oil companies have urged the Obama administration to speed up the nation’s first exports of natural gas. Although environmentalists, some Democrats and American manufacturing companies that depend on the competitive advantage of cheap domestic natural gas oppose the effort, they have fallen to the sidelines in the rush to export the gas.

At the State Department, an initiative to harness a natural gas boom in the United States as a lever against Russia, underway since 2011, intensified this week as Gazprom, Russia’s state-run natural gas company, said it would no longer provide gas at a discount rate to Ukraine. Russia supplies 60 percent of Ukraine’s natural gas, and the move was reminiscent of Russia’s previous moves, in 2006, 2008 and 2009, to shut off natural gas supplies to both Europe and Ukraine.

Before you know it, we'll be undercutting Madura and sending fracked gas down to "unstable"Venezuela, and John McCain can proclaim "We are all South Americans now!"

Nobody ever said that you had to be smart and circumspect to succeed at greed. As a matter of fact, it's surprising how utterly and publicly grasping and brazen they are about their real agenda. I guess because nobody ever said the American people had to be paying attention to the world outside. Bare survival is keeping most of us busy enough.

Ukraine-o-Mania: The Worst of Times

Like many of you, I'm confused about the situation in Ukraine. Who and what to believe? Oligarch A, Factotum B, Pundit C, or Politician D?  After immediately scratching all the bloviators appearing on the corporate-sponsored Sunday shows, I turned to the Paper of Record for some much-needed insight. Here's Peter Baker keeping us informed with today's headline about Obama the bronco-buster trying to break Vlad the Stallion:

Pressure Rising as Obama Works to Rein In Russia (accompanied by the standard artistic photos capturing the dark night of the soul that only a man shouldering the full weight of American exceptionalism can ever hope to fully comprehend and stoically endure.)

 Working the telephone from the Oval Office, Mr. Obama rallied allies, agreed to send Secretary of State John Kerry to Kiev  and approved a series of diplomatic and economic moves intended to “make it hurt,” as one administration official put it. But the president found himself besieged by advice to take more assertive action.

(You may now imagine John Kerry triumphantly marching through the gates of Kiev, whip in hand, with this optional musical accompaniment, courtesy of Modest Mussorgsky). Baker continues:

“Create a democratic noose around Putin’s Russia,” urged Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. “Revisit the missile defense shield,” suggested Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida. “Cancel Sochi,” argued Representative Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican who leads the Intelligence Committee, referring to the Group of 8 summit meeting to be hosted by President Vladimir V. Putin. Kick “him out of the G-8” altogether, said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip.

What reportage! Baker watched the TV bloviators so we wouldn't have to, and dutifully stenographed every precious little bellicose word, never once stopping to question their tenuous at best grip on reality. Inquiring minds want to know in vain: can one buy a democratic noose on eBay? Where does one go to pay a call on the Missile Defense Shield? Is Dick Durbin the scold that Kerry is bringing with him to Kiev?

The Russian occupation of Crimea has challenged Mr. Obama as has no other international crisis, and at its heart, the advice seemed to pose the same question: Is Mr. Obama tough enough to take on the former K.G.B. colonel in the Kremlin? It is no easy task. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. “In another world,” she said.

Oh God. Answering the questions of the aforementioned pols, Baker pretends to cast doubt on Obama's testosterone level. But wait --  some higher-up (probably Obama) leaked to Peter Baker that Angela Merkel confidentially told Obama that not only has Putin lost his grip on reality, he's living in outer space. This is what authoritarian-controlled media outlets do when their handlers are caught in a bind. They cast doubt on the mental health of the enemy, and the machismo and competence of the "good guy" survives. Nobody can fight a lunatic, after all.

 That makes for a crisis significantly different from others on Mr. Obama’s watch. On Syria, Iran, Libya and Egypt, the political factions in Washington have been as torn as the president over the proper balance of firmness and flexibility. But as an old nuclear-armed adversary returns to Cold War form, the consequences seem greater, the challenges more daunting and the voices more unified.

Two choices, and they're both as sexy as hell. Firmness is the opposite of flexibility in this particular framing, and they're both ego-savers. In another world, outside the propaganda orbit of the Times-White House solar system, the opposite of firmness might be a limp noodle. But that contrast is not allowed in the official narrative as dictated to Peter Baker.

This is the New York Times at its most pandering, obfuscatingly disgraceful worst.What we're subjected to is an unintentional parody of House of Cards, itself a satire of Washington group-think and self-serving malfeasance and media complicity.

I've done as much reading as I can on the Ukraine situation, and so far, nothing beats the journalism of Pulitzer-winner Robert Parry for background, clarity and analysis. (His independent site, Consortiumnews, is now listed on my blog roll.) His take: our foreign policy is still largely run by Bush-era neocons, held over for whatever baffling reason by President Obama. He should have purged f-bombing Evil-Eyed Cookie Lady Victoria Nuland while he still had the chance. A little late now, says Parry.

Moon of Alabama and Counterpunch, also on the Blog Roll, are two more must go-to sources for a wealth of opinions and cogent analyses.

Back to reading now, and trying to stay informed to keep you informed.

Concern-Trolling the Bro People

The social justice charm offensive from an increasingly irrelevant White House continues, full hot-air steam ahead.

The latest episode in the president's tanking telenovela series ("I've Got a Pen and a Phone!") debuted yesterday with the Biblical title "I Am My Brother's Keeper." Aimed at paying lip service to the plight of minority youth, it managed to totally ignore the role that the American Ruling Class continues to play in causing and perpetuating institutional racism. The star-studded cast chosen by Barack Obama to headline his event told the real story before he even uttered his first maudlin word.

Because nothing inspires black and brown boys invited to the White House to pose as the extras in a PR stunt like the living specter of ex-Mayor Michael "Stop & Frisk" Bloomberg of New York and The World. His devotion to racial profiling is topped only by an ongoing partnership with Goldman Sachs, that places cynical bets on minority youth's  prison recidivism rates. And then there was Chicago's Rahm "Mayor One Percent" Emanuel, fresh from his marathon crusade to close more than 50 public schools in poor, predominately black and brown neighborhoods. And don't forget General Colin "Lying Our Way Into War" Powell to provide that sweet, tasty layer of Shock and Awe frosting on top of the inspirational cupcake.

In framing his Brother's Keeper remarks around his own self-portrait and substituting inspirational autobiography for actual policy, Obama simply once again confirmed what Adolph Reed, Jr. had just recently observed in an interview with Bill Moyers:

BILL MOYERS: I can imagine that if President Obama were sitting here talking with you or you were at the White House talking with him, he'd say, Adolph, I understand your diagnosis. But what you have to understand is that pragmatism can be and often is an effective agent or tool or weapon in the long-range struggle for social justice.

And I know you're impatient, I know you believe in this restructuring of society, but we're not going to get there with the wave of a wand. And it takes just as it did in the civil rights movement, a long time for me to get here to the White House, it's going to take a long time for this country to get where you would take it.

ADOLPH REED: Right. Oh, I am absolutely certain that he would say something like that. I admit that this is kind of treading maybe, into troublesome water, but among the reasons that I know Obama's type so well is, you know, I've been teaching at elite institutions for more than 30 years.

And that means that I've taught his cohort that came through Yale actually at the time that he was at, you know, Columbia and Harvard. And I recall an incident in a seminar in, you know, black American political thought with a young woman who was a senior who said something in the class. And I just blurted out that it seem, that the burden of what she said seemed to be that the whole purpose of this Civil Rights Movement was to make it possible for people like her to go to Yale and then to go to work in investment banking.

And she said unabashedly, well, yes, yes, and that's what I believe. And again, I didn't catch myself in time, so I just said to her, well, I wish somebody had told poor Viola Liuzzo, you know, before she left herself family in Michigan and got herself killed that that's what the punch line was going to be, because she might've stayed home to watch her kids grow up. And I think--

BILL MOYERS: This was the woman who on her own initiative went down during the civil rights struggle to Selma, Alabama to join in the fight for voting rights and equality, and was murdered.

ADOLPH REED: Right, exactly. I'm not prepared to accept as my metric of the extent of racial justice or victories of the struggles for racial justice, the election of a single individual to high office or appointment of a black individual to be corporate CEO.

And proving Reed's point, here are some of the look-at-me, inspirational money quotes from Obama's "Bro" speech the other day:

And the point was I could see myself in these young men.  And the only difference is that I grew up in an environment that was a little bit more forgiving, so when I made a mistake the consequences were not as severe.  I had people who encouraged me -- not just my mom and grandparents, but wonderful teachers and community leaders -- and they’d push me to work hard and study hard and make the most of myself.  And if I didn’t listen they said it again.  And if I didn’t listen they said it a third time. And they would give me second chances, and third chances.  They never gave up on me, and so I didn’t give up on myself.

Of course, in the case of Obama, the protections of class were at work. Race was not a factor in his expensive private school experience. And since the president is denying that there is even such a thing as the class war, his "doing what we can" is limited to free-market solutions. The rich shall not be taxed to pay for better education, enough food and improved shelter for black and brown youths and their struggling parents. The rich shall merely be asked, politely, to appear at photo-ops, to sit on task forces studying the plight of black and brown youths, to write reports to the president about the black and brown youths they are helping, to voluntarily agree to glance at the resumes of black and brown youths, to occasionally "mentor" and "empower" black and brown youths. All of this largesse is of course predicated upon black and brown youth being willing to take responsibility for their own miserable lives and pull themselves up by their own frayed bootstraps. Bro-keeping does have its limits.

Life may suck for black and brown youth, proclaims Obama, but as he humbly proclaims:

Now, to say this is not to deny the enormous strides we’ve made in closing the opportunity gaps that marred our history for so long.  My presence is a testimony to that progress.  Across this country, in government, in business, in our military, in communities in every state we see extraordinary examples of African American and Latino men who are standing tall and leading, and building businesses, and making our country stronger.  Some of those role models who have defied the odds are with us here today -- the Magic Johnsons or the Colin Powells who are doing extraordinary things -- the Anthony Foxxes.

And let him make himself perfectly clear, as clear as a reassuring dog-whistle to Wall Street can be: Being your Brother's Keeper is not gonna cost you one red cent, plutocrats and political donors! Because, as Uncle Ronnie said, government is not the solution, it's the problem. As Bubba Clinton so valiantly chimed in, "The era of Big Government Is Over!"

Now, just to be clear -- “My Brother’s Keeper” is not some big, new government program.  In my State of the Union address, I outlined the work that needs to be done for broad-based economic growth and opportunity for all Americans.  We have manufacturing hubs, infrastructure spending -- I've been traveling around the country for the last several weeks talking about what we need to do to grow the economy and expand opportunity for everybody.  And in the absence of some of those macroeconomic policies that create more good jobs and restore middle-class security, it’s going to be harder for everyone to make progress.  And for the last four years, we’ve been working through initiatives like Promise Zones to help break down the structural barriers -- from lack of transportation to substandard schools -- that afflict some of this country’s most impoverished counties, and we’ll continue to promote these efforts in urban and rural counties alike.

Moving at the hyper-capitalistic speed of light, traveling all over the blighted landscape, never stopping in one place long enough for people to pay attention or ask probing questions. It's a promise, it's a zone, it's a charter school, it's private profit at public expense.

We can reform our criminal justice system to ensure that it's not infected with bias, but nothing keeps a young man out of trouble like a father who takes an active role in his son’s life.  (Applause.)

Get married and lift yourselves out of the poverty created in large part by deregulated predatory financial markets. Otherwise, the de facto policy of incarcerating more black men in American prisons today than there were slaves on plantations will continue. America is the Brother's Jail Keeper. Personal responsibility trumps government malfeasance every single time. It's, like, totally Biblical. Puritan, Calvinistic, Cotton Mather Biblical. And that is why, out of the thousands and thousands of Bro People languishing in prison for minor drug offenses, President Mather righteously commuted the sentences of only a token eight of them. One of them, oh so coincidentally, just happened to be a cousin of the Democratic governor of Massachusetts. To whom was added the lucky, randomly-chosen seven.

So often, the issues facing boys and young men of color get caught up in long-running ideological arguments about race and class, and crime and poverty, the role of government, partisan politics. We've all heard those arguments before.  But the urgency of the situation requires us to move past some of those old arguments and focus on getting something done and focusing on what works.  It doesn’t mean the arguments are unimportant; it just means that they can't paralyze us.  And there’s enough goodwill and enough overlap and agreement that we should be able to go ahead and get some things done, without resolved everything about our history or our future.  

Gloss over all the official complicity and malfeasance and corruption. Protect the political criminal and financial class at all costs. Make them part of the pretend solution to the very social ills they had a starring role in creating. Look forward, not back, just like we did with the Bush-Cheney Chamber of Torture Horrors. In other words, keep maintaining the status quo of misery while we talk ourselves to (your) death.

So today after my remarks are done, I’m going to pen this presidential memorandum directing the federal government not to spend more money, but to do things smarter, to determine what we can do right now to improve the odds for boys and young men of color, and make sure our agencies are working more effectively with each other, with those businesses, with those philanthropies, and with local communities to implement proven solutions.

More neoliberal, meaningless words were never spoken in just one little paragraph. He is ordering the government to not spend any more money on social programs for brown and black youth. Like it really needed reminding.

*Update, 3/1: Here is contributor Pearl Volkov's "TimesPick" response to Charles Blow's column on Fathers and Sons:

Mr. Blow: Even having a father in the house, doesn't solve the problems his children face if he can't find a job, or has to work at a menial position due to lack of education, or keep his children healthy with proper nutrition or pay for medical help when necessary. Often, such fathers suffer from guilt and depression as a result, when they wish nothing more than being able to function fully. This is especially true among minority groups and I fault President Obama for refusing to deal with the needs of so many citizens. To me he does not represent the role models of the black men and women who marched for civil liberties, who try and fight injustice and neglect despite the obstacles. I am haunted by the hopeful, tearful faces of all those black voters who watched his inauguration with such joy in their eyes., He speaks of the sadness of fatherless families but I question his sincerity. He could and should have done so much to turn things in a different direction. He had the choices of the kind of people to surround and advise him, to organize citizens in work jobs badly needed instead of casting blame on the Republicans when he could have instituted constructive possibilities for people in need.

I appreciate your column Mr.Blow and your admirable attempt as a father to guide your children. But let us face facts and recognize that President Obama does not represent the kind of leadership black fathers can rely on. His recent speech was an insult to them.

Krugman Finally Yawns Out a TPP Column

Due to popular demand and thanks to its waning popularity in the world of rationalism, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has made it official: he considers the now-iffy TransPacific Partnership agreement to be "No Big Deal."

Let's face it. If Krugman told the truth and announced that the TPP is a fascist coup in the making, he would no longer be invited to pose as the token liberal on the cable shows sponsored by the same entities who stand to vastly increase their already bloated wealth once this deal goes through. He might not even get his Times contract renewed, or be allowed to blog-post at will in the valuable cyberspace of Times World.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the good professor chose this week to finally sigh out his TPP column so he wouldn't have to write about the equally corrupt Federal Reserve characters whose pre-meltdown chat has just been published to wide disdain. Except, of course, at the New York 
Times, which greeted it with bemused acclaim. The grossly inept, and probably criminal malpractice of Ben Bernanke and Timmy Geithner in both orchestrating and covering up the worst financial catastrophe in modern history is treated by the Gray Lady as just one of those things that nobody could ever possibly have foreseen. Mike Whitney has a great takedown of the media-political complex mendacity at CounterPunch. Read it and you'll laugh hilariously, right through your tears of rage.

Meanwhile, back over at the TPP Apologists' Convention, Krugman can't resist taking a subtle dig at his hordes of usually fawning readers who'd been begging him for months, to no avail, to address the TPP in a column:

There’s a lot of hype about T.P.P., from both supporters and opponents. Supporters like to talk about the fact that the countries at the negotiating table comprise around 40 percent of the world economy, which they imply means that the agreement would be hugely significant. But trade among these players is already fairly free, so the T.P.P. wouldn’t make that much difference.

Meanwhile, opponents portray the T.P.P. as a huge plot, suggesting that it would destroy national sovereignty and transfer all the power to corporations. This, too, is hugely overblown. Corporate interests would get somewhat more ability to seek legal recourse against government actions, but, no, the Obama administration isn’t secretly bargaining away democracy.

My response:

 Why is Obama pushing the TPP? Follow the money.

As Lee Fang of "The Nation" reveals, the administration's trade negotiators have been rewarded handsomely by their erstwhile employers. Stefan Selig, appointed undersecretary of international trade, got a friendly $9 million on his way out of Bank of America's revolving door. Michael Froman, late of Citigroup, received a $4 million bonus as he "quit" in order to become chief TPP negotiator.

The banks and other interested plutocratic parties are all allowed to see what's in the proposal. But Congress is not. The American people are not. Therefore, it would be irrational of us not to suspect that a nefarious plot is afoot.

If it's done under cover of darkness, it's not democratic. And last I heard, we were still (barely) a democracy.

Our suspicions are not "overblown." Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the TPP would seriously de-fang already pathetic financial regulations. It would allow Big Tobacco to sue countries trying to regulate its product, thus contributing to untold misery and death in third world countries. And then there's the insatiable greed of Big Pharma, striving to keep its life-saving drugs patented into perpetuity and kept out of the reach of the sickest people of the poorest countries needing them the most.

And when they tell you TPP is dead, don't believe it. Gridlock has this weird tendency to resolve itself in back rooms, once the prevaricating pols have postured and won back their precious seats.

As of this writing, there were only five other reader comments posted. So stay tuned. Meanwhile, I especially liked this one from Cheryl Lans of "Anywhere" (I think she is from Canada):

Professor Krugman demonstrates the behaviour that pushes moderates to become activists. Scientists say no big deal about how they treat lab animals so activists become extremists. Economists say no big deal about employers bringing in low wage, exploitable workers to undermine union workers so conservatives join far right parties. Now the Green Party says that the TPP allows foreign investors and corporations to sue nations if any level of government passes laws that reduce their profits or adversely affect their businesses - this would include environmental or health protection laws. Most people would consider this a big deal but Professor Krugman looks at the patent implications instead. I think that any government negotiating such a deal, in secret because they know the public won't like it is not a democratic government and is treating the public and the environment with contempt. Rule by corporations has a name, and that name is not democracy.

At Work in the Fields of the Lord

Without a trace of irony, President Obama last night urged his unpaid health insurance sales force to also keep fighting for a federal minimum wage:

“We’re going to make a big push these last few weeks,” Obama told OFA volunteers and officials. “I can talk, my team can talk here in Washington, but it’s not going to make as much of a difference as if you are out there making the case. The work you’re doing is God’s work. It is hard work.”

Work that neither needs nor deserves a paycheck or a stipend, apparently. Working for the Big Guy is its own reward. As you go door-to-door, selling Obamacare insurance product to complete strangers at your own peril and at your own expense, you are simply following in the footsteps of Lloyd Blankfein. He, too, does God's Work as CEO of Goldman Sachs. Just imagine the soothing drops of heavenly beneficence trickling down your back as you work for the greater glory of the Market God within the delusional confines of a political personality cult.

On one recent day in Florida, Obama's insurance broker-missionaries amazingly managed to sign up 25 people out of the 2,000-plus prospects they visited. Put another way, they enjoy about the same rate of success at finding people at home as do Jehovah's Witnesses. From the New York Times:

 Such are the limits of microtargeting the uninsured as groups supporting the Obama administration take to the streets on behalf of the president’s most important domestic initiative. The nationwide effort is modeled on Mr. Obama’s successful voter turnout machines in 2008 and 2012, but in this case the task of finding Americans without health insurance and signing them up is a painfully slow grind.

But hold on a second. I wasn't being totally fair when I implied that our president is cynically exploiting a bunch of fanatical serfs for his own political gain. This is Sweepstakes USA, after all, so there are a few carefully selected lucky duckies in the Obamacare church sales force getting actual paychecks:

The campaign is staffed by organizations deploying thousands of paid and volunteer canvassers across the country. Planned Parenthood, one of the most aggressive groups, has raised millions of dollars for the effort. It is paying about 400 workers like Ms. Morwin $12 an hour. They are knocking on an average of 18,000 doors a day in eight states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Enroll America, a nonprofit group that is trying to expand the health care rolls, has hired 266 people and recruited 14,000 volunteers to not only canvass neighborhoods but also make calls at phone banks and host events at community colleges in 11 states. The group has also spent $7 million to advertise on the Internet.

The efforts are important for Mr. Obama, who has been damaged politically by the initial failures of his health care website. Now, with HealthCare.gov finally working, his administration and outside supporters are racing to meet their goal of signing up seven million people by March 31. By the end of January, nearly 3.3 million people had enrolled. To the canvassers, at least, the original goal seems a long way off.

Two hundred sixty-six paid employees out of 14,000 unpaid proselytizers? I guess it never occurred to the officials running Sweepstakes USA that they could help solve the unemployment crisis by training people to be insurance brokers and then paying them an actual living wage as they pound the pavement for Market God. Instead, it's all about rallying around a "damaged" president, and matching each Republican anecdotal Obamacare failure story with any equally poignant Democratic anecdotal success story. Every lottery, after all, must have winners and losers.

And 40 million-plus uninsured Americans gaze longingly from afar at the lucky six or nine million in line to eventually win a health insurance admission card. "You gotta be in it to win it!" is the promise, but not the guarantee. And when they tell you that all you need is a marketplace and a dream.... well, that depends on your locale as well as on your bank account. Restrictions do apply, especially if you're a poor working person living in a red state like Florida. Then the odds are definitely stacked against both you and that well-meaning volunteer knocking at your door.   

Sweepstakes USA

Life in these hyper-capitalistic United States is like a perverse retelling of Shirley Jackson's The Lottery. In the revised version, everybody must get stoned. That piece of paper getting plucked from the box? Now it contains many doomed names instead of just the one.

The game is as rigged as ever, and with so many losers getting selected for sacrifice to the Free Market god, the carnival barkers and lottery officials of the Feudal States of America have to come up with ever more novel ways to keep the public conned and complacent. People must be made to feel that they still have a fighting chance to avoid annihilation in the face of the worst wealth disparity since the Gilded Age.

The Powers That Be have to hide the real Lottery behind a whole slew of fake lotteries.

Since the income gap was artificially created in the first place by the perverse policies that deregulated capitalism and allowed for the household wealth of a nation to flow to those at the very top, so must the gap be made to seem to diminish through more sleight of hand and artifice.

They've devised all new games of chance to substitute for a universal safety net of social insurance programs common in democratic societies. We are invited to enter, not so much to win, but for a chance to simply survive. And if we lose, as lose we invariably will, we can still gaze from afar at the few lucky duckies and revel in their isolated victories. Or more accurately, aspirational victories. Because even after they are carefully selected, they are forgotten in the official haste to move on to the next contest, and the next, and the next. In order to be effective, predation disguised as beneficence has got to be lightning-fast.

Since it's neoliberalism rather than democracy at work here in the Homeland,  these contests are  euphemistically called public-private partnerships, or private initiatives funded by taxpayers. Or, corporate welfare at taxpayer expense. Or, if you really want to be blunt -- theft.

Leading the corporate charm offensive in the Grift Sweepstakes is none other than Barack Obama, our carnival barker-in-chief.  Only last month, he picked five lucky poverty pockets in the blighted American landscape to become exploited trickle-down "Promise Zones" plantations. And tomorrow, he'll be announcing that Illinois and Michigan have been selected as the latest "winners" in yet another contest.The lucky duckies whose names got picked out of the Military-Industrial Complex Survivors' Box are mighty excited. The news release is a  feast of hyperbole, designed to rev up the proles into an orgasm of free market fervor:

Top politicians in Illinois joined local leaders in Michigan in trumpeting as a coup news that their states have landed a part in what they consider a revolutionary effort to boost manufacturing innovation, seeded by $140 million from federal taxpayers.

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel over the weekend announced Chicago's selection as eventual home to the Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute touted last month in President Barack Obama's State of the Union address. A second institute will be located in Canton, Michigan, near Detroit.

Obama, a Chicagoan, is expected to officially announce the $320 million initiative Tuesday at the White House. The Pentagon is contributing $70 million to each of the Illinois and Michigan sites, with the remainder being contributed by states, including $16 million from Illinois, and outside interests that include corporations and universities.

It's all there, folks! It's a coup, it's a revolution, it's innovative, it's an initiative, it's a joint effort by the Eternal War State, the Corporate Gods and their corporatized schools.  But, but, but.....

It was not immediately clear Sunday how many jobs may be created by the initiatives or when those regional hubs could begin work.

But, but, but:

The initiative's Chicago prong bound for the city's Goose Island will push high-tech digital manufacturing and design under the premise that virtual environments may supplant drafting tables as keys to innovation. Illinois officials insisted that lab, led by nonprofit UI Labs, will be the nation's flagship research institute in digital manufacturing, ostensibly bolstering the Defense Department's efficiencies along the way.

"This solidifies Chicago's place as the epicenter of the digital manufacturing revolution that will create thousands of jobs here and make our city the place where the greatest 21st-century innovations are born," Emanuel said. "This cutting-edge digital lab will ensure that the City of Big Shoulders remains the City of Big Discoveries for years to come."

Durbin, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, added that the initiative "has the potential to revolutionize the way the United States approaches manufacturing."

As you can see from the propaganda, although the Great American Lottery always has winners, actually collecting the prize is a whole different ballgame. They're counting on the "folks" not having the initiative to bother checking back and checking up on whether the innovation is real after the money is pocketed, or whether it's just eternally eventual. Or as ruthlessly efficient as the Pentagon's drones.

When I read that Michelle Obama had visited New York last week for a program called "Taking Back the Streets," for a second I thought she'd gone rogue and joined an Occupy encampment. No such luck. I should have known that she was simply promoting bottled designer water labeled with art work produced (for free,of course) by children living in the Income Disparity Capital of the World. It was a lousy commercial within a contest beneath a Lottery disguised as a social movement. Again. The free tap water may be bottled (at a fancy $1.50 a hit) but the message was definitely canned. Do teenage girls living in the Income Disparity Capital of the World really talk like this? --

“Growing up in New York City I got to see New York’s famous graffiti and street art every day,” 13-year-old Sophia Rose Stewart-Chapman told the first lady. “Today, I often feel bombarded by images that can be confusing or encourage poor decision making...It is so important for youth to be inspired by the power of art and this art is creating such an important message. By making drinking water cool, I’m learning that young people just like me can take control of our health.”

Empowered, yet unpaid. It's the American way. But wait. In this case, it doesn't matter if the student artists shilling tap water in designer bottles get paid or not, because they attend the $37,500-a-year Little Red (private) Schoolhouse in New York City. (scholarships available to keep it neoliberally diverse, of course.) Their "value-added community service" project will be just the thing for their Ivy League applications in a couple of years.

Of course, I shouldn't just be picking on multimillionaires like Barack and Michelle, or Rahm, or Dick. Because the Great American Lottery is a joint production of the fabulously wealthy billionaire CEOs of the private sector, those commanding generals in the Class War now trying to recast themselves as philanthropists in order to prevent a real, bottom-up revolution.

Take Conde-Nast, for example.  As Jim Romanesko explains, this publishing empire catering to the rich and famous was rightly castigated last year for ditching their entire crew of unpaid interns rather than be forced to pay them an actual wage. To make up for that public relations debacle, they're now inviting you to enter for a chance to win $50,000 for doing their scut work for them.

By their publications you shall know them: Self, Lucky, Vanity Fair.

And then there's our old friend Comcast, more anxious than ever to transform its image from 21st Century robber baron into Social Welfare champion.... making it all that much easier for its paid-for pals in the Oval Office, Justice Department and Congress to approve its takeover of Time Warner Cable. What better way for Comcast to gain control of the Internet and Everything than by sponsoring lotteries and picking out a few lucky duckies for the vicarious aspirational pleasure of its intended victims?

In one such venture, Comcast has invested a relatively meager (for it) $20 million for minority entrepreneurs to compete for "accelerated startup" funding in its DreamIt subsidiary. So far, they've funded such "catalysts" as a dating site, a homework assistance site, a travel site, and a recipe site. Interested in applying for money from Comcast? Well, of course, the possibility of winning comes with a big But.  Here's the first thing you learn in this version of Lottery USA:

Before we talk about why you should apply to DreamIt as an individual, let’s talk about why you should NOT apply.

First, you will be working your butt off for very little money. Second, there is no guarantee that the company you work with will succeed. Third, even if the company does succeed, there’s no guarantee that you will have a long-term opportunity to stay at the company.

Still reading? Then let’s talk about why you SHOULD apply. The company very well may succeed, and it may succeed in a big way. You will learn a lot and have a blast. You will have the opportunity to impress people who can help you regardless of where your personal path leads. You will have lifelong memories and the opportunity to become one of the many successful entrepreneurs who waxes nostalgic about the early days (and forgets the angst, sleep deprivation, and emotional spikes and dives).

Poverty can be fun. You have nothing left to lose, after all. You are so screwed. You have to be in it to win it. You have only 12 weeks without sleep to succeed or fail.  And if you DreamIt, Comcast will come in a big way, all the way to approval as the biggest monopoly in the Feudal States of America.... because they gave diverse minority folks like you an ephemeral ladder of opportunity.

Bootstraps, everybody! Bootstraps!

Your future is only a click away. 

Update: Of course, the biggest P3 (Public Private Partnership) monstrosity of them all is the Affordable Care Act.Three million people out of at least 47 million uninsured people have signed up so far. The other 44 million gaze longingly from afar, hoping against hope that someday, they too will live to become insured before they die. And Paul Krugman has written his umpteenth column defending this kludge against the silly imprecations of the Republican Party. Sardonicky contributor Pearl Volkov wrote this excellent (TimesPick!) riposte:

Dr.Krugman: Those of us who live in Canada and receive medical care as citizens or permanent residents, simply cannot understand why you keep supporting Obamacare and its controversial complications. There should be none. Proper care for all citizens is only possible if progressive taxation is occurring and health provision regulated and supervised by the proper Health Department of the government. As a result, why aren't you fighting for fairer taxation so that a bill in Congress calling for single payer national coverage is not waiting to be noticed?

If you bother to read the statistics of costs, quality of care, fairness of its provision with no ties to private insurers or employers, you will be able to comprehend that you are barking up the wrong tree on this issue.

The main concern is that the health of U.S. citizens is at a lower level and quality of life as a result of substitutions like Obamacare even if some of its snags work out.