Parasites on Parade

All you have to do is part with one million George Washington smackeroos, and your corporation people will get exclusive access to the festivities at the Second Coming of Obama next month. This means that all the little people will be excluded and will not be around to breathe on you or otherwise disturb your VIP exclusivity during your foray inside the Beltway.  

If you didn't get your invitation yet, don't despair. They were delivered, en masse, via email, and merely give the illusion of being engraved. They are actually kind of cheap and tawdry-looking. And the spelling skills of whatever Social Secretary of Snobbery designed them leave something to be desired too. For example, the ultra-exclusive George Washington Premium Partner Package includes Inaugural Parade "bleecher" seats. Not only is the lack of custom-upholstered seating de trop, the offer is downright insulting. It sounds like they're going to stuff the corporate welfare leeches up in the nosebleed section.

The only surprising thing about President Obama shilling for tax-shielded corporate money to fund his extravaganza is that a lot of people are actually surprised about it. After all, this is the guy who sold exclusive access to his corpus throughout his campaign, for a grand total of a billion dollars. The proceeds from his Inaugural balls will be mere chump change in the grand scheme of things. 

But I guess you can't blame the victims of the Surprise. After all, in 2009, Team Obama made a big righteous deal about not taking any corporate lucre for the swearing-in festivities. Those were the days when our president was still fresh from his victorious marketing campaign based on a "grassroots movement." One of his PR flacks, a guy oxymoronically named Josh Earnest, sincerely joked at the time that the banning of corporate money was only the beginning to changing "the way business as usual is done in Washington."

 The pretense at pretense is all gone now. Still, as Public Citizen puts it, we the people should have the right to not have "our" inauguration brought to us by the likes of Bank of America:

 That the corporate-funded inaugural festivities will fall on the anniversary (Jan. 21) of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, is not just ironic given President Obama’s stated support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision holding that corporations can spend unlimited amounts on elections, it undermines the case for corporate-free elections.

The Presidential Inaugural Committee has stated that it will not accept funds from lobbyists, foreign corporations, TARP recipients that have not repaid their government loans or others that do not pass its vetting process. But every corporation’s donations create a conflict of interest, because they all have business before the government in one way or the other. The problem with donations from lobbyists is that they expect something in return for their contribution. The situation is exactly the same with corporate contributors, virtually all of whom employ lobbyists.
 

Of course, it has long been known that the Obama Administration has a nifty work-around to its anti-lobbyist rule. Either the lobbyists don't even bother registering as lobbyists, thereby gaining unfettered access to the White House, or the Obama people just meet with the influence peddlers across the street at the Caribou Cafe. From the New York Times:

On the agenda over espressos and lattes, according to more than a dozen lobbyists and political operatives who have taken part in the sessions, have been front-burner issues like Wall Street regulation, health care rules, federal stimulus money, energy policy and climate control — and their impact on the lobbyists’ corporate clients.

But because the discussions are not taking place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they are not subject to disclosure on the visitors’ log that the White House releases as part of its pledge to be the “most transparent presidential administration in history.”
 

So it's not so much the graft and corruption --  we have cynically come to expect that in our politicians. It's the continuing hypocrisy of a president who lectures the country on the need for austerity at the same time he wines and dines with the elites. Those "bleechers for leechers" -- the seating arrangements for the exclusive corporate rumps -- are being constructed at taxpayer expense, by carpenters who now may have to wait a few more years to retire and collect Medicare. Those people cannot afford tickets to Candlelight Receptions and Benefactors Brunches and Children's Balls.

Writes John Wonderlich of the Sunlight Foundation,

Even if Sheldon Adelson doesn't throw a casino-themed gala in Obama's honor, there's a whole machinery in DC built on brokering wealth and influence, and a good party feeds the scene. Neither defending the celebrations nor priming the check-writers presents a good public interest case for this move.

(snip)

The Obama administration is likely to, again, justify their behavior by saying that they're following the law. Whenever their accountability policies have loopholes or problems, rather than fixing them, the administration asks to be judged in comparison to Bush, saying their record speaks for itself. At some point, though, it's time to judge Obama in his own words. Obama said unlimited donations sully our democracy, threaten public service, and weaken representation -- and has now chosen to embrace them.
Maybe Obama's setting the tone for his second term: we're not worried about whether we look like reformers at all.
 

Like I said -- they're giving up pretending at pretending. I wonder if the crowds in the exclusive bleechers (sic) will cheer when the president praises the free market in his Second Inaugural Address?  I wonder if they'll send me an email asking me to donate $3 for a chance to win one of the nosebleed seats?

One thing's for sure: if Barack Obama channels FDR and says "I welcome their hatred", he won't be talking about banksters. He'll be talking about his own base.

The Class War Ain't Got No Class!

 

Your Weekly Dose of Austerity Propaganda

The latest presidential side of non-fiery chat: (rough draft rescued from a White House dumpster.)

Hello, everybody. Over the last few weeks, there’s been a lot of bullshit talk about phony deadlines we’re facing on how to steal from the poor and let my donor class take whatever they want jobs and taxes and investments. But with so much manufactured fear-mongering  noise and so many opinions flying around, it can be easy to fool most of the people some of the time lose sight of what this debate is really about. It’s not about which political party comes out on top, or who wins or loses in Washington. It’s about making sure the top one percent keeps sucking up all the wealth of our great nation smart decisions that will have a real negative impact on your lives and the lives of Americans all across the country.

Right now, middle-class tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year. Time is running out because we are pretending there is a fiscal crisis and not a jobs crisis.  And there are two things that can happen.

First, if Congress does nothing, every family in America will see their income taxes automatically go up on January 1^st. A typical middle-class family of four would get a non-immediate $2,200 tax hike. That would be temporarily inconveniencing bad for families, it would be bad for businesses, and it would drag down our entire economy. Of course, since we could easily and retroactively restore the deductions early next year, it would actually not have an immediate effect at all. It would take at least a year for the economy to slide back into recession. But nobody, especially me, is mentioning that. I need cover to slash the social safety net, and this kabuki debt crisis theatre is giving it to me.

Now, Congress can avoid all this by passing a law that prevents a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. That means 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses wouldn’t see their income taxes go up by a single dime. Even the wealthiest Americans would get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income. And families everywhere would enjoy some peace of mind. Through this bit of weekly propaganda, I will make sure that your peace of mind is becoming upset, just in case it wasn't already. 

The Senate has already done their part. Now we’re just waiting for Republicans in the House to do the same thing. But so far, they’ve put forward an unbalanced plan that actually lowers rates for the wealthiest Americans. Ironically, if they fail to deal with me, your Medicare and Social Security will be safe for now!  If we want to protect the middle class, the best possible thing would be just to go over the fiscal cliff then the math just doesn’t work.

We can and should actually be representing the people who elected us do more than just extend middle class tax cuts. I stand ready to fuck you over work with Republicans on a plan that rewards multinational corporations spurs economic growth, creates McJobs jobs and reduces our deficit – a plan that gives the rich both sides some of what they want. I’m willing to raise the Medicare age to 67, thus giving even more profits to the private insurance leeches find ways to bring down the cost of health care without letting on that I will be hurting seniors and other Americans who depend on it. And I’m willing to make more earned benefits entitlement spending cuts on top of the $1 trillion dollars in cuts I signed into law last year. That means adjusting the formula by which we figure increases in the cost of living for Social Security recipients. We already don't factor in food and medical care; now we have to find even more cruel ways to make sure middle class refugees share the sacrifice, work longer, and die sooner.

But if we’re seriously beholden to Wall Street about reducing our deficit while still investing in things like privatized, for-profit education and research that are important to enriching the plutocracy growing our economy – and if we’re seriously pretending to care about protecting middle-class families – then we’re also going to have to grovel ask the wealthiest Americans to pay only slightly higher tax rates. That’s one principle I won’t compromise on in order to give credence to my shared sacrifice meme and keep some of the people still stupidly believing that I actually care about them.

After all, this was a central question in the false choice election between two evils. A clear majority of Americans – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – agreed that jobs are the most pressing issue with a balanced approach totally contrived by me that asks ignores the poor and longterm unemployed something from everyone, but a very temporary, paltry, miniscule little more from those who already grabbed more than their fair share can most afford it. I am ignoring the fact that only 15% of those polled said the deficit is their primary concern. It’s the only way to give the richest of the rich who spent a billion dollars to re-elect me their way put our economy on a sustainable path without asking even more from them the middle class. And it’s the only kind of plan I’m willing to sign.

Everyone in the elite financial, media and political class  agrees the rich can never have too much we need to bring down our deficit and strengthen our economy for the long-term. The question is whether we can do it in a an opaque responsible way that allows us to keep fooling you investing in the military industrial complex things that have always made America an imperialistic bully and a banana republic strong. I’m convinced we can keep up our charade. And if both sides of the Money Party are willing to compromise, I believe we can give businesses and families a false sense of security going into the New Year.

Thanks for swallowing this crap, and have a great weekend.

Big Brother Denialism

Both presidential campaigns got a lot of negative press this campaign season for the creepy Orwellian ways they were able to peer deep into the personal lives of millions of potential voters. The nerve centers of campaign HQs were sending volleys of synapses into the Great American Brainpan. I know, because my mind had been getting all jittery over the perpetual political horse race.

 Now, thank goodness, all is temporarily calm and bright in my own little corner of cyberspace. Blissfully gone are those days when I couldn't visit a web-page without the grinning face of Barack or the grimacing face of Mitt haunting my every click. Email spam folders are also blessedly bereft of those uncannily personal and overly-familiar missives from Michelle and Ann, Bo and Tagg, Cutter and Ax.

Now that the Spambot in-Chief of the Obama campaign is apparently out of a job, (or so he implies) he has written an op-ed for The New York Times to bitch about all the bad press his spy outfit has gotten. "I Am Not Big Brother!" shrills Ethan Roeder, who makes sure that we know that his job description is former data director for Obama for America. He comes not to spy upon you but to deny the spying ever happened in the first place -- even though he can't help admitting that yes, he spied. But it was for your own good. He is here to cover his ass set the record straight:

Reading what others muse about my profession is the opposite of my middle-school experience: people with only superficial information about me make a bunch of assumptions to fill in what’s missing and decide that I’m an all-knowing super-genius. (wahhhh.)

Sadly for me, this is a bunch of malarkey. You may chafe at how much the online world knows about you, but campaigns don’t know anything more about your online behavior than any retailer, news outlet or savvy blogger.
 

He doesn't know anything about you that corporate sleazeballs like Macy's or Amazon don't know, so that makes you fair game for political operatives, too. Ethan's middle school memories unfortunately do not include the time his mother chided him about the evils of going along with the crowd: "If everybody else in your class jumped off a cliff, Ethan, would you do it too?"

 Also, I was unaware that "savvy bloggers" were in the habit of hacking into people's private information. And here I thought only Anonymous and the FBI were doing it. Where do I sign up?

And anyway, cyberspying is all so harmless and mundane and kind of boring, as Ethan reassuringly purrs:

The explicit data includes e-mails and comments that users share directly. The implicit data comes from “click tracking,” which tells a campaign what buttons are getting pressed and how often. Combined, these two categories of data allow a campaign to put together an online experience that will resonate with as many people as possible, but also to customize the experience so that you are more likely to encounter content that’s relevant to you.

At times it might seem like sorcery to the recipient of a targeted e-mail, but it’s just a product of two simple factors: remembering who you are and remembering what you like.

I know who you are and I saw what you did. Big Brother follows you for your own good, to find out what you like. He wants to manufacture an online experience for you, whether you want one or not. It may seem like magic, but it's nothing more than technology run amok. As long as we are transparent about our methodology, says Ethan, you should just accept the loss of privacy. It's the new normal. Stop being such whiney purist civil libertarians. The Constitution is so yesterday.

The data the Obama people have gleaned on the lives of citizens is vaster than we ever could have imagined. Ethan soothingly reveals that

 In 2011 and 2012, the Obama campaign, with the help of more than two million volunteers, had more than 24 million conversations with voters. Online tools gave Obama supporters resources to help them play a crucial role in their neighborhoods, and a series of “share your story” pages on the campaign Web site provided a venue for voters to communicate directly with the campaign in long form.

(snip) 

 New technologies and an abundance of data may rattle the senses, but they are also bringing a fresh appreciation of the value of the individual to American politics.

What Ethan does not reveal in his op-ed is that his database is something of a pearl without price, but it may soon be for sale anyway at a very hefty price to the highest political or corporate bidder (s). The Democrats as well as their veal pen offshoots are not being shy about asking for it:

 From the candidates running in 2014 to the state Democratic parties to progressive advocacy groups, there is an intense behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign afoot to pry from Obamaland its groundbreaking voter database. The data is rich with intricate layers of information about individuals’ voting habits, television viewing tastes, propensity to volunteer, car registration, passions, email address, cellphone numbers, and social media contacts. The historical trove enabled Obama to connect with voters on a highly personal level and get them not only to vote but to actively persuade their neighbors to do the same.

(snip)

 Those decisions likely won’t be made until closer to the president’s inauguration next month. Among the prime options being discussed by president’s political hands: setting up an independent, not-for-profit entity, run by Obama aides, to manage and keep the electronic files updated so the contacts could be used to further the president’s agenda. Handing over the names to campaigns is not high on the list right now.
 

That's a relief. Now, when it comes time to slash "entitlements" (a/k/a paid-up retirement and old-age medical insurance policies as well as programs for our most vulnerable citizens) The President will morph into CyberSvengali and we will be mass-hypnotized into participating in our own destruction. Once that is accomplished, he may or may not bequeath his Master List to the next Masters and Mistresses waiting in the wings. Has he ever stopped to think that people forced to share the sacrifice with the plutocracy may no longer be able to even afford a computer or an internet connection, and the whole master list may be for naught?

Despite what Winston Smith thought to himself at the very end, Big Brother most assuredly does not love you. 

 

The Well-Dressed War Machine Wears Green

By Fred Drumlevitch
(cross-posted with permission from FredDrumlevitch.blogspot.com)


With that title, I’m referring not to the color of soldiers’ uniforms or St. Patrick’s Day attire, but rather, to modern attempts by the armaments makers to greenwash their operations, and to the taxpayer greenbacks that pay for American militarism instead of genuine environmental preservation and other beneficial programs.

Of course, “Raytheon Celebrates Earth Day”. From their corporate website:

But for a truly astounding example of such greenwashing (which I still find surreal more than a year after I first saw it), watch the following 2011 video from KVOA television, the Tucson NBC affiliate:

http://www.kvoa.com/news/raytheon-innovates-new-ways-of-going-green/

(The above link provides access to both the video and a slightly-inaccurate transcript).

Though not usually associated with armaments suppliers, greenwashing of corporate activity is nothing new, and I presume that the above local “news” segment was supposed to make viewers feel all warm and fuzzy about the merchants of death at Raytheon. (How, though, is beyond my comprehension, unless the viewers are regarded as complete morons by both Raytheon and KVOA — which may well be the case).

Depending on one’s point of view, the military-industrial complex may or may not be a giant sinkhole swallowing desperately-needed national resources and perverting national priorities, but none of that is even an issue, all’s right with the world, for they recycle their soft-drink cans and office supplies! While high-efficiency lighting or solar panels might be of benefit for logistical reasons within a combat zone, can anyone in their right mind believe that recycling — or even the grandest of environmental initiatives — by a defense contractor stateside makes a laudable difference, in the context of the overall waste of national resources by the military and its suppliers? “Inane” doesn’t even begin to describe this gushing television segment. The presentation by KVOA of this greenwashing tripe as newsworthy, with no reference to broader concerns and not even a trace of irony, must rate as one of the clearest indicators I’ve ever seen of the journalistic bankruptcy of local television “news” reporting.

One needn’t be a pacifist to recognize that the American military-industrial complex now plays a pathological role in the course of contemporary human events. And in fact I am not a pacifist; I understand that in our present world, some military capability is necessary. But the true problems of our nation receive, at best, token attention, while unnecessary and futile wars drag on year after year, taking an incalculable toll. All but the blind can see America's basic military readiness harmed, soldiers demoralized, or worse, made physical or psychological casualties of our insane interminable wars. All but those suffering from terminal American exceptionalism or denial should be able to understand the immorality of foreign civilians injured and killed — and the new enemies thereby created. Technology will not provide a magic solution; our high-tech semi-robotic instruments of war may reduce U.S. casualties, but they cannot mask the destruction and hatred created on the receiving end of our actions. And used or unused, the costs of our war machines, and indeed, of our entire military, are bankrupting the nation, and have a massive “opportunity cost” of better things not done.

Perhaps the most under-appreciated damage involves what has been done to our national ideals and the political process. For decades, both officeholders and candidates have been afraid to take rational positions with regard to our military spending, our worldwide military presence, and our military actions. For politicians, mustn’t be seen as weak or hesitant; for the human cogs of the war machine tasked with keeping the pipeline of cannon fodder full, mustn’t be seen as in any way reducing the flow. Washington, D.C., or Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State, the result is the same. Even the term “Defense Department”, for what used to be called, more honestly, the “Department of War”, hints at the disconnect between our perceptions/actions and reality. Nearly every military action, even an unjustified, massive invasion and occupation of a sovereign foreign country, such as the United States led in Iraq, has been rebranded as “defense” — and since, in the popular mind, one can never have enough defense, an unending string of wars is rationalized. Should our present ones show signs of winding down, well, the chicken-hawks of American politics, the CEOs of our military manufacturers and mercenary armies, and the visiting foreign heads of state, all are highly skilled at an improvisational syncopation that will promote new conflict.

In this time of impending sequestration and other budgetary pressures, the “dog-and-pony” shows of the weapons manufacturers and the armed services have only just begun. They will cycle through multiple themes. Most will revolve around fears that will reference past attacks on the United States — but conveniently ignore that many of the weapons systems being purchased at extravagant cost are of little relevance to defense against any attacks we are likely to face, and that bountiful weapons combined with an American psychology of overreach have played a significant role in creating many of our international problems. Some will pander to concerns about the jobs that will be lost if we reduce military spending. (Attention/Achtung! My fellow 19th century American Southerners/20th century Germans, we must continue slavery/the concentration camps, lest unemployment rise!). The Pentagon and its contractors, having over the course of decades masterfully distributed military bases and manufacturing across so many Congressional districts, are now able to exploit economic-based fears of cutbacks to enlist the support of Congress against necessary military cuts. Together they will also leverage the complex blend of patriotism and justified pride at the historical role of the U.S. in fighting tyranny during WWII, now exploiting such feelings to imply that a never-ending worldwide projection of U.S. force in the service of supposed liberation is desirable — never mind that our actions in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan did not go according to plan, and future ones may not either. Given the diversity of themes used to influence political opinion in favor of irrationally high levels of military spending, perhaps it ultimately is not surprising that they have thrown in a bit of greenwashing too.

For those with an interest in the ecological opportunity costs of U.S. militarism, consider this: In an article published in Science magazine in 2001, Stuart Pimm and colleagues examined the costs of preserving a significant fraction of the world’s biodiversity. They estimated then that the preservation of twenty-five biodiversity “hotspots” plus the acquisition of tropical wilderness preserves could be achieved for a one-time cost of approximately $25 billion for terrestrial ones, and an additional $2.5 billion for marine reserves. While species numbers have significant correlations to area (see here, and here), and therefore preservation would ideally include more land than the Pimm et al. proposal, implementation of their proposal would be a good starting point towards the preservation of biodiversity. Assuming that costs have quadrupled in the intervening years, such preservation could be achieved at a ONE-TIME current cost of $110 billion. Current U.S. “defense” spending, stripped of its creative accounting, is well over six times that figure PER YEAR.

Recommended reading on the topic of military spending and related politics: anything by Andrew Bacevich.

Fred Drumlevitch blogs (irregularly) at www.FredDrumlevitch.blogspot.com
He can be reached at: FredDrumlevitch12345 (at) gmail.com

Text Copyright Fred Drumlevitch

The Mojo is the Message

I read the news today, oh boy, and found how badly we are being screwed.

Ironies and paradoxes and incest abound in today's New York Times. The government is close to calling some of those bad Libor miscreants to account at the very same time one of the chief Libor enablers (Timmy Geithner) is negotiating with Congress on our supposed budgetary behalf. A former Goldman Sachs trader is close to being indicted at the same his unindicted boss is negotiating with Timmy Geithner on his own budgetary behalf: how deeply to cut the social safety net and further enrich himself and his fellow plutocrats.

 Meanwhile, a very disturbing story about how both political parties are shafting the poor has been buried, inexplicably, in the Style section of The Times, under a subsection cutely called "Motherlode -- Adventures in Parenting!"  The editors of the Gray Lady must think that people getting kicked off their heat, rent and disability assistance is a thrilled-packed Odyssey. Poor people are now equitably sharing space with society brides! It must be the new shabby-chic! See, things can't be as bad as all that.

The latest slant in the interminable Fiscal Cliff Disaster Theater coverage is not what Barack Obama will inevitably cede to the deficit scolds of the ruling class, but how he has miraculously discovered his own rock-hard, macho mojo. The pseudo-liberal class is thrilled that at long last, Barry hasn't caved before he's even started. He has left John Boehner in a state of sputtering impotence. The Democrats have political capital to spend, and they're on a spree. Root root root for the hometeam. Call Congress and tell them you want #My2K. (However, if you aren't solidly middle class or higher, with an internet connection, forget about it. The Democrats do not want to hear about your day care subsidies being slashed. Refer again to that buried Times story.)

Paul Krugman has pivoted back to reveling in Republican stupidity after a couple of great columns attacking bipartisan austerity. The commenting choir is harmoniously celebrating right along with him, paying little to no heed to the bitter pill Obama has already promised his loyal base. It's Give Em Hell Barry time in the land of kool-aid.

This time is different, insist even some erstwhile Obama critics from the left. Adam Green of Progressive Change, for example, gushes:“Eventually the Republicans have to name names on the cuts they want to make. They’ll likely propose entitlement benefit cuts, and then the president will hopefully be able to come back with budget cuts that don’t take a single penny from benefits.”

So stay tuned for the next episode, in which shocked Democrats arrive back in deja vu territory. The president has already vowed to cut "entitlement spending", that annoying austerian term for the taxpayer-funded insurance programs of Social Security and Medicare. He embraced Bowles-Simpson in his acceptance speech as stunned Democratic partisans dutifully cheered anyway. Never mind that the B-S Plan was shot down a long time ago. Its two zombie perpetrators have been reanimated as senile rock stars (The Debt Duo) who are making $40,000 a pop speechifying on how much fun it is to hate on poor people. They're getting puff-pieced to death by the corporate media, while society's victims are being spread-sheeted to death. 

As the Roosevelt Institute's Bryce Covert writes in his ignored Times post, low-income Americans are the ones who will disproportionately suffer, grand bargain or no grand bargain. Watch for the national poverty rates to shoot up again next year as both parties blithely snip away at the safety net and we all grovel at Obama's feet for saving the lucky-ducky average middle class family two grand.

Forget about a war on poverty, though. It's a war on poor people, and it's bipartisan. But whatever -- as long as Barack got backbone.

 



Cruelty (Hogarth)



 

Poor Wand'ring Major General Diplomat

I am the very model of a modern major Villager,
I own much stock in banks and biz and filthy tar sands minerals,
I schmooze with kings of Africa and many a great potentate,
And very much would like to be new Secretary of the State.
 

I'm the product of Elite Class Washington Metropolis,
My hubby ran the Sunday show for Georgie Stephanopoulos,
I'm eminently qualified, and therefore shouldn't be denied
My place at the Tip-Top of This.

(sung to the tune "Modern Major General" by Gilbert and Sullivan)

I hadn't been weighing in on Susan Rice-gate, because at first glance it seemed like just more of the same inside-the-Beltway grandstanding and backbiting. The Three New Republican Amigos (Ayotte, McCain and Graham) were belaboring her misguided Benghazi talking points because of some convoluted plan to get John Kerry in as Secretary of State so that Scott Brown can come back to the Senate. Pseudoliberals were all in a tizzy because of perceived Republican racism and misogyny directed against Rice and by extension, against Barack Obama. It was the usual tempest in a teapot, one more enervating episode in Culture Wars Theater to distract a divided populace from the real war: the class war of the Plutocracy against the rest of us.

But new developments have elevated RiceGate way beyond its status as a latter-day Gilbert and Sullivan boffo operetta. First, is the revelation of her sizeable and possibly interest-conflicted investments. Then came her thinly-disguised tirade against Palestine at the U.N. General Assembly this week. And further reading (h/t Black Agenda Report, linked below) reveals Susan Rice's troubling history with certain thuggish African dictators.

Plus, it turns out that she is married to the former producer of ABC's "This Week" in the triumvirate of Sunday propaganda fests manufactured by the insiders, for the insiders. ABC/Disney Star Stephanopoulos is the poster-boy for Revolving Door Washington: from Clinton Cabinet member to influence peddler to pundit. ( Hubby Ian Cameron, incidentally, recently left his producing job for the usual reason: to spend more time with the family) 

Actually, Susan Rice would be a fairly typical Secretary of State. An overachieving, independently wealthy, pragmatic, super-connected salesperson for American corporate interests in far-flung outposts of the globe, where human rights are not exactly top priorities.

Muckety has quite the eye-opening graphic on Susan Rice's family and corporate tree. The elaborate relationships are a veritable parody of Beltway nepotism and interconnectedness. The private schools, the think tanks, the corporate boards... it's all there. It is the very model of a modern major power clan. Check it out.

The Roots Action public interest group is circulating a petition demanding that Rice either divest herself of her holdings in companies directly connected to the Keystone XL Tar Sands pipeline, or pre-emptively withdraw her expected nomination as Secretary of State. In that position, she would be the ultimate judge of whether final approval for the controversial pipeline is granted, and would stand to gain financially if she gave it the thumbs up. "Did they think we wouldn't find out?" asks Roots Action. 

According to the National Resources Defense Council, "Rice’s personal net worth is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and related energy industries north of the 49th parallel -- including companies with poor environmental and safety records on both U.S. and Canadian soil. Rice and her husband own at least $1.25 million worth of stock in four of Canada’s eight leading oil producers, as ranked by Forbes magazine. That includes Enbridge, which spilled more than a million gallons of toxic bitumen into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010 -- the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history."

(Rice's journalist-TV executive husband is a native of Canada.)

Meanwhile, over at Black Agenda Report, Glen Ford continues his investigative reporting on Susan Rice's alleged complicity in African human rights abuses perpetrated by a panoply of dictators. (She has long expressed regret for not urging intervention in the Rwandan genocide during her stint in the Clinton Administration.) Ford's wording is strong, to say the least:

Susan Rice, as an energetic protector and facilitator of genocide, should be imprisoned for life (given that the death penalty is no longer internationally sanctioned). But of course, the same applies to her superiors, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. One would think that the Congressional Black Caucus would be concerned with the threat of a second wave of mass killings in Congo. Not so.

(snip) 

Instead, incoming Congressional Black Caucus chair Marcia Fudge, of Cleveland, held a press conference with female Caucus members to defend Rice, “a person who has served this country with distinction,” from Republican criticism of her handling of the killing of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya. “We will not allow a brilliant public servant’s record to be mugged to cut off her consideration to be secretary of state,” said Fudge.

In the Congressional Black Caucus’ estimation, Rice’s “record” as chief warmonger in Africa and principal suppressor of the facts on genocide in Congo makes her a role model for African Americans, especially young Black women. 

Not so poor wand'ring maligned diplomatic one, indeed, wand'ring through the hallowed halls of Congress to plead her case. As usual, the politicians and corporate media are concentrating on the mundane, (parsing meaningless TV talking points) and ignoring the glaringly obvious. Hidden finances, influence peddling, international intrigue, questionable human rights bona fides? That's just business as usual.

"Though thou hast surely strayed/Take heart of grace/Thy steps retrace," as G&S advised one globe-trotter more than a century ago. Maybe she can check out the Muckety Map for inspiration. She'll always have Paris... or Brookings... or Stanford... or Oxford.

Filibluster

If you're as sick of lame ducks and austerity bombs as I am, how about we delve into some real excitement today: the annual debate on the Senate filibuster.

Just as he has done almost every year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is again threatening to tweak the procedure that has allowed the Republican minority to essentially bring the business of the already lumbering body to a screeching halt. Last time, he and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reached a "gentleman's agreement" in which both sides promised to play nice and not abuse the privilege. We can see how well that little wink, nod and handshake worked out for them (delays and drama and gridlock make for more money in their campaign coffers) and how abysmally for the little people.

Now, Reid again vows to blow up the works with the so-called "nuclear option" on the first day the Senate reconvenes in 2013. This would require a mere 51 votes to ram through the rules change, as opposed to the two-thirds majority otherwise required to end the filibuster. In other words, they wouldn't be allowed to filibuster the filibuster.

The new rules would prevent Senators from silently gumming up the works by forcing them to actually flap their gums in public if they want to talk a bill to death. Who's that talk, talk, talking on our chamber floor? Quoth the Filibuster Scold "Nevermore" when it comes to phoning it in, secretly holding up routine nominations just for the mean fun of it and otherwise acting all passive-aggressive.

Filibustering, while glorified as the lone bravery of a principled Senator in the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, actually has a more sinister original meaning. When it comes to Republican filibusters, they really do adhere to the original definition of the term: "irregular soldiers who act without authority from their own government, and are generally motivated by financial gain, political ideology, or the thrill of adventure". (Wikipedia) The etymology is as tortuous as the Senate itself: from the Spanish "filibustero" to the Dutch "vrijbuiter" to the English "freebooter."

While it's asking too much to imagine Mitch McConnell as the thrilling type, he does kind of remind me of Captain Queeg. You may remember Queeg as the rigid and compromised victim of The Caine Mutiny. McConnell, though, is the one who effectively led his own band of mutineers against the hapless Democratic crew. He and his cohort turned rogue on their own vessel, reaping an unfair bounty for the past four years. And given that he broke his "gentleman's agreement" with Harry Reid to not abuse the filibuster privilege, his hijacking of the ship of state was especially crass. Arrgh.

Filibuster reform will actually force Senators to spend time in the Senate. The more they're forced to show up and talk, the less time they'll have to fund-raise and meet behind closed doors with the influence peddlars of K Street. Majority Whip Dick Durbin remarked earlier this year that most Americans would be shocked if they knew how much time he and his colleagues spend dialing for dollars instead of serving the people who elected them, "And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money." Double Arrrgh.

A recent survey had Senators admitting to spending 25% to 50% of their time raising cash. (I think they're being way too modest) and claiming they just hate doing it. So, now is their chance to hang up the phones, strut their stuff and regale us with their golden oratory. While they're at it, they can do something about the Fair Elections Now Act and other moldering legislation that provides for public financing of congressional campaigns.

Of course, I go overboard with my optimism. So sit back and watch helplessly as the interminable psychodrama plays itself out. I hate to be a spoiler, but here's a hint. The quacks always bomb in the end.