Old News: CIA-ISI Link To IX/XI

Circumstantial?

Well, maybe. But it's significant that the guy named in the circumstances is also the guy named by Benazir Bhutto as the assassin of OBL, in Tora Bora, in late 2001, in an interview with David Frost, less than a week before she, herself, was assassinated by the ISI in Pakistan.

Circumstantial? Well, mebbe...but in the good ol' USofA, we convict, imprison, and even execute folks ALL THE TIME on 'circumstantial' evidence.

Subsequent events have shown the Darth Cheney has been the de facto head of ALL USer intelligence activities (as well as the energy programs the intelligence supported) since the very beginning of the Regime.

The Dim Son is far too in-artful to have feigned the shock he manifested in that Florida schoolhouse that day. He was surprised; he didn't know.

But Cheney, a founding member of the PNAC and signatory on the fateful "Pearl Harbor" document, imho, knew EVERYTHING except, maybe, the date and the flight numbers. He/they NEEDED the terror attack, a la/per Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" schema, to cover their plans for the wholesale transformation of the USofA into a police state...

Mission: ACCOMPLISHED!

I'm Pro-Abortion: On Demand, Safe, Legal, No Questions Asked!

From Op-Ed News:

"Any government having the power to prohibit abortions has the power to require abortions. Any government having the power to prohibit birth control has the power to forcibly sterilize women (and men)."

And I love the 1st Amendment argument that follows:

With an overall population growth rate of less than one percent, the United States is not facing a decline in its worker or consumer base, nor is it experiencing out-of-control population growth. Currently, with the availability of effective birth control methods and the choice of legal abortions, at least in the early stages of a pregnancy, women are allowed to exercise some control over having children. However, the freedom of choice by American women is under a relentless and increasingly successful attack.

Trampling on the First Amendment’s separation of church and state, a powerful religious minority has been aggressively pursuing a broad range of worldwide restrictions on the availability of birth control and on the privacy rights of American women to terminate unwanted or dangerous pregnancies.(Emphasis mine. Ed. What the writer does NOT mention, but should, is how the imposition of a religiously inspired prohibition against abortion violates the religious freedoms--albeit 'irreligious' they may be) of people (moi!) who are not opposed to the procedure.)

On November 4, South Dakotans will vote on a ballot measure to prohibit practically all abortions, allowing exceptions only for rape, incest or the mother’s health. Colorado voters are being asked to go even further and officially define any fertilized human egg as a "person" under the state constitution, conceivably prohibiting even widely-accepted birth control methods.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain opposes legal abortions, believes Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and wants to appoint like-minded Supreme Court justices. During a recent debate, he ridiculed the idea of a mother’s "health" exception to the criminalization of late-term abortions. Going even further, his running mate, Sarah Palin, believes abortions should be prohibited even for pregnancies conceived during forcible rape or incest.

You know, you think about it, Scarah-cooter's just about the epitome of hypocrisy, bringing a fatally damaged child into the world, in the expectation that she'll get Society's help in caring for it. Taking, in other words, from others according to their ability, giving to her according to HER need. Fucking c*nt! The essay continues, exploring that theme:

Acting on her religious beliefs, Palin recently chose to give birth to her fifth child, whom she knew to be suffering from Down syndrome. Although, as governor, she slashed state funding in Alaska for schools for special needs children by 62 percent, she promised this week that, "In a McCain-Palin administration ... the parents and caretakers of children with physical or mental disabilities will be able to send that boy or girl to the school of their choice – public or private." She went on to say that "federal funding for every special needs child will follow that child."

Sarah Palin made a choice to give birth to a child likely to have expensive "special needs" throughout its life, and she now wants to require tax payers to provide for her child’s private education. Not that there’s anything wrong with governments helping parents care for their special needs children, but what if there is an economic crisis? For example, in contradiction to Palin’s promises, McCain has proposed an across-the-board freeze on all discretionary federal spending.

Then comes the question: Should one have children the optimal care of which they cannot afford to provide? Are people "entitled" to breed? If so, why? I can think of no pertinent answer in the affirmative, other than the imposition of some outside metric on the rights, liberties, and freedoms of prospective parents. But that sounds a LOT like what, for instance, Prop 8 in California does doe gay marriage. How is it possible to argue for the rights of one group claiming generally accorded liberties--to have children, for instance--and against the right of any other group to that same class of liberties?

I have often wondered about the men who oppose abortion on demand (or at all, in effect) on the basis that they believe women will 'abuse' the procedure and abort healthy fetuses (which they'd call "babies'). It seems to me they must have the LOWEST possible respect for women in general.If these men actually believe what they are saying, how can they leave their children at home, alone with these potential Medeas.

And I wonder about their female relatives, if they know in how much distrust, disgust, and contempt their men hold them, apparently, conceiving them all as potential, wanton murderesses of their off-spring; and if they do, why they tolerate it.

Note: graphic shamelessly lifted from Andy Singer’s No Exit

Close Enough To Steal? Betcher Sweet Ass!

That's gotta be the first question anybody asks about any US National election since 2000.

The short answer is: Yes.

The reasons for this, however, are not short or simple.

1. Unreliable/Hackable machines: With the continued reliance by almost half the states (24, including California, Texas, Florida, and Ohio) on (PRIVATELY OWNED & LICENSED; i.e., Diebold, ES&S, Sequoiah) 'electronic' vote-casting and tabulating machineries, the "vote-stealing/flipping/ignoring equipment" is in place in the most populous, and most contentious states in the nation. Switching only one vote in 20 cast on Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) machines in 2004 (would have) provided the margin in popular votes by which The Chimperor and Darth Cheney were 're-elected.'

A recent report, released in early October by Common Cause, Verified Voting and the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, noted that "(s)everal U.S. states still are not doing all they can to ensure the accuracy of votes over electronic voting machines and 10 states received inadequate grades in three of four categories of safeguards." The DRE machines are unreliable, fragile, and hackable, still nearly a decade AFTER their reliability was forst called into question AFTER the 2000 vote. Plus, even states using paper ballots mainly tabulate the results on proprietary equipment over which they exert no direct control as to programming or troubleshooting.

Here in New Mexico, as in most states, the Secretary of State presides over the machineries of the franchise. Unfortunately, for New Mexicans, the last two NM Secs of State (the incumbent, Mary Herrera, who replaced Rebecca Vigil-Jiron in '06) have held their positions mainly in virtue of their persistence in State or local government, and not in consequence of any particular skill or ability, and possess a collective IQ only slightly higher than an equal number of nasal polyps. I heard Vigil-Jiron, in 2004, admit on a local radio interview program she neither knew nor particularly cared about the significant differences between 'proprietary' and 'open-source' voting machine soft-ware. Mary Herrera more or less dismissed concerns about vote-theft and/or election fraud a couple of weeks ago on a similar program as baseless, consigning such concerns to the category of "blah-blah-blah."

2. US Attorneys: Another factor bearing on possible attempts by certain 'interests' to tamper with election results is the situation with the US Attorney corps. Albeit the political memory of the average Murkin is less than half-an-hour, still some of you will, hopefully, recall the scandal that erupted around the firing, in 2006, of between 8 and 11 US Attorneys, mainly for not being sufficiently attentive to and diligent in pursuing the political agendas of the local and national GOP/Congressional bosses.

Coincidentally, New Mexico provided the poster-boy for that scandal: the straight-arrow prosecutor, David Iglesias, who was fired by Gonzo/Rove for more or less ignoring the illegal and unethical importunings of the corrupt, senescent, deranged Sen. Peter ("Pajama Pete") Domenici, and his House-side 'lap-top,' the deplorable, dishonest (and now deposed, happily) Rep. Heather ("Leather Heather) Wilson, to pursue political prosecutions against high-ranking NM Dims, to aid Wilson in her race to hold her seat. Which she barely retained, by a scant hundred or so votes, in a race in which her opponent, one Patricia Madrid, suffered a brain-fart/mental collapse during their only debate.

Now Iglesias, and a handful of other, equally ethical, principled, professional US Attys were fired during the period. They were replaced, but that meant more than NINETY (93, in toto), who were apparently adjudged by the Mayberry Mafia in DC to be loyal enough team-players to be permitted to hold onto their positions. So, given what were the reasons for firing Iglesias and the others, any observant person might wonder what the complement of "loyalist" US Attys might have been doing for the last two years (at least) to 'deserve' to hold onto their well-paid, resume-padding sinecures.

We don't know, yet. If their activities have been under surveillance, in the press or anywhere else, I am not aware of it. So presumably they've had a free hand to work whatsoever mischief they and their bosses could concoct. The results should become evident on Election Day, and/or in the next few days following.

3: Sociology/psychology of Incumbency: Another thing to consider is the psychologically and sociologically demonstrable proposition that NO incumbent really wants there to be another election, ever. Also true is that, absent the power to cancel future elections, incumbents have absolutely NO incentive--and plenty of disincentives--to obstruct or disqualify the votes of as many of those voters whoi might vote for their opponents. Any 'new' registrant represents at BEST, a 50-50 chance of a vote for an opponent someday. So it is NOT in the interests of incumbents to make the process of registering to vote, or even the act of voting, particularly easier or more accommodating to voters. This dynamic is especially interesting because, of course, it is ALWAYS the incumbents who make the rules governing voting, registration, and eligibility. Rules exist to insulate the rulers from the insolence of the unruly, and this is never truer than in the area of voter registration/eligibility.

4. The usual. A favored GOPuke tactic is "caging":

The use of direct mail caging techniques to target voters resulted in the application of the name to the political tactic. With one type of caging, (GOP operatives) sends registered mail to addresses of registered voters. If the mail is returned as undeliverable - because, for example, the voter refuses to sign for it, the voter isn't present for delivery, or the voter is homeless - the (Pukes use) that fact to challenge the registration, arguing that because the voter could not be reached at the address, the registration is fraudulent. The Party challenges the validity of a voter's registration; for the voter's ballot to be counted, the voter must prove that their registration is valid.

Other old stand-byes include shorting opposing Party PRECINCTS on necessary supplies such as ballots or machines. Typically, too there will occur instances of intimidation and dysinformation, often used in tandem: a tqargeted voter, perhaps a young person or one with an "immigrant" surname will receive a mailing (or lately an e-mail) warning them that, for instance police will be present at polling places and will be on the alert to arrest 'illicit' voter, one of hwom--by implication--the addressee might be. Or, as happened recently, Democrat voters received a mailing informing them THEIR voting day had been changed to Nov. 5. Or, as happened in Florida in both 2000 and 2004, voters regarded as being likely opponents to the party in power (e.g., likely Democratic voters in largely minority communities) will be subjected to police interference on their ways to the polls.

These are all tried-and-true methods for screwing with the right of franchise. The GOPukes have had eight years to set inplace and perfect the techniques needed to steal elections. (Whether they will WANT to or not remains in doubt; but leapards and spots come to mind.)

This is all preface to: Barack Obama leads John McCain by something like 50-44 percent; in the neighborhood of 6-8 points this morning, which difference is the percent saying they're 'undecideds.' FDR, facing similar socio-economic circumstances in 1932 won 57.5% of the popular vote. It was an indisputable mandate for 'change,' which he endeavored --and to some extent succeeded--to provide. (Even so, in 1933, Sen. Prescott Bush and others attempted to launch a coup against the man they regarded as a Socialist.) Notwithstanding, FDR was able to accomplish some reforms, due to the magnitude of his victories: a 16-point margin, in '32, and 28 points in '36. If Obama wins, but only by a slim margin of the popular vote (regardless of the Electoral College m argin), his pledges for change will effectively be hamstrung, and his presidency probably doomed to be one of short duration and notable failure.

My point is, the Pukes don't need to "WIN" the election to win the election...all they need do is keep it close enough to steal.

Converts

I am neither a Puke or a Dim by any inclination or ideology (though I would sever whichever of my arms reached to "pull the lever" for ANY Puke).

Nevertheless, I am, I freely admit, one of those people--with Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, and Gore Vidal, most prominently--who believes there are FAR more--exponentially more-- similarities than differences between the Dims and the GOPukes.

They seem SO similar, indeed, on SO many issues that, in order to preserve the myth of the duopoly actually constituting a "choice" for voters, they have had to invent divergences between them. These are called "wedge" issues, and the exist primarily to distinguish between the two.

This election--and the growing disaffection of Pukes from the McCumstain standard-- provides a window into the phenomenon. No other factor demonstrates, to me anyway, the essential, underlying synonymy of the two "parties" better than the sheer number of formerly rabid GOPuke/Busheviks deserting the ship for Obama, and the ease with which they are seeming to accomplish it--completely without any apparent cognitive dissonance, or particular scruples/principles. "You just wanna be on the side that's winning," Mr. Dylan proclaimed, lo, these many years ago...

Spread the Wealth!

Obama's caught a ration of shit from the sloping forehead/prognathous jaw crowd for saying he wanted to spread the wealth.

He gets (falsely, chuy!) accused of being a "socialist" and a 'commie' for noting that the poor are poorer today than they were 8 years ago, that the middle class is smaller than it was 8 years ago, and for even SAYING he wants to do something about it.

Interesting, innit, that the knuckeldraggers in Middull Murka do not seem to mind in the slightest that the rich get richer, and that the fruits of their hard labors are being absorbed by the already wealthy, as income gets redistributed UPWARDS.

But they ready to go to fucking WAR to prevent the poor, or the brown folks (too often the same folks), from getting even a LITTLE richer?

I attribute it to the abysmally poor schooling (distinct from an 'education') most of them have endured. It doesn't excuse it, but possibly it does explain it a little...

Wholly Shit!

From Mike's Blog Round-up, today, at C&L:

HOLY CRAP: When fake-Christians smear...God, the psycho...Jesus Christ: Wrong For America...Christian Coalition Voter Guides...Darrow, Darwin, and Dayton...BushCo lawbreakers for Christ...Got soul?...A REAL,TRUE American woman...Here's another one...African witchcraft curses against McCain & Palin...Virginia pharmacy declares it's "birth-control free"...The FundamentaList...God Swill 40 days later...Lunatic pastor...Palin's witch-hunting pastor exposed...A little Windex should take of this..The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party...Prisoners of War...And finally, vitally, "How to argue with obnoxious Christians"...

As ever, my mad, max props to Mike and his exhaustive searches for the whole Holy Shit...

Addendum: Rude Pundit weighs in on an adjacent matter, the aptly nymmed Proposition Hate, in California, and the inbred, slack-jawed, spittle-dripping, low-browed troglodytes who are supporting the measure. On my brother's site, he's got a discussion of he matter, too...The foto immediately by comes from his blog, and I really like the sentiment.

Alan Greenspan is "Shocked...No One Could Have EVER Predicted..."

Lying piece of shit. Fucking waste of air and protoplasm. Betrayed by "self-interest."

"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief," said Greenspan, who stepped down from the Fed in 2006."

Says he's "partially" at fault for resisting regulation.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. How much money did Mr Andrea Mitchell take from his "mistake?" Nobody knows. The AP story continues: "While Greenspan was once hailed as one of the most accomplished central bankers in U.S. history, the low interest rates during his final Fed years have been blamed for fueling the housing bubble and eventual crash that touched off the current financial crisis."

Gee, turns out he's nothing but another grasping, ideological fuck-nut. Who knew?

Oh, anybody watching his tenure since 1990, or so?

Na...Nobody could ever anticipated...

The Molestor of Two Weevils? Chomsky on Electile Dysfunction '08

Via RealNews:
But why settle for less?

Powell: Obama Camp's "War Hero?"

Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama today.

Obama supporters, sympathizers and acolytes are ecstatic.

But I don't get it.

Powell's spent his entire career ingratiating himself with the Power Elites, beginning already in Vietnam in 1968 when he led what even the DoD later admitted was a "whitewash" of the My Lai incident. His steady advance through field grade and general officer ranks was predicated on his reputation as being 100% for the Corps (alright, he was Army, but you get my meaning). Loyalty was his chief virtue, and he exposed its seamy underside with his slavish devotion to the Bushevik regime from his position as Sec.St., which loyalty he sustained even when the Bushies fired him.

So now this figure, much sullied, deservedly vilified, his reputation for principle in tatters, who lied to BOTH the UN and the American people, repeatedly and intentionally, and who was intimately involved in leading the US into the most disastrous clusterfuck of the last century, perhaps in the entire history of the nation, who was (and permitted himself to be) shamelessly exploited by the Mayberry mafia in the Bush regime (they ran him out to defend indefensible policies because attacks on the policies could be spun as attacks on Powell, who happens to be black; they did and do the same with Sleezy Rice, still), has changed allegiances and endorsed Obama.

This is the same fella who 'endorsed' WMD, and 'endorsed' mobile drug-production trailers, and who endorsed the ICORP, tout suite, is now on OUR side?

Why am I not all shaky with awe and gratitude?

APPENDIX I: (I composed this in the comments of another blog today. It expands one element of the foregoing)

The Cynic in me, never buried deeply, raises his ugly head, tastes the winds, and sniffs "opportunism." Powell's angling for another place at the Govt teat. Sec Def? SCOTUS from his lick-spittle obeisance to Bush/Cheney's international and domestic adventurism? Does he imagine himself a sort of 'Merlin' in the Pentagon, avuncularly and adroitly guiding the young prince Obama through--and gently, cheerily, perhaps even tunefully instructing him in--the rigors of a dangerous world? Is that what's in it for Powell?

Hold me apostate: I do not see how, if at all, much benefit accrues to the Candidate For Change from the endorsement of one of the architects of the crises in which, for the foreseeable future, we're slowly being entombed, like insects in tree resin...

Has Powell ever repudiated his UN speech, with the trailers and the aluminum tubes?

"A good soldier, following orders!"

Hmmmm....where have we heard that before???

At very BEST, Powell allowed himself to be used as a 'human shield' by the Busheviks, to deflect criticism by implication that ANY criticism was an ad hominem attack on Powell rather than a criticism of programs and policies themselves, independent of the mouth being manipulated. The Busheviks used and still use Rice the same way, tactically.

Powell is another bond to the community of continuity that the Candidate For Change has told us he intends, for OUR benefit, to disturb. Powell 'endorsed'--lent his reputation, such as it was, to providing credence for--a LOT of deeply bad, wrong, deadly, criminal shit.

So, how does the CFC benefit? Where does that "endorsement" count?

I wonder about stuff like that. Mebbe that's just me?

"Obama '08: Get Disappointed by Somebody NEW!"

"New president won't tame executive power."

Via The Cato Institute (even a broken clock...):

Joe Biden hardly brings the glamour and excitement to his ticket that Sarah Palin does to hers, but he surely warmed civil libertarian hearts at the vice-presidential debate when he forcefully denounced "dangerous" theories designed to "aggrandize the power of a unitary executive." After seven years of an administration that has recognized few, if any, limits on executive power, it's only natural that many people look to the Obama-Biden ticket to put the presidency back in its proper constitutional place.

But there are good reasons to doubt that an Obama administration would meaningfully de-imperialize the presidency.

From Truman and Johnson's undeclared wars to the warrantless wiretapping carried out by FDR, JFK, LBJ and Nixon, the Imperial Presidency has long been a bipartisan phenomenon. In fact, our most recent Democratic president, Bill Clinton went even further than his predecessors in his exercise of extraconstitutional war powers. Prior presidents had unilaterally launched wars in the face of congressional silence. But Clinton's war over Kosovo in 1999 made him the first president to launch a war in the face of several congressional votes denying him the authority to wage it.

Recently, Barack Obama has found his own convenient rationales for endorsing broad presidential powers in the area of surveillance. When he signed on to the surveillance bill Congress passed this summer, Sen. Obama broke an explicit campaign promise to filibuster any legislation that would grant immunity to FISA-flouting telecom companies. By voting for the bill, Obama helped legalize large swaths of a dragnet surveillance program he'd long claimed to oppose. Perhaps some were comforted by Obama's "firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program." But our constitutional structure envisions stronger checks than the supposed benevolence of our leaders.

What motivated Obama's flip-flop? Was it a desire to look "tough" on national security—or was it that, as he seems ever closer to winning the office, broad presidential powers seem increasingly appealing? Either way, it's clear that the post-9/11 political environment will provide enormous incentives for the next president to embrace Bush-like theories of executive power. Can we really expect a Democratic president, publicly suspected of being "soft on terror," to spend much political capital making himself less powerful?

Not ("FUUKIN" Ed.) likely, say analysts on both sides of the political spectrum. Law professors Jack Balkin and Sanford Levinson, both left-leaning civil libertarians, predict that "the next Democratic president will likely retain significant aspects of what the Bush administration has done"; in fact, "future presidents may find that they enjoy the discretion and lack of accountability created by Bush's unilateral gambits." Jack Goldsmith, head of the Bush administration's OLC from 2003-04, argues that "if anything, the next Democratic president – having digested a few threat matrices … will be even more anxious than the current president to thwart the threat."

There was always something difficult to swallow in the notion that a man running as the reincarnation of JFK could be relied upon to end the Imperial Presidency. Barack Obama has done more than any candidate in recent memory to raise expectations for the office, expectations that were extraordinarily high to begin with. Over the course of the 20th century, more and more Americans looked to the president to perform miracles, from "managing the economy," to warding off hurricanes and providing seamless protection from foreign threats. As responsibility flowed to the center, the presidency grew far more powerful than the framers of our Constitution had ever intended it to be. We shouldn't be surprised then, if, during an Obama administration the Audacity of Hope gives rise to the Arrogance of Power.

None of this, of course, is to suggest that a President McCain would be any more respectful of constitutional limits. The Arizona senator worships at the altar of Teddy Roosevelt, maintaining that the bellicose TR was a great president because he "liberally interpreted the constitutional authority of the office." Like George W. Bush, McCain imagines that the president has a Magic Scepter of Inherent Authority that allows him to ignore statutes like FISA that restrain his discretion in national security matters.

Those who hope to put an end to the abuses of the Bush years are right to distrust McCain. Even so, when it comes to executive power, perhaps the best argument for an Obama presidency is found on a sardonic bumper sticker currently sold at Cafepress.com: "Obama '08: Get Disappointed by Someone New."

Civil libertarians, of all people, should know better than to hold out hope that a man on horseback will ride in to rescue the Constitution. Eternal vigilance – without regard for person or party – has ever been the price of liberty. That vigilance will be even more necessary in the years to come.

Finally!

I have been shouting this from the roof-tops since last year!

NOBODY--not McC(umst)ain, certainly, but not the Mocha Messiah, either--I mean NOBODY is gonna concede the powers the Bushies have arrogated for the presidency back to the Legislative or the Judiciary. NAGAHAPPUN!!!! FUGGEDDABOTIT!!!

It has happened only once in the HISTORY of the Republic, and the guy who did it was...


George Washington.

Neither of the empty suits on the ballot today has one one-ten-thousandth the nobility, greatness, honor, or intelligence of a Washington.

If you enjoyed Bush's manipulation of the powers of the presidency, and headlong attacks on the Constitution, don't put away your scorecard yet, cuz more is SURELY coming...

NO MATTER WHO IS "SELECTED"...

(DOTOF™ to the amazing Militant Atheist (M_A) at WWL/OWL)

Why Athiests Shoud Care About "Religion."

Great presentation, great text, great music, and besides, she's really HAWT!!! She's got those wide, slavic cheeks and grey eyes that sings "eastern Europe/Slav" to me...Reminds me of my 'russian spy,' back in the day...

Radio Nation with Laura Flanders: For Real Change, Vote Green?

This week on RadioNation with Laura Flanders, green jobs and the green party. Van Jones of Green for All (he's the real deal) discusses his new book and explains how a robust "green collar" economy can lift us out of our current financial crisis.

Somebody somewhere the other day was bemoaning the lack of a non-military Keynsianism as the mechanism necessary to actually restore a sound footing to the economy. Van Jones makes vital suggestions about accomplishing this via givernment investment in the greening of the country. Infrastructure is the key, of course. It will provide millions of mid-range/mid-skill/mid-pay jobs for a renaissance of the 'middle class.'

Plus, Green Party vice presidential nominee Rosa Clemente makes her case for the Green Party ticket, and Tom Engelhardt discusses the links between Afghanistan, Iraq and the bailout. Click here to listen to the broadcast. It's only about 30 minutes...worth it.

And definitely check out Van Jones' plans, ideas, and enterprises. Hunter and Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, have done interesting work in this area too.

Who Knew "Shrill" Was A Nobel Value?

C&P'd whole from today's NYTimes:

Paul Krugman Wins Economics Nobel
By Catherine Rampell

Paul Krugman, a professor at Princeton University and an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times, was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science on Monday.

“It’s been an extremely weird day, but weird in a positive way,” Mr. Krugman said in an interview on his way to a meeting for the Group of Thirty, an international body from the public and private sectors that discusses international economics.

Mr. Krugman received the award for his work on international trade and economic geography. In particular, the prize committee lauded his work for “having shown the effects of economies of scale on trade patterns and on the location of economic activity.” He has developed models that explain observed patterns of trade between countries, as well as what goods are produced where and why. Traditional trade theory assumes that countries are different and will exchange different kinds of goods with each other; Mr. Krugman’s theories have explained why worldwide trade is dominated by a few countries that are similar to each other, and why some countries might import the same kinds of goods that it exports.

Mr. Krugman has been an Op-Ed columnist at the New York Times since 1999. A collection of his recent columns can be found here.

In 1991 Mr. Krugman received the John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to “that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge.”

Mr. Krugman continues to teach at Princeton. This semester Mr. Krugman is teaching a graduate-level course on international monetary policy and theory, covering such timely subjects as international liquidity crises. According to Princeton’s Web site, four students are currently enrolled in the class. In recent years he has also taught courses on the welfare state and international trade.

Monday’s award is the last of the six prizes and is not one of the original Nobels, but was created in 1968 by the Swedish central bank in Alfred Nobel’s memory. Mr. Krugman was the only winner of the award, which includes a prize of about $1.4 million.

Digby notes another feather for a cap somewhere: "(Indeed, I think he may be the first Nobel Prize winning blogger out there.)" There's a slight technicality: the award is not a "Nobel Prize," strictu sensu. It's given by the Swedish National Bank in the NAME of Alfred Nobel, but it's not part of the actual, heriditary Nobel bequests. But still:

He's aware of ALL Internet traditions. He's a real "Moonbat;" he's got the shirt--so he's probably the First Millionaire Moonbat!...
Teh kewl...

We'll NEVER, EVER Be Rid Of ALLThe Busheviks!

Across the land there is much anticipation for Jan 20, 2009! The day of release from the Crawford Bondage. Freedom from Bush! Hallelulia!!! On another blog this morning, a commentor observed ...I’m just counting the minutes ’til he (the Chimp) gets the f*** out of our lives." TP, October 12th, 2008 at 8:30 am

I'm sorry to have to be the one to bear the news to you, friends, but "FUGGEDABODIT!" I am here to tell you that you/we will be feeling the direct effects of the Bushevik regime for the next 30 years, minimum. Because that's how long it will take all the Bushevik moles embedded in Govt over these last 8 years to die natural deaths or retire.

Not only is there the astonishing array of policies and practices needing to be repaired or cleansed resulting from Bushevikian policies (selling Nukes to India? What kind of fuuking idiocy is that? Preemptive war, economic meltdown, health care crisis, blatant corruption, war-=profiteering, the "National Security State," international terrorism, etc.) The list is fuuking ENDLESS. By design, they never touched anything they didn't fuck up.

But also do not forget there was a "Monica Goodling" at EVERY Department, Bureau, Agency, Office and Board of the Federal Government. Goodling, you will recall, was the Rightard/Xian fluff hired by Gonzales who was responsible for hiring ideological loyalists and religious fellow-travelers into CAREER positions in the DoJ, politicizing the People's law enforcers, and polluting the process with political chicanery. You can be SURE she was not the only one in the Fed with the job of ensuring ideological purity among hirees. They were everywhere, and as their legacies, they leave behind 'cells' of Bushevik parasites whose job it will be, until they retire or die, to use their positions, seniority and perqs to obstruct, or torpedo, or distract, or divert any and every reform in any Bureaucracy that might seem to undo the illegal, disreputable shit done over the last 8 years in the names of Bushevism and God...

You must realize this: The Busheviks have poisoned the ENTIRE federal bureaucracy with embedded cells of political and religious terrorists whose only job from Jan 20, on, will be to PREVENT, OBSTRUCT, DIVERT or UBDERMINE any reform to the systems they were (illegally) hired to pollute. And they're virtually untouchable, and their jobs are secure, because of the very laws that were violated to install them in the first place...

If Obama does become #44 (a BIG "If"), his first official act should be to purge the Govt of Bushie loyalists, and demand the resignations of EVERYBODY hired by the US govt over the last 8 years. Period. No exceptions. Every last swinging dick and dripping pussy, out...

Eli's Google Obsession, Revisited: We're #One!

Two-fers...

Results 1 - 30 of 30 for "fucking shitting me right". (0.23 seconds)
Search Results

1.
Walled-In Pond: Sarah Palin: The GOP's Plunger-Handle-Up-The-Ass ...
YOU ARE FUCKING SHITTING ME, RIGHT? Jesus. H. Fucking Christ. Jesus. H. Fucking Christ. Jesus. H. Fucking Christ. Does anyone else suspect this ...
walled-in-pond.blogspot.com/2008/09/are-you-is-somebody-shitting-me.html - 113k

or this:

Results 1 - 100 of about 9,480 for plunger handle up the ass. (0.38 seconds)

Search Results

1.
Walled-In Pond: Sarah Palin: The GOP's Plunger-Handle-Up-The-Ass ...
This is the final "Fuck You, America" from the GOPhascist Phuques as they rescind the Republic, the thumb in your eye, the plunger handle up the ass. ...
walled-in-pond.blogspot.com/2008/09/are-you-is-somebody-shitting-me.html - 113k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
2.
Walled-In Pond: Did I Mention Sara Palin's The Holy Plunger-Handle ...
Viva La Fiesta! "Palin-fully Honest" · Did I Mention Sara Palin's The Holy Plunger-Handle... Sarah Palin: The GOP's Plunger-Handle-Up-The-Ass o. ...
walled-in-pond.blogspot.com/2008/09/did-i-mention-sara-palins-holy-plunger.html - 112k -

When it comes to tasteless heds, I'm WAY ruder than Rude Pundit...

Recipe for Rightard Revolution

Take a media-immersed, agonic, alienated, class-oppressed people.
Scare 'em shitless with random violence.
Make their money worth shit.
Threaten to repossess their homes.
Make their toys too expensive to play with.
Fuck up their promised retirement.
Start a couple of wars.

Then give 'em a scapegoat...

Voila! Fascism...

If "terrists" wanted to finally topple the Republic, all they'd hafta do would be launch another big, bloody, deadly, horrific 'terror' attack...

It'd fall faster than the Twin Towers...

Was Franklin Right? Is "The Republic" A Failure?

More and more, it seems Ben Franklin's out-right skepticism about the durability of the Constitutional Republic founded in Philadelphia in 1787, was justified: "A republic, if you can keep it," he told a bystander who asked him what had been wraught inside the (Convention) Hall. He was not sanguine about the prospects.

If the outlook seemed dim to Franklin 220 or so years ago, it seems to have grown less bright over the passage of time, until now, when it seems all the comforting rhetorics have been overthrown by pirates and scoundrels bent on personal aggrandizement with no thought or care for the consequences of their acts, and have done so, in plain sight, with connivance of the Congress and the frequent approval of an alternatively terrified and narcotized populace whip-sawed between bloody international conflicts, threats of random, violent attacks at home (one may never overestimate the shock the 9/11 attacks administered to the average american's sense of security), and domestic financial crises of scopes and scales they had never imagined possible.

But, as often is the case, it takes observers from the OUTSIDE of our 'system'--intelligent, articulate, observant, low-keyed, non-ideological, educated, cosmopolitan people--to enunciate the requisite doubt as to whether USer "democracy" can survive; and whether it should, given what it has become.

My pal Diane at cabdrollery reads widely, eclectically, and intelligently. Today she has up a post in which she extensively quotes and then endeavors to rebut those kids of allegations by Rami Khouri in the Middle East Times. Diane is rightly disturbed by Khouri's critique, which places the nomination of Sarah Palin in the context of the evils of deadly buffoonery to which our system seems inevitably to descend. Here's Khouri:

BEIRUT -- Watching the U.S. presidential election from the Arab region is a confusing vocation. At one level, American democracy is an impressive, vibrant, often stunning, phenomenon that permits any citizen – certified idiots and genuine geniuses alike – to seek and assume public office, and control the destiny of society.

It produces some of the most monumental errors and costly adventures in world history, in the military and economic fields, but it also contains the mechanisms for its own self-correction, reconfiguration, improvement and re-birth – as we witness these days in the economic arena.

At another level, America also provides a powerful argument against a totally open, unregulated democratic system, because it allows the volatile and sometimes infantile emotional psyche of a bare majority of citizens to determine the exercise of immense power.

Khouri then cites three instances of both the "volatile" exercise of power along with the paradoxes it engenders: the Iraq clusterfuck, the "GWOT" (Global War On Terror) and the latest fiasco, the implosion of the global credit markets.

The fascinating element for me (he continues) is not if a specific policy is judged to be good or bad; it is that reckless and destructive decisions have been repeatedly made by the most open and vibrant democracy in the world.

At the same time, American leaders continue to preach to the rest of us that democracy and freedom are our best hope for a better future. I agree in principle. In practice though, watching American democracy at work dampens many people's enthusiasm for that particular model. Rather, we need to temper the extravagant excesses of democratic systems that are so vulnerable to manipulation by special interests and lobbies, or that pander to mass hysteria.
...
The fact that someone like Palin, who lacks any national or international experience – perhaps even basic knowledge – can be a potential vice president is a sign of American democracy at its worst. In one swift, serendipitous moment, she was transformed from a moose hunter in Alaska to a global mullah hunter in a contest and a world about which she knows zilch – as she reconfirms every time she opens her mouth.

The fact that respected conservative analysts and commentators have already asked for her to be dropped from the ticket is about as damning a verdict as there can be of her qualifications. This is much more problematic, though, for what it tells us about McCain, and the entire American political system.

Clearly, something is wrong with a system that turns democratic electoral contestation into either a fantastic gambling orgy for impulsive and ambitious elderly men, or an exercise in mass psychotherapy for millions in the electorate who seek solace and emotional recovery by embracing the image of the bouncy cheerleader next door, regardless of what this could mean for the United States and the world.

The open and honest American system once again simultaneously shows us its best and worst. There is historic brilliance in designing a checks-and-balance governance system anchored in the consent of the governed, and open to every man and woman who aspires to public service, regardless of color, religion or gender. Alongside this, however, there is also bombastic buffoonery in the manner in which desperados and simpletons occasionally gravitate to control the system by offering the electorate a hybrid candidacy of cheerleading razzle-dazzle with macho emotionalism...

Diane, an eternal optimist, ends by doubting that "these monumental catastrophes (are) the inevitable result of "a totally open, unregulated democratic system"? Or, as I would prefer to think, are they actually the inevitable result of a decent system that has been corrupted by those who would appeal to the worst parts of the human psyche rather than the best?"

I can, I said understand the source of herr confusion. Because, unfortunately, the monumental catastrophes ARE the inevitable result of such a system. Such a system is what is required for the emergence and eventual domination over us of the "worst parts of the human psyche."

Though, on the whole, I think we give "humanity" a bad name when we conflate it with the bipedal monstrosities of venality, mendacity and cupidity which are the hallmarks of 'western culture' in its contemporary (and so far only) expression.

I like to say: Humanity is a cosmic experiment testing whether "life" can withstand "intelligence." Imho, the null hypothesis is in no danger...

Truly Tasteless, Vicious, Cruel Humor on SNL

Who knew they still had the chops?


Original Video - More videos at TinyPic

I haven't watched SNL regularly since the late '70s, so I missed it. Super Snark! (Forgiveness/dispensation requested if you've already seen it. Via J. Schwarz' A Tiny Revolution blog.)

"Just for A Shrill": An honest economic discussion

(DOTOF™ to Calculated Risk. It is MOST entertaining to listen to the shrill shill squeak and squeal like Ned Beatty in Deliverance, innit?

Race: The (Non-White) "Elephant" In The Race

As y'all will recall, I've been remarking for quite some time that (imho) the McC(umst)ain "campaign" was only a one-trick pony: Provide white voters with reasons for NOT voting for the "Kneegrow" which permit the voter 'plausible deniability' against (even vaguely self-conscious) charge of racism...It appears I possibly have not been exaggerating:

A Revival of Reverend Wright?

By Ken Silverstein (Harper's blog, October 2, 12:05 PM, 2008)

The Judicial Confirmation Network (JCN), a conservative independent group, is running new anti-Obama TV ads in battleground states that feature the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. “Obama chose as his pastor a man who has blamed America for the 9/11 attacks,” says the narrator, as an image of Wright (with the words “God Damn America”) flash on the screen.

The JCN is headed by Gary Marx, who worked for Mitt Romney’s campaign this year and who served as coalitions organizer for the Bush-Cheney campaign four years ago. As an “independent” group, the JCN doesn’t have to reveal its donors.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Reverend Wright soon appear in more ads from the GOP and McCain’s surrogates, especially if Obama’s momentum in the polls isn’t soon reversed.

Over the summer I spoke with Gary Pearce, a Democratic consultant in North Carolina, where Obama and McCain are running neck and neck. “It’s so deep in the Republican DNA in North Carolina,” he said when I asked him if he though that race would become an issue during the campaign. “Race is the deepest question in Southern politics, it’s inescapable and it’s worked repeatedly against black and white politicians.”

Pearce worked for former Governor Jim Hunt, who lost a senate race in 1984 to incumbent Jessie Helms, in good part due to the issue of a national holiday for Martin Luther King. Six years later, the moderate African-American mayor of Charlotte, Harvey Gantt, lost to Helms in a campaign also marked by not-so-subtle racial tactics. (Charlie Black, one of McCain’s senior advisors, worked for Helms during both of those campaigns.)

“If the Republicans get worried, we’ll see more of it,” Pearce said about the potential use of race in the current campaign.

They’re worried now. Stay tuned.

(DOTOF™ to Mike's Blog Round-Up @ C&L)

Will SOMEBODY Get Fat-Head Eddie Schultz OFF "Liberal" Radio, PLEASE?

What a big, fat, ginger-haired STUPID (or malevolent) piece of CRAP is Herr Schultz! A certifiable "Dimwit." A "tard" of indefinite, ambiguous orientation. Is there such a thing as a "mid-tard"? That's Fat-head Eddie... It's guys like him who point to the Nazi's appropriation of "socialism" to endorse the claim the "left" is fascistic.

I have never trusted the bloviating narcissist since he 'switched sides,' "became" a "liberal," and started to thrust his 'bigness' into the tiny stricken, struggling stream of 'left-wing' radio.

Today he inadvertently (again, as always) revealed why I was right not to, and why I shall continue to attack his credibility. He has no less desire than to become the "Rush Limbaugh" of the Left.

I caught his segment between around 11:15 and 11:30 am MDT. During that segment, 10-12 minutes max, Schultz COMPLAINED loudly and petulantly that MCCAIN had missed an opporunity to put Obama on the defensive on the economic bailout, and proceeded to outline for the benefit of any McCartman supporters why and how these "opportunities" could be exploited if such should arise again in the future.

I am not making this up. He repeated that claim no fewer than three times, once to his astonished guest Larry Whooha (the WestWing writer/producer guy)I thought I'd mis-heard it the first time. But within a minute or less, he repeated the complaint: McCain had missed a chance. Then he returned to it a third time a few moments later, in the midst of a conversation with "Larry, the Liberal movie guy," to his evident astonishment.

You have to ask yourself: Why would someone who once (baselessly, and without evidence) claimed to be the "quarterback of the Left Wing offense," who touts his own 'Leftiness' as relentlessly as NASCAR steering, and whose proclaimed 'liberal' bias would apparently council the opposite emotions; why would that person sound remorseful or regretful that MCCAIN had missed an opportunity to rhetorically rat-fuck Obama. Because that was indisputably what Fat Ed the fat head was implying.

This is neither the first or only time Big Eddie has (unconsciously?) revealed the money-grubbing wanna-Con coiled in his ample breast. His constant drumbeat extolling the wonders of 'profit,' and the marketplace is one BEEEG FAT tip-off that, if he's playing for our side, he's cheerleading for theirs, and comes mighty close to throwing the game in the process. He turned to "lefty" radio when it became obvious even to him (by 2002) that the slot for the over-weight, 'middull-class,' jockish, bloviating, blowhard, Rightard radio host telling the willing millions of minions the 'truth' was already occupied, and there was not enough money to be made being a "Clonebaugh."

Charitably, perhaps the main problem Ed Schultz has is that he took a few too many hard shots in the backfield. You might even say he's just not very smart. Probably, in fact, it's not an exaggeration to remark that he might be a little brighter than, say, Scarah Palin, but the difference would be (as we usta say in grad school) "statistically insignificant." "Intelligence," per se, obviously, on the evidence of Bush, Palin, Gonzales, Goodling, et al, is not that important for the Rightards. They don't do nuance. You tell them what to think and say, and--as long as the words aren't too long or the sentences too complex--they'll think and say it. Schultzie is noticeably addle-pated, but fiercely opinionated. And he seems to give significant weight to his own opinions, which dependably come down somewhere between the NRA and the NFL. He's THE most obsequious 'interviewer' out there on the left; admittedly not a large population, nevertheless Schultz sucks up more shit than any three other lefty pundits I have ever heard.

He's a defender of the rich and powerful. His instincts are with the GOPukes, you can tell. Kinda like a goy Lieberman of the airwaves...

With 'friends' like the dim-witted Herr Schultz on "our" side, "we" do not need to concern "ourselves" about surviving the onslaughts of the right, when attacks from the inside will disable 'us' just fine....

Here's why "Militarism" Is Secure As The Underlying USer National Ontology

I got the following e-mail from New Mexico's other Senator, the one not tarnished with shit ensuing from the US Attorney-firing scandal, a 'good' Democrat who typically wins election by 10-15 point margins, Jeff Bingaman. To me it's an unparalleled glimpse of the paradigm of the "civic responsibility/national security/good-for-bidness" rationale for continuing, inescapably, to be the world's most militaristic nation. I have included the Senator's own links, so that you might be illuminated as to the sheer scope of the dependence of the whole economy of the State of New Mexico upon the (mainly military) largesse of the federal government. E.g.: We fight to keep military bases OPEN:

New Mexico has a unique role in our nation’s security and defense. Our state is home to two national labs, three military bases, an Army testing range, and many defense industry employers. One of my main goals in Washington has been to make sure that these facilities receive what they need to carry out their national security missions.

I am pleased to report that last week, the Senate and House passed the final fiscal year 2009 Defense Authorization Bill, which sets spending levels at New Mexico's military installations and the state's two national laboratories.

Sandia and Los Alamos national labs are critical not only to our national security, but because of the important basic scientific research they do on behalf of the country. The Department of Energy’s combined budget for our labs is more than $4 billion, which is equivalent to the budget for the state of New Mexico. This funding is used to support the labs' extremely critical role in safeguarding and ensuring the reliability of the nation’s nuclear deterrent. But it is also used to perform valuable cutting edge science for the country in the areas of defense, science and technology, engineering, as well as energy and the environment.

Our labs also have an important economic impact on New Mexico. Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratories combined employ roughly 18,000 New Mexicans. Those individuals are paid competitive wages which are in turn injected into the state’s economy.

New Mexico also houses three Air Force bases, Kirtland, Cannon and Holloman as well as White Sands Missile Range. In addition to playing a key role in protecting our nation and its interests, these facilities also employ large numbers of New Mexicans and other personnel who contribute to our economy. A few years ago, the Pentagon went through a Base Realignment and Closer procedure that threatened Cannon Air Force Base. But the congressional delegation was able to work together to find Cannon a great new mission – the new home of a second base for the Air Force Special Operations Command. This bill will help support the transition to that new mission and keep all of our bases strong now and into the future.

To that end, the bill authorizes funding that will ensure Holloman Air Force Base receives the new F-22A Raptor in a timely fashion, replaces an aging fuel storage tank at Kirtland Air Force Base, provides millions of dollars for flight and flight maintenance programs at Cannon, and increases funding authorized for the high energy test facility at White Sands Missile Range.

Along with supporting our state’s national security efforts, the bill would take other important steps to support our state’s military personnel and their families. For example, it provides for a 3.9 percent military pay raise and authorizes $26 billion for the Defense Health Program that supports worldwide medical and dental services to the active forces and other eligible beneficiaries. Another provision funds research to counter the threat of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED), which have killed thousands of our soldiers in Iraq. Also, a provision I cosponsored requires the continued implementation of the Wounded Warriors Act.

Congress also has enacted corresponding legislation that atually funds our military bases for a full year and funds our state’s laboratories for the first six months of fiscal year 2009. A final spending bill for the labs and other federal initiatives will be enacted next year.

To which a grateful Nation may say nothing but "Hallelulia"!!!