Losing hope even faster

|
(49)

By Steven T. Jones
obama_no_hope.jpg
For more than a year, I’ve been defending President Obama against his critics on the left. They’d complain that he’s enabling hyper-capitalism and the military-industrial complex, and I’ve always urged them to give him time. The problems are huge and the political climate is stormy, so we needed to keep our immediate expectations reasonable and be patient.

But I’m beginning to lose hope.

The escalation of war in the Afghanistan was his third strike. First, he bailed out Wall Street, preserving an inequitable and unsustainable economic system. Then he abandoned his past support for a single-payer health care system, propping up the costly and corrupt insurance-based system. And then he decided to perpetuate the dangerous delusion that our military can make the world safe and secure and turn Afghanistan into a functional, modern state.

And now, as icing on the cake, it looks like Obama is backpedaling on his Afghanistan exit strategy and working with Senate Democrats to give up on the public health care option, leaving a “reform” bill whose most notable characteristic is that we’ll all be required to buy overly expensive health insurance from a profit-driven corporation.

Hope – it was nice while it lasted.

Obama’s staunch defenders are still out there. And sure, he has done lots of good things, and he’s far better than John McCain would have been. And his perspective and speeches are a huge improvement on those of George W. Bush. But, like Bill Clinton before him, Obama is getting the big, important things totally wrong, mistakes made all the worse by using rhetoric of hope and reform.

Capitalism is running amuck – wrecking the planet, feeding off workers, corrupting our social and political systems, stealing resources from future generations – secure in the knowledge that government will save it from failure, a guarantee that American citizens no longer have. Obama even acknowledges some of this, but he still pursues policies and appointments that hinder real reform.

On the campaign trail, Obama eloquently spoke of pursuing peace and diplomacy and about the limitations of American military power. Sure, he said that he’d shift resources from Iraq to Afghanistan, but he already did that in the spring. And now, with this major escalation of the war – which he justified with Bush-like manipulations of 9/11 – he’s giving our military the lofty goal of the “security of the world,” as he put it last week.

I wanted to believe in Obama, even as I said the people’s movements needed to strongly push him to do the right thing. But now, I’m starting to feel naïve, as if all my critics were right and that I was foolish to feel hope in the first place. Is this when hope dies?

Comments

I'd say that BOTH ROB & BRUCE ANDERSON SEEM TO BE LOOSE CANNONS THAT WILL POLITICALLY FIRE IN ANY DIRECTION!

RE: he-he-he...: December 15, 2009 02:08 AM.

I'd say that Rob Anderson --NO RELATION!!!-- is just mad (in both the American *and* the British definition of the word -- *insannne*!) because I gave him *A BBIGG PHAT ASS-WHUPPPIN'!*: see December 13, 2009 06:32 PM.

I web searched on "Rob Anderson" and the best I can say is that I found THIS DESCRIPTION OF ROB ANDERSON BY A *SUPPORTER*:

"THIS GUY MAY NOT HAVE ALL HIS SCREWS TIGHTENED DOWN, BUT..."

Another term commonly used to describe Rob Anderson is "GADFLY":

read, "HE'S GOT WAYYY TOO MUCH TIME ON HIS HANDS!"

But then if someone is making money ("a stipend") from the government off of living with his elderly mother, what do you expect?

I want to withdraw any benefit-of-a-doubt positive comments I made about the Anderson Valley Advertiser being "a nice progressive paper" or "a good lefty paper" -- I assumed because *a quite sane* good lefty friend of mine often gets published in it. Other than that, I don't really know *what* the paper is: maybe it's "leftist", maybe it's "Libertarian" (*capital L*), maybe it's "anarchist", or maybe it's just a hodgepodge -- run by, perhaps, a caustic, self-important owner [who's just, as I said below, a *"contrarian"* (perhaps in his own way like the often caustic, nasty and ridiculing, to anyone who disagrees with him, Christopher Hitchens, who employs his --you can *tell*, *ssiiighhh*-- *wwell-practiced* lines)]. What did I say above (Dec 14, 8:02AM) about people (like Bruce Anderson) "who own a journalistic sandbox -- and you have to be on pins & needles around them to stay on their good side"...? Especially if it's the only sandbox in town and you'd like to get your own political (especially, progressive) message (commentary) out in it.

I first met Bruce Anderson at a local counterculture used bookstore lecture of his. I went because every progressive activist who gets around has heard of the AVA, but I'd personally never met and didn't personally know anything about him. I could tell -- even from his physical bearing, let alone from his sonic gruff tonal bearing -- that he was a *rather self-proud*, *extremely certain* (probably believed in absolutes and not prone to self-reflection/-examination), and rather *forceful* person -- not someone, for example, that I'd ever philosophically want to see being a, probably, hardcore disciplinarian (at best) father to (screwing up?) some 'poor' little kid (maybe the brothers' father was the same way) -- and I suspected my polite assessment of Bruce really meant, potentially, *"OVERBEARING"*. And, obviously, the reason the two brothers are commonly feuding is that Rob Anderson *IS THE SAME WAY*!

The Anderson Valley Advertiser -- at least from the concept of its owner/editors, reflecting their psyches -- seems to be a *CONTRARIAN* newspaper -- so, of course it might occasionally/semi-regularly/regularly publish progressive/leftist commentary (and good, well-written, leftist commentary/letters, like my friend up there writes, would give the newspaper a certain cover), along with whatever else is/gets published -- including Bruce Anderson's *self-admitted*, after-the-fact and when backed into a corner, *hoax* interviews and stories! So, with that kind of attitude, would Bruce Anderson's sudden obssession to have tried to trash Judi Bari and her (nonetheless greatly victorious) civil suit against the FBI and the OPD be any real surprise?: would anyone be knocked over by a feather?

Why the AVA gets read so widely (supposedly circ. 3,000) up in Mendocino, I'm not sure, except that it seems to be a small rock that (for both better *and* worse) can make a big splash in a small pond -- and people are probably just dying to see what feuding dysfunctional brothers, Rob & Bruce, are up to or are going to say "*this* time (however often the AVA gets published) -- as well as check out the guest commentaries and letters section for anything good there.

Btw, when I, at that local bookstore, the last questioner, calmly, cooly finished with (intellectually disposed of) Bruce Anderson, over the Judi Bari civil suit trial issue, you could hear a pin drop -- and reverberate -- t-t-t-t-t-t-t... -- in the store, before the bookstore owner finally said, "Welll, folks..., that'll be all for tonight...[throat clearing]... Thanks, everyone, for coming...!

I'd say that BOTH ROB & BRUCE ANDERSON SEEM TO BE LOOSE CANNONS THAT WILL FIRE IN ANY DIRECTION!

Posted by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA on Dec. 15, 2009 @ 10:39 am

Rob Anderson calling someone a windbag?

I'd say that Rob Anderson is more of a GASbag!!

Posted by he-he-he... on Dec. 15, 2009 @ 12:08 am

While standing by what I said in my comment post above about Cockburn, I regularly read CounterPunch (as well as DissidentVoice.org, DaveyD.com for hip hop generation journalism and conciousness, and other online/hardcopy progressive publications) to keep up with progressive/leftist analysis and explication of political events and the thoughts (and how they are politically articulated) of people that I intellectually value -- or at least consider.

Btw, marco, I love this comment of yours: "we've got to quit following the [what I, personally, interpret as and call the 'Good Cop, Bad Cop' Demo-Publican/Republi-Crat] bouncing ball like trained seals." And I love your Amy Sedaris quote.

And while I think that what you've articulated above, and in general, is very true, we shouldn't deservedly tar & feather *all* leftists. But perhaps I should assume that you would mean that qualification. After all, I assume that Bari was a leftist (if not an ideologically sectarian or explicitly self-labeled one). And I think that serious, independently thinking leftists (who don't even necessarily call themselves leftists), often get quashed by those leftist stars who typically have the microphone monopoly, who talk *AT* us but never *WITH* us (out of dire fear that they might indeed be caught intellectually slippin'). So, *of course*, their thinking process reaches a point beyong which it never advances -- and their moderator friends who demand "BRIEF QUESTIONS *ONLY*(!!)" after an hour, or more, of lecture, but only 15 minutes (if sometimes even that much) for Q&A (with filibuster answers), or KPFA's now almost practically non-existent time for studio call-ins, except when they want your money).

But, yes, what you say (as I understand/interpret it) is that the left needs some very serious self-examination on *how* we got into this mess -- especially of constant "lesser evilism" capitulation to the Republi-Crat system -- and *who* on the left got us into this mess: we need to start holding some people -- icons and pundits -- on the left *accountable*.

I find it sadly humorous and tragically ironic that people like Thomas Frank ("What's the Matter with Kansas") who, before, *new* better (from his own prior lectures, writings and book) -- and a whole slew of *other* progressives/leftists -- constantly wagged their fingers at poor/working-/middle-class whites for "voting against their own interests" -- (BUT) KEEP TELLING SUPPOSEDLY "EDUCATED" PROGRESSIVES/LEFTISTS TO DO *THE VERY SAME THING* EVERY 4 YEARS!!: TO VOTE AGAINST *OUR* INTERESTS.

(But, part of the 'secret' to viability for any progressive 3rd party is that we have to *demannnd* changes in "the rules" of the game [like with IRV, or who gets to participate in broadcasted, on *public airwaves*, political candidate debates; *disrupt* the broadcasted debates if we have to, instead of just passively accepting the debates, and their corporate hand-picked "viable" candidates, like lambs: if they're *our* *public* airwaves, then we can *demand* that they serve us, especially in the political elections process], because if we don't, the system --which, of course, doesn't want to change the rules-- will always win.)

------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, my point is that *some* leftists who might --or used to-- often do good (and, with some, even courageous) work can have terrible glitches and rather ugly egos when their faults are exposed [an affliction of right-wingers too, but without the good work], instead of considering personal self-reflection and intellectual/moral self-examination.

Part of this is the result of such iconic/star leftists' own, often hidden, but easily erupted, egotism, when they are caught -- by *independent* thinkers and *examined* anlaysis -- intellectually &/or morally slippin', stumbling, sliding, or plunging -- by said independent thinkers who don't need any leftist *cult status gurus* to adulate.

(A friend of mine used to be a Hollywood agent, and he said that, regarding a lot -- with notable exceptions -- of those major Hollywood celebrities -- that he spent considerable time around and that he even often played golf with, that the public just blindingly adores -- the *better* you knew them the *less* you liked them!)

As Michael Eric Dyson, indeed, wrote (*'s added for emphasis and []'s added for context, b/c these comments are from an oral colloquial interview) on p54 of his book _Debating Race_: "And let me say this. If we're gon' get real about it, many of the leaders I know -- you were right to challenge us; [but] let me challenge *the leaders* [icons]. Half the leaders I know are *insecure*. A Negro [rhetorically stylistic term for Black person] come up here with some intelligence, [and] they [those leaders] go [say], "Oh *hell*, who is *he*? *I'm* not going to get the glory anymore because now this [*that*] person is there [here]. Insecure, incapable of accepting intelligent, articulate [ordinary/new] people who just want to help. So, it goes both ways. More [other] analysts would be involved in the action if the [icons] leading the action weren't insecure about the [their own] analysis."

But, the flip side of the coin is that too many conventional progressives/leftists -- too desperate for heroes to *worship* in the Reagan-post-Reagan age, where President Clinton's social and economic (especially pro-corporate) policies swung to the right of *Richard Nixon's*, and even finally...THUS SPRACH OBAMA!! -- 'THE MULATTO SAVIOR!!' -- will be sending more troops abroad, putting in more imperialist foreign bases, and have a larger military budget, and give more money to the corporations (rather than the people) than *Bush II* -- give unquestioned (and even glassey-eyed) cult status and _just hand over their brains_ to, especially, those leftist gurus who must be blind faith consulted *first* as all-knowing "oracles" on not only *what* to think, but even *how* to think. Such glassy-eyed hero-worshipping acolytes couldn't butter their bread in the morning unless, for prime example, NOAM CHOMSKY (the closet *ZIONIST* and INCREASINGLY, INTELLECTUALLY and MORALLY DUPLICITOUS, *LLLYING WEASEL*) told them *which side*.

--------------------------------------------------------

(Yo, Steven T. Jones!: your mea/sorta culpa column is picking up a lot of thought, isn't it... And it would have never happened without the opportunity here for reader response. Maybe SFBG is going to have to pull the plug on these comment opportunities, out of fear of what might happen: who on the *independently* thinking, *serious* left might -- in violation of the prevailing, often thought-regimenting, progressive/leftist orthodoxy -- intellectually and politically say 'the wrong thing'!)

Posted by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 4:02 pm

Yes, of course H. Brown would like my brother, since they're both infantile lefties and have trouble with fact-based political commentary. Good that the other Anderson---but what a windbag!---raises the Judi Bari bombing issue, since, in spite of the facts, he still insists that her ex-husband did it. He used to think that Bari was carrying her own bomb when it exploded---under the driver's seat while she was driving! Bari was many things, but she wasn't stupid, and the notion that she put an armed, motion-triggered bomb under her own seat was ludicrous, as is the fact-free theory that her ex-husband put it there.
http://www.andersonfordistrict5.net/documents/judi_bari.html

Posted by Rob Anderson on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 7:16 am

You forgot to mention that San Francisco's own Bill Simpich and Ben Rosenfeld were on the legal team that whupped the OPD and FBI's ass in court on behalf of Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney.

Cockburn is yet another of the fading 20th century Trotskyites, laboring under the impression that there is a vanguard out there somewhere that is enlightened as to The Truth, and is Empowered by the spirit of Karl Marx to lead the Proletariat towards a workers' dictatorship. Once you are part of the vanguard, you are empowered to draw the lines between what is in the interests of the working class and what is not.

Cockburn and his cronies went apeshit over the Green Party and Ralph Nader in the middle of this decade. Yet Nader could arguably take the Connecticut Senate seat next year in a split three way race. Yet sources indicate that Nader does not want to win. And so the left refuses to ever have the question called, always deferring so that the vanguard never has to execute.

It reminds me of a piece of Earth First! lore. My last ex girlfriend from the 1980s introduced me to EF! back in the day. At that time, the University of Arizona was clearing out land atop Mt. Graham, which was sacred to the Dine (Navajo) people and habitat for the endangered Mt. Graham red squirrel. A partner to the project, amazingly enough, was the Vatican.

Jean theorized that the Vatican was part of a major telescope project so that they could see the second coming of Jesus first, and figure out a way to off the lord and savior before he returned to the Earth, in order to preserve their lucrative and powerful temporal franchise.

The left, of course, enjoys no such power as the Vatican, yet in their own sandbox, they have fashioned themselves as armchair experts, and from their increasingly bitter, marginalized and ineffective perches, criticize the failures of others without offering up any rational, viable reality-based suggestions otherwise. All the left knows how to do is to infiltrate to suck the power generated by others with intent to either coopt or disrupt, the same tactics as COINTELPRO.

The further disconnected from evolving reality that the atavistic become, the more like the unpleasant residue of an evaporating foul substance they are. Counterpunch is barely readable these days.

The FBI would have a very difficult time coming up with a force disruptive enough on popular movements that could challenge the effectiveness on that front that we've seen from the American Left.

The left cannot countenance the dilution of the primacy of "labor" of defining us in terms of our capitalist opponents, "working people," instead of free, empowered, autonomous creatures living in context of and connected to our environment. As a feminist, Judi got that you always lose when you define yourself in terms of your oppressor.

But most all enviros, even the most misanthropic anarchists, were cool with Judi building bridges to working folks, because few knew what how to win, what would or would not work, and they were not consumed with the burden of being the vanguard like the lefties were, trying to follow a script that was no longer applicable. For that, she won the same prize that Malcolm X and MLK won, the highest honor from "vulgar greedy ugly American death sucker," as Burroughs so aptly put it.

If they're not trying to kill you, you're not doing your job as a resister. As Ward Churchill put it, that so long as we choose to remain alive and free, we tacitly support a system that uses force to kill and enslave and eradicate ecosystems.

It is because of the work done by countless unnamed folks, of whom Judi was the visible mountaintop, that terms like "clear cut," and "old growth" and "biodiversity" are present in the common vernacular. Fortunately, the pain Judi was in for the last years of her life is long over now. I prefer to remember her as I saw her and Darryl at ATA several days before the 1990s bombing: "Redwood summer 1990 is going to make the 1960s look like the 1980s."

Long live Judi Bari, she who the was the target of an attempted murder because she began to connect the dots between environmentalists and loggers!

-marc

Posted by marcos on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 7:02 am

h. brown: "Joseph,

My, you Andersons are a wordy lot."

==> Not in my *formal* writing (check anything out on the web, especially, but not only, at "Konch" under my name+berkeley) -- and much fewer (especially, long) clauses per sentence, and a helluva lot shorter paragraphs, than in Bruce's writing. I, above, was more somewhat lengthy, rather than wordy -- there's a difference. And what I wrote in my comment posts (and formal writing) is a lot more readable. The writing sample above, of Bruce's, is both lengthy *&* wordy *&* structurally and informationally dense *&* rambling *&* unfocussed -- sort of stream-of-consciousness (if ya *like* that style), with a few isolated and unrelated points of interest. Can Bruce say *"focus"*? I hope not all of his writing is like that. I got eye and brain fatigue (sort of like an ice cream headache) just trying to read it. I soon scanned and skipped ahead and found, way down where I picked up again, two paragraphs of statistical interest about Arnold's budget and state programs cuts.

==> Anyway, as I said at the end of my Dec 13, 06:32PM comment post, It was a slow, cold, cloudy, rainy Sunday, and Ron was fun to play with for a while and reveal him for what he really is. Besides, I rather enjoyed debunking Ron's -- and I'm sure other Obamalade diehards -- specious arguments. Debunking specious arguments is one of the things I like to do in my formal analytical commentary writing.

==> Besides, I type relatively fast. I'm a self-taught, relatively proficient, alll-10-fingers, no keyboard looking (if I even *look*, it interferes and slows me down), touch-typist. (Which is *great* when you're in Europe on one of their computer keyboards where you can change the computer software settings to a standard American keyboard, but not the actual keyboard labels.) For me it's just 'a walk in the park'.

brown: "I didn't mean that our own spirit of the holidays,[...]

==> I *like* that: *funny*!! Ha-ha-ha...

"[...]Rob was related to you."

==> Thanks much, but I wasn't confused about your reference -- just making a major point of distancing myself from any doubt (of others') whatsoever. And it was just one of those things where, in this comment thread, I hated the fact that Ron even had the same last name. Can you imagine how his *brother* feels... Like, Jimmy Carter about the late *Billy* Carter (and his, then, "Billy Beer")! Even, like Jeb Bush about *Dubya* Bush (and the downright *stupid* one got to be president!: ain't *that* a kick in the...for Jeb?)!

brown: "His brother is the guy that wrote this. Notice the difference in tone in his work and that of Rob."

==> Yes, I've met Bruce before. Runs a nice progressive paper. A prominent leftist friend of mine regularly writes for/in Bruce's paper.

==> The only philosophical and political 'quarrel' of mine that I expressed about/with Bruce Anderson (well, I was diplomatic, but pointed, about it, exposing and embarrasing him further for his bad deeds) was when he, in then some, before, suddenly personal vendetta (and CounterPunch's Alexander Cockburn, whom I also further exposed, I guess AC piling on rather ill-advisedly with his friend Bruce), went after Earth First old-growth (especially, giant) redwood forest activist-organizer Judi Bari in the pages of the AVA during her and fellow activist-organizer Darryl Cherney's civil trial against the Oakland Police Department and the FBI.

==> Both agencies (OPD & FBI), had, of course, accused Bari & Cherney, in the 1990 bombing of her car, of bombing themselves(!!), and tried to frame, and later arrest, them as "terrorists", from a bomb (undoubtedly because of her forest activism) planted under the driver's seat that very seriously injured her and somewhat seriously injured Darryl. Judi famously, courageously and defiantly later said, "They bombed the wrong end of me: my ass instead of my mouth!"

==> Well, as you probably know, Bruce and Cockburn kept *trying* -- although quite unsuccessfully -- to monkey wrench and sabotage Bari's & Cherney's civil trial (instead of Pacific Lumber Company bulldozers, a company hostily taken over by a rather nasty 'rape & pillage' capitalist, Charles Hurwitz, subsequently engaged in laissez-faire, 'rape & pillage' clear-cutting), where Bari, Cherney and good lefty lawyers -- the legendary, venerable and masterful Tony Serra, along with Robert Blum and Dennis Cunningham -- sued the lying scummy pants off the OPD and the FBI for a victory total of 4.4 million dollars(!!!) for violating Bari's & Cherney's 1st & 4th Amendment rights.

==> (One of my housemates, a kick-ass, and equally good lefty, female attorney, worked for a law firm that sued Hurwitz &/or his Texas corporation, Maxxam Inc., for Hurwitz's other nasty capitalist 'rape & pillage' practices that, due to space and time and detail, I won't go into here.)

==> Bruce and Cockburn -- sadly -- kept trying to repeatedly say and write that Bari, Cherney and their lawyers were 'going after the wrong parties' because it, Bruce & Cockburn claimed, was probably Bari's ex-husband who bombed her (over some messy divorce?) -- an argument that had absolutely no intellectual and legal relevancy whatsoever -- let alone *no proof* -- *whatsoever* -- to the fact that it was the *OPD* & the *FBI* who violated Bari's & Cherney's Constitution rights and tried to frame them "for their own bombing" as "terrorists".

==> Other than Bruce's sordid external deeds around Bari's & Cherney's civil suit trial, the AVA (as far as I know, although I don't happen to be a regular reader of it and, in particular, Bruce's editorials) seems to be a good lefty newspaper -- or at least allows good leftists to get published commentaries, essays and letters in it.

==> But, some people are like that...: Alexander Cockburn, without explanation, after singing praises of me even in CounterPunch, suddenly, emotionally, turned against me, when I merely asked him, after he 'begged' and 'begged' and 'begged' me to write some commentaries, at least now and then, for CounterPunch -- and finally I wrote an analytical commentary ("The Left and the Israel Lobby"). And he never got back to me in any timely manner (maybe because it critiqued Finkelstein and Chomsky) about whether he wanted to publish it -- and, I said, "If not, *fine*, *no grudges*!" It's *his* political journal. I don't have problems getting commentaries/essays published in *some* prominent progressive online journal, if I'd really like to. I'd just shop my essay out to *another* journal (and Dissident Voice political journal, as well as the Palo Alto Peninsula Peace & Justice Center, loved it and published it at their websites): I submitted it to Cockburn first because, at the time, he asked for one first.

==> When one day, much later, Cockburn later emailed me with a cheery hello, wondering why I didn't come up and say hi to him after one of his S.F. lectures, I said I was surprised to so pleasantly hear from him, because I couldn't get him to respond to my inquiries for a timely response before. Cockburn then snapped, "Oh, get a new whine!" Go figua! But, it didn't faze me: I *know* that some of those 'vaunted' leftist icons don't like to be 'challenged' in the least (even if you're *not* trying to challenge them, but even if you are, intellectually &/or morally). And I guess that Cockburn took my question about his apparent inconsistency as "a challenge".

==> All these people -- too-use to being sucked-up to on the left, or who own a journalistic sandbox -- and you have to be on pins & needles around them to stay on their good side -- are like that when you've intellectually &/or morally, no matter how importantly or casually, caught them at intellectual, moral or ethical fault, especially in a corner they can't get out without *admitting* such fault -- and I've been consequently dissed by some of the 'best' of them:

==> _Noam CHOMSKY_ [who's just a morally squiggly damn closet ZIONIST; he's never *really* put himself on the line for anything; how do you think he *got* to be accepted as a (senior) tenured prof at MIT, just great academic work?; so used to *fluff questions* and adoration from _Amy Goodman_, did you hear how hostile and defensive he got in a recent KPFA "Flashpoints" interview, over more serious questions about his views, with guest interviewer Khalil Bendib?], _Norman Finkelstein_ [who *used* to do very courageous work, but beaten down and now as a Zionist apologist calls any leftist who disagrees with him "a Berkeley pie-in-the-sky armchair Marxist"], _Ralph Nader_ [who's ego can't admit when he's factually wrong], _Dennis Bernstein_ [who nonetheless does very courageous work], or _Bell Hooks_ [who spells her name in small letters in *feigned humbleness*, but *feigned humbleness* is as egotistical as any Hollywood celebrity], _Harry Edwards_ [anyone, even on the left, who disagrees with him is, his cliche, "a goddam fool!"], 'luv guru' _Alice Walker_ [watch out for anyone preaching sappy about *llluvvv* all the time], _Amiri Baraka_ [well, he *still enthusiastically* supports Obama, so *what* does *that* tell you, but at least Baraka (unlike Ron) otherwise has some noted mental talents, besided hairtrigger arrogance and irascibility], and other national or regional progressive/leftist icons -- and I'm sure right-wing ones as well. And academia is *fillled* with egotistical people like this.

==> Although *not all* progressive/leftist icons are like that: not _Cornel West_, or _Michael Eric Dyson_ (who wrote about the aforementioned egotism in his book _Debating Race_, p.54, pgh 2), or poet-novelist-essayist _Ishmael Reed_, or _Cynthia McKinney_, or the late Black feminist academic _Barbara Christian_, or the late African Civilizations educator _Asa Hilliard_, or the prominent hip hop radio journalist-historian _Davey D_, or _Molefi Asante_ (the creator of Afrocentricity), or _Maxine Hong Kingston_, or _Matt Gonzalez_, or _Tim Wise_, or others who *are/were* always genuine and open (and who've even had my back).

==> Btw, my good lefty female attorney housemate says that lawyers and law practice are much *less* interpersonally grudgeholding and backstabbing than academia, even in law schools, and politics -- and much less ego-tripping that many left-[/right]-wing icons.

==> So, *who knows(?)* what set Bruce Anderson off against Judi Bari (maybe she didn't give him any play after her separation/divorce or didn't smile at him enough) -- but that particular sordid episode of Mssrs. Bruce & his allied friend Cockburn (who should have stayed out of it because, just because your friend might jump in a mud hole, doesn't mean you should jump in after him) didn't make them look good to anyone who knew about it in or beyond Mendocino.

==> But Ron Anderson is just a boorish *idiot* -- devoid of *any* substance -- trying (and very badly) to pose as a liberal.

Posted by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 6:02 am

Yo folks --check out this hillarious picture of Obama & Co.!

GREAT PICTURE OF OBAMA!

'SSSUCKAZZZ!!!'

http://broadsides.org/suckers.htm#comment-1234 !

It says it alll...!

Posted by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA on Dec. 13, 2009 @ 11:44 pm

Joseph,

My, you Andersons are a wordy lot. I didn't mean that our own spirit of the holidays, Rob was related to you. His brother is the guy that wrote this. Notice the difference in tone in his work and that of Rob.

Anderson Valley Advertiser January 7, 2009

Excerpt from "OFF THE RECORD"
Christmas Morning Beating
by Bruce Anderson

CHUCK BUSH writes in the Kelley House Calendar column in last week's Mendocino Beacon "...So whatever destruction of the Indians was caused by the military and the settlers it wasn't even close to being as bad as popular statistics make it out to be." Well Chuck, "popular statistics" hardly apply, mostly because they are so purely speculative they could be said not to exist. But the early history of Mendocino County, that first interface I guess you could call it, of Mendocino County's white settlers, mostly single males not inclined to multi-cultural sympathies, and the County's native peoples, is just now being made known by contemporary scholars who've gathered its disparate fragments into some fine and important books, all of which reveal that murder, including state-sponsored murder, took as many Mendocino County Indian lives as disease did. The survivors of those murders — 1850-1860 mostly — were assembled at Mendocino and Fort Bragg where they were protected, more or less, by the Army until they were finally herded over to Covelo to be exploited by a succession of corrupt Indian agents and such noble sons of the soil as George White, from whom The House of Rorbaugh is descended. If the Indians had had horses to go with the guns they soon came to possess inland throughout the Eel River drainage Mendocino County might look a lot different today. When the Indians did get guns, hence the fearsome "gun Indians" of the upper Eel, the Army was dispatched to suppress them from federal forts strewn from Covelo to Eureka. It took the Army about 15 years to fully suppress inland fighters. Mendocino County's Coast Indians didn't have the mountainous terrain to re-group in; they were instantly overwhelmed by murder and introduced disease. That's what happened. The cruel local mistreatment of Indians continued well into the 1950s, complete with segregated theaters and restaurants in Ukiah, area schools having been desegregated by court order in the 1930's through the dogged work of an unsung Indian intellectual by the name of Steve Knight, founder of the statewide Indian Brotherhood. Those of you inclined to great man theories of history, Steve Knight is by far Mendocino County's greatest man. Knight, by the way, always complained about the Indians who showed up for state and national conferences in "native dress." He said that turning out in buckskin and war bonnets made it easier for white bureaucrats not to take Indians seriously. I agree with people who say it isn't necessary to dwell on the more terrible events of American history, but the prevalent amnesia is much more insidious and not nearly as interesting as the truth.

DORIS LESSING, except for her veer-off into sci-fi, is always interesting, and which book of hers is it that describes the accelerating social decay that begins with a homeless camp here and there to armed suburbanites shooting their way from major urban airports to their fortified homes beyond the cities? I thought of Lessing's prescience in describing the slo-mo collapse we see around us today, including here in bucolic Mendocino County, when I read this note from a local homeless man: "I suffered a pretty severe beating Christmas morning when another homeless individual discovered my camp and took it by force. I fled down the highway, bloody and bruised in the rain and got to Willits by nightfall where I spent that freezing night in a convenience store. Next morning I went on to Ukiah, spent the weekend at the Buddy Eller shelter and I'm now at the Hospitality House in Fort Bragg. Having lost my few possessions and job, I'm absolutely desperate for a little money and work." I know a little about this guy. He isn't a deadbeat. He wants to work, wants to get his own place. He isn't a dope head or hopeless drunk. (Or he's real good at hiding it.) If anyone reading this on the Mendo Coast might have something, contact the AVA and we'll pass it on.

THE HERITAGE HOUSE collapse came about as the local result of the rapacious round of Coast property speculation that ratcheted upwards in the middle 1980s with the Mendocino arrival of San Diego mayor, Maureen O'Connor, and her husband Robert Peterson, the founder of the Jack In The Box death food chain. Peterson bought up the Mendocino Hotel then he and O'Connor scooped up the Heritage House, and the race to the bottom of speculation frenzy was on. O'Connor and Mr. Box almost single-handedly drove up Mendocino real estate prices, and set in motion the eventual destruction of previously solid local businesses like the Heritage House, about which one of Maureen and Jack's local victims writes: "It was with a heavy heart that I read of the closing of the Heritage House with the loss of some 40 jobs. I worked there as an employee under the ownership of Gay Jones, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Dennan. I had a lot of respect for her and the way she treated me as an employee. The downfall came with the sale to Maureen O'Connor and her entourage after the death of Mrs. Jones' son. They insulted the employees, offended the guests with their garrish and ruination of the wonderful old farmhouse and with her choice of decorators and taste. Some of the people had been coming to the Inn for 45 years and we always thought of them as family — we were told to lie to them to cover the decision to paint over the dome in the dining room — the choice of Ms. O'Connor who didn't have the integrity to take the brunt of her own decision. I couldn't bring myself to lie for someone who had fired us all and we were subject to an interview to get our jobs back, our wages were cut, and we had lost all our previous benefits. We were insulted, and made to grovel for a chance to keep our workers. O'Connor made some very bad choices and lost the support of the locals as well as Heritage House clients. I am saddened of the loss of one of the most beautiful inns on the coast all because of greed. I will always remember the good times of the Heritage House-the REAL Heritage House and the people I worked with for seven years, which were some of the best years of my time on the Mendocino Coast. Rest in peace Mr. and Mrs. Dennan; you gave a lot of people a start in business and your daughter was an inspiration to both me and my husband as her employees."

NICK WILSON, the louche Little River photographer, has published a book of hippie pics from the early 1970s. A clerk at a local book store told my colleague, The Major, that a surprising number of late middle-age people have stopped by the store to look at Wilson's big naked pile photos to see if their young buttocks are identifiable, which puzzles those of us who've never seen our south forties. And who would want to besides Wilson?

PHIL BALDWIN has been named mayor of Ukiah. Red Phil, who earns his way as a Potter Valley school teacher, has run for Congress on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket but lives in Ukiah where he's a long-time member of the Ukiah City Council and where his prudently liberal stances regularly outrage inland conservatives. Seven candidates applied to replace Ukiah city councilman John McCowen, now elevated to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors. How will McCowen's successor be selected? As one cynic puts it: " If you are in favor of recycling and believe women are victims and that children's voices should be heard, you are courageous and a visionary and worthy of public office. I honestly don't think it goes further than that." Sure enough. Selected as McCowen's successor is Mary Ann Landis, a teacher with the Mendocino County Office of Education. Ms. Landis told the Ukiah Daily Journal who said, among other clichés, "I feel that the youth are in need of a healthy environment..."

TWO CASES that should be prosecuted linger in the DA's in-basket: Jeremiah Sotelo of Leggett ought to be looking at statutory rape charges for his seduction of a then-13-year-old girl, and the two adult sons of Ukiah police officer Peter Hoyle ought to be looking at felony assault on a 17-year-old Ukiah youth, but...

THE ACLU is among the organizations looted by Bernie Madoff. According to a recent ACLU fundraising appeal two foundations that have long supported the ACLU were literally wiped out by Madoff, leaving the ACLU $850,000 short in funding key 2009 projects.

FORMER AVA interns Tim Stelloh and Freda Moon have been freelancing in Mexico and South America for the last few months, filing a variety of stories for various US-based publications. Freda maintains a running blog/travelogue at fredamoon.squarespace.com, samples of which follow:

"AMONG the 'dangers and annoyances' listed in one of our Central American guidebooks is this word of caution: Unlike Mexico, it says, you won't find many animals on the roads. People are too poor to risk their livestock. But, they warn, drunks wander the roads, day and night. Be careful. Nicaraguans are poor, but there's no shortage of animals — goats, dogs, cows, horses, pigs and mules — wandering Nicaragua's pot-holed roadways. But there are also people, lots of them, drunk and sober. There are few cars and many bikes. Along every road, urban and rural, there are scattered parades of pedestrians, going to work or school or church. They carry groceries, seem impervious — without umbrellas — to the pounding tropical rain and pay interest to oncoming cars only when absolutely necessary. The other day, Paul Rice (founder of Transfair USA) drove me north from Esteli to meet a Fair Trade coffee farmer he's known for years. Paul drives fast. As he passes cars on blind corners, uphill, in the rain, he says things like, 'Don't worry, it's not your time,' which is meant to be comforting but are actually terrifying. At one point, we rounded a turn and saw a man passed out on the concrete, dead drunk. Curled up, the highway's yellow line was a guillotine at his neck. His head was perfectly aligned with the right wheel of northbound traffic. Paul deftly avoided the man. 'He's going to lose his head,' he said. We didn't stop. Drunks here are like drunks everywhere. But the public reaction to them — the casual way of avoiding a man's head on the road, not stopping to pull him from it — seems different. Americans tend to be self-righteous and indignant in the face of such self-destruction. Here, it seems understood. The man splayed on the doorstep, unconscious in the mid-day sun — his shirt open and a plastic plate of half-eaten food tottering on his stomach — doesn't illicit the sneers and grimaces he would on a New York City stoop. But there are also none of the pitiful looks, the liberal guilt. There's nothing fraught. There's just a man on the ground.

"ALONG the Honduras leg of the Panamericana, we were stopped four times by police in dark blue uniforms. They check our documents, diligently comparing the license plate number listed on our vehicle permit to the license plate on the van. Sometimes they look inside, performing the most cursory of searches. But the 'very big problem' with our forms usually goes unnoticed — and when the corrected lines are seen at all, the administrator's small notation explaining them away seems sufficient. But, as it sometimes happens, if it's not one thing, it's another. At our third check point, there were only two policemen, rather than the usual gang of men. The older one waved us down, then left his younger comrade to do business. Squat, with a pebbled face and almost unbearable smugness, the young officer asked for our documents, then barely glanced at them. Had he noticed those wretched marks, he may have used them as his extortion pretext. But he had something better, something already prepared. As a rule, in a situation like this, it's best not to know Spanish — best to be completely, rather than only mostly, inept at the language of our adopted region. Tim [Freda's husband Tim Stelloh and co-freelancer] and I had learned this along the way. So, when the smug, pebble-faced man asked, with great seriousness, if we had a triangulo on board, we shrugged, looked to each other, shrugged again. We stared expectantly at the officer and he stared back. Another stand-off. But this time our opposition was armed. Tray-ayng-oolo?, I repeated. No entiendo. No hablamos espa–ol. Of course, we did understand. This was a shake-down so famous it's written about in guidebooks. For only the second time on our trip, just a few hours from Leon, petty corruption had us in his grip. The most notorious of the many shake-downs in Latin American police lore — save, perhaps, the "Oh, look, I found a [planted] joint under your seat" — is hard to dispute. The officer held up a tattered little booklet containing the country's traffic laws and pointed to #10. Indeed, drivers are supposed to carry a warning sign with them, in case of an accident or blown tire, to alert fellow drivers. Drivers are also obligated to wear seat belts, stop at stop signs and drive one way on one-way streets. But none of these rules are followed, much less enforced. Yet, it's hard to argue with black and white text and an armed officer in a shabby blue uniform. Instead, we persisted with our blank stares and butchered words. We went round and round with him as he pointed to cones on the road, TRIANGULO, drew a triangle in his book and poked his pencil again and again at the image, like a frustrated Pictionary player. Finally, he turned the book over, and pointed to a pencil-written "fine" of $30 US. We owe a fine, una multa, he told us, for not having a triangulo. We shrugged, look at each other some more, and back to him. We shook our heads, in total confusion. Frustrated and red-faced, his voice got louder and more shrill with every TRIANGULO he spit at us. But finally, he couldn't do it anymore. He was missing potential victims as they drove on by. He waved his hand, sickened. He let us go. We felt victorious. Pathetic, but victorious. And, for the record, I no longer hate Honduras."

FRIDA'S Fair Trade coffee story was published last November in the SF Chronicle. Search on-line for "El Cerrito man helps coffee farms blossom" by Freda Moon.

GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER'S proposed budget cuts are not yet official. But something like them will probably happen soon if the state is to remain intact. There could easily be more cuts if the new revenue sources (none of them "taxes") are not approved. Among the proposed cuts (in order of size) are: $5.2 billion out of the $58 billion education budget with five fewer school days per year. Mandatory furloughs of state employees for two days per month ($1.7 billion). Reductions in the state portion of SSI aid to blind and disabled ($1.4 billion). Enforcement of Clinton's five year cut-off for welfare recipients ($1.1 billion). Elimination of parole supervision for all but those who have committed serious, violent or sexual crimes and reducing the prison medical budget by 10% ($0.8 billion). Elimination of MediCal coverage for optometry, dental and psychological services, limiting benefits for legal immigrants, raising the income eligibility requirements to pre-2000 levels, cutting hospital reimbursement rates by 10% and eliminating cost of living increases for county-based administration (all of that would save an estimated $0.75 billion).

FURTHER DOWN the list are 10% cuts in all UC budgets, elimination of transit agency general grants (including the Mendocino Transit Authority), reduced pay for in-home health care workers to minimum wage, elimination of the state's First Five Commission (long overdue), no cost of living increase for state courts, elimination of the state's Integrated Waste Management Board (also long overdue) and elimination of the state run conservation corps program.

MENDOCINO COUNTY is considering a two-day per month furlough on alternate Fridays, paralleling the state proposal. However, not every County department would be subject to the furlough due to state or federal regs, and more negotiations will be needed to spread the cut fairly.

MANAGEMENT PAY CUTS are not under consideration at any level, nor are county offices of education, to name another entirely redundant, unnecessary public boondoggle, are not mentioned although they were near the top of the list of Schwarzenegger's initial commission's budget cutting targets.

COUNTY OFFICES dealing with the general public, especially the welfare agencies, are considering increasing security because of a noticeable increase in the number of unruly aid recipients which may increase if the proposed cuts come to pass.

Get the AVA every week: Subscribe today!
Anderson Valley Advertiser Archive

Posted by h. brown on Dec. 13, 2009 @ 6:29 pm

==> That left us [the U.S. in Afghanistan] with with rounding up about 2,000 supposedly grunts -- many of them teenage boys and some even younger -- sold into U.S. captivity.

Addendum: AND MANY OF THEM *INNOCENT* OF *ANY* "WRONGDOING" AND "OFFENSES AGAINST THE U.S.".

Posted by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA on Dec. 13, 2009 @ 4:45 pm

Ron Anderson: "As a Democrat"...

==> Believe me! Ron is *NO* RELATION!!

==> You're still not ashamed to admit it, and you're not even a Democrat politician actually getting something out of it -- like top notch Congressional health care insurance that the rest of us won't have.

RA: "I'm pleased with President Obama."

==> I don't know if you just have your head in the sand -- or somewhere even tighter and darker.

RA: "The left is completely wrong about Afghanistan and defense issues in general."

==> And now the U.S. is spilling the war over and into Pakistan and bombing places in that country (remember when the U.S. did that in Cambodia?: that turned out really great, didn't it?), only if Pakistan is destabilized and driven into a civil war, we're talking about a country with nuclear weapons!

==> Oh, yeh: Afghanistan has been ***a resounding success***!! After *8* long years of now talking about "nation building" and bringing democracy to Afghanistan:

==> We were after bin Ladin (a guy well over 6 feet tall, who needs kidney dialisis who knows how many times a week, and is attached to an intravenous solution bag on a pole), head of al-Qaeda, and who puts out videos more regularly than Madonna now -- and we still can't find him!

==> We were after Mullah Omar (a guy who's missing an eye, with a big black eye patch over it, and can't half see out the other), head of the Taliban -- and we still can't find him.

==> We were after the Taliban (a rag-tag militia running around in 'pajamas' and sandals) -- and we still can't find all of them.

==> That left us with with rounding up about 2,000 supposedly grunts -- many of them teenage boys and some even younger -- sold into U.S. captivity.

==> We installed our handpicked puppet (Karzai) who, after 8 years "the mayor of Kabul" barely even controls Kabul -- and we have to pay off some of the nearby warlords not to kill him!

==> Ordinary women in Afghanistan are no more meaningfully free now than they were before -- and even more of them are forced into burkas.

==> Poppy fields are still in full growth (with a few slashings and burnings for PR show) and opium production is as high as ever -- with the mayor's, err, "president's" very own brother (and family) known by everyone as neck deep in the Afghan drug trade.

==> The U.S. is doing with drones what "the Taliban/al-Qaeda" (*or* the CIA or Mossad, with every reason to want Iraq and Afghanistan kept destabilized, or Blackwater) are doing with suicide bombers -- killing disporportionately/mostly innocent civilians.

==> We have still yet to rebuild Afghanistan (our claim) -- even though we're paying American contractors hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to supposedly do so.

==> We're trying to build a central government that centrally controls the entire country in a country that's never had one.

==> Obama (like Ariel Sharon, now that "Man of Peace") went to pick up his Nobel Peace(!!???) Prize -- having sent more drones to bomb mostly innocent people on the way -- espousing a "Just War" justification -- this where the U.S. *LIED* to get into one war who's result is the grievous deaths of over a million people (probably wounded and maimed at least a million more and displaced even several millions more and completely destroyed the country, especially its medical services), and is also violating that "Just War" theory to bomb *the people* of another country -- the U.S. violating *any* "Just War" principles of proportionality in both cases!

==> And, at least one war where _ISRAEL_ , its American _ISRAEL LOBBY_ and the _ZIONIST NEOCONS_ mightily pushed the U.S. for such a war (and have since wanted the U.S.--already quite busy enough, thank you (and now with so many problems now at home too)--to go start still *another* war against Iran, so that Israel, started by a bunch of _*JEWISH* BIBLICAL FUNDAMENTALIST FANATICS_ who plunked and *violently forced* their foreign non-native state right smack down in the middle of the Arab world [oh that's another UK-U.S. debacle that worked real well, isn't it], the *first* to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East can keep its nuclear monopoly).

==> "A WAR FOR OIL!", was the American Left Zionists' -- and Left Zionist-carried, ANTONIA JUHASZ ("The Tyranny of Oil") -- red meat *COVER STORY* propagated to the Left to cover Israel's ass. Read online, "A War for ISRAEL", by Jeffrey Blankfort (Jewish-American longtime veteran journalist and progressive radio host).

==> The first U.S.-Iraq war was a Washington-Israel plan to lure and goad Saddam into attacking Kuwait, which was slant drilling oil under Iraq -- Kuwait and Saudi Arabia being two U.S. *allies* where women are not free, so if "liberating women" is a back-up justification for the our wars in the Middle East, we can start with our Middle East *allies*!

==> All this, when neither country -- *nor Iran* -- *ever* attacked or was *ever* any existential threat to the U.S. -- and the handful of people who allegedly attack the U.S. on 9-11 came from one allied U.S. country and planned it from another allied U.S. country.

==> And the U.S. govt seem's hell-bent on a military (militarist) foreign policy -- particularly in its attacks on civilians -- designed to recruit more Islamic (although that is merely incidentally their religion) "terrorists" everywhere: well isn't that, if anyone thinks about it, the idea of permanent war, supporting a permanently growing military industrial complex now that the Cold War is over (but which the U.S. also seems hell-bent on reviving)?

==> And "bringing democracy to Afghanistan" -- with another U.S.-supported puppet -- is no more a reality, or necessary goal, than it was when we began.

==> NOT, WHEN THE FOREIGN POLICY HISORY OF THE U.S. IN THE "3RD WORLD" --INCLUDING IN IRAN IN 1953-- HAS BEEN TO GO AROUND *OVERTHROWING* DEMOCRACIES AND SUPPORTING DICTATORIAL OR AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS (OR SUPPORTING COLONIAL STATES/REGIMES LIKE ISRAEL).

==> THE U.S. HAS NEVER CARED ABOUT "ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS"--EVEN "TERRORISTS" (*or* their drug crops/dealing)-- OR "MUSLIMS OPPRESSION OF WOMEN" (as in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) -- WHEN THEY'RE ON *OUR* SIDE -- AS WAS TRUE IN THE 1980'S (AND CELEBRATED IN "RAMBO", "JAMES BOND", AND OTHER HOLLYWOOD PROPAGANDA FILMS, GOING BACK TO "THE GREEN BERETS", IN SERVICE TO THE U.S. GOVT).

==> The U.S.'s *original* goal was to bring sterling and quintessential models of democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan -- *now*, after we've torn those countries apart (and starting with Carter and Brzezinski in Afghanistan back in *1979*!) the U.S. standards are to at least "manage the chaos" to a low, "tolerable" [and for whom!?] steady-state level.

==> SO GEE, I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY ANYONE WOULD HATE "US"!

RA: "Like the Islamic fanatics, US lefties see their country as the Great Satan and always wrong about everything with its foreign policy. (It's all about oil!)"

==> And YOUR "cover story", RA, is that you're "a Democrat". (Hey, maybe you're a Dixiecrat!)

RA: "Of course Obama was never a "progressive" in the SF progressive meaning of the term, and that's something to be grateful for."

==> Obama, like Jerry Brown, only said "progressive-sounding things" to attract liberals/progressive/leftist votes -- until he got in office. Actually, OBAMA'S SPEECH STYLE is to SAY A LITTLE BIT OF EVERYTHING POLITICALLY, SO THAT EVERYONE to the left of Rush Limbaugh --including David Brooks, who *loved* Obama's Nobel "Peace thru War" speech-- CAN HEAR SOMETHING THEY WANT TO HEAR -- except the American ruling class *knows* who's side Obama is on -- as AMERICAN IMPERIALISM'S ULTIMATE FACE LIFT -- his having been *thoroughly vetted* beforehand -- because you don't get all over American TV as a political candidate, on every news and entertainment talk show that you'd ever want to get on -- unless you have been: Cynthia McKinney didn't).

RA: "And there's this: Obama has removed restrictions on embryonic stem cell research;"

==> So that various biotech corporations can make more money. All this proves is that Obama and the DemoPublicans aren't (quite) as beholden to the crazy Christian fundamentalist fanatics as the regular Republicans are!

"limited access for lobbyists to the White House;"

==> Oh, yeh, this from the guy who got gobs of money from the banking and finance industry -- who were rewarded handsomely with *NO-STRINGS-ATTACHED* bailouts! This from the guy who, like Bush & Cheney, also doesn't want to release critical logs of what lobbyists pay him visits to the Oval Office.

"ended the F-22 warplane boondoggle;"

==> This from the guy who voted for every funding bill for our two TRILLION-DOLLAR WARS, who wants to INCREASE the size of the military budget AND the military AND the number of U.S. military bases around the world (and put new ones in South America)!

"states can now have better auto fuel efficiency standards than the Feds;"

==> We'll see. And I doubt that you know if that's *actually* federal law. National corporations (from automobiles to insurance) always want uniform standards for national products -- especially if certain states set *higher* standards.

"the prison at Guantanamo is going to be closed;"

==> "*going* to be? Candidate Obama promised to close it almost "right away"! Now he's already said that he's not going to even close it in January 2010 -- a year later!

"the secret CIA prisons in Europe are being closed; ended US torture policy;"

==> We can only hope. It certainly didn't end even after abu-Ghraib was exposed. The U.S. gulag at Bagram is still open -- and we don't know *what's* still going on there. And how do we know that Obama and the military aren't just moving things around?

"ended the missile defense system in Poland;"

==> Most of the Polish *people* never wanted it, although the U.S. tried to, as usual, buy off the politicians. The Polish *people* realized that -- with a system that's never been realistically tested, is of highly dubious dependability, and can be easily overwhelmed with missiles, decoys and electronic countermeasures, and, unlike the U.S. these days, Poland's got no enemies(!!) -- it would just make their country a target in, seemingly, the U.S.-revived desire for the Cold War (otherwise, why should we be keeping *thousands* of nuclear missiles and even developing *hundreds/thousands* of *new*, "more usable", nuclear bombs?)! At any rate, I doubt it had anything to do with Obama becoming 'more peaceful'.

==> I've never been to Poland, but I have been to Hungary (and I suspect that Poland is not that much different). Do you know where the drop-off parking lot is at the international airport in Budapest, Hungary?: it's right across the *street* from the main terminal! That's how much they think *they've* got any "al-Qaeda/Tabliban" enemies.

"successful cash for clunkers program that got a lot of polluting autos off our streets;"

==> Not necessarily. Many people were then just able to buy *new* cars -- and even SUV's or sports pick-up trucks -- that often didn't get much better mileage than their old car/truck (they weren't all beat-up oil-smoking "clunkers"), including some (especially foreign models) from as long as 15 years ago!

==> That really had nothing to do with pollution and everything to do with wanting to give a handout cushion to the auto industry.

"loosened policy to allow families to visit relatives in Cuba;"

==> Yeah, because, unlike the Israel lobby, the anti-Castro Miami Cuban lobby doesn't have as tight a grip on our foreign policy on Cuba -- and younger generation Cubans almost couldn't care less about the old anti-Castro *fanatics*. And because, but for that lobby, American business has long hoped for a wedge into the Cuba market -- like the Europeans have been there (especially building hotel resorts) for a long time now.

==> Which shows that the Dems are, so far, only *marginally* less beholden to our crazy Florida *Cuban* fanatics. A smart capitalist would *want* U.S. companies in there to be able to do business there and compete with Europe and China (maybe we could pay down some of our humongous loans from them a little sooner).

"closing offshore tax havens and a deal with Swiss banks to bust US tax evaders there;"

==> Yeah, because we owe China so much money, and have to borrow billions of dollars every day from other creditor nations, that we have to get it from any taxes we can now. But, we'll see how far that really goes. What we really need here in California is the repeal of Prop 13 for big corporations who made out like capitalist bandits, like big corporations usually do, on that. We also need to reform capital gains taxes and other unfair tax shelters/dodges -- and, *especially*, campaign finance reform (which neither part has really touched in any meaningful way).

"allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices;"

==> Actually -- is this actual law or just something else Obama has rhetorically thrown out on the table -- I think there are legislative limits on those negotiations.

"improving pay, housing, and benefits for US military;"

==> Well, you know, when your troops are on their *5th* deployment, or keep going AWOL, or beating up or killing their wives and girlfiends, or commiting suicide, or even shooting *each other*...

"ended no-bid contracts by Pentagon;"

==> Somehow I think it's still going to be business as usual by the same old group of contractors (like Blackwater, who's merely changed their name to keep doing business with the govt) anyway.

"is pulling US troops out of Iraq;"

==> We're still there, aren't we...? See any end in sight?

"FDA is now regulating tobacco;"

==> That was inevitable -- any administration would have eventually done that -- after all the lawsuits, and their bad publicity, against tobacco companies over the past decade.

"trying to reform our medical system---"

==> HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA...!! ROTFLMGDAO!! AND THAT'S GOING REEEEEEEALLLLY WELL, ISN'T IT...., Ron?

==> How's that single-payer national public health insurance plan coming along, Ron? -- that then *Senator* or *candidate* Obama, Hillary, Conyers (who also previously promised us impeachment hearings), etc., and other leading Democrats originally promised us (espcially if, they said, we voted them as the president and into a majority in both houses of Congress).

"and there are initiatives for educational reform"

==> Yeh, every presidential (gubernatorial, mayoral, etc.) candidate runs as "the education president/candidate" and America's public education system -- and its higher-education affordability -- still keeps going down and down. Look at the Chicago crony that Obama has for Sec'y of Education: that crony hasn't exactly been a success before in Chicago. Now college students either can't -- or will no longer be able to -- afford even *public* universities, or they'll come out paying back loans for decades (especially if they go on to graduate or professional schools, like law, business, medicine, dental, veterinary sciences, etc.)! Now the U.S. is increasingly going to be filling its universities and, especially, graduate/doctoral schools with foreign, or foreign-born immigrant, students.

==> (It's been a long time and a rare occurance since I've even seen a 'good ole white-American' doctor or dentist at my HMO anymore, not that I'm *missing* them, and every time I see some TV news engineering consultant, or even pre-college spelling/geography/science bee winner, on anymore he's from 'the 3rd World' or at least has a foreign accent.)

"and energy reform."

==> "Initiatives", whatever that means... We've had "the energy independence president/candidate" going back to Nixon! It, like "education" is just one of those things that politicians throw out -- just like they -- and beauty pageant contestants -- throw out, "And to bring people together and I'm for world peace". Obama's inauguration speech had every one of the *cliches* that every president puts in: those cliches should be made into a presidential inauguration speech *beer drinking contest*.

==> YOU'RE JUST LIKE OBAMA AND THE REST OF THE DEMOCRAT SENIOR LEADERSHIP, Ron: TALKING IN SMOKE AND MIRRORS!

RA: "This is only a partial list, and the guy hasn't even been in office for a full year!"

==> YOU'RE TELLING *US*...!!

RA: "The problem with the local Greens and progs is that they are also wrong on so many local issues---homelessness, sanctuary for illegal alien criminals, supporting cop-killers,"

==> You can say this after OSCAR GRANT, JEREMIAH CHASS, OTHER BAY AREA BLACKS noted on the Bay Area "STOLEN LIVES" memorial project wall, SEAN BELL, AMADOU DIALLO, AND OTHERS across the nation, this aside from RODNEY KING (beaten to within an inch of his life). You can read my SF Bayview and Berkeley Daily Planet commentaries (also published elsewhere), "Karmic Justice", and kiss my bold Black ass!

RA: "the bike fantasy and Critical Mass, and the awful pro-developer policies like Market/Octavia, the UC rip-off of the old extension property, the garage in Golden Gate Park, legalizing prostitution, public power, etc."

==> More Rush Limbaugh stuff: Ron..., you forgot to mention "Black welfare queens" and "Blacks and Latinos who bought homes they knew they couldn't afford!"

==> You've made it quite clear that you are *not* a progressive -- not even the "liberal" you pretend to be! So of course you're going to like Obama! You think that minor -- or the vague promises of -- reforms -- THAT STILL MOSTLY BENEFIT BIG CORPORATINS -- are good, so long as they aren't quite as loony-Christian as the policies of the Bush administration.

==> For actual progressives/leftists, that's *not* good enough. We want things like *genuine* public health care; *genuine* financial system, economic, and tax system reform (instead of these *highly regressive* fees, taxes in disguise and without voter approval, that highly inordinately impact the poor/working-/middle-class for all sorts of govt services, from examples like bridge tolls to parking rates/fines to education, because Washington's govt economic and military policies have drained money from the states); sharply *decreased* military spending, instead of *multiple offensive wars* capabilities military spending; a *stop* to U.S. military aggression, imperialism and militarism on its own demerits, and that's putting us in danger (unlike elite politicians, we don't have gold-plated health insurance provided by our govt, body guards, armored cars, and bomb-proof basement tunnels and fully furnished bunker suites to escape trouble in); etc.

==> OBAMA ISN'T PROVIDING ANY OF THIS! WHERE THE *REAL* "*CHANGE* [WE] CAN *BELIEVE* IN!"???

==> All we keep *repeatedly* hearing on the national news (and certainly in the progressive news) is, "...basically continuing Bush's *policies*..."

==> These U.S. military adventures have been like a man at a poker game -- where he keeps losing more and more and more money [just like our financial and human cost (let alone that of the Iraqi and Afghan and now Pakistani people) of the U.S.'s *latest* military adventures "to kick the Vietnam syrome" -- JUST LIKE THE FRENCH, AFTER THEIR VIETNAM, IN ALGERIA!], but who's ego ("credibility") won't let him leave the table! -- until he's finally drained of money or, otherwise, *forced* to leave. If he even manages to somehow 'break even' again, he will have been so worn out in the process that it will have been a pyrrhic, hollow 'victory'.

==> I think you've been exposed for the *idiot* and what you *really* are, Ron.

==> It's been a slow, cold, cloudy, rainy Sunday, Ron, and you've been fun to play with for a while, but you're *a borrring* boor* -- so I think I'll call up some friends and go out to eat, for dinner, at some nice Berkeley cafe. Their thoughts will be more intellectually stimulating.

==> Maybe you can go 'rescue' Steven Jones back to Rhe Dark Side. Maybe Steven just needs another sip of the Obamalade.

___________________________________________________________

==> P.S. for elsewhere: David Cobb is a squiggly charlatan (or Democrat party plant) who basically destroyed the Green party on a national election level.

Posted by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA on Dec. 13, 2009 @ 4:32 pm

Rob,

Unfortunately your defining characteristics are your total lack of compassion and humor. Plus your tedious redundancy. Face it guy, the star of your family will always be your brother who ran and edited the nationally acclaimed Anderson Valley Advertiser. To San Franciscans you'll always be the bitter dishwasher who couldn't match up to his sibling.

Happy holidays you big lug,

h.

Posted by h. brown on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 9:07 am

No, Rob, it has been the utter selfishness of the baby boomer generation where the entire world must be arrayed for their convenience, irrespective of the detrimental consequences for others.

Whether you are older than that or are of that generation, you carry the values of those who won the war but, along with their progeny, lost the peace. The detrimental consequences of those values are just making themselves apparent and will outlive you.

We need to hook up Rob Anderson and Arthur Evans. Both could use a good time.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 8:27 am

Hey Rob,

What's it like to be a virgin at your age?

Posted by Matt Stewart on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 7:23 am

"And yet another member of the most entitled generation to ever walk the planet holds forth on how public policy must orient itself so as to ensure his convenience above all, irrespective of the costs to others."

Not always easy to tell what Marc is trying to say, since his prose is often so murky. Presumably this is a reference to our successful litigation against the city's illegal attempt to rush the 500-page Bicycle Plan through the process. The Bicycle Plan: a wet dream hatched by privileged white boys to hijack city streets on behalf of their lame fantasy.

Posted by Rob Anderson on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 7:21 am

Like so many other starved progressive democrats, Steven saw what he wanted to see in the whole "hope and change" mumbo jumbo without really reading the fine print. All the red flags were there and his argument that Obama welched doesn't pass the laugh test.

Posted by Matt Stewart on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 7:20 am

The US has a market system, and it insists on defending itself against its enemies. You lefties oppose both, which is why you will always be rejected by the American people.

Posted by Rob Anderson on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 7:15 am

Did I miss something about Obama campaigning to keep hypercapitalism running?

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBNsq

NEW YORK, NY—In a major economic address at Cooper Union today, Senator Barack Obama called for immediate relief for homeowners hit by the housing crisis, modernization of our regulatory framework, and an additional $30 billion stimulus package to jumpstart the economy and help protect families from the economic slowdown. As confidence in our financial markets wanes and Americans struggle in the face of a mortgage crisis, Obama stressed the importance of pushing back on the special interests and honoring our obligation to one another—and that doing so is not just a matter of altruism but a matter of self-interest.

“Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices,” Senator Obama said. “We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.”

Obama was introduced at Cooper Union by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a legendary business executive who has shown deep commitment to community and family prosperity as mayor of America’s largest city.

In his speech today, Obama made the case that while markets are the engine of American progress, the government’s role as umpire and steward is critical to the function of the free market. For too long, he said, special interests have been able to bend the rules to maximize their profits on the backs of hardworking Americans.

Obama pledged to restore confidence in the markets, tackle the housing crisis and protect families from the economic slowdown by:

Ø Creating 21st century standards for transparency and oversight of the financial system in order to prevent future abuses and crises.

Ø Providing immediate relief to homeowners hit by the housing crisis.

Ø Enacting a second stimulus package to stabilize and strengthen the economy, provide aid to homeowners and states hardest-hit by the housing crisis, and extend and expand unemployment insurance.

A fact sheet detailing these steps, as well as Obama’s principles for modernizing the regulatory framework for our financial markets, can be found HERE.

A document containing statements of support from leading finance experts can be found HERE.

Continue reading for the full speech...

And please consider making a donation to grow this movement and help turn the page on economic policy. And don't forget, you could have dinner with Barack and discuss the economy with him in person...

Posted by marcos on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 6:49 am

Hey Manish, how about some pie?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-hood/we-want-pie-we-want-pie-m_b_1371...

I want some of the pie that we were promised.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 5:54 am

Hey Steve,

When did Obama ever promise any of those things? Perhaps I'm just not remembering correctly, but I remember him saying that the focus should be on Afghanistan, not Iraq and thats what he's done. He was never an advocate for single-payer (atleast not during the 2008 Presidential election).

And while the WS bailout was troubling, I don't remember him saying that he would completely alter the economic system.

Posted by Manish on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 12:15 am

The point is that we had a third party that was more vibrant than anything that came before it, and that we have the shell of that party still in place.

There are many reasons why the Green Party is on life support right now, but I'd question the values behind apportioning more responsibility for that decline to average folks trying to build a party from scratch with few resources than you would to the corporate funded Democrat Party that spent real resources to trip up the Greens. There might even have been some FBI infiltration at times.

What we've learned here is what David Cobb said in 2004, that the Democrat Party is the place where good ideas go to die. The superdelegate system means that the party elite retain veto power over any potential populist, that is democratically legitimate, candidacy.

Sorry, Michael, but Cindy Sheehan was yet another lone gun, a microphonosexual who goes from stage before adoring crowd to stage before adoring crowd, hardly the stuff that needs to be done, most of which is not glamorous. The progressive circus elephants shrink at the possibility of doing political work outside the limelight. Like Nader, Sheehan shat all over friends of mine who bent over backwards to help her.

Ain't nothing rocket science about politics or public policy, nothing that enough pitchforks and torches can't solve. We don't need no stinking leaders.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

Steven to Marc: "Marc, to follow your own advice: stop talking about the need for a progressive party and create one. We at the Guardian will be plenty supportive of an effort like that. "

But if memory serves me right, Steven; you told Cindy Sheehan that would not support or endorse a political party unless you believed the party had a chance of winning. Marc may be able to create a progressive party but, alas, it seems like you would not support or endorse it if you felt it would not win. I find you gesture to Marc to be very empty.

Posted by Michael Worrall on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 5:05 pm

Sorry Steven,

I have to add another "told you so", but at least you fess up and throw in the towel. Now could you please retract what you wrote here on the day/eve of Obama's inauguration? ( I hope you are at least embarrassed by it now.)

Posted by Michael Worrall on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 4:12 pm

Rob Anderson:Like the Islamic fanatics, US lefties see their country as the Great Satan and always wrong about everything with its foreign policy. (It's all about oil!)

And yet another member of the most entitled generation to ever walk the planet holds forth on how public policy must orient itself so as to ensure his convenience above all, irrespective of the costs to others.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 11:45 am

Ahh yes,

Here comes Rob Anderson to talk about bikes. Can Arthur Evans be far behind? Or Michael Ege. The Zombies crawl out of the body pit of the Wall to feast on Guardian brains.

h.

Posted by h. brown on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 9:41 am

As a Democrat I'm pleased with President Obama. The left is completely wrong about Afghanistan and defense issues in general. Like the Islamic fanatics, US lefties see their country as the Great Satan and always wrong about everything with its foreign policy. (It's all about oil!) Of course Obama was never a "progressive" in the SF progressive meaning of the term, and that's something to be grateful for.

And there's this: Obama has removed restrictions on embryonic stem cell research; limited access for lobbyists to the White House; ended the F-22 warplane boondoggle; states can now have better auto fuel efficiency standards than the Feds; the prison at Guantanamo is going to be closed; the secret CIA prisons in Europe are being closed; ended US torture policy; ended the missile defense system in Poland; successful cash for clunkers program that got a lot of polluting autos off our streets; loosened policy to allow families to visit relatives in Cuba; closing offshore tax havens and a deal with Swiss banks to bust US tax evaders there; allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices; improving pay, housing, and benefits for US military; ended no-bid contracts by Pentagon; is pulling US troops out of Iraq; FDA is now regulating tobacco; trying to reform our medical system---and there are initiatives for educational reform and energy reform.

This is only a partial list, and the guy hasn't even been in office for a full year!

The problem with the local Greens and progs is that they are also wrong on so many local issues---homelessness, sanctuary for illegal alien criminals, supporting cop-killers, the bike fantasy and Critical Mass, and the awful pro-developer policies like Market/Octavia, the UC rip-off of the old extension property, the garage in Golden Gate Park, legalizing prostitution, public power, etc.

Posted by Rob Anderson on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 8:14 am

Steven T. Jones is so fixated on political relationships that he loses sight of the greater political terrain in which those relationships exist, or even of the policies that those individuals push. Just like good ideas are not enough, relationships are not enough and grassroots organizing is not enough. No matter how appealing a candidate or elected is, if they are lone wolves wrapped in the mantle of a party's values as a brand, then there is nothing sustainable about that.

I'd note that Gonzalez contemplated a rematch in 2007 but decided against it. Like the voters' verdict on Camejo, Gonzalez could not gain traction with voters. Possibly that was caused by the strife at the GPUS, GPCA or SFGP, but I'd wager it was caused by Gonzalez' pre-emulation of Palin, by walking away, quitting.

The local Democrat Party has taken the posture of attacking the Greens vehemently. That is why electeds are switching from Green to Democrat, because the pressure was too great to bear on top of the undertow created by the successful Nader/Gore/Bush framing outlined above.

With the combined collapse of the Green Party at all levels for a variety of reasons outlined above, the local Democrat Party remains the only vessel standing in which progressive politics is possible. I'm reluctantly okay with it if Greens feel that under these circumstances they need to reregister Democrat to keep those values at the table.

But I think we all agree that for all the faults with the Green Party, that the Democrat Party as a broader institution has revealed itself as incapable of serving as a vessel for progressive politics of any measure capable of matching the challenges we face. They will meter out cash to nonprofits and keep hypercapitalism, financialism and war humming along as is.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 7:11 am

'Glen',

If you wrote that it was fabulous and I tip my aluminum foil hat to you.

h.

Posted by h. brown on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 6:00 am

If I believed in a god I would be praying to him/her/it right now.

------

History Of Aluminum And Psychotronics
Pre-Modern Aluminum Usage

There is a long history of using aluminum to both deflect mind control signals and to control them. Evidence suggests that the ancient Atlanteans used aluminum armor and psychotrons in their wars with the Phoenician Old Dynasty. Some have even suggested that the destruction of the Atlantian culture was directly caused by the resulting environmental disaster of aluminum mining that was needed for the war effort. They literally strip-mined their island into nonexistence!

Although the Egyptians rediscovered and employed psychotronic technology, and their devices were later occasionally used -- albeit in complete ignorance of how they worked -- by Greek and Roman individuals, these later technologies paled in comparison to what the Atlanteans had achieved. It wasn't until the Middle Ages that Atlantean levels of sophistication were once again being reached. The chief instigator of this rebirth was the Catholic Church, who sought to control much of Europe via mind control. Decadence and corruption followed from their success and the level of the technology once again decayed.
Modern Aluminum Usage

The first truly modern instance of anti-psychotronic aluminum use was in the late 18th century by the American statesman, philosopher, and inventor Benjamin Franklin. His discoveries were built upon in the beginning of the 20th century by Yugoslavian born electrical genius Nikola Tesla. Of course, the US military has been researching aluminum for use in psychotronic weapons and armor as long as it has been involved in mind control, which is to say since it's inception.
Washington Monument:

Because of aluminum's psychotronic-deflecting properties, it has also been used by mind control agents to aim and focus their signals. For example: the small aluminum pyramid at the top of the Washington Monument obelisk (which towers over Washington DC) is used as a focal point for the dissemination of mind control throughout the Capital. Stations run by the FBI, NSA, Disney, the Secret Service, and others are scattered around the Capital beltway, within line-of-sight of the Washington Monument. These stations aim their psychotrons at the top of it, which amplifies and radiates the signal out to affect the Course of the Empire. (This is also why the One Dollar bill has an all seeing eye over the pyramid on the back, with the phrase "New World Order" in Latin. It symbolizes the true nature of the American Democratic Process.)

(I have received an email [2000-09-15] that exposes a shocking, but not entirely unexpected, truth about the Capitol Building dome in Washington DC.)
Coins:

Another example of aluminum-based psychotronic manipulation is the addition of aluminum to coins, ostensibly to lower production costs. Patterning of the aluminum, either in alloy percentage or shape, can be used to deflect psychotronic beams in controlled ways, causing a signal to be amplified, redirected, or encoded with identification tags. This technology, used in the United States and Europe, turns people's pocket change into psychotronic transceivers and tracking devices.

Coin psychotronics, although flirted with by a number of countries throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, really came of age in the 1970's in the US. In 1974 the US Mint produced all-aluminum pennies in an attempt to move the technology to a new level. The obviousness of the change in appearance of the coins doomed this experiment to failure, and all coins were ordered rounded up and destroyed by the US government in order to hide their plans. Possession of these pennies was made illegal by the US Congress. Any citizen caught owning one can expect a visit by the Secret Service and confiscation of the incriminating evidence. The only "legal" one of these pennies in existence resides in the Smithsonian, placed there by special act of Congress to mock US citizens as they tour their nation's capital.

The US government, however, recovered after that failure. Ever since the late '70s, the US Mint has used a sandwiching process to embed special, undetectable aluminum circuitry into every coin. A number of countries in Europe adopted various incompatible forms of this psychotronic technology shortly thereafter, and the desire for a European mind control standard is the main impetus behind the introduction of the Euro.

Posted by glen matlock on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 11:58 pm

I got a P.S. too:

When there are no *significant* differences on major foreign (including militarist/war) and major economic, let alone major domestic, no-warrant surveillance 'police state', policies between the "Good Cop" Democrats as a party and the "Bad Cop" Republicans, then...

CONSCIOUS POLITICAL MOVEMENTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRESIDENTS!

In the rise of the post-WWII civil rights movement, legal racial segregation in the federal civil service and education were overturned under Eisenhower (whose administration filed a pro-desegregation amicus brief in the Supreme Court), who also sent a federalized National Guard to escort and protect 9 Black students to desegregate a white Southern high school; Affirmative Action and the establishment of the EPA were achieved under Nixon; the international boycotts & divestment campaigns that helped to defeat South African Apartheid were achieved under Reagan and Thatcher (next to Israel, two of Apartheid South Africa's best international friends); South African Apartheid itself was forced to end under a conservative South African president (although, unfortunately, economic 'apartheid' still functionally exists for the Black masses, as the political end of Apartheid was a *necessary* but not sufficient condition); one of the biggest build-ups of the Sierra Club happened under Bush I; and I'm sure there have been other progressive successes under even Republican administrations.

* MOVEMENTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRESIDENTS *

Posted by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 10:43 pm

Yo Steven Jones!

Ann G., I'LL say it to Steven J.!:

I/WE *TOLD* YOU SO! -- and YOU *PLAYED* YOURSELF.

Steven J.: "[Obama]’s far better than John McCain would have been."

And -- in the Democrat(especially at the senior leadership level)-Republican "Good Cop, Bad Cop" game -- you're *STILL* playin' yourself.

Why don't you list WHAT -- on major foreign and major economic and major domestic police state policy -- you would have been worried about McCain doing that you wouldn't have worried about Obama doing?

...

Why don't you list WHAT, on major foreign and major economic and major domestic police state policy, Obama would have been significantly different than McCain on?

---------------------------------------------------------

And WHAT'S all this support for NADER around here? He may have good (well, white) politics, but Nader is just another ARROGANT WHITE MALE who only tolerates Black people who 'kiss his ass'! -- Nader, who called Obama an Uncle Tom, but it's not like Nader has ever done anything for the national Black community.

Nader gave an over-hour-long speech in San Francisco on national politics and problems in this country -- and Nader never once even mentioned *ANYTHING* about issues like Katrina and the New Orleans' 9th ward, or the Danziger Bridge homicidal police racism case against Black evacuees from the flood (representative of numerous other police/sheriff cases then), or "the Jenna 6" case in Louisiana, or the national police anti-Black/-Brown brutality and legalized murder epidemic, let alone Mumia Abu-Jamal and the right of Black men to a fair trial, or other Black men educationally tracked or railroaded to prisons or death row, and drug laws so racially discriminatory that white people don't even really worry about having illegal but even generous user-quantity drugs in their homes, or even the gentrification and economic ethnic cleansing of Black people from (and becoming a steadily 'endangered species' in) cities like San Francisco itself, or other racial issues: *NOTHING*.

(Btw, remember when Illinois had to release more men, almost all Black, on death row -- who's innocences were serially discovered either by a bunch of young white university journalism research students and/or by DNA -- than were slated to be executed?)

Nader, who's of Lebanese Arab descent, is not even all that good (and certainly not outspoken) on the Palestinian issue -- meanwhile, McKinney has been to Palestine several times, even on cabin cruiser cargo boats trying to get past Israeli relief blockades against Gaza!

Where's the support for CYNTHIA MCKINNEY? She's done more for Palestinians than Nader's done for African Americans!

Given McKinney's politics, even better than Nader's, and between the two of them, *she's* the one who's actually held elective offices: 11 years, total, with two terms, in the Congress alone, before, especially, but not only, for calling for justice for the Palestinians, she was ousted, first once, and then, after being re-elected, finally ousted again, by the Israel lobby which threw (and got Zionist Jews across the nation to throw) huge gobs of money to her opponent [the first opponent, who was a nobody woman as intellectually impaired as Sarah Palin!] -- something you'll *never* hear the virulently anti-Palestinian/anti-Lebanese (except for the Western-corrupted comprador ones) racist -- that 'muckraking', progressive-for-his-cover, closet Zionist, journalist -- Greg Palast reveal.

Posted by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

Yo Steven Jones!

Ann G., I'LL say it to Steven J.!:

I/WE *TOLD* YOU SO! -- and YOU *PLAYED* YOURSELF.

Steven J.: "[Obama]’s far better than John McCain would have been."

And -- in the Democrat(especially at the senior leadership level)-Republican "Good Cop, Bad Cop" game -- you're *STILL* playin' yourself.

Why don't you list WHAT -- on major foreign and major economic and major domestic police state policy -- you would have been worried about McCain doing that you wouldn't have worried about Obama doing?

...

Why don't you list WHAT, on major foreign and major economic and major domestic police state policy, Obama would have been significantly different than McCain on?

---------------------------------------------------------

And WHAT'S all this support for NADER around here? He may have good (well, white) politics, but Nader is just another ARROGANT WHITE MALE who only tolerates Black people who 'kiss his ass'! -- Nader, who called Obama an Uncle Tom, but it's not like Nader has ever done anything for the national Black community.

Nader gave an over-hour-long speech in San Francisco on national politics and problems in this country -- and Nader never once even mentioned *ANYTHING* about issues like Katrina and the New Orleans' 9th ward, or the Danziger Bridge homicidal police racism case against Black evacuees from the flood (representative of numerous other police/sheriff cases then), or "the Jenna 6" case in Louisiana, or the national police anti-Black/-Brown brutality and legalized murder epidemic, let alone Mumia Abu-Jamal and the right of Black men to a fair trial, or other Black men educationally tracked or railroaded to prisons or death row, and drug laws so racially discriminatory that white people don't even really worry about having illegal but even generous user-quantity drugs in their homes, or even the gentrification and economic ethnic cleansing of Black people from (and becoming a steadily 'endangered species' in) cities like San Francisco itself, or other racial issues: *NOTHING*.

(Btw, remember when Illinois had to release more men, almost all Black, on death row -- who's innocences were serially discovered either by a bunch of young white university journalism research students and/or by DNA -- than were slated to be executed?)

Nader, who's of Lebanese Arab descent, is not even all that good (and certainly not outspoken) on the Palestinian issue -- meanwhile, McKinney has been to Palestine several times, even on cabin cruiser cargo boats trying to get past Israeli relief blockades against Gaza!

Where's the support for CYNTHIA MCKINNEY? She's done more for Palestinians than Nader's done for African Americans!

Given McKinney's politics, even better than Nader's, and between the two of them, *she's* the one who's actually held elective offices: 11 years, total, with two terms, in the Congress alone, before, especially, but not only, for calling for justice for the Palestinians, she was ousted, first once, and then, after being re-elected, finally ousted again, by the Israel lobby which threw (and got Zionist Jews across the nation to throw) huge gobs of money to her opponent [the first opponent, who was a nobody woman as intellectually impaired as Sarah Palin!] -- something you'll *never* hear the virulently anti-Palestinian/anti-Lebanese (except for the Western-corrupted comprador ones) racist -- that 'muckraking', progressive-for-his-cover, closet Zionist, journalist -- Greg Palast reveal.

Posted by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 9:11 pm

It took the work of many bright folks doing lots of hard grassroots organizing to build a nationwide party, but for all of the faults of those of us who participated in that process, its legs were kneecapped by the Democrats after they assented to Bush's wars and blamed Greens for it. That had more to do with the self destruction than any internal strife, indeed, the party fractured on how to respond to the Democrats' successful framing and marginalization of the Greens.

Now, folks are calling for a new political party to give the Democrats a challenge from "the left," but have no gumption for the work that is required to rebuild one like the one they just let the Democrats destroy. The reason why the Green Party was able to organize to the extent that it did was that it was not "leftist," and the reason why the Green Party got the internal coup d'grace was that leftists who had accomplished nothing electorally as leftists thought that they could hop on the Good Thing that others created and instead of seeking consensus they tried to bum rush the show.

The result would have been either a Trotskyite Green Party that would have died on the vine or the comatose one that we have today. I'd prefer to see the values preserved than hijacked. I think that Camejo's reaping fewer and fewer votes on each outing before the CA voters is the best verdict that we have on Peter Camejo's party building capacities and in progressive confidence in Peter Camejo's political judgment. Matt Gonzalez injection of Carlos Petroni and his gang of leftists, support for ISO hacks like Todd Chretien speaks volumes to Gonzalez commitment to party building, as does his refusal to support an ongoing organizing base because he did not want to create something he'd have to fight with down the road.

The lesson from Nader is that if you're going to run to spoil, then you'd better have the media resources at hand to respond and frame the debate or else it will be framed around your ass. The issue was not that Kerry or Obama were that good, rather that the Greens were that unable to rouse a campaign that could counter the intense headwinds being directed at us by the Democrats. There are good reasons to have conflict in a party. The decision of whether to run another anemic quixotic campaign with the same cast of aging characters that alienates the base or to just do nothing and wait for the headwinds to abate should be a no brainer.

Most all of the folks who did the consequential work within the GPCA were associated with my position. Most of the armchair hacks took the more delusional approach. Par for the course, it was the success of the non-leftists which attracted the leftists to the Green Party.

Frankly, most electeds tend to fire nukes into their bases, and the only way that they won't is if we organize. The leftists who tried to take the Green Party have never organized for this purpose but they were the first to tell everyone else what to do.

Yeah, I fought hard to keep the Trotskyites from ruining the Green Party in SF and CA like they ruin everything else they touch, and yeah, that fight had to get rough. Eggs, omelets, you know the drill. Again, the folks who got things done in the SFGP ended up associating themselves with my position in that contest. Most had never seen a Trotskyite infiltration, so it took a while for them to believe what was happening.

But the deflationary phenomenon within the Green Party that I'm talking about happened nationwide. I know that I am practically omnipotent, but I don't think that I have the power to be personally responsible for the nationwide demise of the Green Party post 2004.

The external coup d'grace was Obama's "successful progressive grassroots organizing" from 2008. Of course that worked out well, didn't it?

Business as usual means a failed state. Either we continue with that and admit that's where we're at, or we figure out how to coalesce a populist movement that can take the government away from the corporations and unions which have given the corporations the store, and give it to the people.

Popular, not institutional sovereignty.

-marc
-marc

Posted by marcos on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 8:53 pm

Ann - in what sense is AFRICOM "expanding" and what, exactly, are the "horrific consequences" of it doing so?

In addition - by quoting the race of Kevin Gray are you attempting to lead us to believe that when one of "the blacks" says something about the president it's somehow more "authentic" and authoritative than if someone who is not black says it?

Posted by Lucretia the Trollop on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

Re equating Obama and Bush:

Alternet and Voters for Peace report this week that Obama now has 222,000 U.S. soldiers on the ground in Af-Pak and Iraq, and that doesn't include all the mercenaries.

Bush's top was 186,000, minus mercenaries.

And AFRICOM, the U.S. Africa Command, is expanding, with horrific consequence.

On Monday African American writer Kevin Alexander Gray was on the KPFA Morning Show, re Black America in the Age of Obama; he agrees with Black Agenda Report Editor Glenn Ford, that Obama's worse than Bush. I made this video and posted to Veoh, http://www.veoh.com/browse/morelike/v19492193KQpX77c5

Posted by Ann Garrison on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

Hey Steve,

You read this? I sent it to Bruce but I don't know if he shares with you. Lemme know what you think.

Name recognition elects candidates

(Guardian editors clueless)

(12-9-09)

Any political wonk will tell you that the main ingredient in electing a candidate is name recognition. For the past several years I've been in an exchange (sometimes heated) in which I encourage the SF Guardian to dedicate more of their pagination to Progressive political candidates. They still don't get it so I'll break down today's 4 newspapers (I love Wednesdays) and try to give you some idea as to just what the fuck I mean.

Today's Bay Guardian

Total pages: 48

Pages devoted to politics: 3 ½

Cover content: Colorful irrelevant comic painting

Pages devoted to Progressive candidates: 0

There are 6 columns/stories in the 3 ½ pages and 4 of them make no mention of names or pictures of any local politicals, Prog or Moderate. The other 2 pieces are by Sarah Phelan and Steven Jones.

Phelan piece

Ms. Phelan mentions 9 politicos. 8 of them are Moderates (she somehow manages to write the name 'Newsom' 5 times – Michael Cohen and Sophie Maxwell are quoted extensively). Only Progressive mentioned was Arc Ecology's Saul Bloom.

My thoughts? This is an editing disaster. Either Managing Editor, Tim Redmond or City Editor, Steve Jones should have told Phelan to get quotes from some anti-Lennar (piece is on shipyard project) ... she should have asked Adachi or Mirkarimi or Gonzalez for their views.

Steven Jones piece on bikes (what else?)

Jones mentions 13 politicos. 11 of them are Moderates and just 2 are Progressives. When it comes to pushing your candidates Jones can't carry the Chron City editor's jock (guy named Sweeney I believe – unlike Jones, Sweeney doesn't push himself and isn't even on the masthead). He gives most of his quotes to Bevan Dufty and Gavin Newsom (giving them more name recognition and thus credibility) only names Ross Mirkarimi and Leah Shuhum on the Prog side. He gives ink to Moderates Bevan Dufty, Sophie Maxwell, Ed Reiskin, Rob Anderson, Mary Miles Tom Nolan and Nat Ford. Steven Jones just doesn't get it.

SF Weekly

Total pages: 79 pages (63 plus 16 page ad insert)

Pages devoted to politicos: 0

Cover content: Matt Smith drawing (not a politico)

Politicos named: 10

9 of the folks mentioned are either outright Moderates or Faux Progressives. Only Chris Daly of Progs get's his name in this edition. Willie Brown, Gavin Newsom, Phil Ting, Monique Zmuda, Paul Henderson, Dennis Herrera are mentioned. Carole Migden is quoted thrice.

Examiner

Total pages: 32 pages

Pages devoted to politicos and and propaganda: 7 ½

Cover content: Charged anti-tax banner aimed at 300k City drivers

Politicos mentioned: 17

The Ex. stays on message. There are 3 large pictures of traffic captioned with warnings that drivers are about to have their taxes raised. City Hall reporter Joshua Sabatini has two pieces in and mentions Newsom 8 times and includes a couple of thumbnail photos of the Mayor. Of the other 9 mentions Bevan Dufty gets an extensive quote and again, a thumbnail photo. Warren Hellman, Willie Brown, Luis Moscovich and Mark Leno fill out the Moderate mentions.

John Avalos get's 2 mentions and a very short quote. Ross Mirkarimi and the Davids (Campos and Chiu) are referred to in passing.

Chronicle

Total pages: 52

Pages devoted to politics: 20

Cover content: Cirque de Soleil (non political)

Politico's named: 16

Moderates: 13

Progs: 3

Newsom and Dufty get quoted twice each and have pictures. Elsbernd, Delagnes, Wade Randlett, Feinstein, Leland Yee, Phil Ting and George Gascon get ink along With cop commissioners Onek and Mazzucco (mayoral appointees).

Only pure Prog (in my mind), Ross Mirkarimi gets a nod as do Faux Progs (again, in my opinion) Herrera, Chiu and cop commissioner De Jesus.

Bottom line

The Moderate news outlets understand how important it is to only print the names of their adversaries when they absolutely have to and then put something negative about them in the same sentence. And. And, they print the names and show the images of their candidates ad infinitum. Because it works. Because name recognition is everything. And, they do it over and over with every single edition they print.

Not so with the only powerful local Prog publication (Guardian). Brugmann should change this shit asap. I don't mind reading about the private lives of Steven Jones and Tim Redmond online. I enjoy it. In fact, I'm one of only around a dozen people who read it.

The print edition is a different animal. The Guardian already devotes a smaller percentage of their pagination to politics than any of the local majors. They should use the vast majority of that space to sell Progressive candidates.

How?

Run opinion pieces and columns by significant Progressive politicos every single edition and make every other cover a large color shot of same. For God's sake, stop saying Newsom, Newsom, Newsom, Newsom over and over. Shit, call him 'the mayor' or 'the administration says' or 'Room 200 counters'. I don't want to see a picture of Dufty unless it's side-by-side w/his lookalike Pee Wee Herman. In short, don't give it away to the enemy boys, keep it in the family.

Go Niners!

Bumgarner to Posey!

h.

Posted by h. brown on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 2:37 pm

Marc and Steven both make good and bad points.

First Marc: The Guardian has a history of being far too generous and forgiving with their crucial endorsements and criticisms. At some point, there needs to be some sober, un-naive, strict standards in order to hold politicians accountable. Though it may go against the Guardian's progressive instincts, they really need the eye of the tiger, especially now. When there really is no alternative, I would suggest withholding endorsements altogether -- especially in one-person races. It just doesn't make sense to give people free passes. What's more, in between the elections, the Guardian needs to take more risks in challenging the people they endorsed when they have erred. It isn't all about Newsom all the time and I'm genuinely surprised that Steven was so surprised to learn that Newsom doesn't read the Guardian.
As Steven suggests, Marc needs to do some soul-searching as to why the Green Party has turned off so many people. Face it, Marc: Peter Camejo was dead-on and people like you fucked it all up -- regardless of how all those cruel, hypocritical motherfuckers on the left treated Ralph Nader and the Green Party, Steven included.

Steven: You are dead-on when it comes to creating a multi-party system and you are right that the Green Party contributed greatly to its own demise -- they followed the same path as the New Party and, ultimately, they have themselves to blame.
But I have found that the Guardian staff has, at times, been very hesitant to take risks and push the envelope with regard to holding certain people accountable. I would not at all be surprised if you and your colleagues endorse Jerry Brown in the primary and, even more potently, when it really counts: the general election -- even if it is expected that Jerry Brown would win in a landslide. There may be no "alternative" but that doesn't mean you have to go along for the ride because such people are the 'only line of defense against the sinister forces of darkness.' You guys are kind of like the wife that keeps getting beaten by their husband but continues to stay with him.

Posted by Matt Stewart on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 2:13 pm

"Kingmaker?" In what world? The Guardian wasn't able to do a single thing to stop Newsom from being elected, twice, the second time by nearly 71%. Let's face it - The Guardian's strongest role is in district-based elections, not those which are run citywide. I don't think a single Guardian-backed candidate for mayor has been elected in the last 20 years.

Posted by Lucretia the Trollop on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 12:16 pm

Steve, the Democrat hack parade excoriated and destroyed the Green Party because they felt that Nader spoiled for Bush in 2000, and that none of Bush's agenda would have happened had Nader not run.

It now turns out that the Democrat elected in response to Bush is, like Greens said about Bush and Gore, fundamentally equivalent as measured by the policy yardstick.

Not only was the Democrat hack parade wrong about Nader in 2000, but they were wrong about Obama in 2008. They were hoodwinked, again, and as such, the must be deprived of their ability to hoodwink us again by this measure.

The question is not so much of who was the better choice in last year's primaries or election, rather how we got into this mess, and how we're going to get out of it.

Do you really think that a Democrat Party which is perpetrating this kind of abuse on its base is going to take steps to open up the democratic system to challengers? If they Democrats are not going to do that, then how would you expect that to happen? Do you expect the nonprofit veal pen to fight or aid in organizing an ongoing grassroots progressive presence to hold the Democrats accountable?

So long as progressive media outlets like the Guardian give a free pass to the nonprofits that serve as a sell out cap on popular democracy, so long as the Guardian does not hold local Democrats accountable for their pro corporate policies--you endorsed Dennis Herrera in an unopposed race after his horrible record, so long as the Guardian continues to play kingmaker amongst Democrats whose goal of political advancement ensures that they will make no significant progressive change, not rock the boat to scuttle ambition, then you've really got no legitimacy to comment on any of this, you all are part of the problem, and until you all acknowledge this and change, then you will continue to be part of the greater structural problem irrespective of your good work on certain local issues.

Enough with this "we all want change so long as everything stays the same."

To quote Amy Sedaris from "Strangers with Candy:" "Must be nice to hope for the thing you wish to want. Sure beats doing it."

-marc

Posted by marcos on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 9:53 am

Lucretia, you give me another chuckle, I've always found the fringe of politics very interesting, the far right was afraid of Obama because he was going to destroy crony capitalism and the military industrial complex, the far left voted for him because he was going to destroy crony capitalism and the military industrial complex.

The far right thinks Rush and various radio windbags want them to take arms, form militias and smash the state, the far left thinks that Rush and his fellow radio morons want our beer gut Americans to take arms and smash the state.

The far left voted for Obama because they figured he would take people's hand guns away, the far right didn't vote for him because they figured he would take there hand guns away.

I hoped Obama would come out for gay marriage some after the election or when he got in office at least, but nope. I guess I was projecting my views onto him wrongly, live and learn.

Posted by glan matlock on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 9:33 am

Just because I'm losing hope in Obama doesn't mean that I would equate him with Bush or vote for Nader. Obama was still the best choice in the last election. But Obama's abandonment of the progressive ideals he gave voice to points to the need for more grassroots organizing and political reform. We need a real multi-party system in this country or we should just stop thinking of ourselves as a democracy.
BTW, I was mortified this morning to hear an American president go to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize and give a speech defending war. What an embarrassment.

Posted by Steven T. Jones on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 9:26 am

The next time that any Obamaheads go off on Sarah Palin's acolytes' diminished intellectual capacities, please take a moment to look into the mirror and evaluate the dissonance between the hopes and feelings that so many had invested in Obama and how things are turning out.

The next time that the Democrat Party hack parade says a word about Nader in 2000, be sure to outline the differences between Obama and Bush, which won't require much more than a cocktail napkin.

The left and right are playing Americans off against one another, directing our attention to the most divisive issues with intent to keep us hating one another, and that breach is where the elites insert themselves to steal democracy from us.

Whether it is the LGBT liberation, which is directed to focus on the divisive marriage and military at the expense of the consensus jobs and housing, or health care which is a twisted debate that has less and less bearing on reality and more and more to do with providing insurers corporate welfare with every turn, we've got to quit following the bouncing ball like trained seals.

The right wing has an exclusive franchise on the populist center, and unless progressives are able to identify the substantial populist common ground, and establish a populist presence, we risk being overrun in a tsunami of resentments. When charlatans like Obama offer up a false sense of hope, then folks learn that they should not get fooled again and abandon political participation because they're not so stupid as to throw good resources after bad.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 7:11 am

I'm a realist,

I campaigned for Obama. I gave him $10-$20 a month out of my social security check. I kept his sign in my window. Hell, I even did an opinion piece for the Guardian supporting him. And, I would have voted for him if California had been close. But when the curtain closed I voted for Ralph and Matt. Just habit I guess.

h.

Posted by h. brown on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 5:36 am

P.S.S to Steve:

Thanks for this, at the end:

"I’m starting to feel naïve, as if all my critics were right and that I was foolish to feel hope in the first place."

I myself could barely get published in 2008 because I kept pointing urgently at Obama's legislation, voting record, and campaign platform. Now I know I'm not the only one trying to ignore the urge to say "I told ya' so," pointless as that is.

Your one line of acknowledgment, however impersonal, to those of us who warned of this, and maybe even worked for Nader or McKinney, is enough to take care of any bitterness I've felt towards the Bay Guardian. So thanks for helping me, and maybe others, move on.

Posted by Ann Garrison on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 4:56 am

I voted for Nader in 2000 and the Guardian endorsed him, and this paper advocates for the kind of progressive reforms that you support, Marc, every week. But the last time I checked, your Green Party has all but destroyed itself, a sinking ship being abandoned by its brightest stars (from Jane Kim to Matt Gonzalez), so I think its understandable why we end up playing kingmaker among Democrats. They're the only game in town come election time, and its up to people like you, Marc, to follow your own advice: stop talking about the need for a progressive party and create one. We at the Guardian will be plenty supportive of an effort like that.

Posted by Steven T. Jones on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 12:03 pm

It is called politics, and it is hopeless. Welcome to the club. Please remember this feeling the next time you energetically endorse a Daly, or Obama, or any other instance of the narcissistic, grandiose, mendacious, delusional, power-worshiping personality type called politician. Be the anti-politics you wish to see in the world.

Posted by Anon on Dec. 09, 2009 @ 9:51 pm

I never had any. Read the Coal to Liquid Transpo Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 back in early 2007. And the Obama Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006--so-called. Even then the horrific realignment of force in D.R. Congo, the heart of Africa, engineerd by the U.S. State Dept., on Obama's Inauguration Day, was a surprise, but I never had any hope.

But, we can't blame it all on Obama. He can't escalate the war without huge collaboration on the local level, every day. We've already invited the Blue Angels Air Show back here to recruit, next October, though all we'd have to do to cancel it is get the Supes to write a letter saying no thanks to Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtkvraLh7Lk

And P.S.: h., you told me last year that you were voting for Obama.

Posted by Ann Garrison on Dec. 10, 2009 @ 1:27 am

Don't lose faith guy,

Santa Claus will be here in 16 days and all will be OK. Oh yeah, by the way, I voted for Nader.

h.

Posted by h. brown on Dec. 09, 2009 @ 7:48 pm

I agree, Steve. A year was plenty of time to show some intent. Anybody remember Tony Blair?

Posted by Tim daw on Dec. 09, 2009 @ 7:20 pm

I don't know what you expected Steven. Obama never ran as someone who was going to destroy crony capitalism or reign-in the "military-industrial complex."

Posted by Lucretia the Trollop on Dec. 09, 2009 @ 3:57 pm