Eat It, Haters

hat tip = Addicting Info

Homemade Music

A little kid and his brother(?) just tearin' it up for Fathers' Day.



Back when I was a child
Before life removed all the innocence
My father would lift me high
And dance with my mother and me and then
Spin me around til' I fell asleep
Then up the stairs he would carry me
And I knew for sure I was loved

If I could get another chance
Another walk, another dance with him
I'd play a song that would never ever end
How I'd love, love, love to dance with my father again

When I and my mother would disagree
To get my way I would run from her to him
He'd make me laugh just to comfort me
Then finally make me do just what my momma said
Later that night when I was asleep
He left a dollar under my sheet
Never dreamed that he would be gone from me

If I could steal one final glance, one final step
One final dance with himI'd play a song that would never ever end
'Cause I'd love, love, love to dance with my father again

Sometimes I'd listen outside her door
And I'd hear how my mother cried for him
I pray for her even more than meI pray for her even more than me
I know I'm praying for much too much
But could you send back the only man she loved?
I know you don't do it usually
But dear Lord she's dying to dance with my father again
Every night I fall asleep and this is all I ever dream

Dear Mr Clinton

Yo, Bill - shut the fuck up already.  You can't get me to vote for Hillary no matter how big you want me to believe her balls are.

I dunno what we're supposed to do about Syria.  I'm not convinced we're "supposed" to do anything at all.  My default position is that we mind our own damned business, until or unless their shit starts to spill out over into our shit.

So there's the determinative question:  Who's shit is where right now, and where is that shit likely to be later on?

Another default position for me is that when it comes to the Middle East, nobody knows more about it (or about how weirdly fucked up it is) than Juan Cole - so it's always a good idea to listen to somebody who actually knows his shit.

Obama seems to be attempting to find a face-saving way of getting a little involved but not too much, by sending light weaponry (which of course is not what the rebels need).

Clinton compared what the US could do in Syria to Ronald Reagan’s effort against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. But that covert operation of giving billions of dollars and high-tech weaponry to Afghan jihadis was a huge catastrophe, contributing to the creation and rise of al-Qaeda and setting the background for the emergence of the Taliban. It surely would have been far preferable to let the Soviets try to build a socialist state in Afghanistan, as they tried in Uzbekistan. The whole thing would have fallen apart in 1991 anyway. (There is no truth to the notion that the Afghanistan war bled the Soviet Union or contributed to its collapse. Soviet military spending was flat in the 1980s). The Reagan jihad destabilized both Afghanistan and Pakistan and left us with a long term terrorism problem. We let the Soviets alone in Kazakhstan, and we never worry about today’s Kazakhstan.
You never, ever want to encourage the rise of private militias and flood a country with high- powered weaponry.

My other (and over-arching) default position is that I'm real tired of having to babysit these fuckwads all the time. 

Confidence

Gallop put out another popularity poll - trying to discern the level of 'confidence' Americans have in various institutions (eg: SCOTUS, Congress, Military etc).

And guess what?  It shouldn't come as any kinda news to anybody that we love the US Military and we hate Congress - even though we continue to re-elect the people who make up the institution that gets a whopping 10% confidence rating.

90% of us say we don't have confidence in our #1 governing body, and yet the incumbents get re-elected 96% of the time.

Here's the thing:  We do what we're told to do.

Every time we turn around, there's somebody somewhere telling us every jarhead, zoomie, dog-face and squid is so Star-Spangled Awesome that God his-own-self steps aside whenever one of 'em walks into a room.

We are also constantly badgered to the point of befuddlement about how fucked up every little thing is when it comes to Government - except of course in those state and local rural centers where the good Christian small-government conservative dirt-huggin' gun-totin' real people hold power like an abused and frightened 4-year-old clutches a suffocating duckling on Easter Sunday.

We don't need to be brain-washed.  And we don't need to be turned into programmable automatons.  All anybody really has to do is keep us a little off-balance; getting us to consider just for a moment that (eg) Niall Ferguson's opinion that "hey, fracking isn't all that bad" is just as valid as the actual research that's been done proving there's at least real cause for concern, and that maybe we shouldn't be turning everything over to The Suits at giant corporations who feel nothing for anybody or anything that doesn't pump an extra 2¢ per share into their quarterly reports.

The enormity of the bamboozle is practically never revealed until well after the enormity of the crash caused by the bamboozle starts to sink in.  And if you wanna know what that's like, ask a Russian some time - or any of a rapidly-growing number of Greeks or Irish or Americans or or or.

Our Mr Brooks

I list a blogger on my Blog Role who values anonymity above notoriety (I know, weird ain't it?) and so he writes under the moniker "driftglass".

He's been watching out for us by keeping a sharp eye on David Brooks.  Most of it's pretty good; all of it's readable; and sometimes he straight up blams it into the bleachers.

Full of that Yankee Doodle Dumb.

In that dim and distant Whig utopia of Long Ago we celebrated stick-to-itiveness, Jesus, the Torah, lunch-pail heroes, and people who got rich by gumption and grit.

Now everybody grubs for money, people wipes their heinies with the Book of Corinthians, the rich behave like assholes and nobody cares.

Nobody except David Brooks.

Congratulations, you have now read today's contribution to American journalism by David Brooks in its entirety.

He's also something of a PhotoShop genius.

And he's half of the The Professional Left podcast crew - sharing the mic with the lovely and talented BlueGal.

Today's Pix

Today's Best Blog Line

From Charlie Pierce at Esquire, talking about the new scam going on in Big Insurance:

"Give them a suit with rubber pockets and they'd steal soup."

Here's the article Charlie's referring to, at NYT DealBook:

These complex private deals allow the companies to describe themselves as richer and stronger than they otherwise could in their communications with regulators, stockholders, the ratings agencies and customers, who often rely on ratings to buy insurance.

What gripes my ass the most is that these boneheads are busy all the time coming up with new ways to game the system, which fucks everybody over, which tends to make normal people more than a little reluctant to be willing participants in being fucked over  - these are the same guys who show up on CNBC and DumFux News to piss and moan about how there's way too much "uncertainty in the market place", and gee, if only Obama would just get outa the way blah blah blah.

So, while we're conveniently distracted - Eddie Snowden, George Zimmerman, Darrel Issa's Clown Parade et al - we're not paying attention to another potentially massive collapse.

No soul and no honor.

Patti Griffin

"Ohio" w/ Rob't Plant.

The View From Out There

(hat tip = JG via email)

Inside the United States

GlobalPost goes inside the United States to uncover the regime’s dramatic descent into authoritarian rule and how the opposition plans to fight back.

This is satire. Although the news is real, very little actual reporting was done for this story and the quotes are imagined. It is the first installment of an ongoing series that examines the language journalists use to cover foreign countries. What if we wrote that way about the United States?

BOSTON, Mass. — Human rights activists say revelations that the US regime has expanded its domestic surveillance program to private phone carriers is more evidence of the North American country’s pivot toward authoritarianism.

The Guardian, a British newspaper,reported this week that a wing of the country’s feared intelligence and security apparatus ordered major telecommunications companies to hand over data on phone calls made by private citizens.

“The US leadership in Washington continues to erode basic human rights,” said one activist, who asked to remain anonymous, fearing that speaking out publicly could endanger his organization. “If the US government is unwilling to change course, it’s time the international community considered economic sanctions.”

Over the last decade, the United States has passed a series of emergency laws that give security forces sweeping powers to combat “terrorism.” But foreign observers say the authorities abuse those laws, using them instead to monitor ordinary Americans.

While the so-called Patriot Act passed in 2001 is perhaps the most dramatic legislation to date curbing freedoms here, numerous lesser-known laws have expanded monitoring of news outlets, email, social media platforms and even opposition groups — like the Occupy and Tea Party movements — that are critical of the regime.

US leader Barack Obama, a former liberal community organizer and the country's first black president who attracted a wave of support from young voters, rose to power in 2008 promising reform. He was greeted in the United States — a country of about 300 million people — with optimism. But he has since disappointed those supporters, ruling with a sometimes iron fist and continuing, if not expanding, the policies of the country’s former ruler, George W. Bush.

On a recent visit to the United States by GlobalPost, signs of the increased security apparatus could be found everywhere.

At all national airports, passengers are now forced to undergo full-body scans before boarding any flights. Small cameras are perched on many street corners, recording the movements and actions of the public. And incessant warnings on public transportation systems encourage citizens to report any “suspicious activity” to authorities.

Several American villagers interviewed for this story said the ubiquitous government marketing campaign called, “If you see something, say something,” does little to make them feel safer and, in fact, only contributes to a growing mistrust among the general population.

“I’ve deleted my Facebook account, stopped using email, or visiting websites that might be considered anti-regime,” a resident of the northern city of Boston, a tough-as-nails town synonymous with rebellion, told GlobalPost. It was in Boston that an American militia first rose up against the British empire. “But my phone? How can I stop using my phone? This has gone too far.”

American dissidents interviewed by GlobalPost inside the United States say surveillance by domestic intelligence agencies is just one part of a seemingly larger effort by the Obama administration to centralize power.

The American leader, for example, has in recent years personally approved the jailing — and in some cases execution — of American citizens suspected of involvement in what the regime calls “terrorist activity.”

“What exactly is terrorism? The term is used so loosely these days it could include just about anyone,” said one anti-government protester, who was tear-gassed and then arrested in 2011 for participating in a peaceful demonstration in New York, America’s largest city and its economic capital.

Obama has also overseen a crackdown on whistleblowers, most famously jailing Bradley Manning, a US soldier, for leaking documents that called into question US military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The government quietly imprisoned Manning for three years before finally trying him in a military court this week. He spent the first nine months of that in solitary confinement, where prison officials forced him to sleep naked without pillows or sheets and prevented him from reading newspapers, watching television or even exercising.

Activists also criticize the US regime for imprisoning without trial foreigners it deems threatening to national security in an offshore prison camp called Guantanamo Bay. This week an investigation revealed that the US regime force-fed Guantanamo inmates participating in a hunger strike. Force-feeding is illegal under international law.

Meanwhile, whispering in the streets about what the regime might do next has reached a dull roar. But after a national uprising in 2011 by the leftist Occupy movement ended in evictions, arrests and tear gas, Americans appear hesitant to take their anger into the streets.

Most major media outlets, which in the United States are largely controlled by politically-connected corporations — many of them, in fact, financially supported Obama’s election — have been relatively quiet on such issues.

Foreign observers, however, say the recent news about domestic surveillance is spreading wildly in other ways — on Twitter and around the dinner table. They say the news has the potential to spark an uprising — at least among urban, educated elites in the country’s major cities — mirroring those happening now in Turkey and that earlier swept parts of the Arab world.

One foreign businessman who works closely with the US government on issues of security said he thought Obama was too well-established and had too strong a security force for any challenge to its authority to take hold.

“This isn’t Tunisia,” he said. “This is more like China, where a massive security presence could easily put down any organized opposition movement.”

The businessman added that Obama was democratically elected twice, which he believes gives the leader enough credibility to weather any serious opposition to his rule.

In a small, unassuming house near Boston’s bustling seaport, though, supporters of the opposition disagreed, saying the leader had lost “all credibility.” The group said the opposition continued to organize and grow, and that it was just a matter of time before the rest of the American population joined them.

Indeed, different political factions are beginning to unite over the issue of domestic surveillance, despite their strong differences.

“We meet in person these days to talk about strategy, phones and email are no longer safe for us,” one of them said. “Our goal now is to just get out the message to the world about what is going on here. That’s the first step. We need to educate not only Americans but the world about the extent the US regime is controlling the lives of its citizens.”

The Thing About That Edward Snowden Thing

I'm really glad I'm not the only one thinking this whole fish stinks.

Some passing observations:
1) When everybody's in on the secret, there are no secrets
The number of people with Top Secret Clearance was 850,000 two years ago.

2) It's not what you know or who you know that counts; it's what you know about who you know.
And also too, Little Eddie got his cool job at Booz Allen by being a National Security Legacy Puke (imho) - a kid with a GED and the absolute minimum "experience" just kinda waltzes in?  Either the recruitment standards are total crap or Mommy and Daddy's pals greased the skids; with a side order of paranoia about "anybody from the outside".

3) And all of that generally points to a system where very few people are all that interested in learning any real truth about much of anything because everybody's way more interested in having good compliant little go-bots working diligently to make sure they gather the info necessary to confirm the foregone conclusions of management.

No soul and no honor.  But I'll give Snowden this much:  I think he came to understand that what he was doing wasn't accomplishing anything he was constantly being told it was accomplishing - his recent comment about how he could bring down the entire CIA Field Ops structure makes me think the guy really bought into it, and he's just now trying to come out of it - so "blowing the whistle" is his way of saying he got to the point where he could recognize it as bullshit, and now he's calling it bullshit.  Which is really why he poses such a threat; which in turn is why we get two basic reactions from the power centers in Washington - they either sniff and wave him off as an insignificant little bug, or he's Benedict Arnold times infinity squared.

Leave it to Crooks & Liars to come up with a good one that manages to look past the veil:

It should be self-evident that recent NSA revelations bring up some grave concerns about civil liberties. But they also raise other profound and troubling questions - about the privatization of our military, our culture's inflated expectations for digital technology, and the increasingly cozy relationship between Big Corporations (including Wall Street) and Big Defense.

Are these corporations perverting our political process? The campaign war chest for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who today said NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden committed "treason," is heavily subsidized by defense and intelligence contractors that include General Dynamics, General Atomic, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and Bechtel.

One might argue that a politician with that kind of backing is in no moral position to lecture others about "treason."

But Feinstein's funders are decidedly old-school Military/Industrial Complex types. What about the new crowd? This confluence of forces hasn't been named yet, so for the time being we'll use a cumbersome label: the "Security/Digital Complex."