do. not. offend. anyone. 31 July 2008Posted by marisacat in 2008 Election, California / Pacific Coast, Democrats, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Lie Down Fall Down Dems.
San Gregorio State Beach, along Highway 1
I went hunting to see what I could find on this issue that I keep hearing, like mosquitos in the night, about first one beach, then the next, but not catching hold of what is going on…
This story is about San Onofre Beach in Orange Co… the description sounds not unlike San Gregorio above, south of SF… sheltered by cliffs and not a big beach… and traditionally clothing optional. Mixed sexes, mixed sexual orientation – and a full mix of what people wear, or don’t wear…
Stearns said some rangers who work at the beach have complained recently about being exposed to a “sexually charged” environment. The state needs to be mindful or may face lawsuits, he said.
Sexually charged atmosphere? All I can say to the Park Service staff is:
Dude, it’s California. It’s life, it’s the BEACH….
San Gregorio Beach Evening [Saurabh Deoras]
I am pretty sure that to avoid offending, it may be necessary to stop breathing.
What ever we do, mustn’t hinder the rise of the petty authoritarians (beach restrictions) nor laugh at the political rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat… of either side.
link to larger depiction of painting, shown at 2007 Venice Biennale
Looks like it to me…………. 29 July 2008Posted by marisacat in Inconvenient Voice of the Voter.
Niki de Saint Phalle’s work first came to prominence during the 1950s with her ‘Assemblages’ which were constructed from everyday objects with personal meaning to the artist.
Autel O.A.S, 1962-92 © 2007, Niki Charitable Art Foundation
Looks like it to me… faith based initiatives, that is… I don’t need any convincing that is a vampyre bat winging its way toward me…..
[... there was little information at Telegraph.co.uk Picture Galleries on this piece by NdSP, just what I cut and pasted above, will see what more I can find.]
Oh, the burden of believing……. 27 July 2008Posted by marisacat in Inconvenient Voice of the Voter.
Mr Obama’s campaign aircraft was heavily guarded at Heathrow airport as the presidential candidate prepared to leave the UK. [Getty Images via BBC]
LOL Carry on. They intend to, so we might as well………… He’s off to Ohio and lectures on econ.
Sunday is ‘God’s day’ right? With Obama it probably will be… There was a story around that for that useless endorse in NC (after the vote, hell, who cares?, It showed, tho, that Edwards bought the internal election eve polling that showed Ob down 11 pts, LOL) Edwards secured the promise of a primetime spot in Denver. I sorta doubt it now. The story just does not die. And stank (the stench of it being all too possible) from the get go. The Enquirer says they have photos from the Hilton runaround. I imagine they do. And Wapo says they will wait to see them, but don’t expect much coverage, they say, as Edwards is now a private citizen.
And really, what was ever there? Another vapid DLC senator. So damned little was there it should be, but is not, shocking he got as far as he did… and even had the shrinking balls to think he could be a running mate again.
What about LOSING do the Democrats not get?
I always read Mickey Kaus, reprehensible and cringe worthy as he is, I read him when the Dems are nothing but drool in motion. And ‘Obama as Lincoln’ is slobbers of drool, in motion.
Still summer…………………. 25 July 2008Posted by marisacat in Inconvenient Voice of the Voter.
Lotus flowers – Buddhist temple – Sri Lanka – AFP/Getty via Telegraph.co.uk
hmm Why in the name of hell would New Orleanians believe anything the Nagins of the earth tell them?
For The New Orleans Times-Picayune, Mark Schleifstein reports: “A 100-mile stretch of the Mississippi River remains closed indefinitely to ship traffic this morning, as salvage workers drafted plans to remove a split fuel barge from beneath the Crescent City Connection in New Orleans and a half-dozen emergency spill contractors continued efforts to corral hundreds of thousands of gallons of thick, smelly fuel oil as it floated toward the Gulf of Mexico.
Meanwhile, residents of Algiers remained skeptical of the assurances given by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Sewerage & Water Board officials that their water is safe to drink, with many choosing to drink bottled water instead. ‘We don’t want to give a date right now’ for reopening the river, said Coast Guard Capt. Lincoln Stroh, who controls shipping on the river as captain for the Port of New Orleans.”
This seems to be one of the favorite sound bites from Berlin – and what a crock of shit, as we build a haphazard wall on the Southern border and the Israelis build a medieval wall across Palestinian land.
“The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand,” Mr. Obama said, putting a new twist on the cold war calls to bring down the barrier that divided Berlin. “The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”
AND, CSM weighs in on Gitmo.
The next administration will have to be careful it doesn’t simply recreate Guantánamos elsewhere, for instance at prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, on which the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in
Sadly right, I think. I used to think he might close Gitmo, only because it would be a single, showy, big move. Buy time, dazzle the rubes, etc. But as he goes even flatter (think of squished silly putty)… hmm… No, IMO, he won’t be closing Gitmo. All along we have madly built prisons in Iraq – and plan a big revamp of Bagram, which we took over mostly as the Soviets left it, all those years ago. Blessed are those who inherit the very war they began….
Last, not bothering to look it up now, but Kozloff wrote several weeks ago at Counterpunch that Ob was being squirrelly on School of the Americas. What a shock, not. And that does not even brush by Fort Huachuca, where, last I heard, the reprehensible and slippery General Miller of Abu Ghraib went. With all his treats and toys. Free as a jaybird, as Bush soon will be.
The Greatest Nation Ever on Earth. Blessed by God. Fake submissives for Jesus, blood soaked martinets, in reality.
From the tag end of the last thread………
Greenwald on impeachment. Below, on Cass Sunstein (Betrothed to the “Brilliant” Samantha Powers, another “brilliant” Obama TOP advisor… )
Jane also asked Fein about Obama adviser Cass Sunstein’s recent statements that Bush officials should not be prosecuted for their illegal detention, interrogation and spying programs. To get a sense for why this matters, National Journal this morning listed Sunstein as one of a small handful of likely Supreme Court appointees in an Obama administration. But — similar to Fein’s point regarding Jay Rockefeller, Jane Harman and comrades — Sunstein has long been one of the most vocal enablers of Bush radicalism and lawlessness, having continuously offered himself up over the last seven years to play the legal version of the TNR role of “even-liberal-Cass-Sunstein-agrees-with-Bush.”
During my Democracy Now debate with him, Sunstein said: “I’d be honored but surprised if the military commissions cite some of my academic articles.” But as Talk Left’s Armando documented, Sunstein would be an ideal and highly likely “legal scholar” for the Bush administration to cite as part of its military tribunals, as Sunstein was an early and outspoken supporter of the theory that Bush had the authority to order military commissions (a theory which the Supreme Court rejected in Hamdan). Identically, while Sunstein now pretends to disagree with Bush’s theory as to why he had the power to spy on Americans in violation of the law (Sunstein said on Democracy Now: “while I agree with Senator Feingold that the President’s position is wrong”), Sunstein defended those theories as “very reasonable” when he was on right-wing talk radio with Hugh Hewitt in late 2005 during the height of the NSA controversy.
It’s really hard to imagine a worse person on whom Obama could be relying as a legal adviser, let alone a potential Supreme Court nominee, and here is what Fein had to say about Sunstein’s view of things:
Lots of links within, including video of Fein on Sunstein.
*** close of NYCee comment ***
High Summer……. 23 July 2008Posted by marisacat in Inconvenient Voice of the Voter.
I’ve made liberal use of H-RH’s garden dragonfly…. if by chance you are around, what is the stem material he’s clinging to (hiding his bible I am sure, LOL)???
Other than that, I am pooped. So, the garden dragonfly is going to have carry the ball, as it were… ;)
War over tits… 21 July 2008Posted by marisacat in 2008 Election, Afghanistan War, DC Politics, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Iraq War, Israel/AIPAC, Pakistan, WAR!.
All that hot sweaty bother. After 4 years, an appeals court has decided to toss the fine levied on CBS for the quick flash of Janet Jackson’s right tit…
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. government’s campaign against television indecency was dealt a blow on Monday when a court overturned a $550,000 fine against CBS Corp television stations for airing a glimpse of pop singer Janet Jackson’s breast during the 2004 Super Bowl broadcast.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said the Federal Communications Commission had “arbitrarily and capriciously departed from its prior policy” that exempted fleeting broadcast material from actionable indecency violations.
Four years? Think they will be ending any war, anywhere?, anytime? When consideration of a brief flash of breast took 4 years?
There were a couple of interesting aspects back when it happened… it was, not readily apparent in the above photo, a real, un-enhanced breast. And, I figured right away that Alabama lit up like a cranky christian christmas tree at the sight of her flower design pastie. Must’ve driven them crazy. IIRC that is one of the states that bans sex toys. I-L-L-E-G-A-L. If only they’d ban Jeeeeeeeeeeeesuhs. But tassel decorated pasties, I am sure, are the Great Evil in Alabama.
Other than that, I suggest we call him Barack of AfPak. Or, maybe, Barack of the Whirled.
SPIEGEL: Critics say the trip is nothing but a PR stunt to strengthen his foreign-policy credentials and that he has only rarely been to Europe before.
Rice: Senator Obama has travelled to Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia many times before. He lived in Asia. He bows to nobody in his understanding of this world.
My, but these people are ahead of themselves. The Fall, when it comes, should be interesting.
They are careful to advertise continuing war, at all times:
Rice: Obama’s view is that circumstances in Pakistan and Afghanistan pose the most dangerous threat to Europe and the US right now. Al-Qaida is regrouping and reconstituting their safe haven; the Taliban are gaining strength. Europe is closer to that threat than we are. Yet, we all have to take it very seriously. The US has to put more resources and troops into Afghanistan, and NATO should do the same, while — to the greatest extent possible — lifting operational restrictions.
He and his are so earnest. It is just gagworthy.
The interview Lara Logan did with Obama * is being picked apart here and there, but this at the close still blows me away, a day later:
Logan: OK, last question. There is a perception that you lack experience in world affairs.
Logan: Is this trip partly aimed at overcoming that perception that, you know, there is doubt among some Americans that you could lead a country at war as commander in chief from day one?
Obama: You know, the interesting thing is that the people who are very experienced in foreign affairs I don’t think have those doubts. The troops that I’ve been meeting with over the last several days, they don’t seem to have those doubts.
So the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.
And it’s important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are.
Because one of the shifts in foreign policy that I want to execute as president is giving the world a clear message that America intends to continue to show leadership but our style of leadership is going to be less unilateral, that we’re going to see our role as building partnerships around the world that are of mutual interest to the parties involved.
And I think this gives me a head start in that process.
Logan: Do you have any doubts?
He will direct us, re double us, in our war efforts to the geographical location that sinks empires. And he will be fearless in that act.
* Until it popped up, via Google, ahead of the CBS transcript of Lara Logan, I had no idea there was a Fox News coin called “Major Garrett’s Bourbon Room”. So reeks of the Old Confederacy, doesn’t it? Reminds me of the slices of pecan pie in Georgia, they were divine, crushed pecans forming the crust, and not some slosh of a jelly masquerading as pecan filling, thick with pecan, thru and thru… But riding atop thoe pie slices … often a little paper Confederate Flag… And nearby a rendering of that near religious myth, Grant surrendering to Lee.
Not to worry! Pulling the level for Barack of AfPak will wipe all that messiness away. Forever.
Couple of comments that were at the end of the last thread:
Last Saturday I was brunching on a bunch of these pieces from the Black Agenda Report’s Obama File. There were a lot of cogent and pungent morsels within. One I found, The Audacity of Imperial Airbrushing: Barack Obama’s Whitewashed History of U.S. Foreign Policy, by Paul Street, is excellent – truly deserving of a full read and worth the time taken.
He pulls a chain of our government’s imperialist dirty deeds from the memory hole (Think a briefer strain of Stephen Kinzer’s Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq ) and deftly weaves in the words of our “progressive” change agent extraordinare, Candidate Obama, exposing his foreign policy take as less than refreshing or reassuring or new direction.
So what makes it so sparkling, then, so newer than nouvelle cuisine, when served up by Obama?
The saying, presentation is everything, comes to mind.
*** close of NYCee comment ***
It has taken a man of God, perhaps, to do what nobody else has been able to do since the general election season began: Get Barack Obama and John McCain together on the same stage before their party conventions later this summer.
The Rev. Rick Warren has persuaded the candidates to attend a forum at his Saddleback Church, in Lake Forest, Calif., on Aug. 16. In an interview, Mr. Warren said over the weekend that the presidential candidates would appear together for a moment but that he would interview them in succession at his megachurch.
He (warren) said that both had readily agreed, perhaps reflecting how each candidate is courting the evangelical audience to whom Mr. Warren ministers.
…Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.
But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men — and the new evangelicalism as a movement — continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance…
*** close of bayprairie comment ***
McMansion… pretty clearly...
Caught Moyers last night, with William Greider on the big fraud.… of which sub prime is a part. At least Greider has the sense to call it out as Fraud and Usury.
Just some snips from their conversation, which was the second half hour of the show… the first half hour an overview of Slavic Village in Cleveland, caught in the sub prime tsunami.
RICK KARR: There’s a cancer eating away at a neighborhood in Cleveland called Slavic Village: On block after block, homes sit empty, boarded up, stripped bare. But things were different just a few years ago.
BARBARA ANDERSON: There was a time when each and every one of the houses on the neighborhood was up and standing, and looking pristine. The yards were well manicured. You could hear laughter. You could hear neighbors calling out to each other from across the street. At that time, there were a lot of gardens in the backyards, and people were very proud of their gardens, and they would pick the tomatoes, or they’d pick the peppers, and they would share it with neighbors. You would see people sitting on porches, reading newspapers and laughing and talking, listening to their music.
RICK KARR: But that was before the sub-prime mortgage crisis started to destroy Slavic Village in the first half of the decade. Since then, longtime resident
BARBARA ANDERSON: says there have been more than half a dozen foreclosures just on her block. This house went after the man who owned it was admitted to a nursing home .and his wife couldn’t keep up the payments. There used to be a home on this empty lot until it was foreclosed, condemned and leveled. And the family that lived here came home one day to find that a Sheriff’s bailiff had put their possessions out on the street after their bank foreclosed. Anderson, who runs a community organization that’s trying to fight the neighborhood’s decline, says it’s like a horror story.
BARBARA ANDERSON: You could almost see the fangs, just gouging the actual lifeblood out of the neighborhood as more and more houses became boarded up, and more and more houses became to be stripped. So, the house now next door to it, the house on the other side of it, and now those houses began to eat away at other houses. So, each time it looked like one house had actually infected the house next door to it, and it had taken on that same Dracula kind of look. And it was infecting even more houses.
RICK KARR: That infection spread to more than a thousand houses in the neighborhood. At one point last year, there were more foreclosures in Slavic Village’s zip code than in any other in the country.
Honestly it reminds me of the crack cocaine epidemic: Domestic war on the citizenry, by other means.
BTW, Cleveland is one city that filed suit:
RICK KARR: So the City of Cleveland filed a lawsuit earlier this year to recover some of that money and hold Wall Street responsible for the foreclosure crisis. The suit targets twenty-one investment banks and mortgage companies that have foreclosed on thousands of Cleveland homes including Deutsche Bank, which has filed more than four thousand seven hundred and fifty foreclosure actions. Wells Fargo, with more than four thousand and Countrywide and HSBC, which have filed about thirteen hundred each. Cleveland didn’t file suit against these banks because they made the loans in the first place, but rather because they allegedly created the environment that led to a lot of bad loans.
MAYOR JACKSON: Without them, this would not have happened. But for their actions, this would have not occurred.
RICK KARR: Banks were making a lot of money buying and selling mortgages whether the loans were sound or not. The more loans, the more money. So, the suit says, “in order … to keep pace with Wall Street’s burgeoning demand” for new mortgages, the banks pushed for lower lending standards until, “Even borrowers unlikely to meet their obligations [got] loans”. Jackson says the banks had to know that Cleveland would end up paying the price for what they were doing.
On to Greider:
WILLIAM GREIDER: To make the story overly crude, Congress repealed the law against usury. It was done in 1980 by a Democratic Congress, Democratic President. And, of course, the Republicans all piled on and voted for it. And that was the first stroke, only the first of many, in which they stripped away the regulatory laws from the financial system and from banking.
And that allowed the free market modernized gimmicks of one kind or another, all these things we’re now reading about, to flourish. And that’s where we are. I mean, the gatekeepers said to the banking industry and to the financial industry, “We don’t think federal control or regulation is good for you, so we’re, therefore, liberating you to do your own thing.”
BILL MOYERS: So why did they do that in 1980? I mean, there was, of course, the rise of the backlash to regulation from 40 years of Democratic rule-
WILLIAM GREIDER: The-
BILL MOYERS: -there was the rise, the arrival of the conservatives with their free market ideology.
WILLIAM GREIDER: Right, right.
BILL MOYERS: What was the issue?
WILLIAM GREIDER: Well, the driver then, and it was a powerful driver, was inflation. And through the ’70s, for lots of reasons inflation, which tends to undermine the value of financial wealth and money, was out of control. The Federal Reserve had lost control of it, not entirely its fault. But that set up a political climate that said the government is not working and that wasn’t wrong at the moment. Let’s get the government out of the way.
And that was very appealing as framed by Ronald Reagan and other conservatives. But I think it’s fair to say most Democrats yielded to it against whatever their original instincts were because of political necessity. And then the third dimension, maybe the most important, was that you had this very powerful industrial sector, that is banking and finance, that wanted and had pushed for years to get out from under the regulatory controls, limits on interest rates, the law against usury, the merger of commercial banks with investment banks, which had been prohibited in the New Deal because it caused the disaster of 1929.
I can go on and on. But you see the pattern. And the point I keep trying to make to people is that history learned the hard way that you do need prudential controls on industries like banking ’cause they’re so central to everybody’s well being.
hmmm. We have so lacked for bi partisanship… Isn’t there someone running on that fiction? I do believe he played basketball earlier to day in Kuwait, en route to Afghanistan. The other war theatre, soon to hot up.
WILLIAM GREIDER: -it’s a wildly grotesque transaction where the public guarantees the life of these firms, and there isn’t any effort that we know of to say, “And in return, you’re going to behave in the following ways for the next ten years or maybe forever. We’ll pass a law later that spells that out more clearly, but this is our starting demand.” And I suppose they would say, “Well, we don’t have time to do that. This is a crisis, blah, blah, blah.” I don’t buy that. I think that’s a way to avoid those questions is not even mention them.
BILL MOYERS: You have been writing for a long time now that America’s moving toward a corporate state. If we become one, can we exercise the self-correcting faculty that prevents us from hitting the iceberg out there?
WILLIAM GREIDER: One of the reasons I think politics is going to change fairly dramatically is that the Federal Reserve, accompanied by the Treasury Department and I think will be accompanied by the Congress, has crossed a very dangerous line in their bailout. They have essentially said, “We will put money on the table, taxpayers’ money on the table, for any financial institution or business that is too big to fail.” That is, if it fails, it’ll send dangerous ripples through the economy.
And we’ve got a list now of maybe 30, 40, depending on how you count them, that we will be there to save you. I regard that as profoundly dangerous for the American Republic because once you cross that line and you have this special club that’s privileged, that has benefits from government that nobody else can get, where do you stop it?
I mean, if I were running a big manufacturing company, I would have quickly run out and buy a subsidiary that’s a bank or a financial firm that looks like a bank. And I would then try to get myself on that list. Who wouldn’t? What’s going on right now it’s gotten a little attention – the union SEIU is fighting it, is these private equity firms, which are huge money pots of investors that take over and change corporations and come away with huge profits. The private equity firms are trying to buy into the banks and financial firms.
BILL MOYERS: And what would that mean?
WILLIAM GREIDER: That would mean that this private unregulated equity fund would be participating behind the door, so to speak, in the management of our regulated banks. But it would also, in a pinch, if it’s big enough, maybe have a tap into that federal guarantee that if you’re too big to fail, we’ll be there for you.
Well, not too tough to read there is much joy to come. Maybe elected members of congress could just take the cash and stay home. Let their corporate masters detail a management contingent to sit in those chairs.
What would be different?
La Croisette – Cannes – Eugene Hernandez photog
Mid summer political scrimmage. Can it get more boring? Oh I think so. Stay tuned.
Nat Hentoff, a very mixed bag himself, admits to his personal Obama deflation. What a shock! (not), as I opened his opinion piece, in the Sacramento Bee, I thought it would be FISA (check!) and wondered what else. Entanglement of Church and State, it seems, is the other burr under the Hentoff saddle. He comes at both, via the Constitution, being a former Con law prof himself.
But Obama insists this program will be the “moral center” of his administration. Just where is his own center of credibility? I remember the surge of hope for a national change as a child, during the Great Depression, when, while my mother would walk blocks to save a few cents on food, there came Franklin Delano Roosevelt! I haven’t seen such a surge since Obama’s first chorus, but I can no longer believe in this messenger of such tidings.
In the wake of The New Yorker cover, MoDo looks at the paucity of jokes and comedic mocking of ObamaRama. All I can say is, if comics and comedians and stand ups don’t go after his lecturing and self sainthood-ing, they are not doing their job. Or any job. Gonna be a loooong 4 years. Or, whatever it is………………….
Comparing him to FDR… always reminds me of a family story, which I only heard for the first time a few years ago, thankfully it had not lived in the family forever, as some hackneyed tale… My mother’s eldest sister gave birth to her first child on election day in 1932. When she came round and the baby was out, her first question was, Had Roosevelt won? Nothing about the baby… LOL
One thing I am certain of, with FDR we got some much needed change. However it came about. WIth LBJ, despite the horror of Vietnam (which we still live with and learned NOTHING from), and, again, however it came about, we got some massive, landmark, legislation. The likes of which we will never see again.
What we will see, is [continued] tear down.
From the end of the last thread, from CSTAR:
Is everybody going insane? Is Obama giving off some pheromones that are causing really strange behavior? Juan Cole* today wrote this today
Clinton and Obama are both policy wonks and people it is clear you could trust an economy to (unlike Bush and McCain, who are all about giveaways to the rich, their own social class). But Clinton and Obama are also hunks, whom men admire for their lithe physicality and over whom women swoon.
Women swoon? Lithe physcality. Read the entire posting in his blog; I don’t think I’m quoting out of context or misinterpreting his remarks.
Am I going insane and am I only imagining that these comments are real? Frankly that would be the more desirable option.
… and ms_xeno mentioned SMBIVA, so I dropped by. Luvved this… and the photo. Think that is the old pink palazzo itself, the Beverly Hills Hotel………….. We are so issue oriented. We are so useless…. note it is a MoveOn.org sponsored event.
BTW, speaking of gas, lithe physicality in our pols (they are the same thing, LOL) and whatever else… we are well over 5.00/gallon here for “Unleaded Premium”… In reality, it is hardly worth noting anymore. Any sort of international incident, or threat of same, and it will climb… and will without the incident…
Happy Rest of the Summer. If we can afford it. Or, afford anything. I am unsure we can afford the game of politics anymore. Much less le pain quotidien
UPDATE, 3:23 pm
Oh… the righties will have fun with this one. Via Geraghty at NRO’s Campaign Spot:
‘Lightworker’ Candidate To Speak Before Angelic Column
Campaign Spot reader Tim tells me Berliner Morgenpost is reporting that the Obama campaign and Berlin city authorities have agreed on the location for his speech next week, the Great Star (Grosser Stern), where seven streets intersect. It lies in the middle of the big park in the center of Berlin, the Tiergarten. ::snip snappy::
However at the Grosser Stern one finds:
It is a totally non-descript place except for one thing. The Victory Column (Siegessaeule) is there and Sen. Obama will speak directly in front of it. The Victory Column is a tower over 700 feet high and is a monument to Prussia’s victories in wars against Denmark, Austria and France in the 19th century.
I think it suits a US candidate for a 21st c presidency, while the US is in the midst of global terror masking as anti-terrorism – something it has NO intention of stopping, quite well.
Using another entry at NRO, no, he does not hear himself. Does not stop the lecturing tho…… What a tiresome prig.
Laughing Sal at Playland 15 July 2008Posted by marisacat in 2008 Election, Democrats, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Lie Down Fall Down Dems.
Photo from Laughing Squid
Laughing Sal, the San Francisco version, lived at the remnants of an 1890s Playland at the Beach, out at Ocean Beach… A classic wood framed seaside diversion, rather more carnie, probably, by the time I met it, in the 50s. Laughing Sal was displayed in a stand-alone, glass and wood frame case… you dropped in a couple quarters and she rocked and shook with laughter, looming over you…
Frankly, all too reminiscent of politics today………
I have no idea if much of this report at Politico is accurate but there is one part I think is:
Coordination between the Obama campaign and the House and Senate leadership is so weak that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — who will chair the Democrats’ convention in August — didn’t know of Obama’s decision to move his final-night acceptance speech from the Pepsi Center to Invesco Field until the campaign announced it on a conference call with reporters.
May the oceans rise to greet him.
“…we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”
hmmm not quite what I see coming……
Just saw this at the end of the last thread:
Naomi Klein was interviewed on Democracy Now! today by Amy Goodman. The transcript is here
I am sure most of you are aware or have read her book “Shock Doctrine”, which I read just recently: it’s out in paperback now. The book really proposes an interesting alternative narrative to the neoliberal economic thinking of the last 40-45 years. Much of this narrative begins in Latin America (Brazil, Argentina and especially Chile) and is certainly familiar to most Latin Americans. For the LatinAmerican center-left most of those memories are extremely painful.
However, I think there is a tendency in the american left to ignore that historical period and to view it as somehow disjoint or irrelevant to the politics of an a developed capitalist society. Klein does a very good job in her book of dispelling that view.
Back to the interview: There are lots of interesting things in it. Actually I think the written transcript is better. I particularly thought this exchange interesting:
AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein, Obama’s Chicago Boys, who are they?
NAOMI KLEIN: Well, one of them is Obama. Obama spent ten years teaching at the University of Chicago Law School, which is a very conservative law school. You know, I wrote a column recently talking about how conservative Obama’s economic roots are, with his ties to the University of Chicago.
His first response to the mortgage crisis, let’s remember, was he was worried about the government taking action to keep people from being evicted from their homes, because that would create moral hazard. And he was not talking about the big companies, the big mortgage lenders; he was talking about individual low-income people being thrown out of their homes. He was worried about moral hazard. That’s a very University of Chicago take on the situation.
The moral hazard Obama was worried about of course was that people should assume responsibility for their bad economic decisions. That “moral hazard” concept is interesting because it is an essential part of the corporate narrative justifying redistritribution of risk onto the poor.
This definition from WIkipedia is pretty good
Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk. Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions.
Of course what is missing from the corporate narrative is that the entire financial system reeks of moral hazard in favor of the rich.
** close of comment **