All Quiet On the Solar Front

This does not bode well:



At a time when we should be entering another peak of solar activity, we get quiet.

...Why is this important? Well, if Svensmark is right, and Galactic Cosmic Rays modulated by the sun’s magnetic field make a change in cloud cover on Earth, increasing it during low solar magnetic activity, we are in for some colder times.

Now, Watt is a global warming skeptic. I'm not. The CO₂ emission data I've seen seems real enough.

The problem is, while the energy companies suppressed global warming data during the Bu$hCo years, an entirely different Company faction is running things now, eager to make a buck off of cooling a heating globe.

The main problem being the evidence has at a minimum been muddied lately. There seem to be two disinformation camps out there, each with an economic stake in getting the public to believe one thing or another.

But they can't hide the solar data, nor the deep winter cold settling into the midwest after a cooler summer than many I've seen.



The questions get stickier. Here's one I've asked before: what if global increases in CO₂ are all that have kept us from reverting back to the Ice Ages?

CO₂ pollution is dangerous for the ecosystems of the planet. There's hard evidence for that outside of global warming. Carbon emissions should be capped and curtailed.

But let's not go artificially cooling a planet that seems to be doing it quite well on its own, thank you.

Yes, but what's good for Blackwater is good for...

Lots of pointed letters that Pravda is even printing.

I like Boyd Hight's, a former deputy assistant secretary of state during the Carter administration.

...There is no nation to build.

Afghanistan is a loosely aligned collection of tribal constituencies. Its people are largely illiterate. The so-called central government does not control the countryside and is corrupt.

How are Americans in a relatively short period of time going to create from this raw material a state capable of ensuring its own security?

We are also fighting the wrong enemy. The Taliban, no matter how alien to our values, pose no threat to the United States. Al Qaeda has no significant current presence in Afghanistan.

In short, we are sending a lot of soldiers at enormous cost to fight an enemy that is somewhere else, with the de facto mission of propping up a narco-state. This makes no sense.

There you go again, wanting policy to be run by logic instead of profit for those with the Right Stuff.

Someone Isn't Riding the Unity Pony

One wonders what Timmeh, Larry, and the Rahmmer think about her. Nah, who cares what those jerks think? Only your President cares what they have to say about the world.

...Pundits talk about "populist rage" as a way to trivialize the anger and fear coursing through the middle class. But they have it wrong. Families understand with crystalline clarity that the rules they have played by are not the same rules that govern Wall Street. They understand that no American family is "too big to fail." They recognize that business models have shifted and that big banks are pulling out all the stops to squeeze families and boost revenues. They understand that their economic security is under assault and that leaving consumer debt effectively unregulated does not work.

Families are ready for change. According to polls, large majorities of Americans have welcomed the Obama Administration's proposal for a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). The CFPA would be answerable to consumers -- not to banks and not to Wall Street. The agency would have the power to end tricks-and-traps pricing and to start leveling the playing field so that consumers have the tools they need to compare prices and manage their money. The response of the big banks has been to swing into action against the Agency, fighting with all their lobbying might to keep business-as-usual. They are pulling out all the stops to kill the agency before it is born. And if those practices crush millions more families, who cares -- so long as the profits stay high and the bonuses keep coming.

America today has plenty of rich and super-rich. But it has far more families who did all the right things, but who still have no real security. Going to college and finding a good job no longer guarantee economic safety. Paying for a child's education and setting aside enough for a decent retirement have become distant dreams. Tens of millions of once-secure middle class families now live paycheck to paycheck, watching as their debts pile up and worrying about whether a pink slip or a bad diagnosis will send them hurtling over an economic cliff.

America without a strong middle class? Unthinkable, but the once-solid foundation is shaking.

The unthinkable things have a way of happening just because good people don't want to think about them.

Serious Things to Serious People

Greenwald captures the essence of the bait-and-switch du jour:

...How can you have the Defense Secretary and the Secretary of State testifying in front of the Senate that the July, 2011 date is "not set in stone," that they "have not locked oursleves into leaving," and that "the target date could change," while the President is saying exactly the opposite: that "it IS locked in – there is no flexibility" and "it's etched in stone"?

Is it remotely possible that the months of extremely careful, cerebral, thoughtful deliberations produced complete ambiguity on this central point, or is it that Obama's plan is designed to be sufficiently ambiguous so that nobody knows what it actually entails and everyone can therefore be told that it means what they want it to mean? And which is worse?

One term wondering why whine

The beast comes slouching over the horizon, and our DINOrat leaders are alarmed at the lack of Unity among those that Hope for Change.

Ian has something to say you should consider:

When 40% of democrats don’t want to vote, the solution is not to tell them to vote. The solution is to institute policies which make them want to vote. That’s up to Obama and Congress, it is in their hands.

People do not get excited by the lesser evil, and while those of us who studied Obama in detail knew he was a conservative democrat, the overarching themes and rhetoric of his campaign amounted to “Big Change for the better!!”

He has not delivered on that and it is to be expected that people will be disappointed in him. To expect otherwise is remarkably naive.

Remember the last few years of Bush? All those conservatives trying to say “no really, the economy is better than it feels to you, I have numbers”?

This is the same sort of thing. Trying to tell people “no really, it’s not so bad” doesn’t work when their experience is “Yeah, this sucks and no, you didn’t do what I think you said you’d do”.

People feel betrayed, and they should, because Obama has signed on with giving trillions to rich people and screwing over the middle and working class. Trust me on this, that’s what’s happening and will happen. The next twenty years economically are going to be worse than the last twenty, and Obama had options which would have made that not so.

Furthermore, only people who threaten to walk, get things. If you will vote Obama/Democrat no matter what, why would they give you anything?

They wouldn’t, and they won’t.

If the DINOcrats don't turn over for better Democrats next year they will lose Congress.

If the One does grow a pair of balls and start dancing with the people that brought him instead of those that bought him, he will lose in 2012. But then again, give the $ystem the One presides over, without Company money and approval, his campaign is dead in the water. Egregious transgressions against Company policy will doubtless be met, as the spy novels used to say, by Sanction with Prejudice.

In fifty years, there will be no more fossil fuels. Smoke that in your electoral pipes. The oligarchs, at least the ones with eternal dynastic yearnings, have and enjoy the aroma of a set of circumstances that will leave them forever at the top of the heap.

The goal of those gaming the current politico-economic situation is to use the military industrial complex and the greatest disinformation machinery in the world to produce one thing.

A post-industrial neo-feudal society, where the Right people with the Right stuff live in a global Village supported by obedient working serfs, themselves forever grateful eloi to the Company morelocks.

It takes a pyramid to support the capstone, and what we're seeing is a populace being set into the foundations as the learned helplessness grows.

Because only the Serious criticism matters

And obviously if you're for complete withdrawal from Afghanistan you can't be Serious:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration sent a forceful public message Sunday that American military forces could remain in Afghanistan for a long time, seeking to blunt criticism that President Obama had sent the wrong signal in his war-strategy speech last week by projecting July 2011 as the start of a withdrawal...

Petreus Caesar clarified the issue:

...Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” General Petraeus said that the Obama administration was not planning a “rush to the exits” in Afghanistan, and that depending on the security conditions there could be tens of thousands of American troops in Afghanistan for several years...

The Pentagon sets the policy. The rationale? It's existential. The Good War is Good.

The Times They are a-Changin'

WGG on incongruity.

Obama has become the Token President of the military industrial complex.

We as progressives need to start now to get better Democrats in Congress, and find people good enough to wrest the Democratic nomination from Obama in 2012.

Because the way things are going no matter how batshit crazy and corrupt the Reptilians are, the progressives are going to stay home, the minorities are going to ignore it, and the Reptilians are going to win it that year.

"...the pace and endpoint of the withdrawal would be determined by conditions at the time."

So much for the de-surgifyin' in 2011.

Your basic mythical historical narrative

Facts are difficult things, and like another Great Communicator, Barry prefers to ignore them.

Go read Washington's blog:

...On October 14, 2001, the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted bombing if the Taliban were given evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.

Specifically, as the Guardian writes:

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty" ...

Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.

However, as the Guardian subsequently points out:

A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.

For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said...

Somebody's bin Laughin'

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States does not know where Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden is and has lacked reliable information on his whereabouts for years, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said.

The revelation from Gates, speaking in an interview with the ABC News "This Week" program to be aired Sunday, comes days after US President Barack Obama announced he would send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Asked if Pakistan was doing enough to apprehend Bin Laden, Gates answered: "Well, we don't know for a fact where Osama bin Laden is. If we did, we'd go get him."

Referring to the last time US intelligence had a fix on Bin Laden's whereabouts, Gates said: "I think it's been years."

Bin Laden is believed to have escaped from Afghanistan into Pakistan in late 2001...

If you really believe that we have no idea what happened to bin Laden, then the joke's on you.

Encouraging Private Enterprise

Well paid consultants, doubtless.

The Somali pirates attacking shipping in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean are directed to their targets by a "consultant" team in London, according to a European military intelligence document obtained by a Spanish radio station.

The document, obtained by Cadena SER radio, says the team and the pirates remain in contact by satellite telephone.

It says that pirate groups have "well-placed informers" in London who are in regular contact with control centres in Somalia where decisions on which vessels to attack are made. These London-based "consultants" help the pirates select targets, providing information on the ships' cargoes and courses.

In at least one case the pirates have remained in contact with their London informants from the hijacked ship, according to one targeted shipping company.

The pirates' information network extends to Yemen, Dubai and the Suez canal.

The intelligence report is understood to have been issued to European navies.

"The information that merchant ships sailing through the area volunteer to various international organisations is ending up in the pirates' hands," Cadena SER reported the report as saying.

This enables the more organised pirate groups to study their targets in advance, even spending several days training teams for specific hijacks. Senior pirates then join the vessel once it has been sailed close to Somalia.

Captains of attacked ships have found that pirates know everything from the layout of the vessel to its ports of call. Vessels targeted as a result of this kind of intelligence included the Greek cargo ship Titan, the Turkish merchant ship Karagol and the Spanish trawler Felipe Ruano.

In each case, says the document, the pirates had full knowledge of the cargo, nationality and course of the vessel.

The national flag of a ship is also taken into account when choosing a target, with British vessels being increasingly avoided, according to the report. It was not clear whether this was because pirates did not want to draw the attention of British police to their information sources in London.

European countries have set up Operation Atalanta to co-ordinate their military efforts in the area.

[a tip o'teh tinfoil]



How can you create global post-industrial feudalism without the requisite private entrepreneurs?

Graveyard of Empires

The Brits have a little experience with this:



You have to realize who the Taliban are actually shooting at when they shoot; it isn't the Afghan army, many of which jump sides depending on what is expedient.

Here, first it's the Brits. Or the Americans. Or anyone else who is an obvious outsider.

"It's just a flesh wound."

Tom Englehardt believes our government has finally reached Pythonesque levels of competence:

...It’s been a long time coming, but finally American war commanders have effectively marshaled their forces, netcentrically outmaneuvering and outflanking the enemy. They have shocked-and-awed their opponents, won the necessary hearts-and-minds, and so, for the first time in at least two decades, stand at the heights of success, triumphant at last...

...give credit to the victors. Their campaign was nothing short of brilliant. Like the policy brigands they were, they ambushed the president, held him up with their threats, brought to bear key media players and Republican honchos, and in the end made off with the loot. The campaign began in late September with a strategic leak of Afghan War commander General Stanley McChrystal’s grim review of the situation in that country, including demands for sizeable troop escalations and a commitment to a counterinsurgency war. It came to include rumors of potential retirements in protest if the president didn’t deliver, as well as clearly insubordinate policy remarks by General McChrystal, not to speak of an impressive citizen-mobilization of inside-the-Beltway former neocon or fighting liberal think-tank experts, and a helping hand from an admiring media. In the process, the U.S. military succeeded in boxing in a president who had already locked himself into a conflict he had termed both “the right war” and a “necessary” one. After more than two months of painfully over-reported deliberations, President Obama has now ended up essentially where General McChrystal began.

Counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine was dusted off from the moldy Vietnam archives and made spanking new by General David Petraeus in 2006, applied in Iraq (and Washington) in 2007, and put forward for Afghanistan in late 2008. It has now been largely endorsed, and a major escalation of the war -- a new kind of military-led nation building (or, as they like to say, “good governance”) is to be cranked up and set in motion. COIN is being billed as a “population-centric,” not “enemy-centric” approach in which U.S. troops are distinctly to be "nation-builders as well as warriors."

And as for those 30,000 troops, most expected to arrive in the Afghan combat zone within the next six months, the numbers are even more impressive when you realize that, as late as the summer of 2008, the U.S. only had about 28,000 troops in Afghanistan. In other words, in less than two years, U.S. troop strength in that country will have more than tripled to approximately 100,000 troops. So we’re talking near-Vietnam-level escalation rates. If you include the 38,000 NATO forces also there (and a possible 5,000 more to come), total allied troop strength will be significantly above what the Soviets deployed during their devastating Afghan War of the 1980s in which they fought some of the same insurgents now arrayed against us...

... After all, three cabinet ministers and 12 former ministers are under investigation in Afghanistan itself on corruption charges. And that barely scratches the surface of the problems in a country that one Russian expert recently referred to as an “international drug firm,” where at least one-third of the gross national product comes from the drug trade. In addition, as Juan Cole wrote at his Informed Comment blog:

“Months after the controversial presidential election that many Afghans consider stolen, there is no cabinet, and parliament is threatening to go on recess before confirming a new one because the president is unconstitutionally late in presenting the names. There are grave suspicions that some past and present cabinet members have engaged in the embezzlement of substantial sums of money. There is little parliamentary oversight. Almost no one bothers to attend the parliamentary sessions. The cabinet ministries are unable to spend the money allocated to them on things like education and rural development, and actually spent less in absolute terms last year than they did in the previous two years.”

In addition, the Taliban now reportedly take a cut of the billions of dollars in U.S. development aid flowing into the country, much of which is otherwise squandered, and of the American money that goes into “protecting” the convoys that bring supplies to U.S. troops throughout the country. One out of every four Afghan soldiers has quit or deserted the Afghan National Army in the last year, while the ill-paid, largely illiterate, hapless Afghan police with their “well-deserved reputation for stealing and extorting bribes,” not to speak of a drug abuse rate estimated at 15%, are, as its politely put, “years away from functioning independently”; and the insurgency is spreading to new areas of the country and reviving in others...

...Stop for a moment and consider the cast of characters who offered the president the full range of advice available in Washington -- all of which, as far as we can tell, from Joe Biden’s “counterterrorism-plus” strategy to McChrystal’s COIN and beyond, was escalatory in nature. These are, of course, the wise men (and woman) of our era. But just a cursory glance at their collective record should at least make you wonder:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now said to be the official with the best ties to Afghan President Hamid Karzai and so the one in charge of “coaxing” him into a round of reasonable nation-building, of making “a new compact" with the Afghan people by “improving governance and cracking down on corruption”; and yet, in the early 1990s, in her single significant nation-building experience at home, she botched the possibility of getting a universal health-care bill through Congress. She also had the “wisdom” to vote in 2003 to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, reputedly deeply trusted by the president and in charge of planning out our military future in Afghanistan, was in the 1980s a supposed expert on the Soviet Union as well as deputy CIA director and later deputy to National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. Yet, in those years, he couldn’t bring himself to believe that the Soviets were done for even as that empire was disappearing from the face of the Earth. In the words of former National Security Council official Roger Morris, Gates “waged a final battle against the Soviets, denying at every turn that the old enemy was actually dying.” As former CIA official Melvin Goodman has put the matter: “Gates was wrong about every key intelligence question of the 1980s... A Kremlinologist by training, Gates was one of the last American hardliners to comprehend the changes taking place in the Soviet Union. He was wrong about Mikhail Gorbachev, wrong about the importance of reform, wrong about Moscow's pursuit of arms control and détente with the United States. He was wrong about the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan...”

Vice-President Joe Biden, recently described as potentially “the second-most-powerful vice president in history” as well as “the president’s all-purpose adviser and sage” on foreign policy, was during the Bush years a believer in nation-building in Afghanistan, voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, and later promoted the idea -- like Caesar re: Gaul -- of dividing that country into three parts (without, of course, bothering to ask the Iraqis), while leaving 25,000-30,000 American troops based there in perpetuity, while “these regions build up their state police forces.”

General Stanley McChrystal, our war commander in Afghanistan and now the poster boy for counterinsurgency warfare, had his skills honed purely in the field of counterterrorism. He was a Special Ops guy. The man who is now to “protect” the Afghan people previously won his spurs as the head of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in Iraq and Afghanistan. He ran the “manhunters” – essentially, that is, he was the leader of a team of assassins and evidently part of what reporter Seymour Hersh has termed an "executive assassination wing" of that command, possibly taking orders directly from Vice President Dick Cheney. His skills involved guns to the head, not protective boots on the ground.

General David Petraeus, the general leading everything, who has been practically deified in the U.S. media, is perhaps the savviest and most accomplished of this crew. He surged into Iraq in 2007 and, with the help of fortuitous indigenous developments, staunched the worst of the bleeding, leaving behind a big question mark. His greatest skill, however, has been in fostering the career of David Petraeus. He is undoubtedly an advisor with an agenda and in his wake come a whole crew of military and think-tank experts, with almost unblemished records of being wrong in the Bush years, whom the surge in Iraq recredentialized.

Karl Eikenberry, our ambassador to Kabul, in his previous career in the U.S. military served two tours of duty in Afghanistan, and as the commander of Combined Forces Command Afghanistan was the general responsible for building up the Afghan army and “reforming” that country’s police force. On both counts, we know how effective that attempt proved.

And when it comes to key figures with well-padded Washington CVs like Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or James Jones, present national security advisor and former commandant of the Marine Corps, as well as the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, a close friend of Senator John McCain, and a former revolving-door board member of Chevron and Boeing, remind me just what sticks in your mind about their accomplishments?

So, when you think about Barack Obama’s Afghan decisions, imagine first that the man considered the smartest, most thoughtful president of our era chose to surround himself with these people. He chose, that is, not fresh air, or fresh thought in the field of foreign and war policy, but the airless precincts where the combined wisdom of Washington and the Pentagon now exists, and the remarkable lack of accomplishment that goes with it. In short, these are people whose credentials largely consist of not having been right about much over the years...

...The president campaigned on the slogan, “Change we can believe in.” He then chose as advisors -- in the economic sphere as well, where a similar record of gross error, narrow and unimaginative thinking, and over-identification with the powerful could easily be compiled -- a crew who had never seen a significant change, or an out-of-the-ordinary thought it could live with -- and still can’t.

As a result, the Iraq War has yet to begin to go away, the Afghan War is being escalated in a major way, the Middle East is in some turmoil, Guantanamo remains open, black sites are still operating in Afghanistan, the Pentagon’s budget has grown yet larger, and supplemental demands on Congress for yet more money to pay for George W. Bush’s wars will, despite promises otherwise, soon enough be made...

"On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place."

Only if we let them

Ryan Grim:

...Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who has placed a hold on Bernanke's nomination, was apoplectic when HuffPost told him Bernanke was pushing for cuts in entitlement spending. "Bernanke wants to cut entitlement spending? Well, that confirms everything I'm saying," Sanders fumed.

"The CEOs and top people on Wall Street make huge bonuses, and what? We're going to cut back on Social Security and Medicare? That's what we're going to do?"

Just listen to Ben and stick your tongue on that third rail, Barry.

It's the bipartisan thing to do.

Not a Bug, a Feature

Eugene Robinson notes Obama's policy in Afghanistan won't succeed whatever glad sounds the Pentagon's press agents and main$tream make:

...my fundamental question about Obama’s approach was illustrated Thursday by events far from the war zone: In Mogadishu, Somalia, a suicide bomber infiltrated a university graduation ceremony and killed at least 19 people, including three ministers of the Somali government.

I use the term Somali government ironically, because there hasn’t really been one since 1991. A long-running, multisided battle for control among heavily armed clans and warlords remains unresolved. The most important recent development in the civil war has been the emergence of a religious-based insurgency, al-Shabab, which now controls a large swath of the country—and which was immediately suspected in Thursday’s bombing.

Where have we seen this movie before?

No, Somalia isn’t a carbon copy of Afghanistan. But it shares the distinction of being a failed state where the ideology of violent, fundamentalist Islam has taken hold and the technique of suicide “martyrdom” attacks is proving effective.

I doubt that Obama’s “extended surge” of 30,000 additional U.S. troops will be successful on its own terms, but let’s assume that it is. According to senior White House officials, this would mean that U.S. and allied forces are able to “degrade” the Taliban to the point where it poses no threat of taking power in Kabul and no longer controls substantial areas of the countryside.

These benchmarks have to be met, the White House says, so that it’s impossible for al-Qaida to return to Afghanistan, establish a base of operations and plan new attacks against the United States and other targets.

My belief is that if the Taliban begins losing ground, many of its fighters will just melt back into the population and bide their time until the president’s July 2011 deadline arrives. At that point, will the Afghan military really be able to stand alone against even a latent Taliban threat? If not, Obama’s deadline will be meaningless and U.S. forces will be stuck in Afghanistan, in large numbers, for the foreseeable future.

But even if the surge works, why wouldn’t al-Qaida—or some like-minded group—simply set up shop in Somalia? Or in Yemen, another failing state? Or in some other wretched corner of the world where central government authority is weak and resentment of the West’s dominant power is high?

Afghanistan happened to be Osama bin Laden’s choice for a headquarters, but he and his top aides were driven out of the country shortly after the U.S. invasion. Al-Qaida is believed to be based in Pakistan now, with the freedom of movement of its leadership severely restricted. The Pakistani government’s obvious reluctance to finish the job is problematic, but I think it’s likely that someday a missile from a Predator drone will find its mark.

The problem is that al-Qaida’s murderous philosophy, which is the real enemy, has no physical base. It can erupt anywhere—even, perhaps, on a heavily guarded U.S. Army post in the middle of Texas...

Here's where I might diverge from many progressives: I would say, just like it was designed to do under pressure.

Never forget bin Laden was at the very least trained by the CIA.

When the Company finds an endless war the key to a blank check, it knows what to do and how to do it.

Clarification in Case You Weren't Listening

Published in the BBC, of course. No need to upset the rubes:

The US won't pull out of Afghanistan in 2011.

President Obama's top national security adviser, who has played a key part in designing the new Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy, has been trying to clear up some confusion about the exit strategy.

Gen James Jones told me that "in no manner, shape or form" would the US withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011...

The Endless Circular Firing Squad

I think Davis Fleetwood shouldn't pull his punches so much:

Why we fight

Read this carefully:

Brother of Afghan Leader Said to Be Paid by C.I.A.

By DEXTER FILKINS, MARK MAZZETTI and JAMES RISEN
Published: October 27, 2009

KABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials...

Just in case you found Lyndon Baines Obama's explanation a little hard to understand.

Progressive Goals are Being Met

If by progress you mean the establishment of a worldwide post-industrial feudalism.

...Mr. Obama said he would entertain “every demonstrably good idea” for creating jobs, but he cautioned that “our resources are limited.”

Unless, of course, you are a bankster.

Ian Welsh doesn't seem to find the Bipartisan One so entertaining...

So far Bernanke has been succesful at making sure that the rich weren’t wiped out by their failures and retained their power.

Trillions were spent bailing out the rich, and no taxes were levied on them to pay for it. Now what will happen is that in order to balance the budget, money which primarily helps the middle and working classes will be cut, while those same middle and working classes will be forced to bail out the insurance and health industries.

At the same time, military spending is up slightly under 100% in real terms from what it was in 2000 (267.2 billion in 2000 dollars in 2000, 490 billion today). The US economy has militarized and financialized. Virtually everything that isn’t attached to one of those two streams (and remmber, the housing bubble was ultimately about financialization) is withering on the vine.

The decision to escalate in Afghanistan won’t cost 30 billion dollars a year, it will cost that money plus all the money which could have been saved by withdrawing from Afghanistan and cutting military expenditures significantly.

Coming and going, baby. Coming and going. First they used your money and credit to bail out the rich, now they are going to make you pay it all back, not the rich. Meanwhile banks aren’t lending, jobs aren’t returning and you are due for the 20 worst economic years of your lives.

This is a bipartisan project. Obama is as on board with it as Bush was. It’s not an accident that he wants to keep Bernanke or that he hired Geithner, the man who was supposed to watch Wall Street, as his Treasury secretary...

Mission Accomplished.

All in the Family

(CBS) Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton has announced she's engaged to her longtime beau Marc Mezvinsky, and plans to wed next summer...

Chelsea's fiancé is an investment banker who works for Goldman Sachs.

The two met in Washington as teenagers and both attended Stanford University. Mezvinsky, Miller said, is no stranger to life in the public eye. Both of his parents served in Congress, and his father, Ed Mezvinsky, served time in federal prison for bank and wire fraud...

[tip o'teh tinfoil to Cryptogon]

A life of prostitution really is
easier if you're rich and white, isn't it?