Entity: The Obama Administration

[seanurban]

The bigger question is, would you vote for a second term? I was never on the "hope" bandwagon and think that down deep inside I voted for him because I wanted to see a black president and piss whitey off. Now that it's been done, I think I'll go with someone else if they prove themselves to be worthy.

ok, amelia. i appreciate your honesty there. i hope we can find someone worthy enough to meet your high standards in 2012.
millions and millions of dollars they/we spent on campaigning, debating, and tv time. but his skin color pissed off whitey.
you know, the white man. the one that obama so studiously avoided throughout his whole career, and continues to spit on to this day. he's really getting it now.

[amelia]

The bigger question is, would you vote for a second term? I was never on the "hope" bandwagon and think that down deep inside I voted for him because I wanted to see a black president and piss whitey off. Now that it's been done, I think I'll go with someone else if they prove themselves to be worthy.

ok, amelia. i appreciate your honesty there. i hope we can find someone worthy enough to meet your high standards in 2012.
millions and millions of dollars they/we spent on campaigning, debating, and tv time. but his skin color pissed off whitey.
you know, the white man. the one that obama so studiously avoided throughout his whole career, and continues to spit on to this day. he's really getting it now.

I purposely used the word whitey to be provocative. I really mean all those teabaggers with the signs comparing Obama to Hitler.

Unfortunately, Obama isn't doing the job in my eyes. I was never really sold on his campaign but he was definitely the lesser of two evils. I wonder if Hillary could of done a more effective job with Bill at her side.

All campaigns take millions of dollars, it's the prereq. to be a politician and personally, I donated to his campaign, but let's call a spade a spade.

[amelia]

deep inside I voted for him because I wanted to see a black president and piss whitey off.

Great. People using votes as provocations, and subscribing to the lunatic theory that promoting someone with Obama's melanin level somehow 'settles' a racial grudge. Why not dispense entirely with political parties that purport to be about ideas, and just have color parties instead? A black party for black candidates who piss off the white party that has the white candidate to piss off the brown party that has the brown candidate to piss off the yellow candidate and so on and so on?

I can't think of anything that will heal America's racial divides faster than emphasizing skin color above all other factors at election time. Well done. Really.

Now that it's been done, I think I'll go with someone else if they prove themselves to be worthy.

Actually, I don't think your original objective has been accomplished. Plenty of 'whitey's are just not that pissed off by your 2008 vote ( I love how we can call people 'whitey' here, too. Have you seen the word 'blackie' or 'darkie' on the forum much lately? ). You might need to go darker in 2012.

When you strongly imply that 'white people are programmed to be pissed off by a black president, regardless of who lives inside the black skin', you do realize that you're making a very racist broadbrush allegation against white people yourself, right?

Oh god, you are totally putting words in my mouth. Where did I even say racial grudge? Stop projecting. It's thinking like this that turns people off to the left. Address what I said, only what I said.

Quit reacting and think about the things you are writing to a complete stranger that you don't know. I don't think that way, and I don't really care to address your knee-jerk reaction to an inocuous joke.

[amelia]

I just voted crap, macho man.

[seanurban]

I purposely used the word whitey to be provocative. I really mean all those teabaggers with the signs comparing Obama to Hitler.

ok, those people are a little pissed off that obama won. i grant you that. but who really cares what they think anyway? they will continue to cash in their medicare checks and either move to florida (if they got money) or go back to their trailer park (if they don't) no matter who the president is. for all the noise they make at their tea parties, they're some of the least actually affected by the already diluted choices offered to us at election time. (witness how congress offers up a healthcare reform bill that AARP can totally get behind.) so yes, i believe the racist old people are pissed off. but i don't believe obama will actually stand up to them.

again, thank you for being honest. most people will not admit what you did, but i think you're not alone.

[amelia]

I purposely used the word whitey to be provocative. I really mean all those teabaggers with the signs comparing Obama to Hitler.

ok, those people are a little pissed off that obama won. i grant you that. but who really cares what they think anyway? they will continue to cash in their medicare checks and either move to florida (if they got money) or go back to their trailer park (if they don't) no matter who the president is. for all the noise they make at their tea parties, they're some of the least actually affected by the already diluted choices offered to us at election time. (witness how congress offers up a healthcare reform bill that AARP can totally get behind.) so yes, i believe the racist old people are pissed off. but i don't believe obama will actually stand up to them.

again, thank you for being honest. most people will not admit what you did, but i think you're not alone.

I don't know where you live, but where I work we are all minorities. People wanted to see a black president that made all of the promises he made get into office not only for who he was/is, but for the color of his skin. When Sotomayor was nominated, all the latinos had a party. These are historic events for minorities, and yes, I strongly believe that minority people will vote with the minority because it's very apparent where I sit here in a social services office.

edit: for the record, it's not about revenge, it's about seeing diversity in these high ranking offices.

[amelia]

Where did I even say racial grudge?

These are your words?

I wanted to see a black president and piss whitey off.

You broke the race down into black vs. white. That's a slander that attempts to classify every white voter who chose someone other than Obama as a racist. You said that whites generally think alike when it comes to black skin, and you predicted that electing someone with black skin would satisfy your desire to 'piss off' white people. Clearly, Obama's strong showing in communities that were nearly all white disproves your slander charging white people with having a kneejerk negative reaction to darker skin.

You had a revenge strategy against white people in mind when you cast your vote in 2008. Your own words say this. If that isn't an example of a race-based grudge, I don't know what is.

If you're comfortable confessing that 'pissing off whitey' was what was on your mind as you cast your vote in 2008, that's fine with me. I'm sure that the extremely pro-establishment and pro-white power and pro-white money Obama organization was happy to count your vote just like all the others. You played a cruel joke on yourself by thinking that you exacted any 'revenge' for black people with your 2008 vote.

All white people look the same to me, sorry

[seanurban]

hey naders running mate was latino. but pass the corona. i support anything that means more parties.

[unarmedman]

Doing something significant about climate change? In the hole.

Creating a commodities market for carbon credits == in the hole. Wow.

[Cranius]

Terry Eagleton on the meaning of Obama, in The New Statesman:

[...] Nations sometimes flourish by denying the crimes that brought them into being. Only when the original invasion, occupation, extermination or usurpation has been safely thrust into the political unconscious can sovereignty feel secure.

It is enslaved ancestors, as Benjamin calls them, whom Barack Obama has in his keeping. He may not himself be a descendant of slaves, but he is a child of the continent from where they were shipped. Obama is not especially keen on advertising this fact, given his scrupulously crafted "post-racial" persona. We can certainly expect little from his administration in the way of real change. The US will remain a one-party state, whatever name the capitalist party happens to go under. Even so, with a black man in power, the country still has within its grasp a momentous opportunity to redeem its dead. It has a chance to write an unexpected epilogue to the sordid tale of slavery and racial conflict.

This does not mean that all's well that ends well, as Shakespeare seems to have thought. Tragedies are not converted into comedies simply by being given a few upbeat closing lines. In fact, most of Shakespeare's own happy endings deliberately include some dissident element, some joker in the pack who refuses to be incorporated into the final resolution.

Obama's victory does not make up for America's horrific racial past. The lynched, castrated and humiliated of earlier times can be granted no literal redemption. Our more optimistic ancestors sometimes thought of history as a kind of train, pulling us up from the dark valleys to the sunlit uplands. But if history is a train, then we need to commemorate those who never arrived at their destination - those who died in the sidings or jumped despairingly on to the tracks.

Waking the Dead: http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2009/ ... ture-obama

[Andrew.]

Noam Chomsky: No change in US 'Mafia principle' under Obama.

It is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric.

[Wood Goblin]

Doing something significant about climate change? In the hole.

Creating a commodities market for carbon credits == in the hole. Wow.

FWIW, there's evidence that the European carbon trading markets are starting to have a real effect, although it took a fair amount of tailoring and mistake-fixing to get them there.

[Andrew.]

Doing something significant about climate change? In the hole.

Creating a commodities market for carbon credits == in the hole. Wow.

FWIW, there's evidence that the European carbon trading markets are starting to have a real effect, although it took a fair amount of tailoring and mistake-fixing to get them there.

And there's also evidence that it's still bullshit writ large.

E.g.

The recent global financial crisis has dramatically highlighted the folly of dogmatic belief in the omnipotence of free markets. It is an ideological anachronism to promote those same free-market forces and processes of financialisation as being an effective means of bringing about the urgently needed transition to the global low-carbon economy.

http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/sh ... -t-working

Why does European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) consistently grant over-allocation of pollution permits?

Most cap and trade markets use projections of historical emissions provided by industry itself to calculate the initial caps. Industry has a clear incentive to overstate its past emissions to gain more credits. As a result, cap and trade markets start out with too many permits. This was true of the EU ETS which consistently awarded major polluters with more free pollution permits (called EUAs, European Union Allowances) than their actual level of carbon emissions. This means it gave them no incentive to reduce emissions, and as a result the price of the permits collapsed – ending 2007 at €0.01. In phase I (2005-2007) as a whole, according to the EU's own data, major polluters had permits worth 3.4 per cent more than their actual level of emissions.

But didn't the second phase of the EU ETS (2008-2012) resolve this over-allocation?
The EU claims that it has learned from its mistakes and that the second phase of its scheme is working. Whilst it is true that for the first time in 2008, polluters were awarded fewer permits than their actual level of emissions, there is still over-allocation of permits:

The vast majority of factories and economic sectors are still over-allocated – it is only the power sector that needs to purchase credits

The impact of the EU-wide recession means that the ETS as a whole will again be over-allocated in 2009

Corporations get the same number of credits even if they temporarily close or scale down operations for short-term economic reasons


But isn't Phase II nevertheless leading to emissions reductions?
The EU claims emissions reductions of 3 per cent, or 50 million tons, in ETS sectors in 2008. The trouble is that at least 80 million tons of “carbon offsets” in the developing world were bought as part of the ETS in 2009 – more than the level of the cap. So, again, the ETS does not require emissions reductions by companies in the EU.

Moreover there is also evidence that some of the supposed “cuts” are fake. One such example is Lithuania which claimed it would be forced to use coal-powered electricity as a result of the closure of Ignalina, a nuclear power plant. As a result it gained a large surplus of credits, which have been sold on and treated as “emissions reductions” elsewhere.

So who profited from carbon trading?
Companies receive most carbon credits for free. This is equivalent to a subsidy – and with allocations made on the basis of historical emissions, the largest subsidy goes to the dirtiest industry (especially coal-fired power plants).

Windfall profits also arise from an accounting trick around “opportunity costs.” Power companies choose to do the cheapest thing to meet their ETS target – which is usually buying Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) credits – but passing on costs as if they were doing the most expensive – actually reducing emissions. Even power companies receiving free credits from the ETS have nevertheless passed on the cost of these credits to consumers. Research by market-analysts Point Carbon and WWF calculated that the likely “windfall” profits made by power companies in phase II could be between €23 and €71 billion, and that these profits were concentrated in the countries with the highest level of emissions.

ArcelorMittal, the world´s largest steel company, is another typical example. It routinely receives a quarter to a third credits than it would have needed to even begin reducing emissions. The company is likely to have made over €2 billion in profits from the ETS between 2005 and 2008, with over €500 million of this achieved in 2008 alone – yet has needed to make no proactive changes to its emissions to do so

What about phase III of the EU ETS?
EU ETS phase III runs from 2013 to 2020, and the debate in Brussels is focussed on the risk of “carbon leakage.” This relates to industry claims that strict regulations in one part of the world will encourage outsourcing to locations where regulations are weaker. It is already being used as a blackmail tactic by industry to reduce its targets or obligations within the EU ETS (and other proposed schemes in Australia and the US). Over half of the 258 industrial sectors in Europe being assessed for exposure to carbon leakage under the EU ETS will qualify for free emission allowances from 2013, according to an initial assessment by the European Commission.

http://www.carbontradewatch.org/index.p ... &Itemid=36

New report examines corporate influence on design of EU-ETS

A new report from Corporate Europe Observatory and PLATFORM reveals how oil giant BP's lobbying at the heart of the EU has played a key role in influencing Europe's energy policy, including the controversial EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

The report can be downloaded from:
http://www.corporateeurope.org/extractinginfluence.html

See also: 350 Reasons Carbon Trading Won't Work.

More criticism and analysis @ http://www.carbontradewatch.org/

[Wood Goblin]

There was an article in a recent Economist (print) about Europe's results--both the good and bad, as well as the mistakes and improvements--but I'll be damned if I can find it online.

[connor]

The bad we all know. So I'll concentrate on the NOT CRAP, largely because it's more interesting (with the PRF audience, that is) and less horrifying.

Best things you can say about them:

1. Their failure to enact even extremely tepid, corporate-cowed liberal reforms is (finally) calling the public's attention to the real centers of power in this country--corporate power--and the various methods they use to game our "democratic" processes--the U.S. Senate being their most intractable fail-safe measure. (Five years ago, nobody knew who in the fuck Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, or Kent Conrad were.) This is a very good thing.

Witnessing Obama's failure/consent (not entirely sure it matters) provides us all with a better understanding of how corporate-capitalism really works--how it completely supersedes democratic governance entirely. Most of us needed this. And, to a large extent, its worked: I don't know a single person who hasn't gone batshit-left in the past year, including both myself and former paid employees of Obama for America. It's sad to watch the first African American president either flail about or sell us all up the river, but I don't believe that clarity, maturity and intellectual growth can truly take hold without first experiencing disappointment, disillusionment, and despair. As a result, we are--as a nation--talking about about "capitalism" as if it was a choice that we've made, and not simply the air that we all breathe. That's quite a coup.

Let's just hope that it doesn't unleash the Falangist faction.

And on an even more intangible (i.e. possibly bullshitty), Zizek level:

2. The "spirit" of optimism and collective-effort towards a common goal of social and economic justice was, and is very real, despite the fact that the people hocking it did so for completely cynical reasons. "Very real" in the same exact way that the spirit of jingoism, fear, xenophobia, and authoritarianism sold by the Bush administration had the "very real" effect of turning a large portion of the country into jingoistic, frightened, xenophobic, and authoritarian assholes--and leading them along to the appropriate ideologies and texts. (Have we forgotten what it was like to live in a so-called Red State circa 2002-2005?).

3. Putting a justice--an ex-corporate lawyer!--on the Roberts Supreme Court who broke out of the gates with this:

During arguments in a recent campaign-finance case — that may upend campaign finance law to allow more spending by corporations — Sotomayor suggested that the core underpinning of protecting corporations’ rights was flawed.

Judges “created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons,” she said, the Wall Street Journal noted Friday. “There could be an argument made that that was the court’s error to start with…[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics.”

4. Though marginalized: Mark Lloyd (the one guy on Glenn Beck's hitlist that likely is something of a threat), Steven Chu, and Jared Bernstein. And former Nader-Raider David Vladeck heading up the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. Neat!

5. Seymour Hersh says that Obama is finally standing up to the Pentagon. They're not really used to that kind of thing. Of course this is his opinion, but I've long respected Hersh's take on such things. Hardly a guy with "liberal illusions."

[cneutron]

Professor Watson writes

Hi friends,

I am always being asked to grade Obama's presidency. In place of offering him a grade, I put together a list of his accomplishments thus far. I think you would agree that it is very impressive. His first six months have been even more active than FDRs or LBJs the two standards for such assessments. Yet, there is little media attention given to much of what he has done. Of late, the media is focusing almost exclusively on Obama's critics, without holding them responsible for the uncivil, unconstructive tone of their disagreements or without holding the previous administration responsible for getting us in such a deep hole. The misinformation and venom that now passes for political reporting and civic debate is beyond description.

As such, there is a need to set the record straight. What most impresses me is the fact that Obama has accomplished so much not from a heavy-handed or top-down approach but from a style that has institutionalized efforts to reach across the aisle, encourage vigorous debate, and utilize town halls and panels of experts in the policy-making process. Beyond the accomplishments, the process is good for democracy and our democratic processes have been battered and bruised in recent years.
Let me know if I missed anything in the list (surely I did).
Robert

Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending
Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices
Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women
Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information
Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier's family
The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act
Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible
Limits on lobbyist's access to the White House
Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration
Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date
Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan
Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research
New federal funding for science and research labs
States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards
Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect
Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools
New funds for school construction
The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out
US Auto industry rescue plan
Housing rescue plan
$789 billion economic stimulus plan
The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying
US financial and banking rescue plan
The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed
Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards
Better body armor is now being provided to our troops
The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010
Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols
Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic
Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions
Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office
Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job
US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast
Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles
Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales
Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government
Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children
Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program
Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones
Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions
Expanding vaccination programs
Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters
Closed offshore tax safe havens
Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back
Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry's predatory practices
Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources
Lower drug costs for seniors
Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings
Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel
Improved housing for military personnel
Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses
Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals
Increasing student loans
Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program
Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy
Established a new cyber security office
Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts
Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness
Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient
Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced
Improving benefits for veterans
Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration
Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud
The FDA is now regulating tobacco
Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules
Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports
Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons
Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive
Making more loans available to small businesses
Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare
Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court
Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans
Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000
Renewed loan guarantees for Israel
Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan
Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan
New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans
Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production
Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters
Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket
Held first Seder in White House
Attempting to reform the nation's healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves almost 50 million without health insurance and millions more under insured
Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform
Has announced his intention to push for energy reform
Has announced his intention to push for education reform
Oh, and he built a swing set for the girls outside the Oval Office!

b
Robert P. Watson, Ph.D.Coordinator of American Studies
Lynn University

I'm just saying.
NOT CRAP.

[tommydski]

Still not at war with Iran/N.Korea/Pakistan/Venezuela/Insert Your Country Here.

NOT CRAP, let's keep it that way please America.

[AlBStern]

Thanks for posting that cneutron. Kind of amazing that people really think the Obama administration is more of the same when compare do the Bush years.

[Andrew.]

Obviously it'd take a long time to go through that list and unpack each item, but to take but one, concerning the ongoing indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in the imperial war and occupation in Afghanistan:

Professor Watson writes


New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans

Is Watson on glue?

Civilian and overall casualties (2009)

For the first half of 2009, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) recorded 1,013 Afghan civilian deaths for the six months from January 1st to June 30. This represents an increase of 24% over the same period in 2008, when 818 civilians were killed. In 2007, 684 civilians were killed in the same period. According to UNAMA, 595 (59%) of the deaths in the past six months were caused by anti-government elements, 310 (30.5%) were caused by international-led military forces, while the remaining 108 (10.5%) of the deaths could not be clearly attributed to any of the parties in the conflict. The UNAMA report noted that "if the non-combatant status of one or more victim(s) remains under significant doubt, such deaths are not included in the overall number of civilian casualties. Thus, there is a significant possibility that UNAMA is under-reporting civilian casualties."[42]

In September 2009, the U.N. reported that August had been the deadliest month of 2009 to date for Afghan civilians as a result of the August 20th election. The U.N. also reported that about 1,500 people were killed from the start of the year through August. The report stated: "August (was) the deadliest month since the beginning of 2009. ... These figures reflect an increasing trend in insecurity over recent months and in elections-related violence." UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) attributed 68% of the deaths to anti-government elements and 23% of the deaths to international-led military forces - most of them in airstrikes. In 9% of the civilian deaths, UNAMA was unable to clearly attribute the cause to any one side of the parties in the conflict. The number of civilians killed represented an increase of 31% over the same period in 2008, when 1,145 civilians were killed.

If you can delight in Watson's hasty, non-vetted, feel-good laundry list, then maybe you can pay the memory of the dozens of children Obama has incinerated overseas some respect and also spare a moment for a critical perspective.

It’s been a bad autumn for Nato in Afghanistan, with twin disasters on the political and military fronts. First, Kai Eide, the UN headman in Kabul, a well-meaning, but not very bright Norwegian, fell out with his deputy, Peter Galbraith, who as the de facto representative of the US State Department had decreed that President Karzai’s election was rigged and went public about it. His superior continued to defend Hamid Karzai’s legitimacy. Astonishingly, the UN then fired Galbraith. This caused Hillary Clinton to move into top gear and the UN-supported electoral watchdog now ruled that the elections had indeed been fraudulent and ordered a run-off. Karzai refused to replace the electoral officials who had done such a good job for him the first time and his opponent withdrew. Karzai got the job.

Karzai’s legitimacy has never been dependent on elections (which are always faked anyway) but on the US/Nato expeditionary force. So what was all this shadowboxing about in the first place? It appears to have been designed in order to provide cover for the military surge being plotted by General Stanley McChrystal, the new white hope of a beleaguered White House. McChrystal seems to have inverted the old Clausewitzian maxim: he genuinely believes that politics is a continuation of war by other means. It was thought that if Karzai could be painlessly removed and replaced with his former colleague Abdullah Abdullah, a Tajik from the north, it might create the impression that an unbearably corrupt regime had been peacefully removed, which would help the flagging propaganda war at home and the relaunching of the real war in Afghanistan. For his part, Abdullah wanted a share of the loot that comes with power and has so far been monopolised by the Karzai brothers and their hangers-on, helping them to create a tiny indigenous base of support for the family. Did the revelation that Ahmed Wali Karzai was not simply the richest man in the country as a result of large-scale corruption and the drugs/arms trade, but a CIA agent too come as a huge surprise to anyone? I’m told that in desperation Nato commissars even considered appointing a High Representative on the Balkan model to run the country, making the presidency an even more titular post than it is today. Were this to happen, Galbraith or Tony Blair would be the obvious front-runners.

[...]

It’s now obvious to everyone that this is not a ‘good’ war designed to eliminate the opium trade, discrimination against women and everything bad – apart from poverty, of course. So what is Nato doing in Afghanistan? Has this become a war to save Nato as an institution? Or is it more strategic, as was suggested in the spring 2005 issue of Nato Review:

The centre of gravity of power on this planet is moving inexorably eastward … The Asia-Pacific region brings much that is dynamic and positive to this world, but as yet the rapid change therein is neither stable nor embedded in stable institutions. Until this is achieved, it is the strategic responsibility of Europeans and North Americans, and the institutions they have built, to lead the way … security effectiveness in such a world is impossible without both legitimacy and capability.

Whatever the reason, the operation has failed. Most of Obama’s friends in the US media recognise this, and support a planned withdrawal, while worrying that pulling troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan might result in Obama losing the next election, especially if McChrystal or General Petraeus, the supposed hero of the surge in Iraq, stand for the Republicans. Not that the US seems likely to withdraw from Iraq. The only withdrawal being contemplated is from the main cities, restricting the US presence to the huge air-conditioned military bases that have already been constructed in the interior of the country, mimicking the strongholds of the British Empire (minus the air-conditioners) during the early decades of the last century.

While Washington decides what do, Af-Pak is burning. Carrying out the imperial diktat has put the Pakistan army under enormous strain. Its recent well-publicised offensive in South Waziristan yielded little. Its intended target disappeared to fight another day. To show good faith the military raided the Shamshatoo refugee camp in Peshawar. On 4 November I received an email from Peshawar:

Thought I’d let you know that I just got a call from a former Gitmo prisoner who lives in Shamshatoo camp and he told me that this morning at around 10 a.m. some cops and military men came and raided several homes and shops and arrested many people. They also killed three innocent schoolchildren. Their jinaza [funeral] is tonight. Several people took footage of the raid from their cell-phones which I can try to get a hold of. The funeral of the three children is happening as I’m typing.

How could this end well?

What's the response here?

But, but, but a Republican Admin would be killing even more people, violently and callously asserting US power and interests even more inhumanely? Is this or is this is not what effectively passes the mark of a lib-dem moral compass (such as that of Tommydski, Faiz, Al, cneutron, etc.)?

I realize my tone is a bit snarky but I'm honestly asking you people. Because you give the appearance of being perfectly at ease with all this. You don't utter a word about it. It smacks of a form of cynicism I find difficult to reconcile with the decent, thoughtful characters you are in person. In truth, it's a form of cynicism I find contemptible.

You'll also note that Watson lists Obama's expansion of the US military beyond even the PNAC crew's imperial ambitions among the glad tidings of his epistle. Yee-haw.

I'm surprised Michelle Obama's organic garden at the White House didn't make Watson's list, as it clearly "offsets" the Obama Admin's nomination for Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the US Trade Representative: the plucky Islam Siddiqui, "vice president at CropLife America, a coalition of the major industrial players in the pesticide industry, including Syngenta, Monsanto, and Dow Chemical."

[alex maiolo]

The problem with the "Hope" stuff is that he walked into office set to fail. If he accomplishes 30% of what he set out to do, it would be a raging success in actuality, but there will still be a lot of disappointed people who didn't get their pet peeve fixed.

For me it's Healthcare. This whole thing is a waste. Baccus was the wrong guy for the job, and what we might, might get out of this is a handout to the insurance companies polished up to look like reform or change.

So far all I can say is we broke the racial barrier by electing the first black president in the developed world. After eight years of disaster, some sort of statement needed to be made, and that's a good one. There was a palpable lifting of the malaise that I liked, but that's going to slip away soon.

I'm still good with him, but he needs to crack heads with the Dems. When the GOP took over in 1994, they put Newt Gingrich in power. The meanest, dirtiest bastard they could find who didn't come across as some bible thumping zealot, which made him look "reasonable." He got stuff done in a "to the victor belongs the spoils way." Stuff I hated, but he got his agenda through.

The Dems have chosen to keep a man who looks and acts like Orville Reddenbacker, and a woman who seems to be made of plastic, in place as their leaders. I know almost nothing about sports, but what I do know is when you get the ball, you put your offense out, because your defense isn't trained to score. These people suck in both functions regardless.

What I want out of Obama is leadership. I'm not really seeing that. He's a good speaker, and I'm not embarrassed at all by him. That's a start. Now he needs to lead.

-A