DOWNLOADS: (2005)

PLAYS: (5251)

Embed

Before U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles began to rain down on Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses, the only conversation that President Obama had to have was with his senior advisers.

They, and they alone would decide whether a country founded as a democratic republic would engage in what George Washington would have likely viewed as a "foreign entanglement" – using 21st-century ordinance against a sociopath with a history of violence and a worse hat fetish than Sammy Davis Jr.

Obviously, in 200 years the United States has evolved from a rebel-with-a-cause into a world power, and additional involvement in world affairs has become part of the cost of doing business.

There is also a good argument to be made that after the terrible mistake of the Iraq invasion, the US can do some good by putting an end to the murderous Gaddafi in Libya, as part of an international coalition made up of Arab and African countries, blessed by the United Nations.

Yet, that does not change the fact that congressional support for this operation was as important as an appendix or a Newt Gingrich marriage vow.

Obama and his people simply knew they could ignore the people's representatives and safely rely upon a militarized culture primed to support an attack on an Arab nation. Particularly one the US had already thrown down with only a generation ago.

It is this fact that makes author, syndicated columnist and talk radio host David Sirota's new book, Back To Our Future, not only a fascinating read about the culture of the 1980s, but a manifestly important work in helping explain why the United States does the things it does today.

From involvement in a civil war in Libya to allowing a madman sans background check to saunter into his local arms bazaar and purchase a high-powered firearm for an attempted assassination of a congresswoman.

The latter being easier than say, finding plutonium for your DeLorean in 1955.

Continue reading »

So I was watching a CNN panel today and the subject up for debate was something along the lines of, "Is Obama shedding constituents? Critics say he's abandoned Wall Street."

My first reaction was, "Wait, critics are saying this? Are you sure that wasn't what his allies said?" But no -- I actually had to listen to a debate over whether Obama was making a huge political mistake by "abandoning" his bestest pals in the world at the megabanks.* You know, the guys whose greed and irresponsibility caused the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.

(*Obama hasn't actually "abandoned" the banks in the least, but that's a story for another post.)

And then I thought, "Why the hell are we the only culture in the whole goldurned world where it's seen as a political risk to abandon the people who are responsible for causing widespread economic hardship?" And all this got me thinking about the super-weird "We-Must-Be-Nice-to-Rich-People" doctrine that has run through our national discourse since the 1980s.

You see, there was a time when American politicians could say things such as "It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes" (Andrew Jackson) and "Too much cannot be said against the men of wealth who sacrifice everything to getting wealth" (Teddy Roosevelt) and "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering... They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred" (FDR) and no one thought anything of it. Indeed, as Simon Johnson and James Kwak show in their excellent book 13 Bankers, hating on financial oligarchs is as American as hating on soccer, dating all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.

But starting in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan began popularizing Randroid mythology about how rich people were necessarily our betters because they were the only ones capable of "creating wealth" in the economy.

(For some reason, Big Ron forgot to mention they were also capable of creating multi-trillion-dollar housing bubbles, overpriced Pets.com stock certificates and made-to-fail synthetic interest rate swaps that bankrupt entire counties.)

And ever since then, every Democratic president and politician has had to reassure members of our elite media that he's just as capable of kissing rich-guy keisters as the Republicans. If you want a prime example of this dynamic at work, check out this Washington Post piece (via Harper's) that places giant red warning lights over Paul Krugman's views but that quotes some sleazeball Wall Streeter as though he were a perfectly objective analyst. First, his take on Krugman:

When you read Krugman on economics, you need to read him through a filter. He believes that the $787 billion government stimulus approved last year was not enough to really kick-start the economy and that much more is needed. You can correctly read many of his columns -- including this one -- as arguments for more taxpayer-funded stimulus. So just know that.

And now, the equity strategist:

I started with Peter Boockvar, equity strategist at Miller Tabak.

My e-mail was short: "Double-dip or slowdown?"

His response was equally abrupt: "Depends on who wins Nov. elections and what taxes get hiked in 2011."

The tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush expire at the end of this year. President Obama has proposed extending those cuts -- except for families that make more than $250,000 a year. If Republicans win Congress in November, it's a good bet that the wealthiest Americans will keep their tax cuts. If the Democrats hold the Hill, it's unlikely.

"Our fragile economy CANNOT handle any tax hikes whatsoever, particularly on capital and the income of those who invest, save and spend the most," Boockvar wrote, meaning those American families that make more than $250,000 a year. The all-caps are his, but the feeling is shared by many.

Now, I'm of the general mindset that it's daft to raise taxes or cut spending in the middle of a severe economic downturn. But at the same time, note Boockvar's emphasis on whose taxes we should really be opposed to raising: "Those who invest, save and spend the most." In other words, people like Peter Boockvar.

I personally find it highly unlikely that if Mr. Boockvar's taxes were to rise back to the level of the 1990s that he'd suddenly lose all will to work and would instead spend his remaining days sipping Purple Drank outside his local 7-11. People like this are generally addicted to making money and they'd sell penny stocks and junk bonds to special needs children if they thought they could get away with it. What Mr. Boockvar would have written if he were being honest was, "I've already put off buying cocaine and pricey call girls enough during this recession and I CANNOT handle any tax hikes whatsoever."

And that's where we are. Despite the fact that our banking oligarchs destroyed the entire financial system and were only saved from homelessness by the United States government, they still must be treated as "special" people who are "the only ones" capable of creating new jobs for the lesser people. It'd be nice if this particularly insidious piece of mythology were to be sent to the ashcan of history, but methinks it's going to take some time...

Judging from the recent polls, if the Democrats don't figure out a way to either get people employed or at least extend unemployment benefits for the people who can't find jobs, this year's midterms will be a tsunami that washes the Democrats into the sea:

As the nation contends with a long and sustained labor market recession, a new study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research demonstrates that the current unemployment rate is higher than the conventional measure shows.

"An unemployment rate that has hovered above 9 percent for several months is striking, but the jobs picture is even worse than it looks," said report author and CEPR Economist David Rosnick.

The study, "The Adult Recession: Age-Adjusted Unemployment at Post-War Highs," adjusts the current unemployment rate to account for demographic differences and finds that the unemployment rate has not fallen below 10.8 percent in the last 12 months. During the worst episode of the recession of the 1980s -- the second half of 1982 and the first half of 1983 -- unemployment passed 10 percent for 7 months.

The analysis notes that the population is older today than it was in the 1980s, which has the effect of lowering today's unemployment rate relative to the past. Since they change jobs more frequently and are more likely to move in and out of the labor market, Young people have a higher unemployment rate than older workers. Adjusting for this older workforce shows that the United States is experiencing the weakest labor market since the Great Depression.

The severity of the current unemployment situation suggests that policy makers should consider measures that would slow or reverse this trend. Additional stimulus such as work sharing or the extension of unemployment benefits by Congress would go far in addressing the plight of the millions of unemployed Americans suffering as a result of this downturn.

And these are the people who want to make decisions about everyone else's personal life:

ESSEN, Germany — The German archdiocese led by the future Pope Benedict XVI ignored repeated warnings in the early 1980s by a psychiatrist treating a priest accused of sexually abusing boys that he should not be allowed to work with children, the psychiatrist said.

“I said, ‘For God’s sake, he desperately has to be kept away from working with children,’” the psychiatrist Werner Huth said in an interview Thursday. “I was very unhappy about the entire story.” Dr. Huth said he was concerned enough that he set three conditions for treating the priest, Peter Hullermann: that he stay away from young people and alcohol and be supervised by another priest at all times.

Dr. Huth said he issued the warnings — explicit, both written and oral — before the future pope, then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, left Germany for the Vatican in 1982. In 1980, following abuse complaints from parents in Essen that the priest did not deny, Archbishop Ratzinger approved a decision to move the priest to Munich for therapy.

Despite the psychiatrist’s warnings, Father Hullermann was allowed to return to parish work almost immediately after his therapy began, interacting with children as well as adults. He was promptly accused of molesting other boys and was convicted in 1986 of sexual abuse in Bavaria.

Benedict’s then-deputy, Gerhard Gruber, said that he was to blame for that personnel decision, which he called a “serious mistake.”

MSNBC:

The Rev. Jerry Falwell - founder of the Moral Majority and the face of the religious right in the 1980s - died Tuesday after being found unconscious in his office, a Liberty University executive said.

Ron Godwin, Liberty's executive vice president, said Falwell, 73, had been found unresponsive around 10:45 a.m. and was taken to Lynchburg General Hospital.

Godwin said he was not sure what caused the collapse, but noted that Falwell had "a history of heart challenges."

I have had deep, deep issues with Falwell's statements and actions in the past. And I truly do believe he had a very negative impact on politics in the US. However, I am also going to ask that people wishing to comment on this thread show some respect (for the site and the site team, if no one else) by not turning it into a hate-fest.

AP Via Yahoo:

The Environmental Protection Agency is investigating whether cancer-causing radioactive material was buried in the 1980s near a rifle range at Camp Lejeune, the Marine Corps' primary base on the Atlantic Ocean.

A recently recovered Navy document dated 1981 said the material included 160 pounds of soil and two animal carcasses laced with strontium-90, an isotope that causes cancer and leukemia.

"We are looking into this information to determine if we need to sample and where," said Dawn Harris-Young, a spokeswoman for the EPA's regional office in Atlanta. "It's really early."

The document said the dirt, carcasses and other materials containing strontium-90 originated at a naval research lab near the base and were buried in a remote area.

Over three decades, tens of thousands of Marines at Camp Lejeune and their families drank and bathed in water contaminated with as many as 40 times more toxins than permitted by safety standards. The wells had been contaminated with industrial solvents and were shut off in the mid-1980s. The base's water now meets federal standards.

At least 850 former residents of the base have filed claims against the military, seeking nearly $4 billion, for exposure to the tainted water. Read more...