:: It's not a capitalistic move to nationalize Freddie and Fannie. This is a socialist scheme.

ozymandius (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 10:17 AM Response to Reply #10

15. Good morning.

This is so very bizarre for the markets to behave this way. It's not a capitalistic move to nationalize Freddie and Fannie. This is a socialist scheme. Pimco's Bill Gross cannot be too happy right now. He's been stuffing his company's gob with Fannie and Freddie stock with the expectation that their preferred shares would be protected. I'll bet Mr. Gross is in a foul mood today. One common trait among obscene futures numbers mornings: failure to extrapolate the lines. Sure, the Federal government will guarantee the GSE's debt. But with what? The dollar is going down the crapper again, inflation is going to spike again, banks that own preferred shares of these two GSEs as a steady source of income are going to lose that. To extrapolate the lines on these conditions leads me to believe that bank failures, runaway inflation and higher transportation costs are the price we'll pay for Paulson's dumbass scheme of placing these companies into conservatorship. Go a bit further and we'll see President Obama's hand being forced with crushing federal debt to abandon single payer healthcare, infrastructure improvements and the like. We see again a Republican dream: creating conditions such that the federal government cannot function.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Roland99 (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 10:24 AM Response to Reply #15

17. Norquist et al must be euphoric

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Prag (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 12:14 PM Response to Reply #15

33. I must respectfully disagree, Ozy.

"This is a socialist scheme." It may appear on it's face to be, but, like all things Supply-side it's not. It's the death of the Middle-class and the New Deal. That's why Paulson is in such a hurry to do it. A Shrugger's wet dream... They've been put into conservator-ship to be butchered with all of the choice cuts going to those who already have too much, yet, yearn for more. It's the ultimate Corporatist Move. Dismembering the regular people. Is it any wonder we heard from Greenspan the other day.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DemReadingDU (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 12:35 PM Response to Reply #33

41. Where is Tansy Gold?

I'm sure she would have some especially nuanced opinions.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Prag (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 12:38 PM Response to Reply #41

42. Yeah! Where is Tansy_Gold?

I've seen some recent posts. Hasn't been here in the SMW, tho.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Tansy_Gold (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 07:18 PM Response to Reply #42

78. My dear, dear, dear SMW friends

Oh, goodness, the last thing I ever expected to see in SMW was "Where's Tansy Gold?" You've got me all misty eyed now! The past week has been an exercise in chaos, personally and of course politically, and I confess I spent far too much time (with far too little effect) over in GD-P trying to get my poor ravaged brain around the puke ticket. I'm still not sure I'm rational about it. Then came yesterday's news about Fred and Fan, and so many other notions and nuances went flying out the window. Understand, my friends, that I'm not an economist, not a financial whiz of any kind. I look at things with what I think is a more sociological eye and through definitely socialist-tinged lenses. My gut reaction, therefore, is that any kind of government "take-over" of F&F is too little, too late, and money thrown to the wrong wolves. Not sure how many of you picked up on a post that ran late last week or over the week-end -- when nights and days run together, one tends to lose all track of time -- about the melt-down of what was one of the biggest housing booms in the country: the West Valley outside of Phoenix. That's where I used to live, and yes, it's as horrible as they say. The house I sold in Feb 2006 for $340K is now in foreclosure AGAIN with a listed price of under $160K. That's how bad it is. I'll be back in a day or so, with whatever "nuanced" insights I can provide. I love you all! Tansy Gold

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DemReadingDU (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 10:22 PM Response to Reply #78

91. Hey, I do remember reading about your house

Amazing the fall in value You are one lucky gal to sell when you did, We love ya too!

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Demeter (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 11:15 PM Response to Reply #78

97. Don't Be a Stranger, Hear?

And there's no point in trying to wrap anything except yesterday's newspaper around the GOP ticket. It's compost, and not well-rotted, either.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Tansy_Gold (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 11:32 PM Response to Reply #97

100. Yeah, it's fresh compost.

As in, "What new hell is this?" or something along those lines. I am off tonight to an artists' meeting, should be back in the world of the living-and-suffering tomorrow. Have been passing along all kinds of info to my son -- he called the other night and screamed, "WHY ARE THERE SO MANY STUPID PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY?" so I sent him the link to Bob Altemyer's "The Authoritarians." Tansy Gold, getting ready to do battle with social security the end of this week and hoping for a reasonable outcome

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Ghost Dog (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 01:42 PM Response to Reply #33

46. Agree with Prag.

Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 01:56 PM by Ghost Dog "socialize" in this context another buzzword they can spin, and rather insulting to democratic socialism as practised today. As an example, here's a quick translation from Spain's El País newspaper, describing a speech from Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero delivered at the weekend: Zapatero will raise minimum pensions 6% in spite of the crisis Announces fight against unemployment is priority and says he "will not rescue corporations" The President of the Spanish Government, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, announced yesterday an increase of 6% in minimum pensions for next year and of 25% for the (four-year) legislature. He presented this measure as symbolic of the response from his Government to the economic crisis. "If we have to make a special effort at the present time, we must start with pensions", he said in Rodiezmo (Leon), during a meeting organized by the Socialist Miners' Federation, with which he traditionally opens the political term. Minimum pensions, which three million people receive, will rise in 2009 by a percentage similar to that of the last legislature. That percentage was between 28% and 36%, according to the type of benefit, Lucia Abellán reports. Zapatero guaranteed that, in spite of the crisis, he will maintain his social commitments in the areas of unemployment benefits, pensions and assistance for dependent people, and warned that he will not dedicate himself to rescuing corporations. "I am going to dedicate resources to support workers, to those who lose employment, and to pensioners … But don't ask me for money to save businesses of the kind that have been receiving enormous profits through processes that, in many cases, have not been healthy for the economy". … He also announced that, at this stage of crisis, his Government will maintain productive investment that creates jobs, such as in infrastructure, and said that he aims for territorial equilibrium through projects such as high-speed rail in the northwest of Spain. "The country will continue working through the power of investment", he said. … Among the objectives that are to be maintained during the current term, he included assistance for young people to pay rent, international aid to poor countries (with the commitment to reach 0.7% of GDP this legislature) and the promotion of renewable energy. In relation to this last point, he ruled out opening new nuclear power stations. /Original in Spanish... http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Zapatero/subira/p...

Alert | Add to my Journal

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

Prag (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 01:54 PM Response to Reply #46

48. I do agree with the balance of Ozy's post, however.

Especially, the last paragraph. But, TPTB must not be allowed to portray what they are doing as in any way an action of "socialism". It's taken the Corpratists since the 1930's for the opportunity to destroy the Social Safety Net. From what I understand, having Fanny and Freddie GSEs was never the intent in the first place. Making them thus was planting the nascent seed of their eventual downfall. They weren't even really originally part of the 'New Deal' and were added as a compromise with the Right-Wing later after they had used their pet Supreme Court to gut most of the original initiatives. Now that they've achieved their goal... What do they offer as a replacement. Only what their shallow thinking provides... Nothing.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

ozymandius (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 08:06 PM Response to Reply #33

80. I'll agree that killing the New Deal has been the arch-goal all along.

Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 08:38 PM by ozymandius In terms of socialism: there's left-wing socialism and then there's right-wing socialism. For me the definition of left-wing socialism is Keynesian economics: a government stimulus for the economy. Keynesian economics will only work for awhile. But like in the 1930s - it is what we need now the most.* The action Treasury just undertook was more of the right-wing soviet-style takeover. The intent is to kill the institution as a public service, skeletonize the carcass to benefit political insiders. It is no accident that the person put in charge of oversight is a member of the Carlyle Group. Kill the middle class? 100% with you there. Kill the New Deal? 100% too. What they could not take from Social Security, they will attempt to take by other means. Seizing the GSEs and putting under the supervision of a political insider is "other means". By the way, about left-wing dictatorships and right-wing dictatorships: each is so far to the extreme ends of the political spectrum that they both look the same to me. *By stimulus, I mean the WPA style projects of FDR's time - not the dumbass stimulus checks.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Ghost Dog (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 08:57 PM Response to Reply #80

84. Yes, I can agree with that, except to point out that right-wing

Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 09:01 PM by Ghost Dog economic "socialism" is more usually termed fascism, is it not? And to emphasise that the more democratic socialist countries that have been, I can't say 'flourishing' but certainly 'growing up', off and on, in Europe and now in Latin America (and they're not so very left-wing, except perhaps when viewed through lenses of the USA) have very little to do with dictatorial communism. I'm not convinced that 'Keynesian remedies' only make sense in emergencies, just as I'm not so convinced that more 'laissez-faire' economics is capable of initiating and above all maintaining levels of productive investment in both physical and human (eg. health, education) infrastructure that an advancing, progressive society in the long run must require. edit: Hope you had a productive day teaching, BTW. Do note that, like Tansy Gold, I'm more of a sociologist than an economist. I've just been carpenter and painter today.

Alert | Add to my Journal

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

ozymandius (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 10:02 PM Response to Reply #84

90. Indeed.

Fascism: the merging of state and corporate power. I am not aware of Keynesian policy being practiced since the Nixon administration shut down the last vestiges of it. But still - I feel that some element of Keynes has weighty merit as much as a nation's infrastructure always needs upkeep. That, to me, is the most obvious application of Keynesian principles, where applied distinctly apart from the system of political patronage that is so embedded in American culture. It is quite admirable what your adopted nation of Spain has managed to acquire for the populist movement.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Prag (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 10:54 PM Response to Reply #80

94. Yes, and they are the same.

Authoritarian, Totalitarian... Many names for the same thing. Well, we all know what the real solution to this economic problem is... Bring back the value of labor. It's that simple, but, they will fight it to the death.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Tansy_Gold (1000+ posts)

Mon Sep-08-08 09:05 PM Response to Reply #33

86. Absolutely correct, Prag, but you're too kind

Indeed it is a "corporatist" move, but the euphemism disguises the evil at the core. This is fascism, a.k.a. "national socialism," a.k.a. naziism. And we'd best be calling it what is is, or we won't know what hit us. Back in early 2000, I wrote to my then-friend regarding the upcoming elections that if booooosh somehow got into the White House, he would become our Hitler. "I don't know who will be his Jews, but he will be every bit as disastrous for the U.S. as Hitler was for Germany and the world." The analogy wasn't quite accurate, because there are fundamental differences in the physiology and the psychology of Germany 1933 and USA 2000, but I do believe we have moved closer to an equivalency in the past eight years. What the take-over of Fannie and Freddie does accomplishes NOTHING toward fixing hte economy. NOT A FLIPPIN' THING. The economy remains based on the phoney baloney "wealth" of financial manipulations and not on the actual production of consumable goods and services. Unless and until that part of the economy is put to rights, NOTHING will help the housing market, the jobs market, the manufacturing sector, the infrastructure, or even the mood of the populace. Circuses without bread mean nothing. I wish we had a statistician here to explain how national polling is conducted, someone who can put to rest my own suppositions as to how the demographic is calculated, how the sample is determined, who gets called, who doesn't, what responses are used and which are discarded. I think then we'd have a better picture of what might happen in the next 57 days. But then again, it all really comes down to what happens on that one single day. So many of us have virtually nothing to fight back with. And as I said on that awful day almost seven years ago, you cannot expect people who have NO HOPE LEFT to act rationally. Tansy Gold, clinging to rationality as to a life raft

The Democrats endorse the "Global War on Terrorism": Obama "goes after" Osama by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, August 29, 2008 - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9995

Obama's "American Promise" is War. Barack Obama has embraced the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT). The Obama-Biden campaign has endorsed the very foundations of the Bush administration's foreign policy agenda: "Go after Osama bin Laden, "take him out". The rhetoric is softer but the substance is almost identical: "For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives. [APPLAUSE] And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we’re wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war. That’s not the judgment we need. That won’t keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past." (The American Promise, August 28, 2008, Democratic Convention. Denver, emphasis added) The 9/11 Cover-up The Democrats have endorsed the "Big Lie". Bin Laden is upheld as the "outside enemy" who threatens the American Homeland. The fact that bin Laden is US sponsored intelligence asset, created and sustained by the CIA, is never mentioned. The Obama campaign galvanizes public support for the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT). In the words of Obama's running mate, Joe Biden: "The fact of the matter is, al-Qaida and the Taliban - the people who have actually attacked us on 9/11 [note: exactly the same wording as in the Obama speech] -- they've regrouped in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan and are plotting new attacks. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has echoed Barack's call for more troops and John McCain was wrong and Barack Obama was right." (Joe Biden, Democratic Convention, Denver, August 27, 2008, emphasis added) In contrast to Iraq, the war on Afghanistan is portrayed by the Obama-Biden campaign as a "Just War", a war of retribution initiated in October 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks. This concept of the "Just War" in relation to Afghanistan has been echoed by several prominent Liberal and "Progressive" intellectuals: The war on Iraq, on the other hand, is seen as an "illegal war". In October 2001, the attack on Afghanistan was supported by numerous civil society organizations on humanitarian grounds. It is by no means coincidental that the prominent "Leftist" scholars and intellectuals, who failed to address the use of the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to wage war, have expressed their support for Barack Obama. The Nation Magazine and Progressive Democrats for America are indelibly behind the Obama-Biden ticket. The Obama-Biden campaign has endorsed the 9/11 cover-up. Without a shred of evidence, Afghanistan, a nation of 34 million people (the size of Canada) is portrayed as the State sponsor of the 9/11 attacks. This basic premise is accepted by the Democrats. Obama indelibly upholds 9/11 as an act of war and aggression directed against America, thereby justifying a war of retribution directed against "Islamic terrorists" and their state sponsors. The "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT) is the product of a carefully designed military-intelligence agenda, which determines the thrust of US foreign policy. GWOT is endorsed by both Republicans and Democrats. US intelligence overrides party politics. GWOT is part of the presidential campaign platform of both political parties. Its validity is not questioned, nor are its consequences. The fact that it is predicated on a "Big Lie" is not an issue. Spiraling Defense Spending Both Barack Obama and John McCain have signaled that they will increase overall defense spending, while also revamping the system of Pentagon procurement with a view to reducing cost overruns. (See Bloomberg, June 30, 2008 See also Reuters, August 29, 2008). For FY 2009, the US Defense Department is asking for a $515 billion defense budget plus a separate $70 billion "to cover war costs into the early months of a new administration... Those amounts combined would represent the highest level of military spending since the end of World War II (adjusted for inflation)." (csmonitor.com Febraury 06, 2008) Obama's message is crystal clear. He endorses the Bush administration's proposed surge in military spending. He wants to spend more money on weapons and troops. Going after bin Laden and the "Global War on Terrorism" constitute his main justification for increased defense spending: "[M]ore resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11..." But at the same time, Obama promises more resources for education and health. "Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, ... I’ll invest in early childhood education. I’ll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. ... Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American.... (The American Promise, August 28, 2008, Democratic Convention. Denver, emphasis added) Will there be a shift in spending priorities? Under the Bush administration, Defense was favored in relaiton to all other expenditure categories. (See Chart above for FY 2004). Will an Obama administration change the structure of Federal government expenditure? Will he reduce the absolute size of defense spending which constitutes approximately 47 percent of global defense spending (all countries combined)? The US NATO combined control 70% of global defense spending. (See Chart below) Guns versus Butter Visibly Barack Obama does understand the Guns versus Butter dilemma. He fails to address a fundamental macro-economic relationship, namely the issue of public investment in the war economy versus the funding, through tax dollars, of civilian social programs. More broadly, this also raises the issue of the role of the US Treasury and the US monetary system, in relentlessly financing the military industrial complex and the Middle East war at the expense of most sectors of civilian economic activity. More resources to war and weapons, as proposed by both Obama and McCain, favors the Big Five Defense Contractors (Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grunman, Raytheon, Boeing and General Dynamics), Dick Cheney's Halliburton, British Aerospace, not to mention Blackwater, MPRI et al, at the expense of the civilian sectors, including national, regional and local level economies. Military Spending Creates Unemployment Tax dollars allocated, as promised by Obama, to National Defense and Homeland Security will result in unemployment. In contrast to World War II, the war economy in the 21st Century does not create jobs. The costs of creating jobs in the military industrial complex are abysmally high when compared to the civilian sectors. In turn, the financial resources channeled by the US government to the DoD defense contractors dramatically reduces public expenditure in favor of all other spending categories. Lockeed Martin together with Northrop Grumman have been involved in developing the Joint Fighter program. Based on initial estimates, 5400 direct jobs were created at a unit cost of $37 million per job. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War is Good for Business, Global Research, September 16, 2001). Similarly at Boeing's assembly plant, each job created in the Joint Strike Fighter program costs US taxpayers $66.7 million. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 7 September 2001). With regard to the F22 Raptor fighter, assembled at Lockheed Martin Marietta's plant in Georgia, the F22 Raptor fighters was estimated to have a unit cost of $85 million. Three thousand (3000) direct jobs were to be created at an estimated cost of $20 million a job. (Ibid) The cost of the program once completed in 2005 was of the order of 62 billion dollars. According to 2008 company figures, roughly 2000 jobs remain tied to the production of the F22. (See Free Republic, March 2008). Two Thousand Jobs created at the Lockheed-Marietta's plant in Georgia at an initial outlay of 31 million dollars per job. Imagine how many jobs you could create with 31 million dollars invested in small and medium sized enterprises across America. These post 9/11 defense expenditures by the Bush administration trigger mass unemployment. Moreover, they are funded by downsizing America's social programs, which in turn contributes to exacerbating the levels of poverty and unemployment. Obama's War Economy The Obama campaign accepts the logic of a war economy which triggers unemployment and poverty at home while creating death and destruction in the Middle East war theater. This post 9/11 direction of the US economy has lined the pockets of a handful of defense contractors corporations, while contributing very marginally to the rehabilitation of the employment of specialized scientific, technical and professional workers laid-off by the civilian economy. Not surprisingly, the defense contractors, while favoring John McCain are also firm supporter of Barack Obama. America's largest military contractor Lockheed Martin (and business partner of Dick Cheney's Halliburton) was present at the Denver Democratic Party Convention, among a vast array of powerful corporate sponsors and lobby groups. According to a company spokesperson: “Lockheed Martin strongly supports our nation’s political process and candidates that support in general national defense, homeland security, high technology and educational initiatives,” (quoted by Bill van Auken, Democrats convene in Denver amid police state security and a sea of corporate cash, Global Research, August 2008) The Big Lie The Obama lies are perhaps more subtle than those of George W. But again in substance, we are dealing with a continuum. The "Global War on Terrorism" is an integral part of the Obama campaign. "Islamic terrorists" threaten the American way of life. Al Qaeda and its alleged State sponsors are portrayed as the main threat at home and abroad. The corporate media applauds. No shift in direction. The doctrine of preemptive war directed against "Islamic terrorists" and their State sponsors remains functionally intact. The same applies to the post 9/11 nuclear weapons doctrine as first formulated in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). Nuclear weapons are on the drawing board of the Pentagon, for use in the Middle East war theater. And the Democrats are fully supportive of preemptive nuclear weapons as a means to protect the American Homeland. Under the "Global War on Terrorism", the Homeland Security apparatus, not to mention the anti-terrorist Patriot legislation, the Big Brother surveillance apparatus would, under a Barack Obama administration, remain intact. 9/11 constitutes for Obama the main justification for waging a humanitarian war in the Middle East and Central Asia. In this regard, his position does not differ from that of the Bush Administration. Withdraw from Iraq, but remain in Afghanistan. Bring the troops back from Iraq. Move them to Afghanistan. Confront Iran, challenge Russia: "I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future. These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain." (The American Promise, August 28, 2008, Democratic Convention. Denver, emphasis added) "Finishing the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban" means extending the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT) into new frontiers. Concretely, the GWOT, which is central to the Obama campaign, provides a pretext and justification for waging a war of conquest, for expanding US influence in the Middle East, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia. Obama-Biden and The "New Cold War" The Obama-Biden campaign is committed to reinforcing US-NATO military presence on the Iran-Afghan border, as well as on Afghanistan's border with China's Xinjiang Uigur autonomous region as well as within Pakistan. Afghanistan is a strategic hub in Central Asia bordering on Iran, the former Soviet Union, China and Pakistan. It is a land bridge and potential oil and gas pipeline corridor which links the Caspian sea basin to the Arabian sea. It is also part of the continued process of militarization and encirclement of the People's Republic of China. The Obama-Biden campaign has also endorsed the "New Cold War". Russia is explicitly identified in Obama's speech as an Aggressor. Iran is identified as nuclear threat, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Joe Biden, who if elected, would take over from Dick Cheney, considers Russia, China and India as the main threat to America's National Security: The Bush foreign policy has dug us into a very deep hole, with very few friends to help us climb out. And for the last seven years, the administration has failed to face the biggest the biggest forces shaping this century. The emergence of Russia, China and India's great powers, the spread of lethal weapons, the shortage of secure supplies of energy, food and water. The challenge of climate change and the resurgence of fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real central front in the war on terror. Ladies and gentlemen, in recent years and in recent days we once again see the consequences of the neglect, of this neglect, of Russia challenging the very freedom of a new democratic country of Georgia. Barack and I will end that neglect. We will hold Russia accountable for its action and we will help Georgia rebuild. I have been on the ground in Georgia, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms, this administration's policy has been an abysmal failure. America cannot afford four more years of this failure. (Democratic Party convention, August 27, 2008, emphasis added) The militarization of Afghanistan and Pakistan under the GWOT is directed against two overlapping military alliances: the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The SCO is a military alliance between Russia and China and several Central Asian former Soviet republics including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Iran has observer status in the SCO. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which plays a key geopolitical role in relation to transport and energy corridors, operates in close liaison with the SCO. The CSTO regroups the following member states: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. For Obama-Biden, the war on Iran is still on. The New Cold War is directed against China, Russia and its allies, namely the SCO-CSTO military alliance. Challenge the alleged threats from Russia in the Caucasus and East Europe. In other words, the Democrats have endorsed the New Cold War What Prospects under an Obama Presidency? Apart from the rhetoric of "bringing the troops home" from war torn Iraq, which may or may be carried out, what distinguishes the Democrats from the Republicans? A more articulate, knowledgeable and charismatic President? A more dignified and diplomatic approach to US foreign policy? An opportunity to the US ruling elite "to present a different face to the world that could revive illusions in its democratic pretensions, not only internationally but within the United States as well." (Patrick Martin, Tensions rise in Democratic contest as Obama nears nomination, Global Research, May 11, 2008) A spurious and counterfeit "humanitarian" approach to Empire, which serves to mask the truth and gain popular support. A less reckless Commander in Chief, who has an understanding of geopolitics and is capable of taking foreign policy decisions. A more carefully thought out military agenda than that experienced during the Bush administration? But with no substantive shift in direction. A means to quelling mounting dissent and opposition to the ruling corporate establishment by providing the illusion that the Democrats constitute a Real Alternative. A means to sustaining the illusion that African-Americans can move up the social ladder in America and that their fundamental rights are being upheld. A means to undermining real progressive movements by further embedding civil society organizations, trade unions, grass-roots organizations not to mention "Leftist" intellectuals into the realm of the Democratic Party. A distraction from the extensive war crimes committed under successive US administrations. A "human face" to war and globalization?

::>

The Incredible String Band - The Circle Is Unbroken

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgkxSSQbGsI <-- This works.

Inspirational beauty. Glad and free.