More Assange

It strikes me that we should all be writing about Julian Assange and his situation, and yet there seems to be little to nothing.  Except in some not particularly mainstream left wing blogs.   Lawyers, guns, and money, haven't written about him since they lost their shit back when the big Wikileaks dump happened and one of the posters there, who has since left, became hysterical and demanded that he be arrested, or perhaps killed I don't remember which.  I was able to point out that they were standing shoulder to shoulder with Lynn Chaney, which seemed to upset them quite a bit.  Some fun.

Greenwald has written a couple of things about him at the Guardian.  I do find the comments section to be depressing to put it mildly.  It does appear as though the people who are commenting either cannot understand English, which is disturbing since their country is the one that invented it.  Or perhaps they just read the headline, it is so much easier that way, don't you know?

The incredible hysteria about his attempt to get asylum is creepy to say the least.  The threat to storm the embassy from the government in order to drag him out is just interesting to watch from the country that gave Pinochet asylum.  There is no self awareness on the part of the government and there is no recognition on the part of most of the media of the hypocrisy.

Then the U.S. chimes in (for what reason no one can tell since we certainly do not want to extradite him to stand trial [or not] to our country or perhaps Cuba) and says that we never did believe in that asylum stuff anyway.  Although someone might tell that to the Chinese government and then someone might want to mention it to the Hungarians also since we sheltered Cardinal Mindszenty for over a decade.  But then that is really very different don't ch no.

The point is that stench of hypocrisy and mendacity as Big Daddy said is nearly overpowering.  It is clear that the only reason Sweden won't agree not to extradite Assange to the U.S. is that they are planning on doing just that.  It is also clear that the only reason we want him is to punish him for trying to practice journalism and force us to practice democracy. .  Well, who cares at this point, we've made our point and have probably stopped many others who might have tried to allow a little light into the decaying carcase of what used to be called a democracy, or a democratic republic, or even for that matter a republic.  The last best hope, etcetera etectera and so forth.    If one gives the people too damn many facts it will just in the end confuse them, after all.

More Economic

So I'm watching this economics thing, that is I mean our economic continuing melt down in a kind of goulish sort or way. Kind of like a slow and cheaply made slasher movie. Those who are in the know, or rather those who are in positions of power and who belive in the all powerful elites (you know those who got us into this situation: 9% uncmployment and the housing bubble and stock market crash) insist that we must not spend on the unemployed and limit our spending on well gee just about everything, except wars. Also we gotta maintain the tax cuts for the wealthiest 10% because if we don't well then they will all go Galt, don'tcha know.

The first chart being the actual deficit and what causes it, although of course it really isn't important in any real way at this point, because the inflation rate is so low and the unemployment rate is so high. So our government can spend a lot of money and print a lot of money and there will be little or no effect on the rate of inflation, or at least the effect will be so small that it would not matter in the scheme of things, but that isn't what our betters are telling us. The other aspect of that is to look at the above chart and see where the deficit is coming from. The wars and the tax cuts for the wealthy. It doesn't seem to be an area to discuss for anyone who matters. Hell even Noble Prize winners are ignored.

Of course the real problem here as far as I'm concerned, is that I'm one of those teenagers who has just had sex and smoked a joint (metaphorically, of course), so I'm next in line for a visit from the slasher.

Oh: more good news from the ST. Louis Fed:




A point being that we are getting ourselves into a position where those of my age and only slightly younger are simply not going to be able to get jobs, ever.

The New Guy

Well one can only hope our beltway media royality ends the same way.

Well its down to work for the new guy. And the MSM continues much as it did yesterday. By mistake I read this article without first noticing that it is from the Politico.

First, the authors bemoan the fact that so far Obama hasn't had his "Sister Souljah" moment where he could repudiate his base (by attacking a straw [wo]man) as Clinton did. With the thought I guess that that worked so well for Clinton. Then he points out that Obama is unlikely to screw his supporters the way Clinton with NAFTA. This is apparently a bad thing. I mean NAFTA did turn out so well for the working and middle classes and in fact this country in general.

Second, he very briefly quotes "one recent report" which claims that Social Security will go into steep decline after 2011. However, everything I've read is that is just hooey. Most of the reputable economists (those who did fore see this financial collapse) say that Social Security will be fine for the fore see able future. The authors do not even bother to mention that many economists (including the most recent Noble winner) disagree strongly with that "recent report."

The people who own DC or at least think they own DC are going to fight like cornered rats to keep their power. This will include simple lies like the one about Social Security and just listing something as a "good thing" which is in reality a very questionable thing like Clinton's pushing for NAFTA.

Apparently, once a moderate/progressive/liberal is elected to office it is necessary for him to repudiate his base to show he can really govern. Like a real American. They can't stop themselves. It's just as though we aren't in the middle of the greatest financial crisis in the last 75 years. But then of course, they aren't going to hurt. Just the rest of us.

Well Well Well

Gas prices around here seem to be creeping up even though there was (according to a story I heard on N.P.R. a few weeks ago) [is?] a glut of oil that won't go away until after the summer. Hell it was so bad they had to store it on ships in the oceans. Where do you think that all went?

So I see that our new president elect wants to attack Social Security and Medicare (after voting to give greedy bankers all they want). Lets face it where do we get off demanding that the important people have to account for their welfare. It is the poor who really don't deserve it. So they should ------------- well not get it and kind of quietly go under. We wouldn't want them to starve (at least not in front of us), but you know if they'd kind of sort of just disapear because they can't afford a doctor or they can't afford to stay warm so they just quietly die a little early well is that so bad?

I Just Don't Know More Gazing At Self

I don't know, but I just don't have a lot to say here in the last few days. Possibly just getting back from vacation and I'm still basking in the afterglow. Or maybe I'm just lazy.

A second rate party hack like Panetta is scaring the torturers left and right. How far gone must our government and oversight be to have them come out of the wood work like they have to try to oppose someone who at most will be a moderate. And is very unlikely to rock the boat much at all. Of course this might just be a little warning shot across the bow of the good ship Obama. We have raised such a ruckus about this guy who is really one of us, just think what we will do if you try to appoint someone who is really progressive or in favor of real change. What do you think that they might know about, these liberal senators? What do think that they might have approved, these liberal senators?

I am getting this very sinking feeling kind of like watching -- dare I say it again -- a slow motion train wreck. A guy is elected who says that he is for change, but it's all wink, wink, nudge nudge. We keep the power we control what goes on in this not so much a democracy. You just think you have any say in this government. It is the Village or runs things here and now.

When did this start? Was it with Carter? Nixon? Our type are the people who must run things. Even though we have been wrong for neigh on twenty years or more (and yes I count Clinton [both of them] who desperately want to be part of the in crowd). The only reason we as a country haven't gone down the tubes already is because we are so damn rich and so damn isolated.

Let us not talk about Reid and Burris/Frankin and Gupta/Moore/Obama. Oh lets, but not right now.

Ok, I admit it it's all my fault

You know I've been thinking that I was born in the early edge of the baby boomer generation. The first election I voted in was 1968. As I look at it the who screwed up government thing since then has been my fault (ok, not MY fault personally, since I didn't vote for most of them, except as a lesser evil) by our fault then: Nixon, Nixon, Carter (Ford was appointed), Reagan, Reagan, Bush the major, Clinton, Clinton, Bush the very minor, Bush the very minor.

I mean lets face it have we had a long run of very bad presidents? Well, with the possible exception of the group that was in the run up to the Civil War and with the exception of the last one I'm not even sure about that. The congress is worse if that is possible.

Let's face it what we are remembered for is rock and roll, drugs, free love (since it was all we could afford) and tie-dye. We accomplished damned little.

How fucking depressing.