Welcome! "What's Happenin'?" is a casual community diary (a daily series, 8:30 AM Eastern on weekdays, 10 AM on weekends and holidays) where we hang out and talk about the goings on here and everywhere.
We welcome links to your writings here on dkos or elsewhere, posts of pictures, music, news, etc.
Just about anything goes, but attacks and pie fights are not welcome here. This is a community diary and a friendly, peaceful, supportive place for people to interact.
Everyone who wants to join in peaceful interaction is very welcome here.
|
Good Morning!
Longwood Gardens. (Photo by joanneleon. October 16, 2012)
“An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.”
~ Mahatma Gandhi
News and Opinion
Many opportunities to talk about the greatest threats and not a mention of climate change. Hardly a mention of alternative energy. Lots of talk about Scary Iran. A debate still quagmired in the Middle East and in oil.
Obama and Romney ignore climate, could learn from Hillary Clinton
The climate silence is complete: Climate change got not a single mention in any of the three presidential debates nor in the vice presidential debate this year. That hasn’t happened for 24 years.
In the final debate on Monday night, focused on foreign policy, moderator Bob Schieffer didn’t ask anything about energy or climate, but he posed a couple of open-ended questions that would have given easy entrée to either candidate had they any inclination to bring up the topic: “What is America’s role in the world?” and “What do you believe is the greatest future threat to the national security of this country?”
In a debate about global challenges and global threats, Romney and Obama both chose to say nothing at all about the climate crisis, the most global of all challenges and threats.
Both candidates made token mention of renewables, but only after lauding oil and gas.
[ ... ]
Contrast the candidates’ silence with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s forceful framing of climate change as a key foreign-policy priority during a speech last week, entitled “Energy Diplomacy in the 21st Century”:
[E]nergy is essential to how we will power our economy and manage our environment in the 21st century. We therefore have an interest in promoting new technologies and sources of energy — especially including renewables — to reduce pollution, to diversify the global energy supply, to create jobs, and to address the very real threat of climate change. …
The transformation to cleaner energy is central to reducing the world’s carbon emissions and it is the core of a strong 21st century global economy.
They both love the drones. And the military cuts from the quasi Grand Bargain will not happen, according to the President. What about the corresponding domestic cuts from that plan? We keep the cuts to social programs and ditch the cuts to the grotesquely bloated war budget? Yep, it seems that's what we will get. The President assured us that those defense cuts will not happen. He is happy to blame Congress for the unpopular cuts and says that he didn't do it. He can't do anything about what the Congress did. Except when he can -- like his saying definitively that the cuts to the military budget the were done by Congress and signed by him "will not happen". Romney says
More money for war! and Obama says
Hooyah!
Obama, Romney tackle Libya, Iran and Syria in final debate
The two men spent much of their time in broad agreement on a host of issues, including the nation’s deep commitment to Israel, the plan to remove American military troops from Afghanistan at the end of 2014, the policy of sending drones to kill enemies abroad, and sanctions against Iran.
[ ... ]
Some of the other topics at Monday’s debate:
– Military spending: One way to show American strength, Romney has argued, is to beef up military capability. Before leaving for a pre-election recess, Congress agreed to set defense spending for fiscal 2013, the 12-month period that began Oct. 1, at about $519.9 billion, about the same as last year.
Automatic cuts planned to begin in January would shave about 9 percent to 10 percent from most Pentagon programs this year and $500 billion over 10 years. Romney says he’ll stop those cuts, but does not say specifically how he’d do that without increasing federal deficits.
Obama noted that the automatic cuts are “not something I proposed” and vowed they would not happen.
Surreal might be a good way to put it. What happened to the neocon advisors and the previous bellicose talk from Romney? Surprise, surprise. In the general he is Moderate Mitt. Is anyone really surprised? Well the peacemongering was a shocker, but otherwise nobody should be surprised that candidates will say or do anything to get elected. Obama out foreign policied him which probably didn't surprise many people given that Romney has no real foreign policy experience. Romney compensated for that in a way that was surprising -- he used Democratic memes and turned candidate Obama's 2008 strategy back on incumbent Obama, even going as far as to use the hope theme and the torch theme in his closing statement. Pretty surreal. After the debate I could not tell who was the D and who was the R. The peacemongering was surreal and it probably shows just how clever the most extreme neocons are about selling their wars.
Debate Finale: Romney Agrees with Obama, Says Give Peace a Chance
Whether tonight has some marginal difference depends on what you think matters. Republicans argue, not implausibly, that Romney’s goal was to sound presidential, versed in the issues and worthy of being trusted with the nuclear football. Unstated, but obvious from Romney’s almost John Lennon–like performance, was his goal of refuting Obama’s charge that he wants to start new wars and extend existing ones. Doing so — on Iran, Afghanistan and Syria — forced Romney into constant agreement with Obama. But it also enabled him to dodge the Dick Cheney Halloween mask that Obama would love to pull over his face. “We don’t want another Iraq. We don’t want another Afghanistan,” Romney said.
After the debate, these are the words that were ringing in my head:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Wikiquote
Presidential debate on foreign policy: live Glenn Greenwald commentary
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney engage in titanic struggle to locate major differences between each other
But if there is one thing the 2008 campaign should have permanently taught, it is that campaign rhetoric often bears little relationship to what a person will do once empowered. More important, it is almost certainly the case that an Obama-led attack on Iran would generate far more public support than a Romney-led attack, because most Democrats will almost certainly cheer for the former while pretending to be horrified by the latter, will while Republicans would support both (that's the dynamic that made the very same "counter-terrorism" policies that were so divisive in the Bush years become wildly popular once Obama embraced them).
Back to the reality that neither of the John Lennons addressed last night.
CIA chiefs face arrest over horrific evidence of bloody 'video-game' sorties by drone pilots
A damning dossier assembled from exhaustive research into the strikes’ targets sets out in heartbreaking detail the deaths of teachers, students and Pakistani policemen. It also describes how bereaved relatives are forced to gather their loved ones’ dismembered body parts in the aftermath of strikes.
The dossier has been assembled by human rights lawyer Shahzad Akbar, who works for Pakistan’s Foundation for Fundamental Rights and the British human rights charity Reprieve.
Filed in two separate court cases, it is set to trigger a formal murder investigation by police into the roles of two US officials said to have ordered the strikes. They are Jonathan Banks, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Islamabad station, and John A. Rizzo, the CIA’s former chief lawyer. Mr Akbar and his staff have already gathered further testimony which has yet to be filed. ...
In the first case, which has already been heard by a court in Islamabad, judgment is expected imminently. If the judge grants Mr Akbar’s petition, an international arrest warrant will be issued via Interpol against the two Americans.
The second case is being heard in the city of Peshawar. In it, Mr Akbar and the families of drone victims who are civilians are seeking a ruling that further strikes in Pakistani airspace should be viewed as ‘acts of war’.
UK intelligence officers knew of CIA's rendition plans within days of 9/11
Meeting at British embassy in US raises questions about repeated denials by MI5 and MI6 of connivance in torture
Within days of the 9/11 attacks on the US, the CIA told British intelligence officers of its plans to abduct al-Qaida suspects and fly them to secret prisons where they would be systematically abused.
The meeting, at the British embassy in Washington, is disclosed in a forthcoming book by the Guardian journalist Ian Cobain. It raises serious questions about repeated claims by senior MI5 and MI6 officers that they were slow to appreciate the US response to the attacks, and never connived in torture.
The meeting signalled to British officials that the US was preparing to embark on a global kidnapping programme which became known as extraordinary rendition. Cobain reveals that at the end of a three-hour presentation by Cofer Black, President George Bush's top counter-terrorist adviser, Mark Allen – his opposite number in MI6 – commented that it all sounded "rather bloodcurdling".
Suddenly, Everyone On Wall Street Is Taking The 'Red Pill' Of Economics
On Saturday, we wrote that more and more people are starting to wonder if central banks like the Bank of England and The Fed can just "rip up" the debt that they've bought via Quantitative Easing, and reduce the national debt of these countries with the stroke of a key.
Asking this question, and thinking about the implications of it, is the equivalent of taking the 'Red Pill' of economics. The Red Pill, of course, is what Neo took in the Matrix, and it exposed his mind to an entirely different view of the world that was far less comfortable than the one he inhabited. If you start thinking about the possibility that the central bank could just rip up a government's debt, with few negative ramifications, then you might start thinking about government finances in a totally new way that makes you uncomfortable.
You might start to realize that this whole construct of a broke government, deeply in hock to the Chinese (and everyone else) is an illusion, that complete distorts the realities of sovereign finance.
But it's too late. More and more people are taking the red pill, and thinking about this question.
How to Crash an Economy and Escape the Scene
Is it time to put the Great Recession behind us?
Not in terms of the economy -- which remains bogged down with high unemployment, low growth and other aftershocks -- but rather when it comes to demanding a rigorous effort to hold Wall Street bankers, traders and executives accountable for their role in causing the financial crisis.
[...]
It’s a conundrum, especially since many Americans have lost enthusiasm for the fight. But the path we ultimately take will reveal to us and the world much about who we are as a people and what ethics, values and morality we stand for. It will also have serious lasting implications if we hope to avoid a rerun of what happened over the last five years.
At the moment, the message we are broadcasting far and wide is: There will be no justice; there will be no accountability; let’s return to the status quo as quickly as possible.
[...]
Likewise, in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, Jamie Dimon, the chairman and chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), returned to many of his favorite themes. One was how little he cares for much of what is in the Dodd-Frank law and the proposed Volcker Rule which limits banks’ ability to trade for their own account. He reiterated his belief that the right kind of financial regulation is necessary, in the vein of laws preventing drunk driving. But, like Conard, Dimon said the new regulatory environment is holding back economic growth.
[...]
Even Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), has started to make noise again after a few years of laying low. As part of what the press has nicknamed his No Apologies Tour, which has taken Blankfein to forums and media outlets across the country, he has also called for jettisoning the wet blanket. “Getting rid of some regulations and rules that are impairing people from investing vast pools of liquidity that are on the sideline, that are not owned by the government, that are theirs to invest but are just sitting on the sideline” will help get the economy humming again, he told CNBC.
Anti-Austerity Allies Coming Together for Coordinated European Strikes
Spain's largest unions join call for multi-country day of "action and solidarity" against assault on public programs
In a new development for Europe's anti-austerity campaigners, Spain's two main labor groups, the Workers' Commissions (CCOO) and General Workers' (UGT), announced Friday they would meet the call of other European labor organizations for coordinated action by declaring plans for a national strike on November 14th.
Supported by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), which represents 85 labor organizations from 36 countries across Europe, the "day of action and solidarity" would the first pan-European protest coordinated by anti-austerity allies in Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Portugal, and possibly elsewhere. The ETUC said the day would include strikes, demonstrations, rallies and other actions. ...
Calling the newly announced coordination a "spectacular" development, CCOO spokesperson Fernando Lezcano said turnout could be massive due to the growing evidence that austerity prescribed by the so-called Troika—the European Central Bank, the IMF, and European Commission—has failed.
"After two and a half years of austerity policies," Lezcano said, "the member countries are suffering worse than before. We cannot take it anymore, we cannot wait any longer. The failure of these policies has been clearly demonstrated."
Once this landscape was a pristine wilderness roamed by deer now it's 'the most destructive industrial project on earth'
Lush green forests once blanketed an area of the Tar Sands at Fort McMurray in Alberta, Canada, larger than England
Area where blackened earth now stands dubbed by environmentalists as most destructive industrial project on earth
Boreal forest - once home to grizzly bears, moose and bison - is vanishing at rate second to Amazon deforestation
Blog Posts and Tweets of Interest
The Evening Blues - 10-22-12
Muddled Intelligence After Benghazi Assault Reflects Communication Difficulties By White House
Talk Rises About Sovereign Debt Cancellation
Accused Ohio Mosque Arsonist Retaliated for Muslim 9/11 Protests and Attack
New, Lower Number for Afghan Security Force Size Finally Appears
CIA Whistleblower to Spend Years in Jail for Revealing Torture
Peaceful World
Remember when progressive debate was about our values and not about a "progressive" candidate? Remember when progressive websites championed progressive values and didn't tell progressives to shut up about values so that "progressive" candidates can get elected?
Come to where the debate is not constrained by oaths of fealty to persons or parties.
Come to where the pie is served in a variety of flavors.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." ~ Noam Chomsky
|