Our Trip to New York

Occupy Wall Street Poster

Thanks to Candice’s fast wits in requesting tickets to the Daily Show using multiple emails, she was able to score us two tickets to the Daily Show, which is filmed in “Hell’s Kitchen” neighborhood of Manhattan. Since they generally overbooked to ensure full capacity, we waited outside through stormy weather beneath semi-leaky plastic weather tarps for 3 or 4 hours to ensure we got in.

After we got the door passes, we stopped off at a Subway and while were eating, Candice recognized Aasif Mandvi as he came in to get a sandwich. My angle wasn’t the best so I didn’t recognize him at all, but she assured me it was him, so again, thanks to her, I was able to shake hands with him and tell him that I enjoyed his work.

After exiting the Subway, Candice then suggested to check out Dewitt Clinton Park across the street. Suddenly, a film crew appeared. The director, a young man in casual attire, described how he wanted the scene to go with his group of extras. A cop was going to walk by and spray indiscriminate New Yorkers with the pepper spray. When the director and the “cop” had their back turned, I tried to sneak into the group of extras so that I could end up in the scene, but someone recognized me and told me to stand back. They did two takes of the cop walking by and spraying by-passers, and I noticed that the extras botched both takes, mostly reacting a second or two after being “pepper sprayed.”

Then they did a close up of the cop and for the first time I noticed he was Christopher Meloni, the lead cop in Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. So not only did Candice score the tickets, helped me meet Aasif Mandvi, but she also helped me watch Christopher Meloni do a live scene for a Daily Show skit. Thank you, Candice!!

They must be concerned with trademark issues because he politely told someone next to me not to film him with his cell phone. They filmed an extended scene of him spraying every which way with two sprayers, one a stream spray and the other a mist spray. The way he just played around for a minute or two, you could tell most of it was going to be cut.

Finally, we got in to see the show. The studio seemed much smaller than it does on television, but I suppose that is from the way the cameras are panned. The show started with a short introduction by a local comedian for about five minutes to liven up the audience. Then Jon came in to take some questions from the audience, although like djinni rules, they asked that it please not be for an autograph or whatever because he would have to give one to everyone. Candice and I were on the second row center, so I thought I had the perfect seat until the camera rolled out right in front of me. Sure, there was a television screen off to the side of what was being taped, but I had to move my head to the left to actually see him.

The scene they shot right outside their studios was about the elderly Deputy Inspector Anthony Balogna pepper spraying multiple Occupy Wall Street protestors in a row, along with a shot of him spraying wildly at the camera. Since Jon did an extended skit about his nickname being “Tony Balony” involving everything that rhymes with “balony,” they must have naturally thought of Christopher Meloni.

After the show, we went to the theatre district in Times Square. I had become weary from the constant bombardment of advertisements, but there it’s actually quite nice. On the way there, we got to hear Radiohead playing a song from their Kid A album as we passed the Roseland Ballroom, between 7th and 8th Avenue, and also passed by David Letterman’s studio.

*****

Throughout the trip, I couldn’t help but compare everything to my last trip to Tokyo. Whereas everything in Tokyo from building and street architecture to convenience store products were new and interesting, New York at first seemed like a typical American city, only more. While Tokyo was clean and spacious, New York was dirty, stinky, crowded, and it seemed as if everything was tagged. Some stores were in hovels on the streets, selling close to nothing on their makeshift shelves.

No more was the difference between New York and Tokyo evident than the subway systems, which I feel compelled to talk about since I spent so much time lost in it. While Tokyo’s Subway of the Future is nothing less than an underground city, complete with its own shopping centers, New York’s subway is more like an amusement park trolly shoehorned into the city’s sewer system. You can often see the subway through rain grates on the streets above. When a subway passes you from below, it becomes pretty loud and the sidewalk vibrates a little. In Tokyo, the subways are much further down and no one above knows when one passes by. While Tokyo boasts huge clean corridors that have a modern look to them, New York has dirty, cramped and rough caverns of brick and steel that look centuries old. Some of the brick pillars are broken down into red stalagmites, as if someone has taken a sledge hammer to them, leaving only a steel rod core running from the floor to the ceiling.

The first train I got on shook violently enough to warrant a “Must Be At Least This Height to Ride” warning. Then the train made a sudden forced departure at one of its early stops, and we had to find an alternate route, which wasn’t easy. Only later did we find out that 90% of the time, these forced departures are due to someone committing suicide by jumping in front of the train. It started happening all the time after the economy crashed. It took a long time because they had to take the train off and go through and clean the rails and the wheels up and down. Definitely not the most considerate way to go.

The one time my binoculars came in useful was following a rat as it crawled across the bottom of the tracks as I waited for a train that, odds are, was taking us away from our intended destination. Another time I was studying the electronic map listing all the stops to figure out where I was going when I was told by a pedestrian that it was actually the wrong map.

But despite all the subway’s faults, even paying the fairs in wrong-way trips (as well as paying your way to go back through the entrance booth because the few information desks there are happen to be on the outside of the exit booths), mass transit is still cheaper than riding in a cab. Their rates are murder and they literally take you for a ride.

Dirty and stinky and trash-filled as the subway is — oh and I forgot to mention all the hobos singing songs for money in the corridors and the elderly Bible-beating black woman who promptly made me make a race out the door for a different car — New York’s subway is still what makes it what it is: a truly modern city where anyone can get from point A to point B in less than 30 minutes (provided they don’t get lost).

And at least on New York subways, people felt safe to mess around on their cell phones, which I hear you can’t do in Detroit because people will just come up and grab them out of your hand. New Yorkers are famous for being rude and willing to step right over you. One guy on a subway was told me sternly to move as he moving quickly through the car, but he came back and apologized, saying that he didn’t mean to be rude. But the part about willing to step over you is completely true. I think in the South people have an internal compass that steers them out of the path of oncoming people that New Yorkers simply don’t have.

Another thing I thought was really cool was that the subway runs above the streets in some parts of the city, and we ate in a restaurant underneath a highway and the subway. It’s a mark of engineering that makes the city more interesting, as well as a mark that everything in New York is compacted into something else. Most buildings use their basements and have multiple stories since space is so scarce and expensive.

As for the sites: The statue of liberty is a much lighter lime green than as typically seen on television. And the Brooklyn bridge is really not all that impressive at all. In fact the all but unknown Verrazano-Narrows Suspension Bridge, which looks like a grey sister of the Golden Gate Bridge, is far more fascinating.

Even discounting whatever alien language is used to tag New York’s buildings, I have never seen so many different languages spoken and written in the same place. I knew all the jokes about “Jew York,” but I didn’t know there was an entire quarter of Orthodox Jews, all dressed exactly alike, like in that scary introduction to the HBO show Weeds, only with long tassels attached to bald scalps hidden beneath black long-rimmed hats. There’s also the Mexican part of town and the Italian part of town. I joked that I heard more English in Japan, but I think having so many different ethnicities makes New York one of the few truly International Cities.

*****

The day after going to the Daily Show, I learned that the U.S. had for the first time in history admitted to the assassination of an American citizen without due process and most of the country cheered it. Awlaki is said to have been affiliated with 3 of the 9/11 hijackers, the Fort Hood shooter, and the “Christmas Day” bomber, but his role appears to be only that of an advisor. Many have tried to justify his assassination by saying that by fleeing the U.S., al-Alwaki gave up his right to citizenship, but as State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said several days ago: “Under U.S. law, there are seven criteria under which you can strip somebody of citizenship, and none of those applied in this case.” You can’t justify it by citing treason either, as Article 3 of the Constitution reads: “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

Yet only Glenn Greenwald and Ron Paul really gave a dissenting voice to this new definition of presidential powers. I was surprised to find myself siding with Ron Paul against Bill Maher on this issue. But even Maher had to think twice about at the idea of a President Bachmann having the power to assassinate American citizens who are suddenly labelled “terrorist.” I was never a big believer in the “slippery slope” by this slope leads to a hole in the frozen lake of the American popularity contest.

Angelo points out that the Constitution actually reads: “No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.” Since the Constitution uses the word “person” and not “citizen,” the Bill of Rights expresses this as a human right, not a national right. All humans have these rights by their very nature. But this would mean we would have to arrest and try every terrorist foreign and domestic, and the term “war” would have to be retired, since it would be purely a police act. I would think in the world of high-tech terrorism, information would be key and so arrests and interrogations would be superior in result, so arrests should be the supreme goal of fighting terrorism. In the show 24, Jack’s constant challenge was always keeping the terrorist from committing suicide so that he could get information out of him.

The matter has some bearing as to whether the Founding Fathers would approve of a War on Nouns as opposed to a war on a specific group of people. Christopher Hitchens has tried to use Jefferson’s war on the Barbary Pirates as a precedent for the War on Terrorism, but the First Barbary War had actual naval battles. These drone strikes are assassinations done far away from a battlefield. The best way to combat al-Qaida-style terrorist cells is through intelligence work, and arresting and interrogating people are an important part of that process. If he was really connected to three incredibly famous terrorist acts, then he must be a fountain of information.

To me it seems a great disservice to all the victims of mob violence since, unlike foreign terrorists, organized crime is so deeply rooted in society that they can buy off the police and politicians (like Rudolf Murdoch’s son), tamper with juries, keeps the mob boss unconnected to his orders, and even cause economic disasters (like how Japan’s “Lost Decade” was helped by the Yakuza), yet we don’t just break the law to kill the top guy. Instead the police are forced to find some technically like tax evasion for Al Capone. If we can spare a Seal Team to kill Bin Laden (and an unarmed woman), then what’s wrong with sending a team down to fetch back an American traitor?

Cheney has come out and demanded an apology from Obama, which as Glenn Greenwald points out, is not unreasonable. Cheney explains: “They, in effect, said that we had walked away from our ideals, or taken policy contrary to our ideals, when we had enhanced interrogation techniques. Now they clearly have moved in the direction of taking robust action when they think it is justified.” As Bryan Lambert says, “When Dick Cheney tells you you’ve done the right thing, that is a sign that you need to seriously re-evaluate your moral priorities.”

Here’s the “scholar” of the Republicans, Newt Gingrich, on the controversy: “They got due process. The president signed an order to kill them. That was due process.”

The far more popular outcry from the Left has been against the death penalty case of Troy Davis. Everyone on the Left, including most of my favorite bloggers, have taken up his cause. This includes: Glenn Greenwald, Matt Bors, Tom Tomorrow, Arianna Huffington, Alan Colmes, Michael Moore, the “Libertarian” Bobb Barr, Roger Ebert, Alec Baldwin, Wil “Wesley Crusher” Wheaton, Jimmy Carter, and Pope Benedict. But from the articles that I’ve read about him, the mountain of evidence of witness tampering doesn’t hold up. What is indisputed but never mentioned by my favorite liberal bloggers is that Troy Davis, not wearing his round-eyed “You wouldn’t lethally inject a man with glasses” spectacles, was with Daryl Collins at not one but two different shootings in the same night in 1989. The first shooting was at a pool party at someone who mocked them while driving by, resulting in a bullet in the jaw, and the second was against a cop who was trying to help a homeless man from being pistol whipped over an argument over alcohol at 1 in the morning. Mark MacPhail, who was working as a security guard for Burger King, was shot twice: once through the heart and a finishing blow to the face. Although the two men carried the same type of gun and the murder weapon was never recovered, the details I’m familiar with make me think Troy Davis is the more likely of the two to have killed MacPhail. But even if he isn’t, he was present at one attempted murder headshot and decided the night wasn’t over yet.

Other details listed in this conservative article also provide some pretty damning arguments, although I can not vouch for its truthfulness, or even who authored it, since both Erick Erickson and Curt from Flopping Aces claim to have written it.

Even Amnesty International, who I think started the whole thing, doesn’t actually have an opinion as to his guilt but admits the whole point of focusing on the “catastrophic flaw in the U.S. death penalty machine.” This is seems a bit insincere when posting Troy Davis’ mug with the look of “Don’t kill me” on it all over the web. Even assuming there was witness tampering as has been alleged, it still seems more likely to me that they framed a guilty man, and regardless there is no denying he took part in an at least one attempted murder.

But even worse, MacPhail’s mother has been getting threatening phone calls over the case. So Representative John Lewis’ statement that “Today, we are all Troy Anthony Davis. Tonight, a little piece of all of us will die” does not really resound with me since I don’t think he’s the best test case to use to try and fight corporal punishment. Neither al-Alwaki nor Troy Davis should be executed if they were only accessories to murder, but unlike al-Alwaki, Troy Davis did get due process, and if I’m wrong about which of the two pulled the trigger, I wouldn’t make it a national cause like a presidentially-approved assassination of an American citizen should be.

Aside from Troy Davis, there’s the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the death of his three daughters in a fire that consumed their home on December 23rd, 1991. This case has been used to constantly attack Rick Perry for allowing an innocent man to be executed, usually along with a quote from some right-wing buffoon praising Perry since “It takes balls to execute an innocent man.” Early investigators found evidence that an accelerant was used to start the fire, but a second investigation found shoddy science had been used and proved that the cracked glass that was supposed to prove quick heating could have occurred by quick cooling. But his wife came out saying that he confessed that he killed the girls because she had threatened him with divorce and another witness overheard him telling the corpse of his oldest daughter that she was not the one who was supposed to die. Again, this is not the prima fica case I would be using to attack the death penalty.

Although DNA tests overturning court verdicts and the cost of putting people to death compared to surprisingly cheaper alternative of feeding them for life has made me very sympathetic to the anti-death penalty view, watching Law and Order has given me some respect for allowing the prosecution to use the death penalty as a part of deal-making, so part of me wants the death penalty to technically exist yet never actually be used.

*****

While Candice and I were eating at the Subway where we ran into Aasif Mandvi, CNN did a report about how Occupy Wall Street had mixed messages, a narrative echoed through the mainstream that appears designed to enlist dismissal of the cause.

Looking at the schedule offered by Occupy Wall Street, the criticism has some merit. Among other causes, one of the marches for one of the days I was there was “SlutWalk,” which was to protest blaming rape violence on women’s dress by marching scantily dressed or topless. Early on, many were protesting the execution of Troy Davis, and even then I was worried it could be distraction. But that at least was topical, whereas pro-sex, anti-rape statements were as divisive and off-topic as it got. Neither had anything to do with Wall Street.

But while the pet causes of the individuals who have amassed on Wall Street may be varied, they are all progressive causes that do not contradict each other, and scheduling different events at least gives the protestors something to do. The Tea Party was originally against the bank bailout but now does anything it can for the banks, wanting to repeal the Frank-Dodd reform bill that didn’t go far enough. Progressives may take the side of the guilty in order fight against the death penalty, but conservatives take the side of anything that goes against Obama, and overall they want to go back to the way things were before the crash. But I suppose it’s typical for conservatives to always desire to go backwards in time.


Try and find a sign this sophisticated among the Tea Party crowd…

As Angelo has pointed out, the idea that this country is one monolithic set of principles that has lasted for over 200 years is just a fantasy. There’s a drastic difference between pre-civil war and post-civil war America, and most countries in the modern era are based at least formally associated with the philosophy of John Locke. Any attempt to return to the romantic “golden age” past is just a cover for radical right-wing change. Just look at the Tea Party. They profess to want to want to go back to the Constitution, minus about half the Amendments. But only the Amendments they want. Hence, it’s not a “return” but a complete revision. Constitutionalists who in the past derided the “sliding slope” and moral relativism now seem to believe that taking away Amendments is more pro-Constitution b/c it’s going back to the original Constitution!! The original constitution that says you can make Amendments. Following that logic, taking away the Second Amendment would be part of that, but even though Obama just loosened drug laws, the NRA just announced it was a secret plot to make gun users complacent so he could ban guns in his second term. So pretty much the NRA is no longer about gun rights but a Republican political group.

Angelo suggests that if we take the Second Amendment within the context of the original constitution, it’s really giving rights to the states vs. the federal government and that states should be allowed to institute restrictions. I believe gun laws should be handled on the county or parish level.

The Tea Party also wants to go back to the time when only property owners can vote, since the moment everyone is losing their homes seems like the best time to start denying voting rights based on having property. That’s pre-Andrew motherfucking Jackson.

What’s the logic behind it? It stops young people from not being able to vote. The Tea Party knows they are a small group of Baby Boomers, so they have to stop ALL new vote registration. The typical excuse is that you need “skin in the game.” People don’t care about things they don’t own. Hence, if you don’t own property, you don’t have a financial incentive to care about what happens in the country. As Angelo points out: “So… if you take away voting rights, how is that going to make them “care” more about the U.S.?”

*****

Candice and I went down to Wall Street on Friday. There were no protestors there at the time, but it was still cordoned off, with cops swarming the place everywhere. The fence didn’t divide the street evenly at all. Everyone who wanted to walk through was shoehorned into a very confined area which made taking pictures difficult, while vast unused space around Wall Street’s buildings lay bare, holding only bored police men. Yet the protestors had not caused any damage to any of Wall Street’s buildings and the only protestor there at the time was a single man holding a sign up comparing bankers to Nazis.

Federal Hall National Memorial on Wall Street was built in 1842 as the New York Customs House, on the site of the old Federal Hall, to act as a sub-Treasury building. This was the location where George Washington was inaugerated as the first president of the United States. A statue of Washington stands outside the monument. Looking at the picture of the Founding Fathers on the side of the monument, one has to wonder how they would feel about how the country they founded “for the people by the people” was now having police cardon off the people into Orwellian-named “Free Speech Zones” so that the Masters of Wall Street would not have to be bothered by such ruckus.

If you have any doubt that the traders on Wall Street has absolutely no concern for those outside their little bubble, one only has to look at this video of their reaction to an earlier protest. People who believe they are being falsely accused typically either ignore the protestors or try to defend themselves. Instead, these Wall Street plutocrats came out smiling at the protestors while drinking champagne, purposely embracing the cariacture that the protestors had of them.

The message couldn’t be clearer: “Yes, we destroyed the economy, took the bailouts, used it to give ourselves bonuses. We know you’re angry about being screwed so we’re going to take this champagne that your tax dollars bought for us and drink it right in front of you, and if you don’t like it, you can go fuck yourselves.”

This is what Alessio Rastani, a Wall Street banker, told the BBC: “For most traders, it’s not about – we don’t really care that much how they’re going to fix the economy, how they’re going to fix the whole situation. Our job is to make money from it.” Rastani, who also claimed “Goldman Sachs rules the world,” said, “Personally, I’ve been dreaming of this moment for three years… I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession. When the market crashes… if you know what to do, if you have the right plan set up, you can make a lot of money from this.”

The occupation camp was actually not on Wall Street itself but at Liberty Square, about a block away. They day after the pepper spraying incident, the protest moved to the police station to remind them that they are there to serve and protect. Even two journalists from Fox News recently got pepper sprayed and hit with a baton, so you can guess how judicious the NYPD is being with their crowd control gear.

I went there Saturday morning to see what it was like. I had thought that they were only protesting during the daylight hours, but when I got there I found sleeping bags among propped up umbrellas wet from last night’s showers. Despite the direction on Occupy Wall Street’s main poster to “bring tent,” the police were not allowing any tents to be put up in the square or anywhere else. Everyone looked wet, tired and worn out. One woman who had suffered a seizure was being taken away on a stretcher. The movement turned out to be a lot more hard core than I thought.

After talking to a few people, I learned that many of them had come from all across the country. Many of them were homeless. Others were young progressives. Most of them had a story to tell about being laid off or losing their home. All of them believed what they were doing was important.

There was electricity so one group was able to plug their laptop in order to make updates. Along the west side, everyone had laid down the signs in a line for people to read while they weren’t being held up. I forgot to bring my camera that morning but was able to find some pictures on the internet.

One sign I didn’t see read: “I am 20K in debt and am paying out of pocket for my current tuition while I start paying back loans with two part time jobs.”

Another read: “I am a 28 year old female with debt that had to give up her apartment + pet because I have no money and I owe over $30,000.”

As Ezra Klein points out: “These are not rants against the system. They’re not anarchist manifestos. They’re not calls for a revolution. They’re small stories of people who played by the rules, did what they were told, and now have nothing to show for it. Or, worse, they have tens of thousands in debt to show for it.”

The common mantra for Occupy Wall Street has become “We are the 99%.” As Politifact shows, the “mega-rich” pay only 15% in taxes while the middle class pays between 15% to 25% and are then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot. Last year, the 400 richest taxpayers saw their incomes grow by 400% and their tax rates fall by 40%. Six banks have assets that equal 60% of our GDP. Meanwhile, the number of Americans living below the poverty line has grown to 15%, the highest percentage in 18 years and the highest number of people in the 52 years the Census Bureau has kept statistics. The jobs crisis actually began a year into Bush’s first term. Even the nonpartisan CBO is saying: “Spend money now!”

Republicans instead ignore the obvious problem with the economy — weak demand — and continue to work the same narrative they used for 8 years before the crisis: too many regulations, too many unemployment benefits, and not enough privitization. But a study from the Ecoomic Policy Institute shows that regulations aren’t to blame for the economy, and another study from Berekley shows that unemployment benefits do not weaken job search efforts. Also: privitizing things makes it cost more. Why is it that 9/11 changed everything but the 2008 crash changed nothing?

People like Greenspan don’t care when their predictions don’t come true. They actually find it “regrettable” when the disastrously high interest rates they predict don’t happen and lament that the free markets they hold so dear aren’t “discipling the government.” They just repeat obvious lies to themselves like that the stimulus “created zero jobs.” They’re so antagonistic to the government that Ron Paul actually criticized Rick Perry for creating 170,000 jobs because they were government jobs! To see what a world where Ron Paul is president, one only has to look at his former campaign manager, who was uninsured at died of pneumonia at 49, leaving his family $400,000 in debt. It doesn’t matter that Democratic presidents have created more private sector jobs and increased the debt less than Republicans.

There is some worry that the Occupy Wall Street movement will become just another DNC recruiting tool the way the Tea Party became a rebranding campaign for the Republicans, but given this harsh response to MoveOn.Org, that possibility seems pleasantly unlikely.

Following the debt ceiling debate, politics became really depressing for me. It seemed like destiny that while people in Greece for rioting over entitlements they couldn’t afford, the only people bringing civil unrest over austerity measures in the face of the worst Recession in 80 years were people whining about birth certificates and how the country with the lowest taxes in the world and had just decreased taxes to a 50-year low was crippling the country with overtaxation. Even though I see the same arguments every night on MSNBC, I’m glad to see there are still rebels on the Left who are willing to take on a corrupt government that’s subserviant to Wall Street even when there’s a Democratic president in office. It gives me faith that maybe we aren’t all a bunch of compromise-taking centrists who respond to Republican obstination with more concessions. As for those who act condescendingly towards Occupy Wall Street with the typical accusations of class warfare and cariactures of lazy potheads, the perfect response comes in the form of a tweet I read from one of the protestors: “Why is it easier for you to believe that 150 million people are lazy and stupid than 400 people are greedy and malicious?”

Asleep at 9/11

I was asleep when the twin towers were hit. I was woken up when the second plane hit the towers. As soon as I heard about it, even though I was half asleep, there was no doubt in my mind it was Osama Bin Laden. I was surprised I even remembered the name since I hadn’t thought of him in so long, but I knew that he in particular had made it his life’s ambition to bring down the twin symbols of American financial dominance with a truck bomb set in the World Trade Center’s garage. Back in 1993, I considered Bin Laden’s success in detonating the device and the failure for it to bring the tower’s down a testament to a lack of education in physics. But by a stroke of luck, Bin Laden and the American-educated merchanical engineer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were escaping their respective countries to Afghanistan at about the same time in mid-1996. The two had fought together in Afghanistan in ’89 but had never had a very close relationship. When Mohammed laid out his plan to Bin Laden, he was asked to join al-Qaida, but Mohammed delayed joining until ’99, when he became sure that bin Laden was committed to the plan.

Although I immediately knew who had attacked the U.S. on 9/11, I had no idea that the country was going to react the way it did. I had to leave for class shortly after the second tower fell, and I drove to class expecting it to be just another day, where I realized it was a much bigger deal than I thought. I didn’t remember the WTC bombing or the attack on the U.S.S. Cole being especially important. I don’t think I even discussed those particular terrorist attacks with my high school friends on the days that they happened. Or maybe I did and I just forgot. I didn’t know about the other two planes or realize how many people had died and how much devastation it had caused. Before I even got to my first class I saw everyone on campus huddled together talking about it. Many students were huddled in a classroom that had a television set and were watching the news.

The news didn’t seem all that informative, so I got on the internet instead and started looking up the history of Osama Bin Laden. I found out that he had carried out an assassination on Ahmad Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance opposing the Taliban, only two days before the attacks. He had granted an interview with three reporters who detonated a bomb that was hidden in the camera, fatally wounding him. There was no doubt in my mind — this was Bin Laden’s payment to the Taliban for bringing his war to their country.

Massoud was called “the man who won the Cold War in Afghanistan” by the Wall Street Journal and was given the title “Lion of Panjshir.” While at the Europen Parliament in Brussells, he had addressed the United States specifically in Spring of 2001, warning us that should the U.S. not work for peace in Afghanistan and put pressure on Pakistan to cease their support to the Taliban, the problems of Afghanistan would soon become the problems of the U.S. and the world. Declassified Defense Intelligence Agency documents from November 2001 show that Massoud had gained “limited knowledge… regarding the intentions of [al-Qaeda] to perform a terrorist act against the US on a scale larger than the 1998 bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Human Rights Watch cites no human rights crimes or abuses for Massoud’s troops in the period from October 1996 to 2001. Massoud created democratic institutions which were structured into political, health, education and economic committees. Women and girls did not have to wear the Afghan burqa and were allowed to work and to go to school. In at least two known instances Massoud personally intervened against cases of forced marriage. While it was Massoud’s stated conviction that men and women are equal and should enjoy the same rights, he also had to deal with Afghan traditions which he said would need a generation or more to overcome. In his opinion that could only be achieved through education. Hundreds of thousands of refugees fled the Taliban to the areas of Massoud. There was a huge humanitarian problem because there was not enough to eat for both the existing population and the refugees. In 2001 Massoud and a French journalist described the bitter situation of the refugees and asked for humanitarian help. He was 48 when he was killed and had survived countless assassination attempts since he was 22. Each September, thousands of people flock to his tomb like pilgrims to a holy shrine to commemorate the most celebrated hero of the Afghan resistance.

I was sure that subsequent news investigations into the history of the incident would bring these facts to light. I also thought the study of Islam would become an important tool to understanding our new enemy, just as learning German or Japanese was so essential to defeating our enemies in World War II. Of course what we got instead was another minority just got moved up a couple of notches on the general public’s shit list and politics (along with the word “defense”) essentially became redefined by the adage that “everything changed after 9/11.”

Like everyone else, I supported going to war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan. I also liked the idea of financially supporting the Northern Alliance in their fight against the Taliban since they were acting as allies to al-Qaida, but in my mind the ultimate goal was still defeating al-Qaida, not regime change. However, the Northern Alliance never even entered the American vocabulary. Instead, the U.S. put everything into democratic elections that brought about Hamid Karzai, who the U.S. maintains a frayed relationship with despite the fact that we are ostensibly “at war” with his brother, Afghanistan’s Poppy kingpin, with in our continued War on Drugs, and the fact that Karzai stole the last election. Today, even Northern Alliance members who profited mightily in the land grabs and cash giveaways that followed the American invasion have signaled resistance to Mr. Karzai’s efforts to negotiate a peace settlement with the Taliban.

Looking back 10 years now, I can only think that we reacted exactly the way Bin Laden wanted us to react. Senior al-Qaida member Said al-Adel summarized “Al Quaeda’s Strategy to the Year 2020” in 5 steps:

1) Provoke the United States into invading a Muslim country.

2) Incite local resistance to occupying forces.

3) Expand the conflict to neighboring countries, and engage the U.S. in a long war of attrition.

4) Convert Al-Qaeda into an ideology and set of operating principles that can be loosely franchised in other countries without requiring direct command and control, and via these franchises incite attacks against countries allied with the U.S. until they withdraw from the conflict, as happened with the 2004 Madrid train bombings, but which did not have the same effect with the 2005 London bombings.

5) The U.S. economy will finally collapse under the strain of too many engagements in too many places, similarly to the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Arab regimes supported by the U.S. will collapse, and a Wahhabi Caliphate will be installed across the region.

This is exactly what al-Qaida did, very successfully thanks to our help. When the U.S. declared war on al-Qaida, they were a tiny backwater band of militants that had no influence on the rest of the Islamic world. Today they are massive world franchise whose derivative controls large portions of Iraq and Syria. That did not happen despite the most powerful military in the world ten times over declared war on them but because of it. Although they didn’t plan for us to attack Iraq, when we did, they were able to open up a franchise there (“So what?” responded Bush). By winning political support using “strong on terrorism” campaigns, Republicans ensured ever more expensive military expansions while at the same time enacting unprecidented wartime budget-busting tax cuts, all while cloaking themselves under the mantle of “not criticizing the president during a time of war,” a concept which immediately dismissed as soon as a Democrat was elected.

Where 9/11 unified the country, Iraq divided the country and the world in a way not seen since Vietnam. Strangely, the 2008 election was fought by two centrists, Obama and McCain, yet the backlash against Obama’s election has caused both of them to make a far-right shift. Despite the fact that Obama was essentially elected on anti-war, anti-Wall Street sentiments, the elected president has shown himself to be neither. Indefinite detention, targeted killings and military trials are still core elements of our national security strategy and the top lawyer and 34-year-veteran of the CIA, John Rizzo, explained to PBS’ Frontline that Obama has “changed virtually nothing” from Bush policies in these areas. America’s favorability rating with the Middle East skyrocketed when Obama was elected president, but after advancing not-so-secret wars in Pakistan and Yemen, views of America in the Arab world are now lower than they were during the Bush era.

We still view the world as if we need to change it rather than ourselves in order to be safe from terrorism. Ten years of nonstop fighting should have taught us that the best way to have dealt with 9/11 was to ensure that the people who booked flights actually compare the manifest to known terrorists (something that we should have been doing from the start) and to keep the pilot’s door locked regardless of what terrorists on the plane threaten to do. Despite the high numbers of deaths on 9/11, a lot more people died in car accidents and similarly boring situations that do not involve wars being declared. You are more likely to be killed by a lightning bolt than a terrorist attack, yet even in our new age of austerity, politics is still defined by this irrational fear. The attack on 9/11 is often compared to the attack on Pearl Harbor in that it “woke the sleeping giant” and brought the United States away from it’s isolationist leanings. My hope is that we not just put 9/11 behind us, but “go back to sleep” and forget it entirely, because everything we “learned” that day has done nothing but put us down the road of moral and financial destruction that we now find ourselves on.

Tea Party Hobbits

TEA PARTY HOBBITS: It is time to slay the Debt Dragon!

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: We have less than half our hit points! We’ll get annihilated!!

TEA PARTY HOBBITS: But we have to kill him NOW! He gets stronger every day!!

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: Maybe from eating, but not from healing. The Debt Dragon has been around for 600 years! We’d gain more hit points a day than him just resting for a while, especially since you’re too cheap to buy healing potions.

TEA PARTY HOBBITS: We can’t buy anything. We’re broke.

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: No, I’m broke. Greenspan the Green got tons of gold kicking all those dark elves out of their lairs in the Tower of CDO’s. We told Greenspan, “You’ve made plenty of money off these guys. Let’s Teleport back home,” but he said I was restricting your free movement, and you followed him, then boom, we get hit with an encounter we can’t run away from and wake up with half the cash gone. So why don’t you use some of Greenspan’s gold to buy some Potions of Healing for us?

GREENSPAN THE GREEN: I am a Potion Creator, not a Potion Buyer.

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: Not this again. This is what you always say. ‘Give me more money and I’ll create the potions myself.’ Then you go off and sell the rest of the potions to make money to magic items for yourself. How many times do you expect us to fall for that?

GREENSPAN THE GREEN: Potions will not help us. We should just rest until we heal.

GROVDO, THE TEA PARTY HOBBIT LEADER (grabs woman): We go and fight the debt dragon NOW, no potions, or she dies.

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: You know, we WERE fighting the debt dragon before you came along and said we were beating him too early. Then Greenspan led us to defeat at the Dotcom Cave and the Tower of CDO’s. Now you want us to go and fight the debt dragon for no other reason than you suspect Barack will get killed and you may survive.

GROVDO: You must be thinking of someone else. I did not join the party until after Barack defeated the Wizard Cheney and his chimpanzee familiar.

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: Different character. Same player.

BARACK THE BARBARIAN: Let her go and I’ll do what you say.

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: What?? He’s just a Hobbit. You could use one of your barbarian maneuvers to just grab her.

BARACK THE BARBARIAN: My advisers are not persuaded that is a winning maneuver.

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: What advisers? Didn’t most of them quit? And couldn’t you have made them promise not to do this while you were negotiating the spoil cuts just a little while ago?

BARACK THE BARBARIAN: I was sure that they would act responsibly.

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: Great call.

GROVDO: We’re going! Now!! (Cuts the woman.)

MCCAIN-SMEAGOL: The idea seems to be that if he kills the hostage, a crisis in the party will ensue and the people will turn en masse against Barack, then he would have no choice but to fight the Debt Dragon, destroy the Ring of Spending, and the Tea Party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor.

MCCAIN-GOLLUM (changes personality): You Tea Party Hobbits! You can’t have our Precious!

TEA PARTY HOBBITS: Have it! We’re trying to destroy it!

BARACK THE BARBARIAN: You’re right, Tea Party Hobbits. The Debt Dragon is an important menace that we need to tackle right now…

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: …

BARACK THE BARBARIAN: But we must tackle it together, all of us at once if we are going to stand a chance!

GROVDO: Us? We’re destroying the Ring of Spending, not fighting the Debt Dragon. You are.

BARACK THE BARBARIAN: It is the only way we can take him down. I am willing to take considerable heat from my party to extend a hand to you and fight the Debt Dragon together… if you just provide a little auxiliary help from the side.

GROVDO: No, we’ve provided enough for the party as it is. As soon as you begin fighting the Debt Dragon, we will get a blessing from the Confidence Fairy and finally be safe from the Invisible Bond Market Vigilantes.

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: This is truly amazing. You heralded the Confidence Fairy every chance you got when Cheney led this party, but it’s never made an appearance. And it’s one thing to be intimidated by Bond Market Vigilantes. It’s another to be intimidated by the fear that Bond Market Vigilantes might show up one of these days.

GREENSPAN THE GREEN: I am in favor for the first time in my memory of having the Hobbits fight with us.

BARACK THE BARBARIAN (to the Hobbits): How about if I agree to fight the Debt Dragon without your help, and I give you everything you ask for, plus some things you didn’t ask for, will you at least let go of the hostage?

GREENSPAN THE GREEN: The fact that I am in favor of going back to the ways things were before Cheney is merely an indicator of how scared I am of this Debt Dragon that has emerged and its order of magnitude.

MCCAIN-GOLLUM: Take it! Take it!

TEA PARTY HOBBITS: No.

BARACK THE BARBARIAN: All right.

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: I think you’ve been emboldening them by the way you keep folding in the face of their threats. You surrendered on the spoil cuts; you surrendered when they threatened to break up the party; and now you’re surrendering on a grand scale to raw extortion over the hostage. Maybe it’s just me, but I see a pattern here.

(The Party Begins to Travel to the Debt Dragon, headed by the Grovdo and his companions: Bach-Sam, Perry, and Pip-Palin.)

MCCAIN-SMEAGOL: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell should be repealed following a study. The DREAM Act will provide a path to citizenship. Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.

MCCAIN-GOLLUM: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell shouldn’t be repealed. No, I wouldn’t vote for my own DREAM Act bill. Rev. Falwell came to my office and said that he wanted to put our differences behind us. I was glad to do that. I never considered myself a Maverick.

GREENSPAN THE GREEN: This is going to be disastrous. We’re not going to be able to get away from the dragon until we take some serious damage.

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: You were the one who reincarnated Grovdo after Barack killed him in his battle against McCain-Gollum. Our soothsayers prophesized that his soul would be lost in the wilderness for 400 years, but you brought him back in only a year stronger than ever. You had him charmed to do your bidding, and now you lost control over your own monster. He’s convinced he was conceived in a virgin birth, but even he doesn’t know the truth about his own origin story, that he’s the long lost son of Ron Paul.

GROVDO: Once the Spending Ring is destroyed and the Debt Dragon is defeated, our party we be back on the road to being great again, just like it was back in the original D&D red box edition.

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: You look back and wax nostalgic about the “simpler time” in the Golden Age of the original system, but you purposely forget minority races had only one class back then, and the wizards you put in charge like Greenspan instead run Second Edition AD&D games where all the high level characters use kits and ridiculous math to take control of the whole game away while entry-level characters have to multi-class just to keep up. At least First Edition AD&D allowed different races to be anything they want.

GREENSPAN THE GREEN: But then Third Edition went to ridiculous lengths to balance things out and it still doesn’t work. The original D&D’s rule about experience being awarded according to the gold piece standard would be a good system to bring back.

(Frum the Bard, a former writer for Cheney’s familiar, walks up.)

FRUM THE BARD: The original D&D’s rule about experience being based on the gold piece system was not as great as you imagined since none of the dice had huge modifier bonuses attached to them and experience awards were extremely random.

(The Party reaches Mordor and splits up, with the Hobbits taking the Ring of Spending to the Volcano and the rest of the party facing up the Debt Dragon. As the Hobbits climb, the Ring bears down on them and they begin to fight among themselves.)

GROVDO (entering volcano): I will have to do this alone….

(Grovdo holds the Ring of Spending over the volcano.)

GROVDO: Wait, if I throw this ring into the volcano, I won’t have any power over the party any more. (Releases his hostage)

(Meanwhile, the party fights the debt dragon.)

Barack unleashes a flurry of cuts against the debt dragon (1,000,000,000,000 d), but a spell reverses the attacks and they instead strike Barack.

The Debt Dragon casts a Delayed Blast Fireball on him that will cause the same amount of damage once it explodes.

The Debt Dragon strikes Greenspan for 266 damage.

Greenspan casts a Minor Healing spell, gaining 30 hp.

The Debt Dragon breathes fire on Greenspan for 513 damage.

Greenspan casts a Minor Healing spell, gaining 61 hit points.

Greenspan then knocks Barack down, causing Barack to drop his Treasury Shield. Greenspan then drops his own weapon and runs over to take shelter behind the newly fallen Treasury Shield.

BARACK THE BARBARIAN: What the hell was that for?

GREENSPAN THE GREEN: It’s the Tea Party Hobbits’ fault for being so uncompromising!

(The Tea Party Hobbits and their leader arrive just as Greenspan says this.)

TEA PARTY HOBBITS: What was that?

BLITZER THE WEREWOLF: He said someone didn’t provide enough damage to the Debt Dragon.

GROVDO: That’s right. Barack got knocked down because he didn’t provide enough cuts! And obviously that Treasury Shield wasn’t doing enough.

BACH-SAM: Barack’s last adviser should resign! He said Greenspan would never turn against Barack!

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: Gpeenspan said he knocked Barack down because of you! But who cares what Greenspan thinks! It was his Poor Standards that convinced you climbing to the top of the Tower of CDO’s was worth the risk! And if the Treasury Shield wasn’t doing enough, why is he cowering behind it?

(Bach-Sam sees the Ring of Spending.)

BACH-SAM: Grovdo, don’t tell me you failed to destroy the Ring of Spending!

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: Don’t act so betrayed. You’ve used the Ring for your own family in the past and you agreed “in principal” to Paul Ryan’s plan to keep the Ring working for the benefit of you Hobbits for another 10 years.

FRUM THE BARD: Looking over these stats, we took a lot more damage from the Tower of CDO’s than we originally thought. When people tell me that I’ve changed my mind too much about too many things over the past four years, I can only point to the devastation wrought by this crisis and wonder: How closed must your thinking be if it isn’t affected by a disaster of such magnitude? And in fact, almost all of our thinking has been somehow affected: hence the drift of so many away from what used to be the mainstream market-oriented WASP-ington Consensus toward to Faustian demonics and Ron Paul style anti-magic item sharing. The ground they and I used to occupy stands increasingly empty. If I can’t follow where most of my friends have gone, it is because I keep hearing Susan Sontag’s question in my ears. Or rather, a revised and updated version of that question: “Imagine, if you will, someone who listened only to Greenspan these last 10 years, and someone who listened only to Krugman. Who would have been better informed about the realities of the current demonic crisis? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it be that our enemies were right?”

The Debt Dragon breathes fire on Greenspan for 635 damage.

Greenspan casts a Greater Healing spell, gaining 430 hit points.

The Debt Dragon breathes fire on Greenspan for 520 damage.

Greenspan casts three Greater Healing spells, for 423, 126, and 214 hit points (763 hp).

The Debt Dragon claws Greenspan for 77 damage.

Greenspan drinks a healing tonic, gaining 4 hit points.

The Debt Dragon breathes fire on Greenspan for 420 damage and then claws Greenspan for 173 damage (593 d).

(The dragon circles the party ready to unleash more attacks on the party.)

SULLIVAN THE BARD: We’ve been told again and again that the real motivation of the Tea Party Hobbits is a multi-partisan movement to bring the debt and rule-making under control. I’ve never believed this, partly because these people were never to be found under Cheney’s familiar. It was primarily a laundering device to disappear the Bush years, re-brand the party as a wholly different entity and thereby avoid the long wilderness that the catastrophes of the last decade might have led them into. Now we have some large data sets to review the reality. And the reality is that the Tea Party Hobbits are largely the Cleric right-wing of the party. They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white right-wingers, they had a low regard for demi-humans long before Barack was leader, and they still do. Next to being a Greenspan follower, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party Hobbit is to see religion play a prominent role in politics. They seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party Leader may say their overriding concern is a smaller rule-making, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting the DM in the party. So Bach-Sam is not such a fluke, is she? Or a flake, for that matter.

FRUM THE BARD: It is a peculiarity of the current political moment that a politician with a history of pushing sectarian religious beliefs in rule-making has become a hero to a anti-magic item sharing movement. But is it so peculiar? The Tea Party is not exactly anti-magic item sharing – otherwise it would not so passionately defend medicine for old people. It’s a movement of relatively older and relatively affluent Hobbits whose expectations have been disrupted by the worst demonic crisis since the Great Cataclysm. They are looking for an explanation of the catastrophe – and a villain to blame. They are finding it in the same place that Bach-Sam and her co-religionists located it 30 years ago: a deeply hostile rule-maker controlled by alien and suspect forces, with Barack Obama as their leader and symbol.

BACH-SAM: And the Soviet Union!

KRUGMAN THE ROGUE: Looks like the dragon is coming down for another volley of attacks. Any last words?

GROVDO: This is all the fault of Barack’s leadership policies!

FRUM THE BARD: Question: Which policies? If so minded, you could describe Barack Obama as the biggest spoil cutter in history. You complain about excess spending. Fine. But isn’t the evil of excess spending supposed to be overshooting your maximum hit points rather than losing all of them?

PERRY: He spoke disrespectfully about Flying Carpet owners!

FRUM THE BARD: Really? That’s the indictment? Really?

Serious Problems

Steeve Doocey: “We’ve got some serious problems in this country, we are teetering on default and what do they do? They talk about [the Murdoch hacking scandal].”

Yeah, how can any real news agency report on a mafia don’s empire hacking into the phones and computers of a kidnapping victim, fallen soldiers, and advertising competitors — then bribing the highest levels of Scotland Yard to avoid criminal charges — when we’re teetering on a completely artificial crisis engineered by the same mafia-payrolled candidates who are blackmailing the majority population of the country into accepting a minority ideological position on the threat of destroying the country?

10 arrests and 2 whistleblower deaths so far, including the “suicide” of the first person to come forward over the hacks. Scotland Yard already says there’s “nothing suspicious.”

From the New York Times:

News America was led by Paul V. Carlucci, who, according to Forbes, used to show the sales staff the scene in “The Untouchables” in which Al Capone beats a man to death with a baseball bat. Mr. Emmel testified that Mr. Carlucci was clear about the guiding corporate philosophy.

According to Mr. Emmel’s testimony, Mr. Carlucci said that if there were employees uncomfortable with the company’s philosophy — “bed-wetting liberals in particular was the description he used” Mr. Emmel testified — then he could arrange to have those employees “outplaced from the company.”

Clearly, given the size of the payouts, along with the evidence and testimony in the lawsuits, the News Corporation must have known it had another rogue on its hands, one who needed to be dealt with. After all, Mr. Carlucci, who became chairman and chief executive of News America in 1997, had overseen a division that had drawn the scrutiny of government investigators and set off lawsuits that chipped away at the bottom line.

And while Mr. Murdoch might reasonably maintain that he did not have knowledge of the culture of permission created by Mr. Hinton and Ms. Brooks, by now he has 655 million reasons to know that Mr. Carlucci colored outside the lines.

So what became of him? Mr. Carlucci, as it happens, became the publisher of The New York Post in 2005 and continues to serve as head of News America, which doesn’t exactly square with Mr. Murdoch’s recently stated desire to “absolutely establish our integrity in the eyes of the public.”

The same right-wingers who think even the tiniest reduction in oil consumption would be the end of American life as we know it and many of the same right-wingers who (now) agree with the left that you need congressional approval for involvement in Libya do not believe you need you even need a congressional bill to cut off social security and medicare checks or cut the federal budget in half.

Oh, and Grover Norquist and the corn-state Republicans are calling Tom Coburn’s plan to repeal ethanol subsidies a tax hike. So even at the brink of collapse, “pro-market” Tea Partiers won’t give up their socialized earth rape.

The Debt Limit: The New ‘Obama Czars’

Bill Wilson writes in the National Examiner:

>Left-wing pundits and their cronies in Congress delivered a well-timed second punch to the Obama news conference on the continuing fight over an increase in the U.S. debt limit today. While Obama tried to show he was “involved” in the negotiations, his henchmen announced that it might not matter; that Congress really had no saying in the debt limit. The thrust of their argument is that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires the President to do whatever he wants in order to ensure, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.”

The Constitution? Just because we paste the Constitution on everything, wear revolutionary hats, and can’t shut up about the Constitution doesn’t mean we actually care what it says.

>Overlooking the entire context of the section of the Amendment – ensuring debts incurred to battle the Confederacy were honored and barring the government or any state from assuming the debts of the rebel government

Yeah, keep it in context. Just because they ammended the Constitution doesn’t mean they thought people would still be following it after a couple of years. And only a liberal would interpret “public debt” to mean military and non-military debt. But when the Constitution says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” THAT’S different. That means all firearms, explosives, grenade launchers, bazookas, and portable nuclear devices should never be banned or even regulated, regardless of whether there’s a war or even a “well regulated Militia.”

>the apologists for the Administration assert that it is a universal mandate.

Yeah, who ever said the Constitution is a universal mandate?

>From this they claim the President has the power to ignore Congress and issue as much new debt as he deems appropriate.

Bush issued debt for the entire Iraq War without congressional approval but Obama has to get congress to okay the money he spends saving the economy not once but twice. Hey, Democrats didn’t want the Iraq War to happen. If you get to blow off the debt just because you lost the 2008 election, does that mean we can blow off paying the $3 trillion for the Iraq War?

>Were Congress to truly represent the People who by large margins oppose an increase in the debt limit

Bullshit as usual. It’s not even a Republican majority, which is saying a lot for a group of authoritarians so retarded that polls show they overwhelmingly believe ACORN will steal the 2012 election despite being non-existent and that Fannie and Freddie caused a banking crisis in nations they weren’t even in because Fox News said so. A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 55 percent of Democrats and half of Republicans and independents support a debt-limit deal that includes a steep reduction in the size of government. But 37 percent of Republicans, a third of independents and nearly a fifth of Democrats say they are against raising the debt limit, under any circumstances. That so many Democrats are against raising the debt limit makes me wonder if people taking the poll even know that this is for raising the limit for money that is already spent. It’s basically like someone deciding to take money out of the bank because he doesn’t agree with the check his wife already wrote.

>What the Administration could not do is incur new debt, additional debt. They could not spend trillions of dollars more than they take in. An instant balanced budget would result

Republicans have been using this “Starve the Beast” bullshit for 30 years, and it’s never worked once, and Republicans still believe it.

>There is enough money for that. Everything else would then become a political decision. Does he pay Social Security claims and deny our armed forces their pay? Does he play the time honored game of past hucksters and charlatans by looking to blocki funding with the aim of hurting the public in order to get the legislative branch to give in? Or, is there a statesman inside that otherwise apparent empty suit?

What part of this paragraph am I supposed to like? Tax cuts for billionaires who blew up the world are mandatory, but forcing Obama to choose between paying people their rightfully earned SS or cutting funding for the troops is a humorous game. He sounds like a fucking psycho.

>Obama could shut down all the wasteful and needless departments and agencies of the government – HUD, Commerce, Labor, etc.

“First by inflation, then by deflation…”

>The list of things Obama could do is near endless, things that would save money so he could meet the constitutional mandate of the 14th Amendment while pairing back the monstrous federal government.

Yes, the list is endless. Never mind the fact that it would mean either Social Security and Medicare would immediately have to be cut by a third or everything else would have to be cut in half. Obama will have to go through 80 million bills and figure out which ones to pay. Factcheck says: “The path urged by Bachmann and DeMint has little support among budget experts and economists. ‘The notion of paying interest first is dumb,’ said Rudolph Penner, a Republican former CBO director who is now with the liberal-leaning Urban Institute.”

Although it’s true that Obama was against raising the debt limit when Bush was president, what typically goes unsaid is that every politican in the party out of power has been “hypocritical” in using the debt to push their side’s agenda, but every year a deal was made early on which is why we never heard about it. There was a time when the debt limit vote was taken away by Democrats to stop this political hostage taking, but it was the Republicans who brought it back. The debt limit was raised 7 times during Bush without anyone knowing about it, but now that it’s on the news, even a lot of Democrats are acting like this is something new that needs to be dealt with now. It reminds me of Obama’s all new dreaded czars that needs the be dealt with now now now when FDR had 11 czars 80 years ago and it was Bush who tripled the number of czars. I have a hard time understanding how 50 year olds didn’t know we had czars before Obama when I can remember Reagan’s drug czar from when I was 8, and I wasn’t exactly interested in news back then.

One wonders why Republicans don’t demand these things when they are in power. Maybe because we’re “broke.” But if we’re “broke,” and Europe is “broke,” and the world is “broke,” where did all the money go? Our shared historical conception of the Depression is that everyone is broke leaves out the crucial other half of the equation, that the richest people always profit when the market contracts like this: they are the recipients of all the money that contemporary society perceives as “disappearing into thin air.” This is still different from the conservative alternate history that the stock market crash had little to do with the Depression and that FDR got all the credit for pulling us out from Hitler starting WWII.

Obama has now put cuts to Social Security and Medicare cuts on the table to lure Republicans back to the table, but so far they’re refusing even this.

Krugman wries:

“So the goal may be to paint the G.O.P. into a corner, making Republicans look like intransigent extremists — which they are.

But let’s be frank. It’s getting harder and harder to trust Mr. Obama’s motives in the budget fight, given the way his economic rhetoric has veered to the right. In fact, if all you did was listen to his speeches, you might conclude that he basically shares the G.O.P.’s diagnosis of what ails our economy and what should be done to fix it…..

People have asked me why the president’s economic advisers aren’t telling him not to believe in the confidence fairy — that is, not to believe the assertion, popular on the right but overwhelmingly refuted by the evidence, that slashing spending in the face of a depressed economy will magically create jobs. My answer is, what economic advisers? Almost all the high-profile economists who joined the Obama administration early on have either left or are leaving.

Nor have they been replaced. As The Wall Street Journal recently noted, there are a “stunning” number of vacancies in important economic posts. So who’s defining the administration’s economic views?….

Mr. Obama’s people will no doubt argue that their fellow party members should trust him, that whatever deal emerges was the best he could get. But it’s hard to see why a president who has gone out of his way to echo Republican rhetoric and endorse false conservative views deserves that kind of trust.”

“Because failure to raise the debt ceiling would be so nasty, that very possibility could cause serious economic damage even if the odds of an actual default never approach 50%.”
–The Economist

“Top economist: Raise the debt ceiling or blow the recovery ‘out of the water'”
–Yahoo

“The chance of Congress not increasing the debt limit, however, is next to none.”
–ABC

“It would be a disaster if we defaulted on our debt. It would be a disaster if we were hit by an asteroid. I think being hit by an asteroid is a more likely scenario,”
— J.D. Foster, an expert on fiscal policy with the conservative Heritage Foundation.