Blog Flux Directory Subscribe in NewsGator Online Subscribe with Bloglines http://www.wikio.com Blog directory
And, yes, I DO take it personally
Mandy: Great blog!
Mark: Thanks to all the contributors on this blog. When I want to get information on the events that really matter, I come here.
Penny: I'm glad I found your blog (from a comment on Think Progress), it's comprehensive and very insightful.
Eric: Nice site....I enjoyed it and will be back.
nora kelly: I enjoy your site. Keep it up! I particularly like your insights on Latin America.
Alison: Loquacious as ever with a touch of elegance -- & right on target as usual!
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
- Noam Chomsky
Send tips and other comments to: profmarcus2010@yahoo.com

And, yes, I DO take it personally

Thursday, December 08, 2011

Six people have as much wealth as 90.7 million of the 302.2 million people in the U.S.

laura at daily kos...
We're talking about the top .00000002 percent.

laura is posting on research done by Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at the University of California at Berkeley’s Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics...

such a yawning gap of wealth inequality is unconscionable...

Labels: , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Sunday, September 18, 2011

This is a bribe-based system—an oligarchy all the way to the core

mark sumner posting on daily kos...
The greatest pretense in American politics is this: that our politicians can be utterly dependent on money given to them by contributors, but not be influenced by the source of those funds. It's not true. It's never been true. Now that the judicial takeover of our electoral system is complete, there's not even any reason to hide it. This is a bribe-based system—an oligarchy all the way to the core. Getting it back isn't going to be easy, and probably can't be done with dollars. It's going to take something far more dear.

it's about time that we woke up and smelled that fabled coffee... there is zero daylight between the repubs and the dems... they're both bought and paid for puppets totally beholden to their super-rich, elite handlers... as long as the principle driver is money, we're going to continue to get what we've been getting - governance at all levels singularly focused on the needs of those who pay to have people elected who will serve their needs and their needs alone, the common good be damned...

meanwhile, we, the peasants, are continually exhorted (by democrat-dedicated sites such as daily kos, among others) to toss our pathetic and scarce dollars into the hat to try to outspend those who can contribute millions without breaking a sweat... tell me how THAT'S going to work...

as long as we continue to support the myth that we can somehow make our completely broken two-party system work, we only continue to enable the oligarchs to run our lives and subvert any semblance of the principles the united states was founded on... whenever we attempt to make a stand for the common good, we will find it being attacked with the kind of vigor and unlimited resources that will only succeed in stomping it out... the welfare of senior citizens...? education for our national treasure, the young...? the fate of the unemployed...? the disadvantaged...? the working poor...? fuhgeddaboudit... anyone who doesn't have the advantage of money is, by definition, powerless, so, screw 'em...

where does this leave us...? i wish i knew... what i do know is that what we've been doing isn't working and i, for one, simply can't face the prospect of another repeat of our every four year reality show...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, January 28, 2011

Sarkozy lashes out at the banksters at WEF in Davos

i love it... i love it a LOT... 's about time one of the leaders of the industrialized nations put the cards on the table... i'm no sarkozy fan but he's got this one right...
The world has paid with tens of millions of unemployed, who were in no way to blame and who paid for everything. It caused a lot of anger. Too much is too much. The world was stupefied to see one of five biggest U.S. banks collapse like a house of cards. We saw that for the last 10 years, major institutions in which we thought we could trust had done things which had nothing to do with simple common sense. That's what happened... There is an ocean between flexibility and the scandal we saw. So if people present me as obsessed with regulation, it's because there is a need for regulation. I don't contest the principle of securitisation, but when one offshore country guaranteed 700 times its GDP, are we in the market economy or in a madhouse? Bonuses don't bother me, provided there are also ... draw-downs when there are losses. When things don't work, you can never find anyone responsible. Those who got bumper bonuses for seven years should have made losses in 2008 when things collapsed.

you tell 'em, nick... i've been waiting a long time to hear this kind of righteous rant from a major world leader...

(thanks to bobswern at daily kos...)

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, August 26, 2010

A Wall Street government

i'm glad to see that the incredible and still on-going theft of the resources of the u.s. and - let's face it, the entire world - is garnering increasing attention from those in a position to potentially reach non mainstream audiences...

this is the trailer for a documentary entitled, "inside job"... it posits what i at least believe to be the entirely credible proposition that what has taken place over the past few years is a deliberate scam - a well-planned heist - a scam that continues to this day...




thanks to badabing at daily kos and, even though daily kos is a site that eschews "conspiracy theories," i respectfully suggest markos and his colleagues ought to wake up and smell the coffee...

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Monday, June 21, 2010

"We keep expecting the politicians and the mainstream press to do the right thing. That is profoundly naive."

every once in a while, in the midst of the mindless democratic cheerleading, someone on a liberal/progressive blog makes sense...

from cenk uygur's diary, currently on the recommended list at daily kos...

We keep expecting the politicians and the mainstream press to do the right thing. That is profoundly naive. Why is a television anchor making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year going to look to change the system? He loves the system. The system pays the bills.

That's even truer of our politicians. The status quo got them elected. The status quo will get them - and their staffers - great salaries when they retire and become lobbyists. They'd have to be crazy to change the system that put them up on top.

That's why change must come from outside the system. We keep waiting for the Obama administration to bring us the change they promised. What are we, children? The current system got Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner, etc. where they are. They have gotten to the pinnacle of power by playing within that system. They've made millions in that system. That's why they have no intention of actually upending it. They just want to tweak it and do exactly what Obama said he wouldn't do if he got elected - play the Washington game just a little better.

This doesn't mean you give up all hope. There are some good guys in DC. I recently talked to a House staffer who said that Senator Franken's staff is excellent. The staff is so important because they are the ones who actually write the bills. I asked him why Franken's staff was better than the others. And he had a simple answer - they don't plan to work as lobbyists in DC when they're done serving in his office.

It's not just the honest senators that should give you hope. What should give you the most hope is that the motivations of people are actually quite simple. So, we can change the results by changing the incentives.

For example, if we pay the campaign expenses of politicians instead of letting the lobbyists pay them, then the politicians might actually work for us. If we ban the politicians and their staff from working as lobbyists, they might not have as much incentive to sell us out.

I know the people inside DC think that last proposal is absolute heresy. How would they get rich if they can't work as lobbyists? And that's precisely what the problem is. They're getting rich at our expense. We're crazy to allow this system to continue.

The nobles will never change it. This is how they got to where they are. This is how they maintain their power and salaries. We have to make them change it.

what cenk doesn't touch on is one of those topics that continues to remain "undiscussable," particularly on sites like daily kos where electing "more and better democrats" is a rigidly enforced mantra... i am now at the point where i no longer believe that it's possible to elect a "better" politician of any party... the system, as it's presently constructed, means that, to get someone pure and holy enough to weather the constant blandishments designed to buy unconditional support for the well-heeled donors, we'd have to elect a canonized saint and, in case you haven't noticed, saints are in remarkably short supply these days...

so, how do we "make them change it?"... take to the streets...? try to out the bastards by sitting in our pajamas and putting up posts on our blogs...? electing "more and better democrats"...? i think we're way beyond that... those things haven't worked in the past and they won't work now... so, what then...? personally, i don't have a friggin' clue... do you...?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 4 comments

Saturday, June 19, 2010

The BP defense vs. the huge and still-evolving massive scope of the disaster

posting in justmeans, a site that focuses on corporate social responsibility, madeline ravich, a justmeans staff writer who has an interest in corporate social responsibility rating and ranking systems, offers her takeaway from the following graphic below...

Photobucket
(click on graphic for larger version)
The graphic touches on environmental risks, economic costs, impacts on local industries, the financial costs of cleanup, and expected government spending. Fine print at the bottom cites the references used for the graphic as including the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, The Gulf of Mexico Alliance, BP, Washington Post, American Bird Conservancy, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, EPA, CNN, CBS, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and regional newspapers. Below is a summary of what I learned about impacts:

Wildlife: Animals are dying. The Gulf Coast contains 5 million acres of habitat, and is home to 45,000 bottlenose dolphins and 34,000 birds. 75%of the waterfowl that traverse the U.S. migrate through the Gulf, as do 5 sea turtle species.

Food Prices: The spill will make seafood less available and/or more expensive. As a result of the spill, you can expect to pay more for shrimp and oysters until the Gulf recovers. As of 2008, the Gulf was home to 73% of all U.S. shrimp fishing and 59% of all U.S. oyster fishing. The initial cost estimate to the fishing industry was $2.5 billion.

Tourism: The spill is threatening livelihoods. At risk are the $9 million dollars in wages paid each year to tourism and recreation workers in the Gulf region, 620,000 jobs in the Gulf region provided by tourism and recreation, and 7,700 jobs generated in Louisiana by saltwater sport fishing.

Companies: The companies responsible for the spill will foot some or all of the $300+ billion estimated cost of the spill in a worst-case scenario. The license where the well was drilled is owned 65% by BP, 25% by Anadarka, and 10% by Mitsui & Co. and responsibility will be shared in those proportions. Less clear is the responsibility to be borne by operators and contractors Transocean, Cameron, and Halliburton. These companies have lost $20 billion in market value due to the spill and BP is already spending $6 million per day.

Americans: Today, 46% of Americans favor offshore drilling (down from 64% in July of 2008) and 41% think the risks are too great (up from 28% in July of 2008). Those who still favor it may be part of the 51% who view the spill as an isolated incident and those who don't may include the 14% who know little to nothing about the Gulf.

Oil supply: The spill has underscored how detrimental a spill in the Gulf region is to the U.S. oil supply. 52% of U.S. total crude oil comes from the Gulf region, and in a worst-case scenario, 6.8 million gallons could begin gushing out of the well each day (the U.S. consumes 819 million gallons of crude oil each day.)

and yet, here is what an individual from a corporate social responsibility rating and ranking organization has to say in defense of the high marks it awards bp...
Our rating system is broad and balanced. It is backward-looking--but incorporates enough data points to be a good estimate of recent reality. Much of our evaluation is comparative--a company is judged against the performance of others in its industry. We measure twelve subcategories of performance--plus more than a dozen special issues. So, a company that performs poorly in one area can redeem itself in the others.

If you look at BP, it has remarkably good scores for a major oil company. I've attached a screen shot of the data you'd see if you were a subscriber. You'll see several subcategory ratings above 70. It is pretty hard to get this good a score. We are tough enough that we don't hand out any "As" and very few "Bs!" The average score is in the mid 40s.

For instance, BP has excellent governance scores. Take a look at the attached report from Governance Metrics (the best source IMHO of governance info). BP has excellent scores for its handling of board and transparency issues--especially when you compare it to other oil industry companies. Regardless of how BP did with the oil spill disaster, it probably is a pretty well governed company, with a balanced and responsible board.

Similarly, if you look at our custom report from Asset4, you'll see that BP garnered 20 awards for its community service (one of the top numbers in our system). The organizations that granted their favor to BP were not all stupid, fooled, or swayed only by PR. They did real work to investigate and check on BP's performance. Of course, many may regret the honors they bestowed on BP and renounce them after the fact. We are certain to see a drop in BP's community scores, as we move forward.

Look at the other sources on our list. The Accountability list contains only 100 companies. It is hard to get on it. Universum says BP is great to black people. This is not what you'd expect from a bunch of red neck oil people! The Human Rights Council only has 100 companies on their list--and they check each carefully. BP joined BSR, UN Global Compact, and Carbon Disclosure Project. Joining these groups does not prove BP is good. But, it does say they care about transparency and communication--one valid component of social responsibility.

Someone using our system could knock BP for their involvement in military contracting or for their pollution problems. Some people will want to be anti any company that pumps oil or that does any kind of resource extraction. That is OK, because we are not saying there is a "right" overall number for BP or that they should always be a top company. However, looking at them broadly and fairly, they are not that bad--and they are certainly as good or better than most of the rest of the oil industry.

And based on that, he concluded: I don't think the mistakes they've made changed their intentions or erased the reality of the hundreds of positive programs and initiatives they put in place over the last twenty years.

(above courtesy of yves smith in naked capitalism...)

here's what robert reich has to say about bp and csr (corporate social responsibility)...
BP has been making public statements about its supposed corporate social responsibility for as many years as it’s behaved irresponsibly. It’s the poster child for PR masquerading as CSR.

[…]

Ad campaigns about corporate social responsibility are cheap. So are public scoldings by politicians about a corporation’s irresponsibility. Watch not what they say but what they do.

and bp, amazingly enough, still cannot seem to accept responsibility for its actions... even worse, the economist, that perennial ass-kisser of the super-rich elites, has the nerve to say this...
America’s justifiable fury with BP is degenerating into a broader attack on business.

[...]

Vilifying BP also gets in the way of identifying other culprits, one of which is the government. BP operates in one of the most regulated industries on earth with some of the most perverse rules, subsidies and incentives. Shoddy oversight clearly contributed to the spill, and an energy policy which reduced the demand for oil would do more to avert future environmental horrors than fierce retribution.

[...]

If [Mr. Obama] he sees any impropriety in politicians ordering executives about, upstaging the courts and threatening confiscation, he has not said so. The collapse in BP’s share price suggests that he has convinced the markets that he is an American version of Vladimir Putin, willing to harry firms into doing his bidding.

the following from the columbia journalism review is contained in a daily kos diary (which, btw, excerpts the full yves smith post referenced above)... i don't think any summary of the still-unfolding disaster could do a better job than this does...
So, it's in one of the most regulated industries, but at the same time, regulators are responsible for its actions because they didn't regulate? Huh?

[...]

You have a few drinks and are driving home at about 100 mph, when it starts to rain. You lose control, crash, taking out a bunch of other drivers and starting a fire which burns down a lot of the surrounding neighborhood. Your defense -- there were laws in place that should have prevented the accident. The fault lies with the cops who failed to stop you before the unfortunate accident which was triggered by an act of God (the rain).

kinda says it all, doesn't it...?

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, August 27, 2009

The health care public option for dummies

i just ran across this on daily kos...

thanks to engio and andy lubershane at youtube via tunesmith at daily kos...


Labels: , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, April 10, 2009

Greenwald and Olbermann on Obama's support for warrantless wiretapping [UPDATE: EFF perspective, a change for the worse]

worth stretching the fair use standard for...

from glenn greenwald in salon via information clearing house with a nod to brother tim...

April 08, "Salon" -- -Several weeks ago, I noted that unlike the Right -- which turned itself into a virtual cult of uncritical reverence for George W. Bush especially during the first several years of his administration -- large numbers of Bush critics have been admirably willing to criticize Obama when he embraces the very policies that prompted so much anger and controversy during the Bush years. Last night, Keith Olbermann -- who has undoubtedly been one of the most swooning and often-uncritical admirers of Barack Obama of anyone in the country (behavior for which I rather harshly criticized him in the past) -- devoted the first two segments of his show to emphatically lambasting Obama and Eric Holder's DOJ for the story I wrote about on Monday: namely, the Obama administration's use of the radical Bush/Cheney state secrets doctrine and -- worse still -- a brand new claim of "sovereign immunity" to insist that courts lack the authority to decide whether the Bush administration broke the law in illegally spying on Americans.

The fact that Keith Olbermann, of all people, spent the first ten minutes of his show attacking Obama for replicating (and, in this instance, actually surpassing) some of the worst Bush/Cheney abuses of executive power and secrecy claims reflects just how extreme is the conduct of the Obama DOJ here. Just as revealingly, the top recommended Kos diary today (voted by the compulsively pro-Obama Kos readership) is one devoted to attacking Obama for his embrace of Bush/Cheney secrecy and immunity doctrines (and promoting the Olbermann clips). Also, a front page Daily Kos post yesterday by McJoan vehemently criticizing Obama (and quoting my criticisms at length) sparked near universal condemnation of Obama in the hundreds of comments that followed. Additionally, my post on Monday spawned vehement objections to what Obama is doing in this area from the largest tech/privacy sites, such as Boing Boing and Slashdot.

This is quite encouraging but should not be surprising. As much as anything else, what fueled the extreme hostility towards the Bush/Cheney administration were their imperious and radical efforts to place themselves behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and above and beyond the rule of law. It would require a virtually pathological level of tribal loyalty and monumental intellectual dishonesty not to object just as vehemently as we watch the Obama DOJ repeatedly invoke these very same theories and, in this instance, actually invent a new one that not even the Bush administration espoused.

To be clear: there are important areas in which Obama has been quite commendable, and I've personally praised him fairly lavishly for those actions (see, for instance, here, here and here), but it is simply unacceptable -- no matter what else is true about him -- for Obama to claim for himself the very legal immunity and secrecy powers which characterized and enabled the worst excesses of Bush lawlessness. Yet in a short period of time, he has taken one step after the next to do exactly that.

The Olbermann segments, which are really worth watching, highlight the exact passages of the Obama DOJ's brief which I excerpted and posted on Monday, and underscore how intolerable the Obama administration's conduct in the area of transparency and civil liberties has increasingly become. Credit to Olbermann for highlighting this issue and commenting on it with such unrestrained candor. This should help galvanize greater action to make clear to the Obama administration that this conduct is completely unacceptable, and -- with Accountability Now, FDL and others -- I expect there to be some specific actions announced very shortly to begin pushing back, hard, against these serious transgressions.





brother tim and i had quite a discussion about this on the "And, yes, I DO take it personally" radio show yesterday, and we both agreed that this is a very disturbing development... i've been concerned ever since then-senator obama voted in favor of the fisa bill offering retroactive immunity to telecom companies, and i was hopeful that, upon becoming president, we would see obama unequivocally repudiate this kind of constitutional abuse... that it's not happening is a bad sign...

kevin at cryptogon has christened hopeful attitudes like mine "hopium"... i notice atrios is getting pushed to the edge as well, as evidenced by his occasional post title, "hopey - changey"...

meanwhile, i'm still waiting to get our country back...


[UPDATE]

from the horse's mouth...

eff...

We had hoped this would go differently.

Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments.

First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.

It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.

Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.

Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.

Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws.

This isn't change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.

the more i read, the more deeply troubled i'm finding all of this...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, March 13, 2009

Jon Stewart is spot on

jon stewart tells cnbc's cramer how it should have been...



spot on...


(thanks to daily kos...)

Labels: , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Monday, January 19, 2009

Keith Olbermann Special Comment: Prosecute Bush For Torture

of all the keith olbermann special comments, most of which have been critical statements of truth, fact and relevance, this is perhaps the most important one of all... we simply cannot allow wholesale flouting of the rule of law, the concerted undermining of our country's constitution, and the violation of every human value known to man to pass without demanding public accountability and due process... the u.s. and the world simply cannot afford to let criminals of this magnitude render such flagrant disservice to our ideals and values and then pass quietly into history unchallenged...



olbermann's diary in daily kos...
Submitted this of all evenings, from this of all places, with the respect and hope due any President-Elect on the eve of his or her inauguration (but particularly this one), I am agreeing with Mr. Obama when he told George Stephanopoulos: "What we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past."

That perspective, looking ahead and not back, makes more imperative still the prosecution of those who tortured -- and those who authorized torture -- in your name, in my name, in Barack Obama's name.

As the spontaneous chants of "Yes We Can" waft in to the cramped MSNBC trailer on the Mall (just morphing now into "Yes We Did") we have a metaphor for what the President-Elect needs to accomplish in this vital area.

I also defer to the President-Elect when he shows, as he did today and will likely express in his address tomorrow, that while we celebrate our liberation this week, we must simultaneously continue to work -- to work right now -- for what is right. The prosecution of torture might not have to be the first priority; it might not have to be a sweeping event consuming the nation, but we must have a catharsis.

Most importantly, the great and tragic events of our history have proven that the failure to achieve such a catharsis, the failure to atone, has its own tragic, long-range consequences.

From tonight's piece:
In point of fact, every effort to merely 'draw a line in the sand' and declare the past dead, has only served to keep the past alive -- and often to strengthen it.

We compromised with slavery in the Declaration of Independence --and four score and nine years later we had buried 600,000 of our sons and brothers in a Civil War.

After that War's ending, we compromised with the social restructuring and protection of the rights of minorities in the South. And a century later, we had not only not resolved anything, but black leaders were still being assassinated in the cities of the South.

We compromised with Germany and the reconstruction of Europe after the First World War -- nobody even arrested the German Kaiser, let alone conducted War Crimes trials, and 19 years later there was an indescribably more evil Germany and a more heart-rending Second World War.

We compromised with the Trusts of the early 1900's, and today we have corporations too big to let fail.

We compromised with The Palmer Raids and got McCarthyism, and we compromised with McCarthyism and got Watergate, and we compromised with Watergate and the junior members of the Ford Administration realized how little was ultimately at risk, and grew up to be Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

We cannot compromise again.

And of paramount importance, whether the outcome of torture prosecutions is imprisonment or just an asterisk to history, their pursuit alone is the difference between this nation saying "no, our elected leaders were wrong," and it deferring to George W. Bush's vision that torture was legal, and effective, and saved the country.

amen...

Labels: , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Superb...!

and that's not a word i use lightly...!

lithiumcola in daily kos (with apologies to fair use)...

In the January issue of Harper's Magazine (not online yet), Linda J. Bilmes, lecturer in public finance at Harvard's Kennedy School, and Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics and University Professor of Economics at Columbia, describe the cost of the Bush Presidency in an article titled "The $10 Trillion dollar hangover: Paying the Price for the Bush years."

The result of deficit spending is debt. When President Bush took office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. Now it is $10.6 trillion -- and Congress voted in October to raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion, the seventh such hike since President Bush to office and the second since last July. If, as is quite likely, we reach the new ceiling by January 20, the outgoing President will have managed to amass more debt than all of his predecessors combined.

Bilmes and Stiglitz further state, "the total bill for Bush-era excess -- the total new debt combined with the total new accrued obligations -- amounts to $10.35 trillion."

In that time -- that is to say, in the time that Washington was racking up that excess, using that money for something-or-other; the time from when President Bush took office to now -- the cost of a family health insurance premium has gone up 87%; the number of uninsured people has gone up 19%; the number of families living in poverty has gone up 19%; real median household income has dropped 1%; and corporate profits have gone up 68%.

[T]he worst legacy of the past eight years is that despite colossal government spending, most Americans are worse off than they were in 2001. This is because money was squandered in Iraq and given as a tax windfall to America's richest individuals and corporations, rather than spent on such projects as education, infrastructure, and energy independence, which would have made us all better off in the long term.

In this context, the opinion offered by Stephen Moore, a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, to Wolf Blitzer, on the Dec.14th airing of CNN's Late Edition, that the Big Three Auto companies should not be given a $14 billion dollar loan because "This is the natural order of things," is instructive.

The job of any propagandist is to make the situation that most benefits the client seem like "the natural order of things," as Edward Bernays pointed out in his 1928 book Propoganda. The idea is not to tell the population that should want something, but to so arrange the surrounding air of opinion as to make the wanting seem natural, the population's own idea. Mark Crispin Miller describes the process like this, in his introduction to the 2004 edition (viewable at Google book search:

Bernays's sold Mozart pianos, for example, not just by hyping pianos. Rather, he sought carefully "to develop public acceptance of the idea of a music room in the home" -- selling the pianos indirectly, through various suggestive trends and enterprises that make it de rigueur to have the proper space for a piano.

The music room will be accepted because it has been made the thing. And the man or woman who has a music room, or has arranged a corner of the parlor as a musical corner, will naturally think of buying a piano. It will come to him as his own idea.

pp. 19-20

The idea that a national or global parlor room, which is to say "the natural order of things," could be so constructed, was taken by Bernays from Walter Lippmann. Miller writes:

While Lippmann's argument is freighted with complexities and tinged with the melancholy of a disillusioned socialist, Bernays's adaptation of it is both simple and enthusiastic: "We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." These "invisible governors" are a heroic elite, who cooly keep it all together, thereby "organizing chaos," as God did in the Beginning. "It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive to find new ways to bind and guide the world." . . . It is a sort of managerial aristocracy that quietly determines what we buy and how we vote and what we deem as good or bad. "They govern us," the author writes, "by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure."

What is of interest, then, to one interested in democratic thought and conversation, will be those moments when the "managerial aristocracy" most demonstrably fails in its just-under-the-surface societal obligation to organize chaos, "to supply needed ideas," to construct a parlor room that anyone within shouting distance of their own right mind would consider acceptably "de rigueur."

The point here is not that it is at a moment like this when the public decides to break an unspoken contract with pundits and the politicians and the CEO's -- a contract under which we all agree to discuss only the issues they bring up, to debate these issues in the same terms as they do on TV. There never was any such contract. The point is that moments when the pundits and the politicians and the CEO's fail to create and discuss a minimally tolerable "natural order of things" are also the moments when the alleged contract just mentioned is most glaringly shown to be nothing more than a part of that fabricated natural order.

Ordinarily, a crisis for the population is not a crisis for the propagandist; it is simply a new thing to talk about. A crisis that can be described -- however labyrinthine the description -- as originating from somewhere other than the parlor room can be used to sell the population a new piano; and will be so used. Why would it not be? A 9/11 happens and the natural leaders find in it "various suggestive trends and enterprises" that seem to further our own chosen ends but do actually further a higher one we could not understand. This is as common as could be, and not a secret.

But when a crisis arises for which no such evasion is possible -- not even blaming minorities for buying houses will stick -- when the trouble comes with unavoidable obviousness from the parlor room itself, it becomes much less clear what the "natural order of things" is supposed to be and why we should assume that our signature on the societal contract is not just as forged as the Steinway we bought with it.

At moments like this, then, the conversation has a chance to become more authentically democratic. The more people realize they can write their own contract, decide for themselves what is worth talking about, and within what terms, the greater the chance that the "natural order of things" will come to include what we all decide together should actually go in it. Within that natural order, a more fully democratic order, let the pundits and politicians and CEOs talk. That, again, is the hope of the web. It is the hope that not every crisis is only for someone else's benefit.


i've read many of these wake-up calls and have attempted to articulate many of the same ideas myself on more than one occasion... this, however, is tip-top...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Dear President-elect Obama... Let's pull our Constitution out of the dumpster...

worth posting in full...

meteorblades from daily kos...

Dear President-Elect Obama

Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 01:57:50 PM PST

Let me be the 47 millionth person to congratulate you on your stunning campaign and victory. Everybody in my family voted for you. So Tuesday night was pretty exciting after it became clear that we weren’t going to have the Supreme Court deciding the election with a bogus ruling, or some other shenanigan.

My stepson, who is studying in England for his last year of engineering, got his ballot off the Internet. Even though she is 26, it was the first-ever presidential election for my stepdaughter. Abducted as toddlers and taken by their father to Libya, where they were kept away from their mother for 18 years, this democracy thing is rather new to the two of them.

It’s something they didn’t encounter in Libya. There, the rule of law simply does not exist. Libya may be the U.S. oil companies’ new best friend, but it is no friend of human or civil rights. Express a little too much dissent if you’re Libyan, and you’ll soon hear about it from people you really don’t want to hear anything critical from. The government wants to take your business or your residence for a pittance or nothing? Too bad for you. You want somebody to please tell you if your cousin is being held in prison? Tough. The rule of men takes its toll.

In America, it’s not supposed to be that way. As you know better than I, Mr. President-Elect, our Constitution guarantees it. We are shielded by enumerated and unenumerated rights. True, not everybody got these rights all at once. It took a while. Took a war. Took some changing of that Constitution. And, of course, there have been and still remain some heinous violations of rights, both human and civil, despite the shield. But whatever the flaws and failures, whatever the distortions from the twins of greed and power, in America the ideal has been that the rule of law trumps the rule of men.

Or it did until the administration yours is going to replace started torturing people and sending them to secret prisons and getting their consiglieres to maintain that they really weren’t people at all, and therefore not covered by the protections of American or anybody’s law. Unpersons. Subject to whatever their keepers wanted to subject them to with help from pedigreed psychologists and other ethically challenged assistants.

Not just torture, but all the interconnected other elements associated with holding these unpersons, concealing how they were treated and ignoring the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution. They created, as Glenn Greenwald has written, a "culture and ideology of lawlessness."

Mr. President-Elect, I know you have a tremendous amount to think about and do right now, so let me get to the point. I want to ask you a favor. I want you to include a few lines in your Inaugural Day speech. Yes, it’s true. I’ve got a list like everybody else who’s pulling on your coat sleeve right now. That’s what happens when you give people hope for change.

On January 20, I want you to announce to the nation and the world your first steps in restoring the rule of law. Tell everyone that before the sun sets you will sign an executive order renouncing torture and commanding any and all government employees and contractors to cease any torture as defined by the Red Cross, other international organizations and the Geneva Conventions. And say that the United States will never again train, fund, encourage or otherwise assist governments of other nations to engage in torture as it has cravenly done during several administrations. I want you to announce a second order that abolishes the Guantánamo detention center and all the secret prisons elsewhere. A third that ends rendition. I want you tell us that you will immediately seek repeal of the reprehensible Military Commissions Act that tried to paper over lawless rule with legislation that you and most Democrats voted against in 2006. Finally, I want you to announce an investigatory commission – a bipartisan commission – with subpoena power, access to every secret memo and all the time it needs to uncover the whole story of torture and all the associated acts, to fill the gaps in what has already been learned. The first step in keeping these acts from being repeated in the future is to fully understand them and those who ordered them.

Some people, including your friend and advisor Cass Sunstein, will consider these suggestions distracting and divisive. Particularly the investigation. The polls tell us such matters don’t show up on most Americans’ priority lists. Jobs, the war in Iraq, health care, terrorism, even the environment get mentioned long before anything related to what I’m asking. But you know where they do show up? Among Libyans. The kin and friends of my kids. Who, like most Libyans, love Americans. Who, though they whisper about it, detest their regime’s arbitrary rule of men. Who, like so many other people in North Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Asia, wonder why the United States tortured and kidnapped and held men without trial. Who came to wonder over the past seven years whether their love for Americans isn’t misplaced.

Like people around the world, they celebrated in Libya when you won, Mr. President-Elect. You’ve given them hope, too. As well as to my kids. They don’t yet know all the ins and outs of the U.S. political system. For instance, the Electoral College doesn’t make much sense to them. But they do understand that a country which holds men secretly captive without redress, tortures them and otherwise violates their fundamental rights as human beings isn’t a place any of us can be very proud to call home.

You obviously don’t need any suggestions on oratory from me. Your comments were dead on the mark 13 months ago when President Bush’s torture orders to the CIA became known. You said:

"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer – it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America's standing in the world, not how you strengthen it. It's time to tell the world that America rejects torture without exception or equivocation. It's time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won't work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values."

Arrow. Zing. Bullseye.

But on target as those words are, as welcome as it was to hear them, especially those final two sentences, they are just words until you transform them into action. I know you have much to pack into that Inaugural speech on January 20. I hope you find a place somewhere for my suggestions.

Sincerely,
Timothy Lange/aka Meteor Blades


amen...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Sunday, October 19, 2008

"Failed authoritarian movements needs scapegoats the way fecal coliform bacteria need a steady supply of raw sewage"

i'm not even going to supply any context for the above quote... if you want context, you can go find it here... i simply fell in love with the phraseology... and, ok, yes, i'm twisted... deal with it...

Labels: , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

A brief intermission

as some of you may have noticed, i'm no longer breathlessly and obsessively blogging the daily stream of bad news altho', lord knows, there's still plenty of it out there... our overlords and their minions in the media are still trying their best to paralyze us with fear, but endless speculation on the horrors of a mccain/palin administration or whether or not obama has arab blood seems to me as obscene in its way as the cosmic-scale felony grand theft being proposed by our masters and getting solemn nods of approval from our elected but not at all representative leaders...

i find myself increasingly frustrated and impatient with the blogosphere as a whole and with the so-called progressive, liberal side of it in particular... i was especially annoyed with poll-obsessed, crisis-denier, sports-trivia freak markos' orgy of self-congratulation on palin's fall in the polls (here, here and here), justifying his site's obsession with her every facial tic as being in large part responsible for her recent deline in popularity and trumpeting that it was a chapter right out of his new book... well, woo-hoo... trust me, i couldn't be happier to see sarah palin on a luge run to the bottom but, with the very foundations of our country under desperate assault and the endgame playing out before our very eyes, sarah palin is little more than a deck chair on the titanic... (and to be fair, it's not just daily kos... americablog, think progress, and emptywheel, among others, are just as bad...)

yes, i have devoted some time and space recently to the continuing financial meltdown, but i'm trying to only focus on the biggest and most-noteworthy developments, developments that i believe are leading to a major transformation of the world as we know it... it seems to me that things are building to some sort of indeterminate (1) but inevitable (2) climax (3) that i personally have been waiting for, first unconsciously, and then both intuitively and consciously, all of my life... as things continue to evolve, and when i see things that strike me as particularly relevant in the lead-up to that climax, i will offer the occasional post... in between times, i will be here, watching and waiting...

1.in·de·ter·mi·nate
Pronunciation:
\ˌin-di-ˈtərm-nət, -ˈtər-mə-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English indeterminat, from Late Latin indeterminatus, from Latin in- + determinatus, past participle of determinare to determine
Date: 14th century

1 a: not definitely or precisely determined or fixed : vague b: not known in advance c: not leading to a definite end or result
2: having an infinite number of solutions
3: being one of the seven undefined mathematical expressions


2. in·ev·i·ta·ble
Pronunciation: \i-ˈne-və-tə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin inevitabilis, from in- + evitabilis evitable
Date: 14th century

: incapable of being avoided or evaded

3. cli·max
Pronunciation: \ˈklī-ˌmaks\
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin, from Greek klimax, literally, ladder, from klinein to lean
Date: circa 1550

1: a figure of speech in which a series of phrases or sentences is arranged in ascending order of rhetorical forcefulness
2 a: the highest point : culmination b: the point of highest dramatic tension or a major turning point in the action (as of a play) c: orgasm d: menopause

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Monday, August 18, 2008

The nuclear black market and the myth of so-called U.S. "news"

yes, most everyone reading this blog is fully aware of the sad reality of what passes for "news" in the united states... however, it's always nice to have that truth validated in such an articulate fashion...
Centrism is the philosophy of the American media - and that essentially backs the status quo, when you're a centrist, and this game of objectivity that they play is really limited by parameters that you're allowed to ask questions and to investigate and in a sense then you're transmitting these assumptions, and reinforcing every day that the US is really a functioning democracy...

[...]

The mindset of the American mainstream press does not allow certain ideas to easily filter through: the idea that high-ranking US officials might actually be facilitating this [nuclear black market]... It's entertainment all the time, the presidential campaign is entertainment, and do you actually think that these guys would actually go in there and make changes, whoever wins, when behind this wall of entertainment put forward by news media and the entertainment industry is a murky world of terrorism, nuclear procurement ring, of CIA, of the FBI working - and this rarely breaks through to the mainstream press...

They rarely look at the entire system being rotten, not just one official here or there being rotten, and they pat themselves on the back. And when I say the entire system being rotten, I mean Congress that is enthralled to corporate backers, and approving their aggressive foreign policy that enriches themselves, and does nothing to secure the American people or the interests of most American people. That is not even in the discussion in the mainstream press...

this is part of an interview conducted by scott horton of joseph luria (audio here, full transcript here), one of the london sunday times investigators who is still working on the sibel edmonds story... luke ryland has one of his usual highly informative, thorough posts up on daily kos that captures the whole thing...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

The truth about the "success" of the Baghdad "surge," the truth you won't see on U.S. news

we seem to have forgotten that the term "surge" was a political talking point designed to minimize what was, in fact, an escalation... now, even the liberals and progressives seem content to call it a "surge" and, worse yet, are passively accepting the bush administration characterization of it as a "success"...

Baghdad, 5 years on (part 1): City of walls



Baghdad, 5 years on (part 2): killing fields



Baghdad 5 years on (part 3): Iraq's lost generation



(thanks to panicbean at daily kos...)

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Sunday, March 16, 2008

More on Bear Stearns - Step 9 of the financial meltdown

nouriel roubini's 9th step of the financial meltdown...
Step 9 of the Financial Meltdown: "one or two large and systemically important broker dealers" will "go belly up"

more roubini...
Let us be clear: given its massive exposure to toxic MBS and ABS product Bear Stearns is insolvent; the decision by the NY Fed to try to bail out Bear Stearns would make sense if this firm was only illiquid; the trouble that it is insolvent and thus such attempted bailout is altogether inappropriate. It is true that Bear is a large broker dealer; but its systemic importance is much smaller than that of much larger institutions. The world and financial market can survive if Bear disappears.

So the only possible justification for such Fed action is to engineer an orderly rather than a disorderly shutdown of this institution. But unfortunately the Fed is behaving as if Bear Stearns is illiquid but solvent. That is delusional and the official sector support of an otherwise insolvent institution will end up - like many other recent Fed actions - being paid for by the US tax-payer.

As discussed months ago in this column non-banks institutions don't have access - based on the Federal Reserve Act - to the lender of last resort support of the Fed unless a very special and unusual procedure and vote is taken. So for the first time in decades - possibly since the Great Depression - the Fed had to rely on this exceptional rule to bail out a non-bank financial institution. So what is next? Bailing out hedge funds, bailing out money market funds, bailing out SIVs? When is enough enough? This when the Fed has already committed this week to swap 60% ($ 400 bn) of its balance sheet of Treasuries for mortgage backed securities of dubious quality and value.

And Bear is only the first broker dealer to go belly up.

and now...?
JPMorgan Chase & Co is close to rescuing the fifth-largest U.S. investment bank, Bear Stearns Cos Inc, a person familiar with the matter said on Sunday, in a deal that could be announced in the next few hours.

The Wall Street Journal said on Sunday that Bear Stearns could sell itself for around $2.2 billion, or less than $20 a share.

The low sale price, equal to about two-thirds the company's $30.85 closing share price on Friday, signals just how dire the situation is for the 85-year-old investment bank.

The deal with JPMorgan Chase has not been signed yet, said the person Reuters spoke with on condition of anonymity.

Bear Stearns' cash reserves were drained by fleeing customers on Thursday, and on Friday the bank secured emergency funding from the Federal Reserve, extended through JPMorgan Chase.

The Fed is widely seen as having provided the financing to prevent Bear Stearns from toppling, and potentially bringing other banks down with it.

things are getting pretty wild...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, March 13, 2008

The imminent collapse of the financial markets

yeah, i say "imminent" but it's really like watching a giant train wreck in slo-mo... i suppose there are a lot of other relevant analogies that could be visualized in slo-mo, my recent fave being the house of cards, but i guess we're only limited by our imaginations...
Global stock markets may have cheered the US Federal Reserve yesterday, but on Wall Street the Fed's unprecedented move to pump $280 billion (£140 billion) into global markets was seen as a sure sign that at least one financial institution was struggling to survive.

The name on most people's lips was Bear Stearns. Although the Fed billed the co-ordinated rescue as a way of improving liquidity across financial markets, economists and analysts said that the decision appeared to be driven by an urgent need to stave off the collapse of an American bank.

The only reason the Fed would do this is if they knew one or more of their primary dealers actually wasn't flush with cash and needed funds in a hurry,” Simon Maughan, an analyst with MF Global in London, said.

Mr Maughan said that the most likely victim was Bear Stearns, the first bank to run into trouble in the sub-prime crisis and the one that, among all wholesale and investment banks, is most reliant upon the use of mortgage securities for raising funds in the money markets.

“The average financial institution was up 7.5 per cent yesterday after the Fed's actions, but Bear Stearns rose just 1 per cent on massive trading volume,” Mr Maughan said. “The market is telling you it's Bear Stearns.” [emphasis and italics added]

ya gotta love that phrase, "primary dealer"... it kinda has the same ring to as "my main man" and i can't help but picture a drug kingpin in a dusty, abandoned warehouse, doing a deal...

bonddad at daily kos notes the above and adds in carlyle capital to come up with this prognosis...

Simply put, folks, things are getting incredibly nasty. And there isn't much of a respite in sight.

if the fed would simply stop creating worthless money out of thin air and throwing it at the problem, hoping against hope it will go away, we'd see a very rapid collapse... but they'll keep on doing it as long as they think they can stave off the ultimate fate of their clients, the super-rich elites, and continue to do it on the backs of us campesinos...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

McJoan: Why isn't Mark Klein being called to testify before Congress?

from mcjoan at daily kos, a follow-up to my post the other day on babak pasdar... important enough to post the whole thing...

Mark Klein is the former AT&T technician who exposed the infamous secret room at AT&T's facility in San Francisco, the room that was equipped to vacuum up "comprehensive customer usage data ... and transforms it into actionable information.... (It) provides complete visibility for all internet applications." For his efforts in exposing this massive warrantless wiretapping program by AT&T on behalf of the NSA, Klein received the Electronic Frontier's Foudnation Pioneer award.

What he has yet to receive is an invitation from any committee of Congress to testify about AT&T's illegal activity. In fact, the only member of Congress to make an attempt to reach out to him has been Senator Chris Dodd.

In this video, Boing Boing's Xeni Jardin interviews Klein and EFF legal director Cindy Cohn about the case, the Congress, and the Constitution. Klein has some harsh words for Democrats who care to listen.



Maybe it's time for Mark Klein to have his day testifying before Congress. While they're at it, they could invite whistleblower Babak Pasdar who tells a very similar story about one of the nation's major wireless carriers, ironically enough very likely the wireless carrier that sponsored that video you just watched.

It's unbelievable that these stories haven't been heard by Congress, that the Democratic leadership and the chairs of the Intelligence and Judiciary committees haven't given them the opportunity to tell what they know about this highly controversial, and illegal spying on Americans.

Instead, they want to sweep it all under the rug. Tell them not to. Call your Senators and Representative and tell them to demand a hearing for these allegations. No further action on FISA until they, and we, have heard the whole story.

Call leadership and the intelligence committee chairs, and tell them, too.

Harry Reid, Phone: (202) 224-3542, Fax: (202) 224-7327
Nancy Pelosi, Phone: (202) 225-4965, Fax: (202) 225-8259
Jay Rockefeller, Phone: (202) 224-6472, Fax: (202) 224-7665
Silvestre Reyes, Phone: (202) 225-4831, Fax: (202) 225-2016

Update: Adding in Judiciary Chairs, because they could probably find some angle to bring these guys in with, and frankly would be a lot more likely to do it.
Patrick Leahy, Phone: (202) 224-4242, Fax: (202) 224-3479
John Conyers, Phone: (202) 225-5126, Fax: (202) 225-0072

yeah, it may be nothing more than the little dutch boy, sticking his finger in the dike, but we gotta keep fightin' against our police state...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, February 14, 2008

When I read stuff like this from a so-called "liberal-progressive," I want to cry

what is it going to take from some people to get it...?

clammyc at daily kos, writing an open letter to senator chuck schumer...

Allowing for retroactive immunity in a FISA bill that had no business even being brought to the floor is not progressive. Folding to Mister Bush on Iraq over and over and over when the vast majority of the country is on your side is not progressive. Sending a big "F-You" to MoveOn.org on the Senate floor is not progressive. Allowing extremist appointment after extremist appointment by Bush is not progressive. Caving to an unpopular President and an even less popular Congressional minority is not progressive. Allowing non-progressives to continuously set the tone of the debate is not progressive.

[...]

I sincerely hope that we can recruit more progressives for the Senate, and win more seats. However, we also expect more from the lion’s share of the current Democratic Senators – on the very issues that we were promised results on. Blaming republican obstruction is part of it - but we know better. There is much more that you and your colleagues could have (and still can) accomplish if you were to keep your promises made to us back in 2006.

You can do better. We did our part for you. Now it is time that you and your colleagues really do what you promised us. If I can't trust the DSCC and who it represents to keep up your end of the deal, then you'll have to excuse me while I work for and donate money to true progressives.

No hard feelings, though...

i completely understand the value of courtesy, especially when couched in articulate and intelligent writing, but, clammyc, in all seriousness, the time for that is long past... what we are witnessing here is criminal complicity, nothing more and nothing less, and i'm thinking of the fisa votes of the "better" democrats tester and webb as i type this... what we have here is a system so rotten to the core that even brand new "better" democrats are betraying us... scratch that... they are betraying their COUNTRY...

who are we to trust...? i was beginning to warm to obama, to "catch the wave," so to speak, but, ya know what, i simply can't get past zbigniew brzezinski as one of his chief policy advisors any more than i can get past mark penn as hillary's campaign chief...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments