Obama and the Mid-term Election

Although many believe that democracy begins and ends with elections, nothing could be further from the truth. This is particularly disturbing when elections are rigged in various ways to prevent the exercise of a guaranteed democratic right. Our Founding Fathers did everything they could to subvert the democratic process, and the undemocractic system they created continues to this day. The Electoral College is prima facies evidence. And after the 2000 and 2004 election results, no one should have any illusions about democracy coming to the USA anytime soon.

The shallowness of national election campaigns, the deliberate exclusion of third parties from debates, the unlimited corporate campaign financial contributions, the lock on elections by a one-party outfit posing as a two-party adversarial system, assure that nothing will ever change.

There was skulduggery in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections: the vote count and voter exclusion in Florida; the conservative block of the U.S. Supreme Court selecting a president; the computer count rigging in Ohio; and the failure of Gore and Kerry and the Democratic Party to challenge the strange electoral phenomena that was unfolding and so obviously a subversion of the democratic process. With the Supreme Court action alone, it is not hyperbole to stat that the U.S. qualifies as a Banana Republic, as if there were any doubts over many decades.

The Bush administration gave rise to a situation where a novice politician could capitalize on the frustrations of the electorate by exploiting a meaningless campaign slogan of "Yes! We Can! Obama's 2008 run for the White House was based on playing with words to deceive the population. He used eloquent rhetoric with messianic zeal. Obama now deserves the label of "Bush Lite". And I might add with a Clinton chaser.

Many Barack Obama decisions and indecision have led me to conclude that the Obama administration (and the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress) have failed to do what is needed: radical vision to break out of the box of conventional thinking. Obama is tied to the values he learned from childhood on. This is why he appointed so many former Clinton operatives and why he chose the very people who designed the Wall Street meltdown to key positions in his administration. Change only comes about through conflict; and Obama is not going to take on powerful interests.

Obama's acceptance of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize can only be seen as delusional, and telegraphs the message that he stands for nothing! Shortly after making his acceptance speech, when he seemed to claim that war is justified to bring about peace, he ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan! He is after all, Commander-in-Chief. And, he has made Afghanistan his war! As a candidate he made his intentions concerning Afghanistan quite clear! Obama seems to believe in his own infallibility. The Shirley Sherrod debacle was something of a comeuppance. There have been a number of faux pas situations and stark reversals that lead me to to yell "Foul", but only in the privacy of my shower stall. His conduct toward Sherrod is another reminder that African-Americans in his administration are often on their own. Van Jones, one of the best energy strategists, suffered a similar fate. Obama is rather quick to abandon or throw overboard any Blacks in the administration that Republicans in Congress consider effective voices against the status quo.

Obama is at his best working audiences at National Urban League and NAACP conventions. However, he has little in common with African-Americans and their plight. In this context as an "outsider", he can perform his oratory as an exercise. His outsider status, knowing nothing of the ghetto experience of urban America, enables him to speak in a detached manner; it's more imagery than belief. His personal upbringing was a political asset in the 2008 elections, both Primary and General.

I am of the notion that Obama is America's first bi-partisan president. He seems to believe that Republicans in Congress have equal standing with majority Democrats. Legislation is tailored to accommodate Republican demands, and as a consequence there is no real change. "Yes! We can", has become No! We can't". The Senate's super majority rule ensures that the minority party has full control as to what gets passed and what doesn't. It even decides what gets debated! Therefore, most proposals fall into a Black Hole. And the Senate could be called just that!

Most Senate Democrats (and Obama, too) seem to like the super majority rule. They never have to test their resolve on any controversial issue. They don't even propose legislation because Republican filibusters would block it. Therefore, nothing of a progressive nature moves through the Senate. It has become the graveyard of bills.

The predictions for the 2010 mid-term election is that the Republicans will win big; it's a matter of how big. The Senate stalemate will only deepen; and we can expect nothing, zippo, for two years leading up to the 2012 elections. Obama, like Herbert Hoover nearly eighty years ago, will leave Washington as a pathetic failure. He would return to Chicago, where he could resume playing pick-up basketball with the likes of Arnie Duncan, the then Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel and assorted others. Not even Hilary Clinton as his vice-presidential candidate could save Obama.

In a negative fashion, Republicans already dominate the Senate, so it doesn't matter if they become the majority party. And therefore, it really doesn't matter what happens in House of Representative elections. The only thing I will act upon on my November ballot are the many propositions. The decisions of rank and file voters have immediate and usually troubling consequences. So, I do not take the propositions as lightly as I do for Congressional elections!

Healthcare and Capitulation

President Obama's health care "reform" legislation is a plague upon us all. Why any congress member would support it, or if not in support, votes for it anyway, the bill has destroyed any remaining hope that Congress is able and willing to represent the people. I view the adoption of the Senate's health care bill by the House of Representatives and the subsequent list of amendments for Senate consideration, a tactic to circumvent the Democratic process for satisfying the interests of the health care industrial complex. With the bill's passage, it is quite obvious that democracy is not coming to America, and what is coming (or already here) is rather scary! For the purposes of this essay, I need to explore the rolls played by two politicians predominately involved in an engineered debate, where single payer was excluded out of hand and the public option was eventual elimination from consideration. These actions were defining events with serious and inevitable consequences for the nation, and for Obama and Kucinich!

With Dennis Kucinich's changed position on healthcare reform this week (March 15), the Progressive Caucus opposition to Obama's so-called health reform has all but disappeared, and the bill will get the 216 House of Representatives votes needed for adoption. The procedural method to accomplish Obama's latest objectives involves smoke and mirrors. The tactic is called reconciliation, a process that avoids an actual vote on the Senate version, rather on the promise that the Senate will act upon a list of requested amendments to the bill. Before this unfolds, the President will sign the bill as law. To any among us who still hold the notion that the Obama administration and Congress were a collective instrument for bringing about change and alleviating the pitiful situations faced by rank and file people, Kucinich's capitulation and Obama's signing speech were a knee to the groin and a karate chop, respectively! Passage created a jole de vivre for the private sector healthcare industrial complex.

What would be amusing if it were not so cynical, is the masquerade or charade that passage is a victory for the people and is a setback to the healthcare industry, which could not be further from the truth! On National Public Radio (NPR), status quo radio resembling Voice of America and its propagandist raison d'etre, health insurance executives bemoan the supposed negative consequences of alledged reform. They talk soberly about the hardships insurers will have to endure. The industry's and Obama's hypocrisy is immortalized in the legislation's title: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And I would not be surprised if the industry fashioned the title.

Kucinich is no Socrates! He changed his position to help secure his reelection and to save Obama's presidency. As a swan song, Kucinich claims that defeat of the bill would play into the Republican scheme to destroy the Obama presidency, and Kucinich did not want his vote against the bill as the deciding factor. Could this be called a failure of nerve?

Passage of the Senate bill (by any means possible) will solidify and make permanent, as Micheal Moore laments, corporate rule over healthcare in the U.S. Kucinich didn't have the courage to fall on his sword! He acted to preserve his political career and that of the President, but at the cost of Kucinich's creditability. He is facing considerable opposition in the November election. As he has stated, he will vote for any Senate health bill that comes to the House. The shift from protecting the interests of "working people" to safeguarding the career of a corporate sponsored politician from the University of Chicago.

Kucinich should return campaign financial contributions as Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.Org. has requested. Ralph Nader wants Kucinich to make speeches around the country on single payer. Many observers are shaking their heads why Kucinich capitulated so quickly without getting a quid pro quo? Had he not capitulated without conditions, he would have been crusted by House leaders and the White House.

This commentary was written over several weeks and is not linear. With that said, let me insert fast-forward developments. Late March 21, 2010, the House of Representatives passed via reconciliation vote the Senate bill, which Obama had already endorsed. I have the suspicion that Obama got exactly want he had actually and covertly sought. Had he wanted single payer or even a robust "public option" he could have succeeded in bringing either about with the reconciliation gambit. The issue is "will" or the lack of it. He wouldn't even campaign for ERISA, which would have preserved the right of individual state governments to institute their own single payer plans. However, he is doggedly selling the Act on the speech circuit well after its passage.

Obama's campaign for the Senate bill in the final weeks before passage was truly that of a true believer, Herculean in its determination. The cynicism and hypocracy of his heathcare rallies reminded me of his Nobel Peace Prize speech when he laid out his justifications for imperial warfare, his speeches about the correctness of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (now including Pakistan) and his justifications for econmic sactions against Iran. With reference to war, as Cornell West has keenly observed, Obama is the face of empire; I would add that on healthcare issues he is the face of the healthcare industrial complex, and in matters of finance, he is the face of Wall Street. Obama's delivery, his supreme commander's tone of voice and the absolute assurance of his stance, is unsettling. I tune him out with simple distractions, such as what I might eat for lunch, or I become upset and lose my appetite. When I hear Obama speak, I hear the voice of the true beleiver.

Obama handed the drug and healthcare insurance industry exactly what they wanted. Generic drug options are dead and the government can not negotiate pricing. Heathcare insurance companies secure an even greater corporate monopoly by requiring 32 million currently uninsured people to buy insurance, what Ralph Nader calls "junk insurance". He states that having insurance does not ensure that people will get adequate healthcare! And in reality, medical costs will continue to rise exponentially. Dennis Kucinich explained his change of position on the basis of not wanting the credit for taking healthcare reform over the cliff. Instead, he took single payer, public option and ERISA over the cliff! The bill that Kucinich now supports contains innumerable loopholes and exceptions for insurance corporations to avoid providing adequate medical care! And the bill ignores another 20 million people that will remain without coverage. The insults are further amplified by the implementation date of 2014.

Kucinich is playing a macabre numbers game. He accepts over the next four years the death of an estimated 180,000 people (Nader) and the poor health of possibly million of people, for a system that in 2014, requires 32 million people to purcase suspect insurance--which given the record of healthcare insurers may prove worthless. It is altogether possible that the bill is part of an unfolding attack on Medicare.

The aftereffects in terms of spin the insurance corporations place on the new healthcare law are misleading: the masquerade that the regulations somehow seriously threatens corporate profits, that the law is a major setback to the industry is absurd! Come what may, the health insurers will persevere and adjust to the imposed hardships for the good of the people.

While insurance executives bemoan the law's affects on profits and the fate of for-profit medical care, Obama is upbeat and triumphant as he tries to sell the law in campaign speeches around the country and on media. Doublespeak fills the media. Obama is a politician and needs to be listened to carefulling; for his choice of words is important for deducing true meanings and positions. He speakes in half-truths or qualified truths that to the causual listener are accepted or heard as one would wish to hear them.

In the days before adoption, Obama made an arrangement with a small group of House anti-abortion, conservative Democrates lead by Rep. Stupak, whereby in exchange for its support of the bill Obama would issue an Executive Order reaffirming the Hyde Amendment of thirty years ago which forbids any use of federal funds for abortion assistance. With the Executive Order Obama chips away at Roe v. Wade with the Christian Right and sells out on the Pro Choice movement. With Obama's changing positions on many of his presidential campaign promises, what does this man really stand for? For support of an ugly healthcare bill, Obama furthers the attack on women's right to choose. He abandons his alleged beliefs without hesitation or conditions.

When I heard President Obama say that the healthcare bill's passage was a "victory for the people", Comrade Napolean's speeches in Animal Farm came to mind. Hearing House Speaker Pelosi carry on about the passage I thought of Fat Pig Squealer. With a train wreck-healthcare package, his impassioned comments about victory for the people have no connection to the consequences of the seriously flawed legislation. The President claims that the passage is an historical event over a hundred years in the making! Actually, the so-called reform legisation will put true reform on ice for another hundred years! Obama seems to be speaking from a parallel dimension, through a worm hole! Of course, his historicity is shaped by his orientation: substitute "corporations" for "people", and he is correct. His speeches are Shakespearian siloques without a twitch of doubt or a reflective hesitation. He has the voice of unquestionable command, even when he is dead wrong!

I have the feeling that the assembled spectators for his healthcare rallies are encouraged to applaud his every expression--similar to the ritualistic response to his State of the Union Speech. The theatrics lack only the rolling of barrels in the rafters.

A Redefinition on why I Write

Last Fall I responded to my computer instructors question as to my possible desires to have my blog and Hutong writings published in book format, I stated that perhaps posthumously if anyone would oblige not mine, but rather their desires. I framed the matter in a "discovery" context, not something predetermined, an occurrence by chance.

Some years ago, through simple truths, I recognized that I write for my own pleasure. The single exception is op-ed pieces I submit to the local press; but, this may come to pass, given the uphill nature to edify indigenous peoples in a "love-it-or-leave-it" community. Some writers that I hold most dearly wrote largely for their own pleasure: Henry David Thoreau, Emily Dickinson and J.D. Salinger (after 1965). Today, it's a way of saving face.

Salinger, apparently wrote for his pleasure for forty-five years, until his death in January of this year. Salinger exploded onto the literary scene with his 1951 novel, The Catcher In The Rye. The burdens of fame encouraged reclusion throughout the second half of his ninety-one-year lifespan! In his last interview (1965) he proclaimed that he wrote only for his own pleasure.

There is the suggestion that as early as the late 1960s, he already had completed works in his home safe. Well, if he kept writing for the next forty years, there could be a sizable collection of his works sitting in that safe! The discovery of such a compilation would surpass the excitement generated by the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls! The event would surely rival the 1623 publication of the Shake-speare "First Folio"!

Some of the pleasure derived from my efforts is the acquisition of information and then using it to formulate an understanding of the important issues of the day. I have to study a topic before I can write about it. I differ in this approach from ordinary bloggers who profess and proclaim in an apparent state of free fall.. However, I am not a blogger. No one responds to my postings; and I do nothing to bring attention to my blog sites.

Recently, I submitted an op-ed piece to the local newspaper. It was actually a lengthy article and unknown to me it was entered into the newspaper's blog. The title was, "Let Them Drive Escalades". I had sent, in its entirety, one of my "blog" essays. Some days had passed before I was told what happened to my submission, and out of curiosity, I read some comments. The quality of responses was such that I could not possibly participate in the ritual, which locally seems to exhibit little compassion for others. As with e-mail correspondence, the ideas put forward are fragmentary and ungrammatical. There is a hastiness that reveals an estrangement, that one is too busy to waste time merely communicating with another. The ambiance wherein the effort takes place seems to be the same as driving while eating fast food and talking on a cellphone.

One benefit in writing regularly is how it improves my conversational skills when talking with people at the grocery store, on the bus and in community college classes (in which I enroll every semester). Although it is savagely unfair, I often shift into a subject that I am currently researching for a blog posting. This situation is most satisfying when talking issues with fiscal and social conservatives, who generally are supercilious and like to dominate discussions.

In the lecture hall, I might be as well-prepared as the instructor, and at times called upon to answer vexing questions, supplying data and dates. On my first (and last) day in an oceanography class, the instructor thought he would humiliate the enrollees by asking who discovered the Hawaiian Islands? Of course, he was not thinking of the ancient Polynesians, instead Captain James Cook of His Magisty's Royal Navy, in 1778. He took a thoughtful look at me from the corner of his eye, said "Yes.", and carried on as if nothing had happened. I have had many classroom coups since taking up the pen. I usually save this set up for the most seriously affected wise men.

In all seriousness, I write to learn. It must be said that pleasure can be elusive when writing about various issues that plague this nation. However, with my blog essays, I compartmentalize my findings and conclusions in the act of posting, thereby freeing up cerebral space for other ventures. Anyway, I can always write about food when stressed.

Congress is the Problem

As some have said of the Supreme Court's January 21, 2010, decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it is clearly the worst Supreme Court judgement since Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)! The decision gives corporations the right to contribute unlimited monies to election campaigns to elect candidates who support the corporate political agenda and defeat incumbents who do not.

Understandably, many have called on Congress to reverse the decision. Some want a constitutional amendment to limit corporate campaign contributions. Any singular constitutional amendment initiated in Congress would have to institute a full public campaign finance system. Unfortunately,with the sixty-vote requirement to override a filibuster, nothing will be done. Anyway, the problem is much more than a Supreme Court decision, as destructive as it is. Congress is a failed institution, and it certainly will not reform itself.

It should be said at this point that Democrats and especially the Obama administration have bought into the filibuster scare. It allows the Democrats a handy excuse for doing nothing. And for a would-be Republican, at least a conservative at heart, Obama is apparently satisfied with the status quo. Hey, what's so terrible about letting the Republicans filibuster? They could talk themselves into a constitutional convension.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976) needs to be revisited. The decision recast congressional legislation and largely gutted the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Revenue Act--both enacted in 1971 and amended in 1974. As a consequence the 1976 Presidential election was not affected by either.

Also, how corporations initially acquired Fourteenth Amendment coverage, that corporations have the same rights as people, including First Amendment free speech rights, needs to be examined. In a preface by the Chief Justice before argument in the 1886, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., it was asserted that the entire Court was of the opinion that corporations in the case at hand had Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights--and here we are today still suffering from this absurd notion!

Citizens United merely highlights what the problem is and makes certain that it will become worse. Congress is more concerned about raising campaign funds from corporations than meeting the needs of the people the Framers intended them to represent. This is the basis for the movement to reform campaign contributions that has gotten nowhere over many years.
Congress controls the reform process; and as a consequence nothing will be done to change the status quo. In order to reform election finance, Congress has to be reformed. This can only be done through a constitutional convention.

Over the years there has been talk of a constitutional convention for revising the California State Constitution, and this has worried me because conservative Republicans were calling for it. At this writing, I am uncertain about safeguards for the State process. I have no fears for a national convention, because it only has the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution. Any proposed change needs the approval of thirty-eight states. Another way of explaining the procedure, is that any twelve states can defeat any proposal. The constitutional convention format opens debate; however, the process can be lengthy and difficult.

Campaign fundraising has been a "charged" topic for decades. No significant legislation can pass in Congress without fundamental changes in how Congress conducts its business. The McCain-Feingold Bill, at best, is a token effort, which now has been nullified by the Citizens United decision. Yet, reformists continue to look to Congress to correct the institutional corruption that steadfastly defends the status quo. It's the old fox protecting the hen house predicament, in this case, corporate monies maintaining corporate control over legislation.

Every objective observer knows that massive amounts of corporate campaign financial contributions have thoroughly distracted Congress from meeting its constitutional responsibilities to serve the needs of the people. Fundraising preoccupations and addictions have focused Congressional attention on corporate needs.

In the 2008 election cycle campaign contributions for all candidates totaled $1.686 billion. Of that total Obama received $750 million! And much of the amount came as bundled corporate contributions. With the Citizens United decision, corporations can dispense with the funding charades and make direct contributions to candidates of their choice. With corporate largess Obama is also deeply beholden to the hand that feeds. Obama's continually diminishing expectations over health care reform appear to satisfy health care industry preferences in the quid pro quo context.

Each election cycle sees dramatic increases in campaign contributions and advertising costs. The two are inseparably connected. As a rule of thumb, the candidate with the most money wins elections! In short order, a winning presidental campaign will need to spend more than one billion dollars! With Citizens United the sky is the limit; or, as Obama himself has intimated, the flood gates are opened for the easy flow of unrestricted campaign dollars. Corporate candidates will have a cakewalk!

The fundraising obsession has created an institutional corruption that not only prevents change in the way government is conducted, it has disenfranchised the electorate from the political process and from democracy itself. It's not that people are disinterested in political issues or the democratic process. People are not apathetic! They choose to avoid participating in rigged legislative and electoral procedures and practices. Cynicism arises when Congress serves corporate interests to the exclusion of general population needs. Nevertheless, faith in democratic principles and electoral politics-- that is,in Congress--can be elevated through a constitutional convention or even a threatened one.

That money buys results in Congress is universally recognized. Money certainly buys access! And access creates influence. What is most alarming is that the corruption is not hidden; it's all conducted in plain sight. It is common knowledge that Joseph Lieberman and Max Baucus receive millions of campaign dollars from the very industries that the committees they chair propose relevant legislation. No wonder confidence in Congress is lacking among the electorate and that cynicism prevails across the political spectrum. It's the cynicism that leads to voter disengagement. And then this leads to a situation where Congress, with impunity, acts only in the corporate interest.

For all the promises Obama made about changing the way Washington governs, he no longer speaks of change. His broken promises, of which there are now many, have given strength to Republicans who seek to destroy his presidency. Obama could have come out of the gates in a full-gallop toward promised changes. Instead he opted for bipartisan politics. Had he worked on his initial political capital, he could have possibly accomplished monumental change. He chose timidity and its preference for compromise.

With the vacuum in Congress and the White House, with two branches of government supine in the face of an invigorated radical Republican opposition, the reactionary and ideological Supreme Court majority has made their second destructive move, the first was Bush v. Gore (2000), to roll back democracy in the U.S.A. I am referring again to the raw, unbridled activism exhibited in the recent Citizens United decision.

There is no need to challenge that unfortunate decision directly through a constitutional amendment. Such an effort would not succeed in Congress anyway! I believe a two-thirds vote is required. As long as thirty-four Republicans stick together, a proposed constitutional amendment will not pass. Without doubt, Republicans are monolithic and indivisible, especially in a High Court decision that stands to benefit Republicans rather significantly. So, as I read the situation, the time is right for a constitutional convention movement to bring back a democratic Congress.

State of the Union Speech and all that!

The Republican Party's rebuttal to President Obama's State of the Union Address was a theatrical tour de force that rivalled the orchestrated event in the House of Representatives just moments before. The massive volume and lengthy duration of canned applause in both venues were vaguely reminisscent of the recorded 1930's speeches at the Reichstag that we have all heard replayed over the years.


Michael Moore's pre-speech advice to President Obama was to "come-clean", admit mistates and change policies and orientation. Sadly, Obama praised his first year accomplishments. Obviously, politicians are unlikely to seriously and objectively critique ill-advised undertakings. President Obama's State of the Union Address, as those of several presidents in recent decades, had in showmanship what it lacked in subtance. Interestingly, Obama postponed a White House reception for the Dali Lama until after the speech, in deference to China's objections to the provocative undertaking.

The address was delivered on January 27, 2010. I started to write about the speech on January 31, but put it aside when I became distracted by other pursuits. Now, in mid-September 2010, I am picking up where I left off. No student of political affairs takes the State of the Union Address seriously. For the approximately 535 members of Congresin attendance, it is a charde and spoof, a joke on the American people. When I listened to the address, the notion of a dog-and-pony show came to mind. I started to hum the music of my grammar school graduation. I imagined a gala-event at the Met. It is a rare event when all the suspects of current crimes against humanity are viewed en mass, when the Supreme Court shows itself as united and civil, Senators and Representatives act as baffons, while standing at the podium is the Caesar that Gaius Julius could only imagine. Obama is a spellbinder and could hold his own with the smoothish huckster! And his address is mostly wishful thinking and spin. With that said, I will assume that Barack Obama believes what he says. However, he contradicts himself on most every stated position. On controversial issues he splits the differences between the factions and supports watered down compromises. He has a well-earned reputation as a "flip-flopper". To the crux of the matter, I do not believe him. And noone believes he earned the Nobel Peace Prize, as I have stated in earlier writings. He should have declined until such time as he might rightfully claim it. It is extremely important to note that although Obama donated the prize money to various organizations, peace groups were not included! I suggest to the man of peace, that donating to peace groups with Nobel Peace Prize money would have been respectful and pragmatic! He had placed himself in an untenable situation in accepting the award, and donating to peace organizations would generate conflict among Republicans! And Obama avoids conflict at any cost
Shortly into the address Obama makes this surprising assessment: "...that if we did not act (economic collapse), we might face a second depression (the first I assume was that of the 1930s). So we acted--immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed." He then explains that the "devastation remains"; and he expounds on the many persistant economic problems that are still with us

According to Obama, the American people share common aspirations. And with that, "They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote me to say, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged." Obama's rhetoric certainly draws on the gospel of the power of positive thinking. But, do these resilient people have a place to live, and can they afford the food to feed themselves? He seems to be talking about a suburban oasis of prosperity and normalcy. How many inner-city children play Little League baseball? I believe the high school drop-out rate is increasing. The number of underemployed, those that have given up looking for employment and the unemployed still looking for work, is far higher than Obama is willing to admit.

To justify his Wall Street bailout, "...when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular--I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost." This is out of the Alice In Wonderland rabbit hole! Need I tell Oama that eleven million homes are under foreclosure proceedings, and the number is increasing everyday, that banks and other businesses are closing at a murderous rate? And the mega-banks that created the collapse are currently making record profits and continuing to provide multi-million-dollar bonuses--while sitting on their reserves. They are not lending! And the collapse-crafters fill key economic postions in the Obama administration!

Obama praises his stimulus bill: "The plan that made all this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act...also known as the stimulus bill. Economists on the left and right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster." There is more to the story--the failure of nerve. In dollar amount, Obama reduced the stimulus to a mere gester. The money allocated should have been two or three times what he finally settled on. There seems to be a majority opinion among non-ideologue economists that the stimulus package was too small to make significant improvements, that Obama would be admitting failure in going back to Congress for a second go-round. Such a request would be dead-on-arrival in Congress, anyway.

It is difficult to nail Obama on his outlandish optimism because he usually follows with qualifications: "But, I realize that for every success story, there are other stores...."

Obama proposes things that he knows will die in the Senate, won't even get out of committee. "...and that's why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight." Again, "So tonight, I'm proposing that we take the $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat." Obviously, even if passed, the gester is too little-too late! Hundreds of small banks and countless businesses have already gone away! What kind of jobs will be created--Burger King and Jack In The Box minimum wage jobs?

I sense cynicism and detachment in Obama's address. His oratory is so perfect that it creates a felling of skepticism. I sense an absence of warmth and sincerity. There is an element of disbelief. For example, "...we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools...Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success...." He refers to his Race-To-The-Top program and teachers elvauated by student test scores. Inner-city and rural schools will be further disadvantaged by an increasing unlevel playing field. The notion that school districts compete against each other for federal funding is contrary to the egalitarian premise of public eduation. Sadly, capitalists like to compete. And capitalists are great fanciers of charter schools, and they collect substantial amounts of federal money to run them. But, I digress.

Copenhagen December 2009:Climate Change At The O.K. Corral

What the World and humans, well, all living things, need at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009, is a shoot out between all the nations against the biggest per capita polluter, the most resistant or intransigent and some would say the rogue, United States; a nation that acts like Wild Bill Hickok and Billy The Kid, when it comes to environment issues.

This essay has been on my back burner for about six weeks as I contemplate the very nature of the conference, that it will be a showdown in the most revolutionary way if the conference is to reaffirm Kyoto and thereby challenge the United States, who intends to gut COP15! To put it concisely, the U.S., in the Clinton, Bush II presidencies and now in the Obama administration, has been the major obstacle to establishing international limits on greenhouse gas emissions. And the U.S. objective at the conference is to rescind Kyoto for something even weaker.

The U.S. has unilaterally set its base year as 2005. All other nations use the 1990 baseline. So when the U.S. claims a 17% reduction using the 2005 date, the carbon reduction only amounts to 3% in 1990 measurements! However, when "Cap and Trade" agreements are calculated, the U.S. would contribute nothing (0%) to carbon mitigation! With about 4% of world population, having contributed 25% of the carbon emissions as an industrialized superpower, the U.S. needs to sign onto the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Obama administration is instead trying to sidetrack Kyoto.

The two-degree celsius maximum average global temperature is too high! Some nations ask that 1.5-degree celsius be the maximum allowable. The small island countries state that the 1.5-degree level is to high and would lead to island extinctions. I am more comfortable with 1.0-degree top. Also, the 25-40% carbon reduction range by 2020, is too modest. I favor the 49% goal advocated by some. Currently, atmospheric carbon (CO2) is 390ppm, and there is already serious polar ice melting, and Africa is drying up. Maximum CO2 should be no more than 350ppm to avert increasing climate crises.

When it comes to reparations and the climate debt (the ecological debt), the industrialized nations, basically the U.S., Canada and the EU, have suggested $30 billion over three years for adaptation for developing nations--to cover the costs of climate change damage and adjustments. The EU speaks of $3.5 billion per year as its share. The actual costs of dealing with droughts, increased flooding and the like is probably $100 billion a year. The costs of moving to cleaner green technology immediately would be about $500-$600 billion a year! And then there is the matter of reparations for previous climate change destruction. The polluters will have to pay!

A temporary walkout occurred at COP15 early in the second week by the G77, (132 developing countries). A permanent walkout, like what happened in Barcelona by the African coalition during a preliminary conference to COP15, seems likely. The "Danish Text" has revealed the secret agenda by some developed nations to exclude the United Nations from all future international climate change oversight!

No one could argue against the fact that the status quo is preserved by the rich and powerful. No ruling institution will relinquish its prerogatives. Since corporations acquired the rights of personhood they have steadfastly built and maintain their dominion. Corporations rule! That is the status quo. And the industrial revolution that led to corporate rule was built on readily available and relatively cheap fossil fuels.

Corporate green washing, making profits from the climate crisis, is quite disgusting. The message seems to be that addressing the climate disaster is good business. There is money to be made. The corporations established great wealth in creating global pollution, and now they want to determine how energy will be used forevermore! The only obstacle is the G77.

The climate refugee is the face of the Twenty-First Century! We saw such refugees after Katrina--and the vast majority will never return to New Orleans! Global climate-caused migrations are already massive in scope.

Copenhagen is an ambush by the industrial giants, primary the U.S., Canada and the EU, against the developing nations. But, unlike the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and the 1997 Kyoto Summit, when the developing countries made far too many concessions to the demands of developed nations, at Copenhagen the G77 coalition is not going to be servilely obedient! This will be a shootout of epic proportions; for human existence is at issue.

The main reason the U.S. has not signed onto the Kyoto Protocol is because it requires developed nations to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (Canada signed Kyoto, but has ignored its emissions mitigation requirements.) Obama is in the pocket of mega corporations that rely on fossil fuels to produce profits: automobile complex, agribusiness, power producers and the oil industry. He is a Faustian tragedy, playing out his role. When it comes to climate issues, he is Nero Claudius. Obama will look the other way as Africa burns under increasing global temperatures. Desmond Tutu has suggested, in the Nobel Peace Prize context, that now Obama can become what he is.

Like the so-called Healthcare reform bill before the U.S. Senate, the best that can happen at the Copenhagen Summit (and in the Senate) is that no agreement is better than an ill-advised and compromised one.

Is Barak Obama A Man Of Peace?

President only since January 20, 2009, Mr. Barak Obama has done little or nothing to indicate that he qualifies, has earned by actions, serious consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009; yet, the Norwegian Nobel Committee, separate from the parent Swedish leadership, has awarded him the prize. The news came to me over National Public Radio while I was preparing breakfast at about 6 am, on October 9Th.

A gourmet omelet was in the making: sauteed shallots, cucumber and shitaki mushrooms with a flaming Madeira wine, using peanut and olive oils for fat, and corn starch for thickener. I was progressing quite smoothly and happily until I heard the announcement. It was lucky I was not making a souffle! My companion and I talked exclusively about the event, but we managed to savor the omelet; however, my anger over the delusional decision to award Mr. Obama, a johnny-come-lately to politics and already President of the largest military Empire in history, colored my perspectives throughout the entire day. Resentments still lie just beneath my skin, and I am doing what I can to temper my expressions as I write.

A week later, I am still trying to make sense of how the selection for the highest honor bestowed on any individual could conceivably go to Mr. Obama? But, try as I might, I can not find a logical framework. And the only rational explanation points to a hopelessly inadequate selection process grounded not on accomplishments, but instead on some fanciful notion of potentials as understood through a nominee's rhetoric, his or her mere words. My outrage over the savagery delivered to the prize itself, the cheapening of the honor, remains unabated.

Interestingly in that what follows is an important clue, presidential candidate Obama's election efforts led to his 2008 Marketer of the Year award by Advertising Age! (The 2007 winner was the video game system Nintendo.) This is prima facie evidence and a shocking reminder that hype and spin employed in advertising sells merchandise and candidates. Obviously, the Nobel selection committee was taken in by Obama's rhetorical and salesmanship skills. The only prizes left for Obama to capture are an Oscar and two literary awards, a Pulitzer and the Nobel Prize for Literature, and he is only in the first year of his presidency. Surely, lesser awards are forthcoming from Wall Street and the health insurance industry. An Obama statue in front of the New York Stock Exchange would be a major tourist attraction. And after he leaves office, he or his wife might become CEO at a major insurance corporation.

Later on October 9, 2009, in the same breath of the announcement of the Nobel award on Democracy Now, it was quickly noted that the Obama Nobel nomination occurred virtually simultaneously with his inauguration! He was sworn in as president on January 20, 2009; the deadline for Nobel nominations was February 1st. So, sometime in between this nomination was recorded, if not before. Note that there were some secret nominations not included on the regular list. Nominations, except the few that might be leaked, are sealed from public examination for fifty years! Is it possible that Obama was awarded the prize merely for being sworn into office and with that event there would come major world political changes? Or, as some observers have suggested that the award was given to Obama simply for not being George W. Bush? The only positive aspect of giving the prize to Obama, was that it represented an international slap in the face for Boy George, an inveterate isolationist and warlord for the Empire.

The Norwegian committees for the Nobel Peace Prize have made many other controversial selections. Henry Kissenger, an unindicted serial war monger, is perhaps the most egregious example of a miscalculation by a Nobel committee. Theodor Roosevelt was a war-maker of no little consequence. Woodrow Wilson forfeited the creditability of his Nobel Peace Prize by his late and disastrous entry into World War I. The Dalai Lama's award was a political slap in the face against China.

One of the high marks in Nobel Peace Prize selections was that of Linus Carl Pauling in 1962. His wife, Eva, was a pacifist who had a considerable influence on her companion. After Hiroshima, Pauling campaigned against above-ground nuclear testing and became a formidable anti-war activist. He had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1954. He is the only honoree to ever win two unshared Nobel prizes; and he narrowly missed another prize for his DNA molecular structure research, which eventually resulted in the discovery of it double helix configuration.

The Nobel Peace Prize is so important in supporting beleaguered peace workers and peace organizations. Every missed opportunity to bestow the prize (and the $1.4 million cash award) on the deserving is a serious blow to the world peace movement. A commentator suggested that the Norwegian Nobel Committee was premature in honoring President Obama and that the award in 2010, provided Obama matched his rhetoric with action, would make more sense all round.

Another commentator posed the question that in accepting the prize Obama was taking a "poisoned chalice". Tariq Ali whimsically offered the names of Mumia Abu Jamal and Noam Chomsky as deserving candidates. As matters stand, the least qualified of 205 nominees is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize honoree!

Opinion from the Progressive field coalesced instantly: Obama, even by October 9Th had accomplished nothing of note in the peace movement. In fact, Obama is still in Iraq, with no stated exit date. At the very moment of the announcement, Obama is deliberating on how many more troops to send to Afghanistan as a "surge". Obama is expanding that invasion into Pakistan. Obama is ratcheting his sanction threats against Iran, as he grabs the trophy. Yet, this alleged man of peace has done nothing to aid the Palestinians! (And any mild criticism of Israeli actions he might gently express is not followed through.) Obama could instantly bring the Honduran coup to an end by cutting off military assistance; but he will not! Obama is creating in Guam a military operation that will equal or surpass those in Okinawa and Diego Garcia! Obama has pledged to reduce world stockpiles of nuclear weapons. But, at the same time the Obama administration quietly announced that the US stockpile would be increased by a new generation of weapons.

To Obama's credit, but hardly worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, he has, at least for the moment, backed away from establishing a so-called missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic (allegedly against hypothetical Iranian attacks, but, considered an offensive threat against Russia). But, he did so only after meeting with Putin, who probably put the knuckles to Mr. Obama over the matter.

I would maintain that solely on Obama's failure to put pressure on Israel and forcibly condemn the Israeli attack against Gazan Palestinians (that ended on schedule when Obama was sworn into office) is prima facie evidence that Obama is not a man of peace and not deserving of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize! This is further confirmed with Obama's efforts to squash the balanced and highly acclaimed Goldstone Report, at the very moment he was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Also, George Mitchell seems to be wandering in the desert playing charades with himself. As long as Israel demands that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and as long as "settlements" (read "colonies") expand and multiply, there will be no peace in Palestine! And Barak Obama knows this!

My concluding remark is actually a question: Why didn't President Obama decline the honor until possibly another year, by which time he might have earned it?