I object to your use of the phrase "Barrack Hoover Obama." As Marshall Auerbach points out,

It’s actually a bit over the top and unfair to compare Barack Obama with Herbert Hoover – unfair that is, to the memory of Herbert Hoover. The received image of the latter is the dour, technocrat who looked on with indifference while the country went to pieces. This is actually an exaggeration. As Kevin Baker convincingly argued in his Harper’s Magazine piece, “Barack Hoover Obama”, President Hoover did try to organize national, voluntary efforts to hire the unemployed, provide charity, and sought to create a private banking pool. When these efforts collapsed or fell short, he started a dozen Home Loan Discount Banks to help individuals refinance their mortgages and save their homes. Indeed, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which became famous for its exploits under FDR and Jesse Jones, was actually created by Hoover. Often tarred with the liquidationist philosophy of his Treasury Secretary, the establishment of the RFC was, as Baker suggested, “a direct rebuttal to Andrew Mellon’s prescription of creative destruction. Rather than liquidating banks, railroads, and agricultural cooperatives, the RFC would lend them money to stay afloat.”

for the rest, see http://www.counterpunch.org/auerback07262011.html

Well, the good news is that if things really go kablooey--as in a US default--derivative-based issues like the ProShares funds (EFT is just one of a zillion of 'em, and there are even ones that are more highly levered), get frozen, or go to zero if the counter-party can't pay.

Though why ANY member of Congress should be allowed to invest in the stock market while at the same time influencing said market is beyond me.

Cantor is betting America will default--Unethical? Yes. Illegal? Probably. Unconstitutional? I guess it would hinge on the meaning of insurrection. Anything ever done about it? Most likely not.

Obama got Bin Laden, that's one hell of a lot more than Deadeye and his pet goat, Codpiece was ever going to do. Sure he's a crappy negotiator and jumps instantly through any hoop for Goldman-Sachs. BUT he did the ONE thing that was on MY christmas list. I gotta hand it to the guy, I NEVER thought he'd do it. (AND I MIGHT ADD without murdering the neighborhood kids or some wedding party, a welcomed change in Obama's behavior). He seems to lie more or less like any of the past presidents. Don't seem to mind starting wars or fighting inheirated ones. Seems like an average American President, if there is such a thing, to me. I gotta give him a D- over the HCR bill though, too blatant and clumsily done.

I was staying out of this thread because charley totally ninja'd me on the Hoover defense, but then:

Mike of Angle at July 27, 2011 12:03 AM

Though why ANY member of Congress should be allowed to invest in the stock market while at the same time influencing said market is beyond me.

Watch yourself, Mike. It's not like there's clear-cut evidence that Congress influences the stock market and thereby subtly benefits. There is only clear-cut evidence that Congress engages in consistent and massive insider trading. So watch that innuendo.

Mike Meyer:

Why did you want Obama to get Bin Laden? Bush didn't get him because he didn't want to get him. Bush said so. Publicly.

And it actually didn't matter.

Bin Laden never took responsibility for the 9/11 attacks -- save for one tape that everyone except the FBI was convinced was doctored. He specifically denied responsibility on multiple occasions. He sure as hell took advantage of them, but he didn't organize them. Hell, even if he was directly involved, he would have been a financier -- that was his previous capacity.

The absolute best case scenario is that, despite the evidence, he was part of a large group of heretofore uncaptured terrorists (and, no, not Al Qaeda -- the hijackers were all part of a group called Islamic Jihad and, as you know, they came out of Saudi Arabia and Egypt) who organized the attacks. The U.S. has made great effort to BLOCK attempts to round up terrorists -- and I'm actually using the word correctly as opposed to their use of the term -- because the actual planners were Saudis. The WikiLeaks dump confirmed Saudi Arabia's continued terrorist support.

So here's the deal. By backing Bin Laden's death, you're protecting all of his associates -- which I'm sure was part of the (Obama's) point. You're also, inadvertantly, basically sending a fuck you to everyone with a stake in rounding up all of the plotters. This is why I found John Stewart to be a bigger asshole than usual after the shooting. Bin Laden's death ensures that everyone else will get away with it, forever and ever, amen, because there is NO fucking way the U.S. is interested in going further on this issue. Indeed, the government could use another hit; why do you think the media claimed, with certainty, that the Norway terrorist was brown until the pictures came out? Muslim terrorists are not the enemy of the U.S. government; the government happily employs them in Somalia and elsewhere. We are the enemy of the U.S. government, and occasionally Muslim terrorists kill us to get to that government. Of course, Muslim terrorists aren't even a full percentage point of the way towards the murder toll white supremacists pull off in an average year, but it's the image that counts.

(And having a connection to the Towers doesn't prevent one from screwing over someone else who's mourning a loss. Just because vengeance against an unproven non-culprit satisfies the bloodlust of one victim doesn't mean it does shit to grant justice to another.)

So Obama did that all wrong as well, literally as wrong as he could. Oh, and he murdered and injured other people (including women) while making his attack.

No, Osama's death was as evil as most of the other shit Obama does, including this economic circle-jerk. Ironically enough, Osama deserves death, imo, for his ties to another terrorist organization: the CIA.

Bush said Osama didn't matter. When it comes to doing right by the American people, for once in his miserable, vile life, Bush was telling the absolute truth.

When SEALs are killing Saudi Arabian princes, I'll be happy to change my tune.

Mike Meyer--I wouldn't be so sure the way Osama was killed didn't involve killing some kids, at least indirectly. You apparently didn't read this--

link

Inverse ETF's are stupid because of a built in decay in their price. They must only be used very very short term, measured in weeks. As an "investment" they are a disaster they are a pure speculation. To the extent he thinks they are an investment or his advisors do is the extent to which they are fools.

The amounts are tiny.

TBT, the ETF in question is not a bet on Treasury default but simply upon a rise in their rate. It's sloppy to say the former.

Still the symbolism is horrendous and the reality that he dabbles in such shameful.

NOoC: Bin Laden's death means WE got ONE of "terrorist".(Deadeye and his pet goat, Codpiece weren't even trying) He advertised himself as a jihadist. He was the reason CONGRESS&AMERICA went into Afghanistan which U&I PAID/PAYING/WILL PAY for. Sure, it may have been murder and a possible war crime, just one of many, just makes U&I&Obama crime partners in the matter, that's all. Buy gas? Pay TAXES? So do I, So does Obama, so does the rest of America. Want to stop it all then STOP PAYING for it. AS far as finding the other jihadist, I advocated a TRIAL BY JURY in NY, myself, for that very reason. Alas America elected Obama to make that decision.
WHO KNOWS maybe next April 15 YOU&DONALD JOHNSON will STOP PAYING criminals to commit brutal war crimes.

rapier: ENCOURAGING, Thanx. I hope the Anti-American SOB loses his ass on the deal.

I cried like a small abandoned version of myself listening to that part of Capitalism: A Love Story when MM talks about FDR's vision for the US following him into the grave.

As for the other six and a half billions of the deficit we did not just spend money; we spent it for something. America got something for what we spent—conservation of human resources through C.C.C. camps and through work relief; conservation of natural resources of water, soil and forest; billions for security and a better life. While many who criticize today were selling America short, we were investing in the future of America.

Mike: given my bizarre finances, I am technically not paying for shit.

Osama's death was not worth it. There is NO FUCKING WAY his death was worth the cost no matter how you want to structure it. None. Murdering him isn't worth the life of a single child, and it certainly wasn't worth half a dozen wars, the increase in fascism, the freedom of the 9/11 plotters, and so on. We can agree to disagree as to the death's intrinsic worth, but it pretty much objective that his death, given the means by which it was procured and the associated prices, made the Earth a worse place to be. Obama and Bush are such shitty people that they made Osama more valuable to humanity alive than dead.

NOoC: Letting Osama live got US ALL those wonderful things YOU've listed so far. Bin Laden's death may even shorten the Afghan occupation. Those Afghans are killed by American bombs and Afghani bombs. Ending the occupation is well worth Bin Laden's life. Bin laden WANTED to die for his cause. He got what he ASKED for.

You guys sound like you're arguing about who's the best mafioso.

"Sonny Corleone is better."

"No, Bruno Tattaglia is better."

The evil is gangsterism. Whether a character lives or dies is irrelevant, since they can be easily replaced.

Paul Avery: WE, as in U&I, invaded Afghanistan for the purpose---TO GET BIN LADEN. 10 years and uncountable lives, unaccountable money later, he's got and NOW a drawdown starts. Had "OLe Wanted Dead Or Alive" DONE HIS JOB, ten years ago WE might well be long gone from Afghanistan today and may never have gone into Iraq.
The gangster leaders get replaced every 4-8 years here at gangsters-R-US. YOU PAID for 10 years in the blood of the innocent, the blood of YOUR neighbors and TRILLIONS of dollars to see Bin Laden killed and FINALLY got what YOU PAID for. Let me guess, YOU think that because YOU, personally, didn't bomb a wedding party, or cap those civilians just for fun, that YOUR HANDS are clean of innocent blood? KARMA--the real shared sacrifice.

Mike, I didn't do any of those things you listed. Yes, I do pay taxes and buy gasoline. So somehow that makes me a murderer? Balls! I'm no more responsible for these crimes than a candy-store owner paying extortion protection-money to gangsters to keep my business from getting smashed up and my family from being beaten.

Your logic: Since WE are all responsible, no one can be blamed. Well, I wasn't invited to the White House council, pard.

Oh, Paul, I've waited so very long to ask YOU this---YOU ARE AN AMERICAN, AREN'T YOU?

True, those Afghani survivors of the bombed wedding parties, the spouses of those farmers that are collateral damage, the BLOOD of those innocent chidern will NEVER say Paul Avery did it, or Mike Meyer did it. They will say, "THE AMERICANS did it", and they'll be "spot on".

Posted by: Paul Avery at July 28, 2011 06:34 AM

You guys sound like you're arguing about who's the best mafioso.

Then you heard me completely wrong. I don't give two damp ones about whether or not one murderous asshole lives or dies; I care about what that death will cost me and mine -- and that "mine" includes 350 million Americans in this case. And a lot of Pakistanis, actually.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at July 27, 2011 11:15 PM

Letting Osama live got US ALL those wonderful things YOU've listed so far. Bin Laden's death may even shorten the Afghan occupation.

Are you fuckin' kidding me?

No, I'm serious. Is this a joke?

What. The. Hell. Does. Osama. Have. To. Do. With. The. War?

Bush invaded specifically after we knew -- empirically knew -- that he was out of the country.

Osama's death increases Obama's political capital and thereby increases the length of the occupation. The U.S. will leave only if the Afghanis force the U.S. out, which means a weak president would be beneficial.

WE, as in U&I, invaded Afghanistan for the purpose---TO GET BIN LADEN.

'k, now, ah, I see, that's some bullshit. "I" sure as hell didn't invade Afghanistan for that. Hell, I was reading journalists pointing out that the Afghanis had already agreed to deliver Osama to us after Bush demanded him.

But wtf -- we already pointed out he didn't mastermind 9/11. So how many lies are we supposed to swallow here? I can't even parse this.

We -- being a "we" that includes G.W. Bush and (bizarrely) Mike Meyers -- invaded Afghanistan despite the fact that the Afghanistan government agreed to "our" demands to deliver a terrorist that they didn't have that "we" knew they didn't have in order to capture the terrorist "we" knew wasn't in their country since he had already fled to one of "our" allies, an ally that people like me -- sure as hell not part of the "we" -- knew was harboring him nine fucking years ago because those of us who aren't "we" have a magikal power called reading non-American news.

Parse that bullshit for me Mike. Tell me at what fucking point I wanted to invade Afghanistan. Because I remember when those towers fell. I remember the pundits spinning Osama as the perpetrator without evidence and I remember looking for information about the long-term investigation of the attacks. And I remember discovering that there wasn't one and there wouldn't be any.

So sell me another.

Oh, look, you tried:

YOU PAID for 10 years in the blood of the innocent --

I didn't pay for shit. I already mentioned this. And even if I were living more conventionally, guess what? Being forced to pay a tax by a political establishment that literally wasn't legally voted into office (in what is said to be a democracy) is the ratification of the sacred political principles of jack and shit and nothing else. Having money stolen from me by armed thugs is pretty far from "paying" for something.

You had a hard-on for Osama's death. Fine, we get that. Were we a just and honorable society, such bloodlust would be unseemly and uncouth. Were we a Christian society, such bloodlust would be a serious moral failing. Since we're the U.S. of A. and Osama was a murderous asshole, this position is as significant as one's choice of favorite college basketball team.

But to ignore the murders that were committed in order to murder Osama? To deny justice to everyone hurt on 9/11 (which, at this point, includes the entire Earth!)? That goes well below dick move.

Guys, hate to spoil the fun, but the ProShares Treasury 2x Short positions that Eric Cantor had were a tiny proportion of his overall holdings. They weren't even intended to be profitable individually

They were just a hedge to protect against his exposure to US Treasuries. (and thus also exposure to US interest rates.) As it were, he should actually have had a bigger short position in Treasuries, because he didn't hedge fully.

If anything, he didn't hedge properly.

"THE AMERICANS did it", and they'll be "spot on".

Saying that doesn't mean they personally blame me. When 9-11 happened I didn't say, "The Afghans did it." Did you?

Paul -- a tiny nitpick:

Some rightwingers blamed all Muslims, worldwide, with so much contempt that they felt insulted that they even had to make the distinction between which countries they lived in, and defined Muslim as explicitly non-white such that it became an inherently racial term in order to widen the net. (This is why, for example, the plight of Christians in Iraq is completely irrelevant to Fox news.) Thus, they said "the Afghans did it" insofar as they said "the Muslims did it."

But just as I wouldn't go to a pedophile for childrearing tips, I wouldn't set my moral policies based on the behavior of the biggest assholes I could find, so I still agree completely.

NOoC&Paul Avery: I've stated my points and I'll not retract. I'm NOT YOUR Judge, I don't hold the balance in which WE ALL will be weighed in. (I will venture a guess that WE will be found lacking for what's done in OUR name---AMERICANS)

Sit back, relax more, much more, of the same coming down the pike.

Obama is the president of Wall Street.

@Mike Meyer -

It's something I struggle with (as Jon has written, we all suck), but on the single question of moral culpability, I agree with you. If I were an Iraqi father laying his dead child to rest, I think I would conclude the people who paid for the bomb that killed my son are responsible.

Who's to blame? I think you're right: it's YOU&I, THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER. Pointing at Dick and Codpiece is just passing the buck.

But, also like you say, it's not for me to judge. I'm sure I could do more than what I do to put a stop to it, though I don't think it could ever be enough.

It wouldn't take much, just stop bragging about the murder of bin Laden as if it was something to be proud of. That is something even a liberal could accomplish. But then liberals can no longer claim the moral high ground if they ever could.

I'm not claiming the moral high ground. I'm just acutely aware that my involvement and impact is extremely limited, as ego crushing that may be.

There is no special allegiance involved, but maybe an ironical preference in the sense in which Leonard Cohen expressed: The killers who run this country want to overthrow the killers who run other countries. I prefer the killers who run this country only because I'm more familiar with their ways.

Rob Payne: I would rather "brag" about something else Obama has done, but it seems Bin Laden IS the only thing I can see he's come even close to doing that I,myself, would concider as right. May be IF he had closed GITMO?

Paul Avery: Perhaps (only as a suggestion and not a critique) if one spoke out to power more one would not feel so powerless. The Teabaggers seem to be rolling fairly well by speaking out for THEIR causes.

All wrong.

The only way to achieve any sort of moral correctness is, thankfully, also the only practical route: consistently oppose empire.

That means recognizing that the "U.S." is not a faction and "France" is not a faction and "Saudi Arabia" is not a faction and "Iraq" is not a faction -- hell, the latter makes it obvious.

Instead, a generalized aristocracy is set against various populations of mankind. As such, the common aristocracies of Mexico and the U.S. are a single faction, far more cohesive than the general U.S. population and the U.S. government. And, as it must follow and as it actually is, the U.S. government is openly hostile to the U.S. people.

So the notion that "we" support anything is bullshit, and I really don't care how much an individual Iraqi hates me. Before a single poster on this site was born, each of you woke up into a network of propped-up factions based on race and class. There are people who will hate me due to melanin content or genital configuration and there is nothing I can do about that, ever. Do you seriously think I should lose sleep because some piece of shit in the Beltway orders some piece of shit in Iraq to execute an innocent person -- and his family might blame me?

Bullshit. If a government is hostile to me and I to it, I don't have any reason to take up its moral failings. That I will be hated for that government by people who should be my peers is a fact of life, but that doesn't make it rational or legitimate. It's simply an obstacle to deal with. And if you have any sense, you'll adopt a similar perspective.

Why? If we divest from government support as a conceptual stance and such support gives us no moral, emotional, or social reassurance, we can vote and act consistently in favor of the common citizen.

Now, that doesn't mean Mike's perspective is blame-free. Remember, when he celebrates Osama's death, he's taking on support for the government and he gets the full moral corruption that comes with it. In his case, an Iraqi hating him is legitimate. Now the obvious consequences of this only apply if one believes in an afterlife, but there are practical consequences. People with Mike's viewpoint support the government and give it legitimacy when it deserves little (or, at the very least, when that branch deserves little -- I'd put more faith in the DMV than the DoJ). That's a practical problem. That viewpoint helps create the factionalization that keeps the common citizen from considering him or herself one tribe with all other citizens, which is the one thing holding back a successful revolution. So it matters a lot, and it matters a million times more than what a random, foreign victim of Beltway imperialism has to say about several hundred million U.S. citizens.

That I will be hated for that government by people who should be my peers is a fact of life, but that doesn't make it rational or legitimate. [...] If we divest from government support as a conceptual stance and such support gives us no moral, emotional, or social reassurance, we can vote and act consistently in favor of the common citizen.

Yes. YES.

NOoC: Correct, I was born into The American Tribe and I plan on staying. Sure as hell WE ARE racist, its written into The Constitution on page one. I look to change that, because even though its legal, to me it seems wrong. I see that in just this thread YOU've gone from caring about the Afghanis over Bin Laden's death to not giving a damn over the Iraqis woes and LEGITIMATE CLAIMS. Perhaps since its THEIR problem and not YOURS. After all NOBODY'S shooting up YOUR neighborhood of killing YOUR family. I assume YOU don't have to worry about an IED on the way to work or to the park. The Iraqis and Afghanis have met John Negroponte and obviously, YOU haven"t.

No One of Consequence:

The comments are closed on the post about Aaron Swartz- thank you for those links.

NNOoC I'd put more faith in the DMV than the DoJ

I went to the MVA (as we call it here) a couple of weeks ago to renew my driver's license. I sat in air-conditioned comfort in the waiting area until my number came up to be seen at one of the counter areas. The fellow who dealt with me was clearly an immigrant from the Indian subcontinent. He was very pleasant, and we moved smoothly through the whole process. My license had already expired a couple weeks earlier, actually, but nothing was said about that. To reduce the risk that I might be a danger to myself or others, I had to take an eye test, both acuity and peripheral vision. The color photograph was a good likeness, but there's no use complaining about that - a retake is unlikely to be any more flattering. I received my license right away. This was government at its best.

Meanwhile, less than an hour's drive away, people paid by my federal taxes were working on the process of arranging for the violent death of more civilian children on the other side of the world.

Q. How is it to be a citizen of the United States of America in the early twenty-first century?
A. Compared to what?

>The Teabaggers seem to be rolling fairly well by speaking out for THEIR causes.

The Tea Party only demonstrated how easily a mob can incited. Nothing new there. Sloganeering at the top of your lungs isn't speech; it's just shouting.

Paul avery: I tried to get a sloganeering mob together to impeach the last Administration. It wasn't easy at all, in fact I failed. I suppose its the anger. I couldn't inspire enough anger to impeach and APPARENTLY neither could Deadeye and his pet goat, Codpiece. Their slogans WORKED too while they ROBBED America blind. Compassionate Conservative, indeed. And now the Baggers are going to use their slogans to take away SS&Medicare, ruin the country's credit. At least a slogan IS saying something to power.

The Tea Party had a lot of financial backing, and the ongoing organization and support of a major network. The slogan was predetermined.

Amandasurus: The slogan promotes the idology. ALL that money, ALL that organization, ALL those phonecalls, spam, and mailouts, promotes the slogan.

TEA - Taxed Enough Already

the MICFiC puppet masters manipulated their minions into mindlessly mouthing this - and thereby ran interference for the oligarchs who certainly are NOT taxed enough already

The more I think about Stalin's slogan, "Loot the Looters," the more I think I see how this all makes sense. Silly me.

Mike:

You have it reversed.

You expressed indifference to the deaths of Iraqis and Aghanistanis. You did. Upthread, when you did your self-indulgent victory dance over Osama's death.

I didn't want any of those people dead. You just said you're fine with those deaths if it meant you got Osama.

So you can take your "American tribe" bullshit and find a convenient orifice for it. There's no way on god's green Earth we're on the same side. . . despite similar interests -- which is what I was referring to earlier. If you want to smugly fap over the death of one member of the aristocracy at the expensive of literally 1.5 million innocent people, that's your perogative. But you're a) still being a dick and b) sure as hell aren't going to get off accusing me of your own self-indulgence. Your chosen (I can't get past that -- self-consciously chosen!) faction paid for the murder of a fallen-out-of-grace aristocrat with the blood of the innocent. Deal with it.

mistah charley:

Exactly. I am constantly, constantly shocked when I meet nice people in government service, even though I empirically know that I've met more nice people there than in any other industry's bureaucracy I've had the displeasure of engaging in. Recently, I realized that the reason for my shock is that the propaganda gets to me, too: I expect terrible people there because I'm told to expect them. It's disqueting.

NOoC: I totally see YOUR point. YOU think YOU're innicent with nothing to fear and that I'm somehow celebrating the murderous death, another possible war crime, of Bin Laden. Wrong on both counts. I'm celebrating that the President FINALLY got THE AFGHANISTAN GOAL accomplished so WE can now leave. I'm positive that YOU&YOUR neighbors weren't going to protest enough or even make a lousy phonecall to STOP THE WAR. After all its been 10 YEARS. KEEP PAYING, KEEP PLAYING

I am constantly, constantly shocked when I meet nice people in government service

Same goes for me, too - and not just nice, but often capital-P Progressive, and in many cases quite radical. But the truly surprising thing is, this is what I observe from within the confines of my office in the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

Hm.

"(The picture is from the 1960 World Series at Forbes Field, taken from atop the Cathedral of Learning at the University of Pittsburgh. But I like to imagine that it's twenty-four years older than that.)'

yeah and i really fervently would like to wish its 50 years newer than that.............