Obama Administration Sets Up Base Camp In Netanyahu's Rectum

By: John Caruso

I haven't posted about the Obama administration's giveaway to Israel because it fully encompasses, and therefore defies, satire.  Seriously, how can you make fun of an offer like this?

• Israel will receive $3 billion worth of F-35 fighters*
• The Obama administration will block all anti-Israel (i.e. pro-reality) UN Security Council resolutions
• The "settlement freeze" Israel is being asked to observe will last only 90 days, and won't even apply to East Jerusalem (where Israel is currently most actively expanding its settlements)
• The Obama administration won't ask Israel for any further reductions in settlement activity in the future, no matter how symbolic and meaningless they might be
• Israel will not be required to do anything at all in exchange for this largesse beyond showing up at more peace-delaying talks

(The exact details are unclear and also still in flux, no doubt in part because there's been pushback within elite circles over the initial leaked outlines of the deal and the Obamaites are trying to do damage control.)

If you're dying to hear someone give it the full treatment, here's Robert Fisk.  Fisk calls it "appeasement", but I think that falls short of capturing the absurdity.  This was a "negotiation" in approximately the same sense that a waiter "negotiates" with customers over what they'd like to eat for dinner.  It's like going to a used car dealership and demanding to pay TRIPLE THE ASKING PRICE, as long as you're not required to take possession of the car.  It's the most dramatic illustration of abject US servility to Israel I can recall, and that's saying a lot.  Just imagine how much worse it might have been if Obama weren't a hysterical anti-Israel jihadist!

The only question now is: will the Obama administration manage to make the summit of the duodenum before the snows set in, or will they be forced to winter in the small intestine?

---

* The Obama administration apparently wanted the F-35s to be an outright gift, but it's possible that Israel will pay some nominal portion of the cost:

Israeli officials believe Mrs. Clinton offered the planes free of charge, according to a senior Israeli official. But an American official said Israel must pay some of the $3 billion, though it will be subsidized by the United States.

So this will probably be covered by some other portion of the billions of dollars granted annually to Israel by the US—a bookkeeping change intended to make the deal look less ridiculous on the surface, at most.  But hey, shouldn't we at least be flattered that they still care enough about what we think to put on a charade?

— John Caruso

So...Tired...

Despite what it seems like, I haven't died. I'm just very, very tired. I'll be here more soon, and in the meantime, I hope you can check out what's happening here, and especially here.

There will be more over there shortly about Wendell Potter. I urge anyone who wants to understand how the world works to read his book Deadly Spin, and when you're done with that, Merchants of Doubt, which covers the scumbag corporate propaganda world more broadly.

—Jonathan Schwarz

Twenty Dollar Sunday

Explanation of Five Dollar Friday here. Follow who else is giving on twitter.

My rule is that whenever I fail to post a $5 Friday donation on Friday, the amount doubles every day. So now I have to give $20 today, which goes to wikipedia. I hope you donate too if you haven't given them any money recently. Here's part of what Jimmy Wales says on their donation page:

A decade after its founding, more than 380 million people use Wikipedia every month - almost a third of the Internet-connected world. It is the 5th most popular website in the world. The other four have been built and maintained with billions of dollars in investment, huge corporate staffs and relentless marketing.

But, Wikipedia isn’t anything like a commercial website. It is a community creation, written by volunteers making one entry at a time. You are part of our community. And I’m writing today to ask you to protect and sustain Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is an amazing creation, especially when you compare it to something like Facebook. Both have value solely thanks to the information generated by their users...but one doesn't try to capture that value to enrich a tiny number of shareholders, and one does. (Coming soon: $5 Fridays for Diaspora.)

—Jonathan Schwarz

1978 Letter from Douglas Fraser Resigning from the Labor-Management Group

During the Nixon administration the government created something called the "Labor-Management Group," which was supposed to bring labor and corporate leaders together to cooperate. Douglas Fraser joined the Group during the Carter administration after he became president of the UAW. But within a year he announced his resignation in this letter to the group.

What's interesting about this to me is that a labor leader spoke so honestly. I don't think I've ever heard one from the seventies or later say things like this. It's also interesting to me that it's largely dropped out of history—as far as I can tell, the full text of his letter is available nowhere online. (It is in Voices of a People's History of the United States.)

Thanks to Jefferson Cowie, author of Stayin' Alive, a new history of the seventies, for sending me the text. Check out his bl*g about the book here.

Here's an excerpt. The whole thing is below the fold:

I have come to the reluctant conclusion that my participation in the Labor- Management Group cannot continue...I have concluded that participation in these meetings is no longer useful to me or to the 1.5 million workers I represent as president of the UAW. I believe leaders of the business community, with few exceptions, have chosen to wage a one-sided class war today in this country—a war against working people, the unemployed, the poor, the minorities, the very young and the very old, and even many in the middle class of our society. The leaders of industry, commerce and finance in the United States have broken and discarded the fragile, unwritten compact previously existing during a past period of growth and progress...

The new flexing of business muscle can be seen in many other areas. The rise of multinational corporations that know neither patriotism nor morality but only self-interest, has made accountability almost non-existent. At virtually every level, I discern a demand by business for docile government and unrestrained corporate individualism. Where industry once yearned for subservient unions, it now wants no unions at all...

Even if all the barriers to [democratic] participation were removed, there would be no rush to the polls by so many in our society who feel the sense of helplessness and inability to affect the system in any way. The Republican Party remains controlled by and the Democratic Party heavily influenced by business interests. The reality is that both are weak and ineffective as parties, with no visible, clear-cut ideological differences between them, because of business domination...

For all these reasons, I have concluded there is no point to continue sitting down at Labor-Management Group meetings...I cannot sit there seeking unity with the leaders of American industry, while they try to destroy us and ruin the lives of the people I represent.

I would rather sit with the rural poor, the desperate children of urban blight, the victims of racism, and working people seeking a better life than with those whose religion is the status quo, whose goal is profit and whose hearts are cold. We in the UAW intend to reforge the links with those who believe in struggle: the kind of people who sat-down in the factories in the 1930's and who marched in Selma in the 1960's.

I cannot assure you that we will be successful in making new alliances and forming new coalitions to help our nation find its way. But I can assure you that we will try.

That last part didn't turn out very well.

July 17, 1978

Dear Labor-Management Group Member:

I deeply regret that it was necessary to cancel the meeting of the Labor- Management Group scheduled for July 19. It was my intention to tell you personally at that meeting what I must now convey in this letter, because the Group is not planning to meet again until late September. I have come to the reluctant conclusion that my participation in the Labor- Management Group cannot continue. I am therefore resigning from the Group as of July 19. You are entitled to know why I take this action and you should understand that I have the highest regard for John Dunlop, my colleagues on the labor side and, as individuals, those who represent the corporate elite in the Group.

Attractive as the personalities may be, we all sit in a representative capacity. I have concluded that participation in these meetings is no longer useful to me or to the 1.5 million workers I represent as president of the UAW. I believe leaders of the business community, with few exceptions, have chosen to wage a one-sided class war today in this country—a war against working people, the unemployed, the poor, the minorities, the very young and the very old, and even many in the middle class of our society. The leaders of industry, commerce and finance in the United States have broken and discarded the fragile, unwritten compact previously existing during a past period of growth and progress.

For a considerable time, the leaders of business and labor have sat at the Labor-Management Group's table—recognizing differences, but seeking consensus where it existed. That worked because the business community in the U.S. succeeded in advocating a general loyalty to an allegedly benign capitalism that emphasized private property, independence and self-regulation along with an allegiance to free, democratic politics.

That system has worked best, of course, for the "haves" in our society rather than the "have-nots." Yet it survived in part because of an unspoken foundation: that when things got bad enough for a segment of society, the business elite "gave" a little bit—enabling government or interest groups to better conditions somewhat for that segment. That give usually came only after sustained struggle, such as that waged by the labor movement in the 1930's and the civil rights movement in the 1960's.

The acceptance of the labor movement, such as it has been, came because business feared the alternatives. Corporate America didn't join the fight to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act, but it eventually accepted the inevitability of that legislation. Other similar pieces of legislation aimed at the human needs of the disadvantaged have become national policy only after real struggle.

This system is not as it should be, yet progress has been made under it. But today, I am convinced there has been a shift on the part of the business community toward confrontation, rather than cooperation. Now, business groups are tightening their control over American society. As that grip tightens, it is the "have-nots" who are squeezed.

The latest breakdown in our relationship is also perhaps the most serious. The fight waged by the business community against that Labor Law Reform bill stands as the most vicious, unfair attack upon the labor movement in more than 30 years. Corporate leaders knew it was not the "power grab by Big Labor" that they portrayed it to be. Instead, it became an extremely moderate, fair piece of legislation that only corporate outlaws would have had need to fear. Labor law reform itself would not have organized a single worker. Rather, it would have begun to limit the ability of certain rogue employers to keep workers from choosing democratically to be represented by unions through employer delay and outright violation of existing labor law.

I know that some of the business representatives in the Group argued inside the Business Roundtable for neutrality. But having lost, they helped to bankroll (through the Roundtable and other organizations) the dishonest and ugly multimillion dollar campaign against labor law reform. In that effort, the business representatives in the Group were allied with groups such as the Committee to defeat the Union Bosses, the Committee for a Union Free Environment, the Right-to-Work Committee, the Americans Against Union Control of Government and such individuals as R. Heath Larry, Richard Lesher and Orrin Hatch.

The new fiexing of business muscle can be seen in many other areas. The rise of multinational corporations that know neither patriotism nor morality but only self-interest, has made accountability almost non-existent. At virtually every level, I discern a demand by business for docile government and unrestrained corporate individualism. Where industry once yearned for subservient unions, it now wants no unions at all.

General Motors Corp. is a specific case in point. GM, the largest manufacturing corporation in the world, has received responsibility, productivity and cooperation from the UAW and its members. In return, GM has given us a Southern strategy designed to set-up a non-union network that threatens the hard-fought gains won by the UAW. We have given stability and have been rewarded with hostility. Overseas, it is the same. General Motors not only invests heavily in South Africa, it refuses to recognize the black unions there. My message should be very clear: if corporations like General Motors want confrontation, they cannot expect cooperation in return from labor.

There are many other examples of the new class war being waged by business. Everyone in the Group knows there is no chance the business elite will join the fight for national health insurance or even remain neutral, despite the fact that the U.S. is the only industrial country in the world, except for South Africa, without it. We are presently locked in battle with corporate interests on the Humphrey-Hawkins full employment bill. We were at odds on improvements in the minimum wage, on Social Security financing, and virtually every other piece of legislation presented to the Congress recently.

Business blames inflation on workers, the poor, the consumer and uses it as a club against them. Price hikes and profit increases are ignored while corporate representatives tell us we can't afford to stop killing and maiming workers in unsafe factories. They tell us we must postpone moderate increases in the minimum wage for those whose labor earns so little they can barely survive.

Our tax laws are a scandal, yet corporate America wants even wider inequities. If people truly understood, they would choose not Proposition 13's, but rather an overhaul of the tax system to make business and the rich pay their fair share. The wealthy seek not to close loopholes, but to widen them by advocating the capital gains tax rollback that will bring them a huge bonanza. Even the very foundations of America's democratic process are threatened by the new approach of the business elite. No democratic country in the world has lower rates of voter participation than the U.S., except Botswana. Moreover, our voting participation is class-skewed—about 50 percent more of the affluent vote than workers and 90 percent to 300 percent more of the rich vote than the poor, the black, the young and the Hispanic. Yet business groups regularly finance politicians, referenda and legislative battles to continue barriers to citizen participation in elections. In Ohio, for example, many corporations in the Fortune 500 furnished the money to repeal fair and democratic voter registration.

Even if all the barriers to such participation were removed, there would be no rush to the polls by so many in our society who feel the sense of helplessness and inability to affect the system in any way. The Republican Party remains controlled by and the Democratic Party heavily influenced by business interests. The reality is that both are weak and ineffective as parties, with no visible, clear-cut ideological differences between them, because of business domination. Corporate America has more to lose by the tum off of citizens from the system than organized labor. But it is always the latter that fights to encourage participation and the former that works to stifle it.

For all these reasons, I have concluded there is no point to continue sitting down at Labor-Management Group meetings and philosophizing about the future of the country and the world when we on the labor side have so little in common with those across the table. I cannot sit there seeking unity with the leaders of American industry, while they try to destroy us and ruin the lives of the people I represent.

I would rather sit with the rural poor, the desperate children of urban blight, the victims of racism, and working people seeking a better life than with those whose religion is the status quo, whose goal is profit and whose hearts are cold. We in the UAW intend to reforge the links with those who believe in struggle: the kind of people who sat-down in the factories in the 1930's and who marched in Selma in the 1960's.

I cannot assure you that we will be successful in making new alliances and forming new coalitions to help our nation find its way. But I can assure you that we will try.

Sincerely,
Douglas A. Fraser
President

Sad Faces in Snoburbia

Oh man, faces must be frowny in Washington, D.C.'s liberal Snoburbia suburbs today. But congratulations to Lydia Sullivan, whose bl_g about the Snoburbs has been written up in the Washington Post, the Official Newsletter of the Snoburbs*:

Sullivan's fascination with social hierarchy and class dates to her childhood in a poor neighborhood of Huntington, W.Va., where her father was an English professor at Marshall University. She was the sixth of seven children in a family where no one felt part of an elite: Her parents didn't know what the PSAT was, let alone worry about how they could better position Sullivan for a National Merit Scholarship. "I've studied snobbery my whole life, both as a victim of snobbery and perhaps as a snob myself," she says. "I don't like to think of myself as a snob, but I have a $600 faucet and $300 door handles."

The house she shares with her lawyer husband, John Flyger, and their four children is assessed at about $675,000, according to property records. She drives a well-worn 2003 Toyota Sienna minivan with a peeling Snoburbia sticker on the back.

Sullivan's Snoburbia reminds some readers of Stuff White People Like, a satirical blog that became a bestselling book, but she bristles at the comparison - if only because Snoburbia, she insists, is hardly an all-white enclave.

"People in Snoburbia aren't racist," she says. "They're classist. But they would never say that."

The rest.

* The Washington Post is also the Official Newsletter of Quiet, Tasteful Genocide.

—Jonathan Schwarz