What to make of this U.S. "government shutdown"

Things to look for in deciphering the goals of the unity party's shutdown drama:

1) Will they allow all 800,000 "furloughed" workers to return to their "government jobs?" Over the years that term has become a perjorative. As this manufactured crises has shown, most of the anger should be directed at Legislators.

2) How is Wall Street doing? Have stocks fallen significantly? No, right? Search the net and the typical news is "Wall Street Shows Little Reaction to the Government Shutdown."

The dollar is in crisis.
U.S. military might is used  to buttress the power of the dollar.

"This system requires war." - Stan Goff

New World Order -- Small Wars, Limited War. Henry Kissinger on the record about U.S. foreign policy, July 7, 1958

What is “dollar hegemony?”

“The United States makes dollars. The rest of the world has to make things to get dollars.” -- Henry Lui (Economist)

3) What about "the debt ceiling" and it's relation to this drama? Remembering that Washington is where they print all the money, what's keeping them from paying off all they're debts? Significantly, all of the U.S.' debtors (basically all the world's major economies) are now heavily  invested in the U.S. , whose vulture capitalists control the globalized economy, with its interconnected markets. "The financial “hub” for the neoliberal world system is Wall Street. All lines go through that hub." They have a lot to lose if the U.S. defaults on its debt.

4) Supposedly, the issue for the Republicans is ObamaCare. They claim to want to "defund ObamaCare." They object to it as "government control of healthcare." They especially dislike the  "individual mandate" and "employer mandate" (delayed 1 year) insurance aspect of the new law. If the mandates remain intact it will land tons more new business for the private sector insurance companies. Republicans claim to be "the party of business," so it is counter to their ideology to kill ObamaCare, a bid to privatize healthcare.

That's the opinion of Pediatrician and "Green Cabinet" member Dr. Margaret Flowers of the Green Party. Dr. flowers thinks ObamaCare will lead to the privatization of health insurance.*

Rather than leading to government-run healthcare (like Medicare and Medicaid), ObamaCare signifies the attempt to privatize healthcare.

So the famous sign at a Tea Party rally was (inadvertently) right and not as assinine as "liberals" thought in defiantly declaring: "Get Your Government Hands off my Medicare!" The Affordable Care Act (ACA) aka ObamaCare will NOT lead to the implementation of a "public option."

Wiki: "The public health insurance option, also known as the public insurance option or the public option, was a proposal to create a government-run health insurance agency which would compete with other health insurance companies within the United States of America."

"Neoliberal theology asserts the primacy of the private, the value of small government; but neoliberal practice has been massively subsidized and legally protected from public accountability by the state. Without the state’s affirmative actions on behalf of the international business class, the system would collapse. Fast. Begin by thinking about how many battle groups from the US Navy are required to ensure the flow of fossil hydrocarbons into the industrialized metropolis, and you can extrapolate from there."

The above is excerpted from the "blog-book": Hillary's Bones - A Coup Tutorial by Stan Goff. It was posted at his now defunct blog "the Feral Scholar."

Thanks to archive.org this must read article is available online here.

*  Obamacare Debate: Flowers vs. Baker Economist Dean Baker and Dr. Margaret Flowers debate the merits of the Affordable Care Act -October 1, 2013

Barackmeter to November Elections

Taking the reigns of the Democratic party. Barack Obama has impressed many with his implementation of the "no lobbyist" money rule for the DNC. He has also been praised for aligning with Howard Dean's vision of a 50 states strategy for winning the November election. Finally, many see his backing of Joe Lieberman against the wall during a Senate vote for an impromptu tete-a-tete as a show of leadership talent a la LBJ.

Undoubtedly, Barack Obama has political talent, but only time will tell whether he is a political genius as some have suggested. I reserve judgment. I am particularly disturbed by his pandering to the Israeli lobby (Jerusalem will remain the capital of the Israeli state -- from his address to AIPAC last week; a real blunder and step in the wrong direction, away from mediation to authoritarianisms).

Continuing the US foreign policy of Israel = US proxy in the Middle East is disastrous. The US cannot be an honest broker of peace between Palestinians and Israelis when its policy is to back whatever Israel does -- making the US hated and feared as a hypocrite and a warmonger.

Many have their political barometers poised and predict a win for the Democratic candidate...

"In an article last week on University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball Web site, Abramowitz declared that “it appears very likely that the Republican Party is dealing with the dreaded 'triple whammy' in 2008: an unpopular president, a weak economy and a second-term election.”

Abramowitz has tracked the effect of those variables on the last 15 presidential elections and found that they accurately predicted the popular-vote outcome in 14 and came close in the 15th.

...The Abramowitz barometer is a shortcut variation on American University professor Allan Lichtman's famed “13 Keys to the Presidency,” which adds such factors as wars, candidate charisma, scandal and the incumbent party's performance in off-year elections to the economy and incumbency.

When Lichtman published the latest edition of his book early this year, he flatly predicted that “the Democratic candidate will capture the White House in 2008 no matter the choice of a nominee."
McCain needs vision to beat Obama
by Morton Kondracke

Maybe John McCain is alarmed by such predictions. Senator McCain used the word change 33 time in his speech introducing his campaign's new slogan -- "change we need right now." In his attempt to co-opt Obama's message "change we can believe in" McCain is hoping to gain some Obama-mentum for the upcoming November election.

An insider produces a book describing "high incompetency and low deceit in the White House"... that sounds like a description of Scott McClellan's book "What Happened..." but it's not. It was a book (IN THE LAND OF THE MAGIC ASTERISK) written about the Reagan presidency by Reagan's former budget director David A. Stockman; reviewed by Michael Kinsley in the New York Times in 1986. Reagan advocated "small" government via budget cuts and tax cuts and this refrain is oft repeated by the Republicans.

John McCain is not deterred by the Reagan presidency incurring a huge national debt using just such a formula as he has proposed or by the Bush administration having surpassed all other administrations combined in the amount of debt owed by the US government. He's voted with Bush 95% of the time.

John McCain's eyes glaze over when he discusses the economy (he knows nothing about it, he's admitted -- the so-called "straight shooter, shot himself in the foot on that one!). He's no genius and his tax plan is wrong for the US economy.

Why don't the Republicans ever learn from history? Didn't they learn from the hurricane Katrina ineptitude and embarrassment? The US needs to invest in its public infrastructures to avoid such disasters happening to levees, roads, bridges, highways, schools, etc.

There's ample proof that McCain's plan to reduce the size of government to the infamous size "where we can drown it in a bathtub" is ill advised and delusional. There is no merit to his "...corporate giveaways and phony freezes and scrubs, McCain's tax agenda undermines his core political appeal" (from McCain's Delusional Tax Plan by Robert Gordon and James Kvaal).

No matter what barometer the political pundits use to gauge the political winds, it is still possible that John McCain will be our next president. I was shocked when Reagan was elected. I will be mildly amused when and if McCain is. For many reasons, but chiefly because the American "electorate" is predictably ill-informed.

Delegate Count

Being first in primaries ultimately doesn't matter. What matters is how many delegates the candidates win.

Democrats Republicans

Clinton has locked in more than twice as many delegates as Obama, with 183 to his 78, according to a tracking tally kept by CNN. Romney has lined up 30 Republican delegates, with Huckabee close behind on 21 and McCain on 10. Despite the media fixation and voter attention that come from early wins in the presidential cycle, strategists in every camp are keeping one eye on the delegate count.

How has Clinton already snagged six times as many delegates as the leading Republican? The answer is "super-delegates", a unique feature of the Democratic race that allows senior party members to commit in advance to a candidate without being bound by primary results.

Super-delegates include all Democratic members of Congress, all Democratic governors, and all members of the Democratic national committee (DNC). Former presidents, vice presidents, DNC chairs and congressional leaders also are guaranteed ballots at the convention.

The former first lady has dominated the super-delegate chase, racking up 78 endorsements on Capitol Hill alone to Obama's 35. But Obama has begun closing the gap in recent days, winning over Arizona governor Janet Napolitano today and three senior members of Congress yesterday.

Leading in super-delegates is not always enough to keep a foundering candidacy alive. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean had the advantage in the early days of the 2004 election, yet he lost the nomination to John Kerry. (As DNC chairman, Dean is now a super-delegate himself.)

The wide-open nature of the race on both sides gives even more weight to February 5 - also known as "Super Tuesday" or "Tsunami Tuesday" - when more than 1,000 delegates will be distributed. Even if a candidate claims victory before the convention, however, the potential remains for a public clash when Democrats choose a nominee in Denver and Republicans gather a week later in Minneapolis.

Delegates from states that hold caucuses, such as Iowa and Nevada, technically are not bound to support their original candidate of choice. There are also a small percentage of delegates who head to the conventions un-pledged, waiting until the last minute to commit.

Clashes between warring factions within a party can turn explosive inside the conventions. As protests against the Vietnam war raged on outside the 1968 Democratic gathering in Chicago, anti-war candidates tried to derail the nomination of then-vice president Hubert Humphrey. At the Republican convention in 1976, a less violent fight broke out between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan for their party's nod.
Delegates, super-delegates and the fight for the White House
Elana Schor in Washington | Saturday January 12, 2008 | Guardian Unlimited (link)

Holidays Ending With a Bang

When a co-worker told me today that he traveled fourteen hours to spend the holiday with friends; I had to interject some concerns; what with the price of gas, worries about the US infrastructure, especially if you consider the amount of money being spent in Iraq; besides, did he know what happened to Michael Jordan's father when he stopped to nap on the road in North Carolina? Or, what about Bill Cosby's son Ennis, who was murdered when his car got a flat tire in LA? Considering that on the way back, my co-worker traveled via United Airlines... the road trip was a breeze.

Speaking of Iraq; there is news of an attack on the Kurds by Turkey this week. This is just awful news. There was a delegation of Turkish parliamentarians in Iran this week who's stated aim was the "expansion of Iran-Turkey ties"... I wonder if this attack is trowing a monkey wrench into the reported statement of "A prominent Iranian MP... that Iran-Turkey cooperation contributes to establishing peace and security in the Middle East region."

Until recently the Bush Government has refused to hold high-level talks with Iran. This seems strange since others in the Middle East, who should be most concerned about the intentions of the neighboring country of Iran (which has been labeled by the US as a "terrorist" state) don't have the same concerns about Iran, who is said by the US to be seeking nuclear "weapons." In fact Egypt is also in talks with Iran this week. Of course the recent National Intelligence Estimate finding that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program is an embarrassment to Bush and his agenda for the Middle East. The Bush administration has vowed not to change its policy towards Iran, and has attempted to "spin" the conclusions of the report in its favor. The NIE report also notes that the global threat of terrorism is up significantly, along with attacks in foreign nations.

American fundamentalist Christians just funded the smuggling of 40 Iranian Jews from Iran to Israel. Two Iranian Jewish leaders called this an "emigrant stunt". Ciamak Morsathegh of the Tehran Jewish Committee is reported to have made statements to AP (Associated Press) that this news organization depicts in this way; "Jews living in the Islamic Republic were not endangered by the hard-line policies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad".

The assassination of Bhutto by a suicide bomber/sniper is such a tragedy for Pakistan. The Middle East is a spot that has exploded since the attack of Iraq by the US in 2003. The area is so unstable now that it makes you question the sanity of Bush supporters who profess to have "questions" over the tactics employed in the Iraq "war". This is the latest "talking point" being used by the Republican demigods to appease their constituents. Well this constituent is not appeased and wants the impeachment of this administrations' executives. Something to look forward to in the new year. Keep hope alive!