Jack & Jill Politics

Critics are concerned that private military contractors are positioning themselves at the centre of an emerging “shock doctrine” for earthquake-ravaged Haiti.

Next month, a prominent umbrella organisation for private military and logistic corporations, the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA), is co-organising a “Haiti summit” which aims to bring together “leading officials” for “private consultations with attending contractors and investors” in Miami, Florida.

Dubbed the “mercenary trade association” by journalist Jeremy Scahill, author of “Blackwater: the Rise of the World' Most Powerful Mercenary Army”, the IPOA wasted no time setting up a “Haiti Earthquake Support” page on its website following the Jan. 12 earthquake that devastated the Caribbean country.

IPOA's director Doug Brooks says, “The first contacts we got were journalists looking for security when they went in.” The website of IPOA member company, Hart Security, says they are currently in Haiti “supporting clients from the fields of media, consultancy and medical in their disaster recovery efforts.” Several other IPOA members have either bid on or received contracts for work in Haiti.

Likewise, the private military contractor, Raidon Tactics, has at least 30 former U.S. Special Operations soldiers on the ground, where they have been guarding aid convoys and providing security for “news agencies,” according to a Raidon employee who told IPS his company received over 1,000 phone calls in response to an ad posting “for open positions for Static Security Positions and Mobile Security Positions” in Haiti.

HAITI: Private Contractors 'Like Vultures Coming to Grab the Loot'

Just following the US Model.

This sounds like another must read from your boy Tim Wise…

Between Barack and a Hard Place – Racism & White Denial in the Age of Obama
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0872865…

This is how white wealth is created, black contractors should take note and start vying for a place in line to get their fair share of the contracts. The money is going to be made whether we participate or not. Thanks for the heads up on this, I'm looking into it.

This is so neat, a video on the right of the article of the man who did a bronze sculpture of the First Family. It will be at the Smithsonian by the time we take our grandson to DC for spring break in late March. yay!

Sculptor freezes moment in history; preserves in bronze

http://www.9news.com/seenon9news/article.aspx?s…

thanks for this.

Dutch role in Afghanistan in doubt as government collapses
February 20, 2010 — Updated 1139 GMT (1939 HKT)

(CNN) — The future of around 2,000 Dutch soldiers serving in Afghanistan has been thrown into doubt by the collapse Saturday of the Netherlands' coalition government.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's office said in a statement that the Labor Party had withdrawn from the government following days of talks over whether the troops should be brought home.

Balkenende's center-right Christian Democratic Alliance had hoped to keep the country's troops in Afghanistan as part of NATO's International Security and Assistance Force beyond an August deadline for their return.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen asked the Netherlands to extend its mission in Afghanistan earlier this month.

The Netherlands currently has 1,950 troops serving in Afghanistan's Uruzgan province as part of NATO's International Security and Assistance Force, according to the ISAF Web site. The Dutch government extended the military mission by two years back in 2007.

But the Labor Party, led by Deputy Prime Minister Wouter Bos, opposed fulfilling NATO's request to extend the mission again. Bos said that the current Afghanistan policy was not sustainable, according to the official ANP news agency.

In a statement to reporters, Balkenende said there was no longer a “fruitful path” for the near-three-year-old coalition between the CDA, Labor and the Christian Union to go forward.

He said he would meet Queen Beatrix, the country's head of state, later Saturday to offer the resignations of the 12 Labor members of his cabinet and “make available” the 12 cabinet positions held by his own party and three held by the Christian Union.

The move is expected to trigger early general elections in the country.

Balkenende has led a succession of coalitions since becoming prime minister in 2002. The CDA, Labor and Christian Union entered into a coalition agreement in February 2007 following elections in November 2006. But the three parties have disagreed on several issues including Afghanistan.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/19/…

Klein: Dem Senators Are Privately Scared Of The Public Option Revival
by sluggahjells [Subscribe]
Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 07:59:44 PM PST

(From TWD)

Are they being stupid and untrustworthy again?

That is the perspective one could easily infer from after seeing and hearing what Ezra Klein has said to Keith Olbermann tonight on Countdown in regardless to the stunning revival of the public option.

* sluggahjells's diary :: ::
*

It is information that leads to something we are seeing publically with the petition (now at #19 Senators with Arlen Specter early this evening) maybe just a painful predictable facade for progressives to swallow.

“I got to tell you Keith, reporting on this is weird today because everyone that's sign the letter that when you call them every office I call is telling me privately were terrified of this,” said the Washington Post and former American Prospect Blogger.

After Olbermann asked him if this is yet another leadership problem with the Democrats, Klein reply only needed one word.

“Exactly.”

But he wasn't done.

“I think it's getting a little bit scary, I think you're actually seeing a failure of leadership from the White House right now.”

Further, Klein highlighted the obvious dangers if a firm direction is not provided here.

“The worse things that could happen if it hangs out in this middle space, where we have this zombie public option debate,” said Klein. “Where liberals have to get disappointed again and have another fight between people have another fight between who feel the bill isn't good enough without it and is good enough, that is a terrible outcome and could threaten the whole rest of the enterprise.”

And to conclude, it seems some Senators (though Klein is vague on which Senators, and expectedly so to protect sources) have learned unsurprisingly the WRONG lesson from the “Truck Drivers” election in the Bay State, feeling this government insurance option revival will hurt the holy sanctimony feeling of bipartisanship!

Now in the remainder of the interview, Klein worries a little too much in my mind about how the Monday summit will be all damaged with talk of the public option where that can easily be countered with how popular it still remains.

There is nothing about “backroom deals” here with this letter started publicly by Michael Bennett. And I dare the fearmongering idiots to label it as such despite it being liked by the majority of the nation.

But once again, as Jed Lewison talked about yesterday, this petition commenced by Bennett (and originally supported by Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, and Kristen Gillibrand) had better not be one cheap political fabricated push to get progressives happy about reform one final time instead of really going after the best case for reform.

And with signs of Tom Harkin and Russ Feingold still not signed onto it, there is still that feeling of “Is this really serious” and “do you really mean this” that permeates through some souls.

It would be beyond stupid if this isn't a genuine late push for real reform, and I don't have to get much further into details about the ramifications that would result from such an asinine move. We all know the level of anger that it will generate from the online community and ardent base supporters overall.

And it will make that continued incongruous push of epic idiocy for bipartisanship (when the Senate bill and even some characteristics of the House bill) is already just that.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/19/838862/…

Nowhere Man
The vain search for Harold Ford’s principles.
Jonathan Chait
Jonathan Chait
Senior Editor
February 17, 2010 | 12:00 am

“Southern voters are interested in solutions,” said Harold Ford Jr. in 2003. “They can spot a fake.” Perhaps this explains Ford’s subsequent decision to decamp from the South in search of a more gullible electorate.

Having lost a 2006 Senate race in Tennessee, Ford is now all but officially running in New York. His efforts to date offer a fascinating character study. All politicians, to varying degrees, have pliable beliefs that must bend and twist to mesh with political surroundings that change over time. Ford’s distinguishing trait is that his principles are not merely pliable but completely liquid–they have no form of their own, taking the shape of whatever surrounds them.

Ford comes from a family that seems to regard politics as a lucrative profession. His father, a longtime member of Congress, was indicted (but acquitted) of bank fraud. One uncle was indicted for corruption, and another was convicted of insurance fraud. Harold Jr., groomed at elite institutions like St. Albans in Washington, always trod a more respectable path. After inheriting his father’s House seat in 1996, Ford cultivated a centrist profile to keep himself viable for statewide (or national) office. He endorsed constitutional amendments requiring an annual balanced budget, outlawing gay marriage and flag burning, and permitting organized classroom prayer in public schools. Shrewdly claiming a seat on the capital markets subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee, he raised copious sums from Wall Street executives, who, in turn, he favored by endorsing tax breaks for capital gains. Ford attracted a series of mostly favorable profiles in the national press, highlighting his charisma and centrist stands as a model for a new generation of Democrats. “Rigid ideology makes it easier to resist good ideas,” he declared.

Ford’s career, alas, did not proceed quite as hoped. Even admirers regarded him as “undisciplined and immature,” as a friendly Democratic strategist told The New Republic in 2002. Much of Ford’s reputation centered around his personal life. (He’s “known on Capitol Hill for robust socializing,” as The Washington Post delicately put it.) Ford ran for minority leader, only to be crushed by Nancy Pelosi, by a vote of 177-29. To the extent that he now receives any sympathy from the base of his party, it is because he was the subject, during his 2006 Senate run, of a vicious ad featuring a comely blond saying “Harold–call me.”

Ford’s transition to a new political milieu has entailed some awkwardness. Only a few years ago, he was filming ads in church, posing in front of a Confederate flag, and touting his “Tennessee values.” He now seems to regard his former constituents as racist hillbillies. “There was so much bad racial stuff out of Tennessee on Obama,” he tells Maureen Dowd. “I think my marriage is more accepted here than it would be in Tennessee.”

Ford now embraces gun control and gay marriage, the latter of which, until recently, he wanted to ban via constitutional amendment. After calling for sealing the border and attacking President Bush from the right on immigration in 2006, he now takes a liberal stance. What about the border fence he favored? “Even if we had a fence now, we are not going to stop it,” he told The New York Times, not explaining why he had supported such a futile gesture in the first place.

Ford had so much difficulty explaining his intellectual evolution that, at one point, he gave an interview to the Daily News only, as the paper reported, “under the condition that the questions be limited to his rationale for running, and not issues.” (Southern voters may be interested in solutions, but, apparently, Northern voters aren’t.) None of this is to say, however, that Ford’s prospective candidacy lacks ideological content. He is running as the voice of Wall Street. The financial industry deeply resents the Obama administration and congressional Democrats who, after bailing them out to prevent a broader economic collapse, are attempting to impose regulations to prevent such a recurrence and demanding that the large banks pay back a portion of their subsidy. Casting about for a champion, Wall Street’s eyes turned to Ford.

The Tennessee expatriate turned out to be the perfect man for the job. He already had a foothold in the city through his financial services committee connections, a $1.8 million East Hampton vacation home his father had purchased in 2003, and a lucrative part-time job at Merrill Lynch. Ford breakfasts regularly at the Regency and relaxes at upper-class redoubts like the Waverly Inn. “Ford started hearing about [the backlash] at cocktail parties,” reports Politico.

In a New York Times interview, Ford attempted to put a slightly more populist sheen on his candidacy:

[T]he response I have gotten is overwhelming, from different categories, the spectrum of political leaders, people involved in politics, people representing different social and income classes in the city, be it the cabdriver on the way down here, who had positive things to say, and wanted to take a picture with me before I got out of the taxi, to people who are business leaders and leaders in the entertainment industry and media industry based here.

Truly, this is a trans-class coalition, ranging from rich businessmen to rich entertainment businessmen to rich media businessmen to cabdrivers–who, like all members of tip-based professions, are known for their frank assessments of their customers.

Ford has come out against the current health care legislation and in favor of “a huge tax-cut bill for business people, not only in New York but across the country.” Ford has chosen to label himself an “independent voice,” independence being defined as total subservience to Wall Street. (Ford promises, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, “I would support no bill that does harm to New York’s financial industry.”)

Ford’s candidacy is an epiphenomenon of Wall Street’s retreat into a fantasy world. In this alternate reality, the titans of finance are innocent victims of a freakish accident, the Democrats’ struggles result from their hostility to these victims, and the people are clamoring for a leader who will openly cater to their demands. The notion that Democratic primary voters in New York will embrace Ford may be more fantastical than the wildest investment scheme that predated the crash.

Harold–don’t call me. We’ll call you.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/nowhere-man…

Jonathan Chait
The Coming Conservative Health Care Freakout

Jonathan Chait
* February 20, 2010 | 11:42 am

Ever since Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley, conservatives, with very few exceptions, have been convinced that health care reform is dead. Friday's Charles Krauthammer column offers a good example of the prevailing sentiment: “Barack Obama's two signature initiatives — cap-and-trade and health-care reform — lie in ruins.”

Some of us realized all along that there was no rational reason that the Massachusetts election had to kill health care reform. Fundamentally, the main barrier — getting sixty votes in the Senate — had already been crossed. The remaining obstacles are puny. All the Democrats needed to do was have the House pass the Senate bill. If they insisted on changes, most of those could easily be made through reconciliation, which only requires a majority vote in the Senate. Most conservatives paid no attention to this basic reality, though they did indulge in some gloating mockery of those of us who pointed it out. (I've “gone off the deep end.” “It is all rather pathetic.” Etc.)

But the mustache-twirling bonhomie has started to give way to the realization that the legislative door to health care reform is wide open, and Democrats simply need to walk through it. By no means is it clear that they'll succeed. But I've been waiting for conservatives, filled with hubris at having swept liberalism into the dustbin of history, to wake up to the fact that health care reform is very far from dead, and start to freak out.

Friday's New York Times report that Obama plans to propose a bill on Monday signaled the start of the freakout. Former Bush administration aide Yuval Levin writes:

The apparent decision to push Obamacare through reconciliation gives new meaning to the term political suicide. It will almost certainly fail, for one thing. And it will persuade rank and file Democrats in Congress that their leaders have lost their minds, and so will badly divide the Democratic caucus and make for a very difficult year to come for them.

Brian Darling at Red State speculates that the Democrats will fire or overrule the parliamentarian in order to pass their plan through reconciliation. Republicans actually did fire the parliamentarian in 2001, after he complicated their plans to push tax cuts through reconciliation, but this caused virtually no outcry. But Democrats aren't going to need to do so. The paranoia stems in part from a failure to understand the technicalities of what's going on here — liberal policy wonks have been following this closely for the last month, but hardly anybody else has. There was some discussion last year of using reconciliation to pass the entire health care bill and avoid the filibuster. This ran into technical difficulties — reconciliation can only be used for measures that principally effect revenues or outlays. So instead the Democrats passed a health care bill through the Senate using regular order.

Now, of course, the problem is that they can't mesh the Senate bill with the House bill using regular order, because Republicans will filibuster it. But most of the points of negotiation between House and Senate concern taxes and spending — exactly the kinds of things that reconciliation is designed for. So it's fairly easy to just have the House pass the Senate bill, then use reconciliation to eliminate the Nebraska Medicaid subsidy and change the mix of taxes that pay for new coverage. Indeed, this process is probably easier than getting another 60 votes in the Senate would have been even if Martha Coakley had won.

You can imagine how this feels to conservatives. They've already run off the field, sprayed themselves with champagne and taunted the losing team's fans. And now the other team is saying the game is still on and they have a good chance to win. There may be nothing wrong at all with the process, but it's certainly going to feel like some kind of crime to the right-wing. The Democrats may not win, but I'm pretty sure they're going to try. The conservative freakout is going to be something to behold.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/the-comi…

I have read similiar things at MSM sites. After all, the Dems. had one year of an unstopable majority in Congress. During that time the Repubs. were powerless except in a nuisance capacity.

Straight No Chaser: Point Of No Return
Tiger can't apologize enough to please White America

by Desi Cortez, BASN Columnist,

DENVER (BASN) — I don't believe Tiger Woods can apologize enough to please White America. That is an impossible task for a Black man.

Talk about admitting guilt, speaking from the heart, taking responsibility for ones actions, and holding yourself accountable and liable for your own personal actions . . . the man did that. What more could anybody ask for?

What more could angry White Americans ask for? Because that's the group which harbors no tolranace nor forgivness in their hearts for most flawed mortals.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone . . . .

I find it difficult to believe we can agree upon precisely “what” it is Tiger's guilty of, because clearly it goes deeper then merely playing around behind your wife's back.

Tiger is guilty of betraying the faith White folks put in him – they believed he was “one of the few good ones.” Some actually believed Tiger walked on water.

Nevertheless, if this nation can find the heart to forgive other good ol' Boys they put faith in; Tom Brady – who cheated on the football field and abandoned his child. Mark McGwire, who cheated the game of Baseball, and lied about it.

Or Brett Favre who had a drug and alcohol addiction. Pete Rose, President Nixon, Wall street aristocrats who've betrayed middle America . . . if these duplicitous cheats and liars can be welcomed back from the Leper colony then so can Woods be welcomed back.

Tom Watson wanted to see humility, humbleness, a man lacking pride. Screw you Tom. There is that segment of the country . . . which wants to see this big cat cry, beg for forgiveness, break, fold, and tragically crumble.

As I've stated on a few occassions, the WASP slice of America is arroused and excited when they see a Black person down, distraught and damn near out. It brings a sinister smirk to their faces . . . .

You'd have to tell me why.

Let's acknowledge Tiger's stumbled into O.J. territory; being guilty of embarrassing white folks, who foolishly deemed him one of theirs – tagged Tiger with the honorary White dude status.

The Grand Poobahs granted Woods the right to bed, wed actually – a Nordic princess. The lad abused that privilege. He's slept with a multitude of White women behind the back of not merely his wife – but White America – without their permission.

Additionally, he's treated his White whores . . . like hoe's.

And, at the end of the day, he's also embarrassed a once good n' decent white women – his wife, by sleeping with dozens of . . . snow tramps. On top of them all . . . Tiger's flaunted his sexual powers with White women – something a Cablasian man . . . nor Black men are never to do.

How would Tiger say sorry for having sex with a couple of dozen White bimbos?

Understand; despite Tiger's women being nigger lovers, including his wife, they're all still White, and it burns the ass of many a angry White Tea-Bagger to have to witness Tiger dirty them, brand them – for life, treat them as if they were disposable vaginas, treat them in a playboy type fashion – millions of White guys wish they could.

http://www.blackathlete.net/artman2/publish/Com…

LOL – “I find it difficult to believe we can agree upon precisely “what” it is Tiger's guilty of, because clearly it goes deeper then merely playing around behind your wife's back.” – well my wife now thinks that he is a lying, cheating slut, nuff said about that.
The rest of the article is really pretty silly. As far as I can tell from the media and other sources no one, other than professional pot stirrers, really care about Tiger and his women other than to shake their heads and laugh at him for getting outed.
Most just want him to go back to playing golf.

I was in a restaurant while they were playing Tiger's apology on ESPN. As we were leaving, I saw the chyron 'Tiger Woods: Was the Apology Enough?' and I just shook my head. The only person owed an apology was his wife, but this article has a great point-it's all about White folks' feeling being hurt over thinking he was 'one of the good ones'.

it was always about Golf, Inc.

I thought that much was clear.

As America loudly repudiates the leftist agenda of President Barack Obama and his Congressional allies, a group of partisan GOP opportunists is busy promoting a theory of “Republican revisionism.”

What does this theory hold?

Namely, that the GOP wasn't “all that bad” – and certainly not as bad as the socialist hordes who have ostensibly pushed America to the brink of financial ruin over the last year. In advancing this theory, the GOP is looking to recast itself as a party that can be trusted with your tax dollars – while simultaneously attempting to reframe the legacy of the President (and dozens of other GOP politicians) who couldn't be trusted with your tax dollars.

This effort is most clearly visible in the GOP's recent attempts to co-opt the Tea Party movement. It can also be seen within the opportunistic machinations of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has been pushing a new “Contract with America” in spite of his obvious betrayal – and subsequent scuttling – of the original movement fifteen years ago.

The GOP's new revisionist message was summed up in a billboard that appeared recently on Interstate 35 in Wyoming.

“Miss me yet?” a smiling picture of former President Bush asks passing motorists.

In a word? “No.”

“Missing Bush?” Why Republican Revisionism Won't Sell

Do the Democrats want to win?