I hate him, I really hate him

February 24, 2013

Ran into an important post from blogger Gaius Publius that has quickly gotten some attention, including here, here and here. The gist is exposing the bipartisan nature of the Fix the Debt terrorists. What catches my eye, and activates my gag-or-cry reflex, is the “yes we can” video (aka, the dick riding video) from the heady days of ’08 embedded in the post. The existence of this video exemplifies why I feel a deep, personal aversion to Obama. The corny, sentimental sincerity of those paper-thin celebs in the video was a reflection of the corny, sentimental sincerity of millions of us real people, really struggling and really facing desolation and impotence, and ignorance, who really wanted this guy to be somebody that would work for us, somebody we could rely on and be proud of. Not somebody perfect, just somebody sensible and able, who gave enough of a damn to at the very least not cynically exploit us.

And what did we get? We got the bankster’s best friend, read-my-lips-“predator drones”, too big to fail Barack – who cynically exploited our trust and hope to deliver us, dormant and abused, to his sole and real constituency, the robber baron ownership class that is destroying us. I can forgive an enemy like Boehner, at least in a vague, Christian-charity way. What I can’t stomach, not for one moment longer, is an ingrate and turncoat. Boehner just makes one miffed, and perhaps a bit amused. Barack makes one feel duped – jilted, stupid. NSA and FBI, take note – I really really hate him.


“I cannot eat as much, as I would like to puke”

December 13, 2012

All I can say is toldja so, toldja so, toldja so.  Obama’s justice department, under the always reliable guiding hand of Lanny Breuer, takes a pass on criminal prosecutions of HSBC executive for – you guessed it – actual criminal conduct.

As Matt Tabbi points out, this is a particular insult to those people, and millions of them there are, who have been ground down and even robbed in our War on Drugs. You and I get bound over to a prison-cum-rape camp, and all our worldly possessions are confiscated to boot, while multi-billion dollar drug money launderers get something called partially deferred compensation.

As Neil Barofsky points out, the “justice” meted out in this case – no criminal prosecutions, a civil fine amounting to a few weeks of earnings – is a green light to risky bank behavior, and inevitably a prelude to the next financial crash. Cue the Obamabots, blaming the next big one, which is guaranteed to come, on Bush.

The coup continues, and, astoundingly, the Obamabots don’t seem to care, or notice, or something. When will this nightmare end?


Well, the other guy is worse

November 8, 2012

As we race headlong toward austerity in the USA (cue Sex Pistols), it may be worth a moment to look back at the Obamabot’s most oft evoked reason for sticking with da man: well, the other guy is worse. The thought process is something like multivariate analysis, sifting through the data at hand to try to find a statistically significant degree of “betterness.”  Sure, Obama has a dreadful record on civil liberties.  Sure, Obama gave Wall Street a free pass after it destroyed the American economy by a fraud-inflated real estate bubble.  Sure, Obama oversaw the further super-consolidation of the banking sector.  Sure, Dodd-Frank is a gilded turd.  But assuming that the other guy is just as bad on those points, where does that leave us?  Wait, Obama said something nice about gay marriage not too long ago.  So, all other stuff being equal, isn’t he better?  Marginal progressivism: both guys are vile, but after canceling out the vileness, one guy has a residuum of betterness.

But does the vileness really cancel out?  Let’s not overlook Obama’s mad skillz. Immediately after our state-sanctioned interaction with the voting machine, Boehner “gives in” and starts talking compromise.  Peter Orszag, in the words of Yves Smith, starts pushing catfood futures hard. The moment is at hand: our Democratic leader is on the cusp of his Nixon goes to China moment.  The Grand Bargain Great Betrayal is nigh. Very soon, many many people who just yesterday were enjoying the dopamine rush of seeing their “progressive” choice in the seat of power will stand mouth agape at the sight of that same choice signing into law the demolition of the New Deal welfare state.   How, exactly, was the other guy going to be worse?

Scraps of dignity

… and, hell even if true: at what point is marginally better not good enough? 10%? 1%? .001%?  Where’s our dignity, that we’re content with such table scraps? When, where, and how do we regain our dignity?

Dopamine’s role in the enjoyment of spectator sports

Besides, I’m not sure there’s really any calculation here anyway.  Tell a friendly, good-willed Obamabot that you’re not supporting da man because, say, his support for the elimination of the ancient right to habeas corpus.  See the puzzled looked, the hurt countenance, the defensive gesture, the grasping for a comeback, and, finally: “but what about the Supreme Court? Abortion, ya know.”  That wasn’t a deeply seated conviction so much as a notion dredged up on the fly in support of an emotional conviction.  Sure, my support for a woman’s right to on-demand abortion is absolute.  But is that conviction really what motivates Obamabots?  If so, shouldn’t they be a bit hesitant about their man, given that he’s actually done precious little to actually uphold reproductive freedom?  But no, my Obamabotic friends are getting a first rate dopamine squirt, as if on November 6 we actually won single payer health care.  Are they really using reason, or is this just the instinctual herd feeling of going with Team Blue?  If the latter, then is there really any superiority in being for Team Blue vs. Team Red?  I’ve always heard progressive types scratching their heads over how, oh how, those benighted working class Republicans can support positions against their own self-interest.  Maybe we should be careful with that kind of talk.  Maybe we’re fools too – turkeys celebrating the cleaver, deer greeting the shotgun.

Team Blue v. Team Red.  Think Yankees v. Red Sox, but with both teams owned by same person.  Or not same person – by the same consortium of private equity funds.  Regardless of the  intense rush I feel from seeing my team hit one over the fence, my feelings have nothing to do with the way the game works.  Or why the game is played the way it is, or what it really means.

Behind the voting machine

I periodically interact with the voting machine, as expected, and enjoy the swirling lights and surprise buzzers if I “win.” Meanwhile, real decisions, the real action, is going on somewhere else, somewhere I cannot see or even fathom.


Obama and the 47%

September 20, 2012

Mittens stuck his dandy foot in his silver-spooned mouth. Apparently, he abhors and has no interest in the 47% percent of us that are free-loading leeches, as opposed to being job-creator supermen like, say, hedge fund managers. The problem is that if he writes off nearly half of the electorate, then not too many of the residual have to come to the realization that he is shallow, self-aggrandizing sleeze in order for him to be toast. And yes, Obamniacs, he’s toast. Go partay.

So what? Remember, Romney’s indiscretions were words. He said that the 47% are worthy of nothing more than organ harvesting. Hell, I’d say he even meant it. But how have Obama’s actions not indicated the same thing? That is, hasn’t Obama told us, over and again, to drop dead – not in words, but in deeds? And isn’t one of the first things we all learned in Sunday (or Saturday) School that deeds count more than mere words? And income inequality increased under Obama. So remember, before you gloat too much over Mitten’s sub-Nietzschean flub, that our hope-and-change man has achieved what that sorry pretender can merely talk about.