konane's Blog

Came in email.  Awesome animation, best viewed on a large screen format.

_______________

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Aug03/prWherearetheJobs080103.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-forms-new-climate-change-body.html

Couple of amazing photos. 

________

http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html

Interesting article, came in email this morning.  Metaphysically I've read that we're all experiencing the "dispensation of responsibility" so this is likely one of many articles we'll see on the subject.  Hope you enjoy.

_____________

"Is There A Hidden Purpose To Victimhood?

"An attitude has swept across practically every person in every country on the globe over the course of the past few decades. This is the attitude of victimhood. Why has it become so popular for people to feel like they are victims and what purpose can this serve?

The Lack of Responsibility
Victims feel they can shirk responsibilities because those fall on the shoulders of the victimizers. Victims feel like they have no control over their own lives. Have a drug problem? It’s your parents’ faults. Uneducated? It’s not your fault. You had to take care of your kid. Single parent? That’s the fault of that no good boyfriend that hit the road as soon as you gave birth.

Paying alimony? Yeah, you decided to get married to that person, but you didn’t know they were going to divorce you and make you pay them. These excuses really do seem to make things easier. No reason to feel guilt or self-doubt. You did your best. Life happened to you.

Life happened to everyone. Your sister. Your friends. They all tell you the same thing. That no good mother is such you-know-what she wouldn’t let me keep living in her house, they say. Why do all of these various people do these horrible things to everyone? They’re just mean. They have grudges. They’re jealous. They are “haters.” They hate me because I’m beautiful. When viewed through an objective lens, most of these motives would seem flimsy, even silly, but through the eyes of a victim, these motivations seem to make perfect sense.

Victims Only Think About Themselves
When feel you are constantly being victimized in your life, you are actually being selfish. All you can think about is how terrible you’ve been wronged and how you are going to show those that victimized you.

Victim-hood leads to many negative emotions, pushing out any positive emotions that might have overtaken the victim. When you are so focused on yourself, you don’t think of other people and whether or not they are doing okay. You don’t think about how you can help them. Why would you? You’re the victim. You have problems. It slips your mind that everyone has problems. If you helped another person with their problems, it might actually cheer you up a little and give you some confidence. Can’t have that.

Helplessness Leads to Hopelessness
Victims are helpless. Someone that feels victimized typically feels no responsibility for the unpleasantness that has befallen them. With no responsibility in creating your own personal disaster, you were helpless to do anything to stop it. Therefore, you’re still helpless. You want, no, you need for someone to help you, to make everything better.

The longer this goes on, the less in control of your own life you feel. You’re completely helpless to do anything. There’s absolutely no hope for you, anymore. When there’s no hope, nothing matters. You get reckless. You do things just to make yourself happy for a few ephemeral moments. You spend money you don’t have. Your mind runs on and on with nonsense. You have nothing left. There’s no joy in your life. There’s no more reason to live. You have no future.

Why Has This Become Popular?
Victimhood has become the default state of a great many people around the globe. Why would so many choose a state of such utter sadness and disappointment? No one can say for sure. A popular view is that the the rise of the welfare state, shows like Jerry Springer, shifting cultural norms, and media in general are to blame.

Many victims would say it’s not a choice to be a victim. Once you are victimized, you have no choice, but to be a victim. That is the victim mentality in a nutshell. You have no choice. Anyone can, all of a sudden wrong you. Sure, this happens, but most of the time, you share some responsibility. If you were beaten and mugged, there’s no reason for that, but you were in that area at that time for a reason. You chose to be there. You didn’t know you’d be mugged, but you willfully decided to go to that place at that time.

Random bad things do, of course, happen, from time to time, where you don’t have much responsibility. But part of the responsibility of being alive is knowing that bad things are going to happen to you and that you are going to have to deal with them and move on. Say you’re laid off from a job do really well. Not fun, but there’s no reason to dwell on it. Yes, you were wronged by the company to which you contributed so much effort, but all you can do is move on and find another job.

If you can’t find another job, like so many Americans and others in today’s challenging times, take the opportunity to do your own thing and become one of the liberated self-employed. The freedom of never again answering to a condescending abusive boss is a blessing that is many times only facilitated when one loses the perceived safety and security of steady employment. Hardships are meant to provide the catalyst for positive change, but change scares most people. That’s why hardships are required to facilitate these changes.

Self-employment seems iffy to most people, but when you have no other choice, it’s a pretty good option. Once you’re confident in your ability to make money without depending on a boss, you’d be insane to ever want to go back to your old way of life. However, would you ever have really quit your well-paying job to strike out on your own? Probably not. Getting laid off, might have been the best thing that ever happened to you.

If you recede into victim-hood, asking why something so terrible ever happened to you and wondering why no one will help, you’re not going to realize the positive developments that will come from your trouble. Life isn’t an exciting challenge, anymore, it’s a monster springing out from behind a tree to slice you and dice you! You’re stuck. You’re a deer in the headlights. The car is going to kill you, and you can’t move a muscle. You aren’t going to figure out a way to become self-employed. You’ll get a minimum wage working for a boss who no one can stand.

You Have A Choice
Humans aren’t naturally victims for very long. Why is this such a pervasive attitude in today’s culture? People in power want you to feel helpless so they can control you. That’s why. Plain and simple. Who would work a low-paying, disrespectful service or outgoing call job, otherwise? But, have hope. No one can be a victim forever.

Keep Hope Alive
Sooner or later, everyone realizes they are the only ones with control over their own lives. Once you realize that you are never a victim, you can do incredible things. All of these people will have this epiphany after dealing with the bleak consequences of feeling helpless. They will take control of their own lives, and the world will be a wonderful place. A place full of confident, loving people doing everything they can to help other people to be as happy as they are."

http://www.dreammanifesto.com/hidden-purpose-victimhood.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=is-there-a-hidden-purpose-to-victimhood

"The Gang of Five, and How They Nearly Ruined Us

The little-known reason why investment banks got too big, too greedy, too risky, and too powerful.

From Slate

Source The Big Money

"The surviving investment banks are bristling at efforts aimed at recouping taxpayer losses and forestalling a repeat of the panic of 2008: congression­al proposals to tax bonuses, President Obama's planned tax on large banks' liabilities, and his suggestion that banks be prohibited from using taxpayer-insured funds for proprietary trading. That last proposal would "restrict lending, increase risk, decrease stability in the system, and limit our ability to help create jobs," says Steve Bartlett, CEO of the Financial Serv­ices Roundtable, the trade group for megabanks.

But if the banks want us out of their business, they should get out of our business first. We've (barely) lived through a 40-year period in which investment banks haven't imposed themselves on us. They effectively moved into our house, raided our fridge, and set the joint on fire. Now they're complaining that our renovation efforts are cramping their style.

The genesis of the problem was the transformation of investment banks from private partnerships into publicly held companies. The process began when Merrill Lynch went public in 1971. It was followed by the four other horsemen of the 2008 credit apocalypse: Morgan Stanley (MS) (1986), Bear Stearns (1985), Lehman Bros. (1994), and Goldman Sachs (GS) (1999). The Gang of Five went public so they could compete with the international banking giants that were encroaching on their core business of underwriting stock offerings and advising firms and so they could boost their activities in risky, capital-intensive businesses like proprietary trading. "In order to have a capital base that would support the funding they needed, they had to be public," says Roy Smith, a former Goldman Sachs partner and a professor of finance at New York University.

Going public allowed investment banks to get bigger, which then gave them the heft to mold the regulatory system to their liking. Perhaps the most disastrous decision of the past decade was the Securities and Exchange Commission's 2004 rule change allowing investment banks to increase the amount of debt they could take on their books—a move made at the request of the Gang of Five's CEOs. Before Lehman crashed, it had amassed more than $600 billion in debt. No partnership or private corporation could have accomplished that feat.

The shift to public ownership also replaced the accountability of partnerships—when there are no profits, there are no partner bonuses—with the dangerous fecklessness of public boards. In theory, boards are supposed to oversee the activities of CEOs. In practice, they act as expensive rubber stamps. "These companies had board members who either weren't paying attention or, at Lehman in particular, were deliberately selected because they were unqualified or out of it," says John Gillespie, a former investment banker at Lehman and Bear ­Stearns and co-author of the new book <snip> Gillespie notes that in 2008, Lehman's compensation committee included actress Dina Merrill, an heiress to the E.F. Hutton fortune who was 85 years old.

By the time Lehman ended its 14-year run as a public company with a "bagel" (a stock worth zero), some $45 billion in shareholder value had been destroyed. Shareholders didn't do much better with the other four. Bear ­Stearns was rescued from bageldom when JPMorgan (JPM) bought it at a fire-sale price with the help of the Federal Reserve. Morgan Stanley and Goldman managed to remain independent and solvent, but only because huge subsidies were made available to them. In late January, Morgan Stanley's stock stood where it did in early 1998.

Shareholders may have suffered, but employees and executives didn't. At investment-­banking partnerships, compensation is contentious—epic brawls would take place each December as partners argued over bonuses. But they would take place in private, and the process essentially involved rich people taking money out of one another's pockets. Now it's a zero-sum game, with executives and employees essentially taking billions from shareholders.

The public—as aggrieved owners, taxpayers, and savers—has every right to question the banks' methods and practices. If they don't want us poking around their businesses, they can shrink their balance sheets, replace government-subsidized debt with market-rate debt, stop relying on the Federal Reserve for funding, and get out of our index funds. As film mogul Samuel Goldwyn once said: "Include me out!"

Daniel Gross is the Moneybox columnist for Slate and the business columnist for Newsweek."

 http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/moneybox/2010/01/29/gang-five-and-how-they-nearly-ruined-us?page=full

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent and Rebecca Lefort
Published: 9:00PM GMT 30 Jan 2010

Source Telegraph.co.uk

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.

It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC's report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

Sceptics have seized upon the mistakes to cast doubt over the validity of the IPCC and have called for the panel to be disbanded.

This week scientists from around the world leapt to the defence of the IPCC, insisting that despite the errors, which they describe as minor, the majority of the science presented in the IPCC report is sound and its conclusions are unaffected.

But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC's use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report's authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: "These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.

"Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.

"There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense."

The IPCC report, which is published every six years, is used by government's worldwide to inform policy decisions that affect billions of people.

The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled "Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming".

It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.

The report also states that the section is intended to "assess studies that have been published since the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of observed changes and their effects".

But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.

The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change, appeared in Climbing magazine in 2002. It quoted anecdotal evidence from climbers of retreating glaciers and the loss of ice from climbs since the 1970s.

Mr Bowen said: "I am surprised that they have cited an article from a climbing magazine, but there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes."

The dissertation paper, written by professional mountain guide and climate change campaigner Dario-Andri Schworer while he was studying for a geography degree, quotes observations from interviews with around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps.

Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their axes and crampons.

The IPCC has faced growing criticism over the sources it used in its last report after it emerged the panel had used unsubstantiated figures on glacial melting in the Himalayas that were contained within a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report.

It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports.

One claim, which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article on the WWF website.

In fact the data contained within the WWF article originated from a paper published in 2004 in the respected journal Nature.

In another example a WWF paper on forest fires was used to illustrate the impact of reduced rainfall in the Amazon rainforest, but the data was from another Nature paper published in 1999.

When The Sunday Telegraph contacted the lead scientists behind the two papers in Nature, they expressed surprise that their research was not cited directly but said the IPCC had accurately represented their work.

The chair of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has faced mounting pressure and calls for his resignation amid the growing controversy over the error on glacier melting and use of unreliable sources of information.

A survey of 400 authors and contributors to the IPCC report showed, however, that the majority still support Mr Pachauri and the panel's vice chairs. They also insisted the overall findings of the report are robust despite the minor errors.

But many expressed concern at the use of non-peer reviewed information in the reports and called for a tightening of the guidelines on how information can be used.

The Met Office, which has seven researchers who contributed to the report including Professor Martin Parry who was co-chair of the working group responsible for the part of the report that contained the glacier errors, said: "The IPCC should continue to ensure that its review process is as robust and transparent as possible, that it draws only from the peer-reviewed literature, and that uncertainties in the science and projections are clearly expressed."

Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC's latest report, added: "The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.

"It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives."

The IPCC failed to respond to questions about the inclusion of unreliable sources in its report but it has insisted over the past week that despite minor errors, the findings of the report are still robust and consistent with the underlying science."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

Mother Nature already had it under control .... without global taxation OR Cap & Trade.

___________

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 10:58AM GMT 29 Jan 2010

Source Telegraph.co.uk

"The research by scientists at the American weather service found water vapour high in the atmosphere is far more influential on world temperatures than previously thought.

During the 1990s one third of the increase in global temperatures was due to an increase in water vapour. In the same way a drop in water vapour after 2000 could explain the recent slowdown in global warming.

The researchers insist their findings do not mean that global warming is not caused by man made greenhouse gases. But the effect of natural water vapour high up in the air may also be having an effect.

The research comes amid fears global warming has been exaggerated. The United Nations’ climate science panel the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted last week that it made a mistake by claiming that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

It followed another row surrounding the science behind climate change, dubbed “Climategate”, when it was alleged leaked emails showed scientists at the University of East Anglia were willing to manipulate climate change data.

The new research by US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is published in the journal Science, one of the most respected in the world.

Susan Solomon, who led the research and worked on the IPCC, said climate scientists need to take into account the effect of water vapour high in the atmosphere when studying global warming.

“Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapour near the surface. But this is different — it’s a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn’t expect,”

Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, said the research does not change the long term trend of warming caused by man made greenhouse gases. But it does show how water vapour in the stratosphere is also affecting temperature."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7101004/Water-vapour-is-a-major-cause-of-global-warming-and-cooling-find-scientists.html

"New Jersey Firm Recalls Instant Noodle Products Imported from an Unapproved Source
 
Recall Release CLASS II RECALL
FSIS-RC-007-2010 HEALTH RISK: LOW

Source USDA

"January 27, 2010 - Well Luck Co., Inc., a Jersey City, N.J., establishment, is recalling approximately 50,000 pounds of instant noodle products that were ineligible for import to the U.S., the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

Well Luck Co., Inc., is recalling the instant noodle products because they do not meet product inspection or exemption requirements for poultry, beef, and pork. The foreign inspection system of the country where the beef, poultry, and pork ingredients originated, China, has not been deemed to be equivalent as required by federal regulations.

The following product is subject to recall: [Sample Recall Labels] (PDF Only)
Cases of 12 packages containing five 110g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Stew Beef Flavour.” Each package bears a use by date of 10/5/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42894.
Cases of 12 packages containing five 112g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Stew Pork Flavour.” Each package bears a use by date of 10/8/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42895.
Cases of 12 packages containing five 110g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Spicy Beef Flavour.” Each package bears a use by date of 10/8/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42896.
Cases of 12 packages containing five 110g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Spicy Beef Flavour.” Each package bears a use by date of 10/8/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42896.
Cases of 12 packages containing five 110g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Spicy Hot Beef Flavour.” Each package bears a use by date of 10/8/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42897.
Cases containing 18 143g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Korean Style, Stew Beef Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/9/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42903.
Cases containing 18 143g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Korean Style, Stew Pork Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/9/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42904.
Cases containing 18 141g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Korean Style, Spicy Beef Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/9/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42905.
Cases containing 18 140g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Korean Style, Mushroom Chicken Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/12/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42936.
Cases containing 12 116g-bowls of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Stew Beef Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/9/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42920.
Cases containing 12 116g-bowls of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Stew Pork Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 9/28/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42921.
Cases containing 12 119g-bowls of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Stew Pork Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/9/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42922.
Cases containing 12 110g-bowls of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Mushroom Chicken Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/9/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42919.
Cases containing 12 83g-cups of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Stew Beef Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/10/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42934.
Cases containing 12 86g-cups of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Stew Pork Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/10/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42933.
Cases containing 12 83g-cups of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Spicy Pork Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/10/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42932.

The problem was discovered after FSIS identified the products in the marketplace. The instant noodle products were distributed to retail establishments nationwide. FSIS has received no reports of illness as a result of consuming these products.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact company coordinator, Shany Chang, at (201) 434-1177 ext. 141.

FSIS works with other federal agencies to ensure the safety of imported meat, poultry and processed egg products. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service issues import permits based on animal health considerations, specific to a country or region. Customs and Border Protection provides oversight of all products entering the United States.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.  

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_007_2010_Release/index.asp

Can't blame this one on Bush.

"Zero Private-Sector Jobs Created In Past 11 Years

By Jed Graham   

I"t’s been pretty widely discussed that the past decade was a lost one for job creation. But focusing on private payrolls alone would also wipe out nearly all of the employment gains from 1999, among the better years on record.

Next Friday’s employment report comes with an annual benchmark revision that the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated would erase 855,000 private jobs (and add 31,000 government jobs).

Subtract that from the seasonally adjusted December payroll number of 108.44 million and that would leave just 107.59 million private payroll jobs. That’s the least since January 1999, when there were 107.40 million. ..........."

http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politics/1250-zero-private-sector-jobs-created-in-past-11-years

Live links for reference.

________

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/28/state-of-the-union-fact-check/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Cato-at-liberty+%28Cato+at+Liberty%29

January 28, 2010 Posted by Paul at 12:22 PM

Source Powerlineblog.com

"During the oral argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Seth Waxman, the former Solicitor General of the United States who was representing John McCain and other campaign finance law sponsors, asserted that the plaintiffs' position was contrary to the thrust of more than 50 years of Supreme Court precedent. Justice Alito said that this argument -- or "sound bite," as he characterized it -- is "perplexing." He noted that the issue before the Court was merely the validity of two precedents that don't date back that far.

Justice Alito's concern turned out to be prescient when, in his State of the Union address, President Obama (Mr. Sound Bite, himself) claimed that the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections." Even Waxman had not made this claim at oral argument, although Solicitor General Kagan and Justice Sotomayor threw the number 100 around in this connection.

Last night, Justice Alito reportedly responded to Obama's sound bite by quietly saying something like "that's not true." Alito was right at least two levels. First, as noted above and as Linda Greenhouse acknowledges, Citizens United did not disturb any principles that date back 100 years.

Second, as Shannen Coffin points out, the decision in Citizens United is quite clear that it does not address whether the government can regulate improper foreign influence over our electoral process. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy stated: "We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process."

Presidents should feel free to criticize important Supreme Court decisions with which they disagree. It's bad form, however, to do so at an event where Justices are in attendance by invitation. And it is unconscionable to do so by blatantly misrepresenting what the Court has said.

It also seems like bad politics. It's understandable that Obama wants to pose as a populist, although he's not terribly convincing in the role. But the Supreme Court isn't a bank or an insurance company; it's a reasonably respected institution, as branches of government go. Moreover, Obama and his writers must have known they would be called on his misrepresentation of the Citizens United decision. Nor is it likely that the Court's swing voter, Justice Kennedy (author of the decision) was amused.

I'm pleased that Justice Alito did not wait around for bloggers and media fact checkers to discover that Obama's statements about the decision are false. Now the president has a reason, other than the apparently insufficient one of good manners, not to attack the Supreme Court when its Justices are present.

JOE adds the videotape:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025479.php

You decide.

_______________

"Certain Fascist Affinities

By Jeffrey Kuhner
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/11/certain-fascist-affinities/
July 11, 2009

"Soviet dictator Josef Stalin achieved one of the greatest propaganda victories of the 20th century. He convinced the West's political and intellectual class that communism and fascism are polar opposites. In fact, the very opposite is true: fascism is a variant of left-wing ideology. Marxism and Nazism are political twins, offshoots of totalitarian socialism.

Admittedly, this insight is not mine. Rather, it is that of National Review's Jonah Goldberg, whose brilliant book, "Liberal Fascism," has just been issued in paperback. Mr. Goldberg's central thesis is that, contrary to leftist myth, there is no such thing as "right-wing fascism."

During its golden age in the 1930s, fascism was widely viewed as a "progressive" ideology that championed economic modernization, active social welfare policies and the Leviathan state. Italian strongman Benito Mussolini and German dictator Adolf Hitler were self-proclaimed men of the left. Both leaders understood that fascism was a form of revolutionary socialism.

What differentiated Hitlerism from Bolshevism was its blood-and-soil ultra-nationalism and emphasis on the primacy of race.

Moreover, fascists sought to tether the private sector to statist social engineering. Fascism competed with Marxist-Leninism to be the successor to parliamentary democracy and capitalism -- widely viewed as moribund.

The only real opponent of fascism has been conservatism, which champions small government, free markets, Judeo-Christian civilization and individual rights. It's no accident Hitler's greatest foe was British Tory Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Both Hitler and Mussolini were national socialists. They were militant pagans hostile to Christianity, religious orthodoxy and tradition. They believed in the cult of personality, mass propaganda and the pseudo-spiritual transformational nature of politics: charismatic leadership as a means of fulfilling people's deepest aspirations. They glorified the state, as well as the subordination of the individual and the family to the collective. They created a corporatist economy that combined big business, big labor and big government. They emphasized the nationalization of key industries, redistribution of wealth, massive public works projects and trade protectionism. They established a so-called "social safety net" through national health care, unemployment insurance and government pensions. They erected a cradle-to-grave welfare state.

Fascist social policy was so popular that President Franklin Roosevelt incorporated much of it in the New Deal.

Embarrassed by the horrors of World War II and Auschwitz, the West's liberal elite disowned Hitler and then falsely portrayed him as a reactionary right-winger.

Yet fascism's leftist heritage cannot be denied. It explains Mr. Obama's relentless consolidation of power. He is America's most radical president. At his core, Mr. Obama is a liberal fascist, fusing statism with postmodern multiculturalism.

During his first six months in office, he has expanded government power to an extent unimaginable even a year ago. He is spending hundreds of billions on infrastructure projects. He has nationalized banks, the financial sector and the auto industry. His regulatory policies represent an unprecedented intervention in the economy. He wants to nationalize health care. He supports the House-passed climate bill, which would impose the largest tax increase in U.S. history, enforce crushing environmental mandates on business and industry, and transform America into a "green" economy.

In short, Mr. Obama is slowly erecting a corporatist state that will solidify one-party liberal rule for generations.

Mr. Obama has fostered a cult of personality -- achieving almost mystical celebrity status among his supporters. During his presidential campaign, he constantly put forth a quasi-religious conception of his candidacy and movement: "We are the ones we've been waiting for." To many of his backers, Mr. Obama was simply "The One," a political messiah who at mass rallies often induced crying and hysteria.

Fascists have celebrated racialism and ethnic chauvinism; Mr. Obama's liberal fascism is no different -- except, it has morphed into postmodern identity politics. Take his Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is an unabashed racialist, who believes in Hispanic cultural supremacy. She also embraces the pernicious doctrine of "inherent physiological and cultural differences" among groups. For her, race, ethnicity and gender trump a common American heritage.

Under Mr. Obama's fascist regime, it is not Jews, Slavs or Gypsies who are murdered, but unborn babies. He is an extreme pro-choice supporter, even opposing the ban on partial-birth abortion. He has vowed to eventually pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify legalized abortion and dismantle all restrictions.

Mr. Obama is not a Hitler or a Mussolini. He is not a crypto-dictator. Nor does he believe in an authoritarian police state or territorial expansionism. But Hitler and Mussolini were men of a different age, time and national culture; their fascism was distinctly German and Italian.

Mr. Obama's fascism is uniquely American. His revolution is not of blood and iron, but of pork and bailouts. His fascism is a potent mix of incremental socialism, messianic liberalism and puritanical environmentalism. It is not the crude militarism of the jackboot but the sugar-coated, forced spoon-feeding of the nanny state.

It may be softer, more civilized and sophisticated. But it is just as destructive to economic freedom and individual liberty."

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and the President of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Certain%20Fascist%20Affinities.html