Geoff > Status Update

And Jack Johnson. Definitely his best period, as far as I can see. I need to get Silent Way.

So back to how Trump is a giant, colossal dick - look how he's handling this "all ambassadors must resign by my inauguration" shit - shows zero understanding of ambassadorship, confirmation processes, or how important it is to have people representing us in so many places worldwide. Just partisan dickishness. More evidence he is a middle school-level intellect operating out of ignorant resentment of everything related to Obama. Can I repeat it? If you supported him, no matter what you think of yourself, part of you is a fucking jerk.

Geoff wrote: "So back to how Trump is a giant, colossal dick"

Since the E College didn't do its job ;; here's hoping the International Community will refuse to recognize his presidency ("you guys gotta do that election thing again and get it right this time"). North Korea comparisons appropriate here.

Geoff wrote: " If you supported him, no matter what you think of yourself, part of you is a fucking jerk."

Why do bad things happen to good people? How do decent folk do colossally evil things?

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Geoff wrote: " If you supported him, no matter what you think of yourself, part of you is a fucking jerk."

Why do bad things happen to good people? How do decent folk do colossally evil things?"

By being morons.

I've been corresponding with this boy in prison for the past few months. He recently opened up to me about the details of his case. This prompted me to do a little research into the state of our legal system to see if he has any options. The short answer seems to be no, none whatsoever. The right to legal defense has already pretty much been gutted in large parts of this country.

I don't think the situation was likely to improve much under Clinton, but it's almost certain to get worse under Trump. I feel like the whole war on the underclass is likely to intensify to the point where it's impossible to speak of American society as a coherent entity at all.

Since the election I've clung to the hope that maybe a Trump presidency could serve as a wake up call & help radicalize the opposition. I don't know. Maybe it could happen. Bottom line, though, this country is going to really, really fucking suck when that man gets through with it.

q: why do bad things happen to good people?
a: the electoral college (stephen colbert)

Wow. I was expecting some discussion of the golden shower routine our dear leader requested in Russia.

Make America Great Again: Help the Donald put a little lemon on his lips.

Piss pig!!

I approve.

Speaking with Samuel Delany on a panel on 'transgressive sexuality' at the New School.

James wrote: "Wow. I was expecting some discussion of the golden shower routine our dear leader requested in Russia."

I am very suspicious about #watersportgate. It looks to me like another Trump diversionary tactic - get everyone talking about sex rumors so that he can avoid discussion of how he's stuffing his cabinet with Putin sympathizers, only pretending to relinquish control of his businesses, definitely not releasing his tax returns (which he earlier said he would do) etc etc.

We may well find that the sex tapes actually never existed, and then he'll triumphantly say it's all fake news from the liberals. And if they do exist, who cares? It would be nice if more people pissed on Trump, but it's not important.

Maybe he's a Goldwater Republican after all.

Ha!

It is disheartening how little self-awareness some people on the left have shown over this. One month it's all "oh those idiots on the right believing in all these conspiracies when there's no concrete proof of anything!"... and then the next month it's "Buzzfeed claims that this is the unverified and unsubstantiated claim allegedly mentioned without endorsement by intelligence agents as having been allegedly made by an anonymous investigator paid by the clinton campaign based on what was reported to them by an unknown source of unknown reliability allegedly somewhere in Russia, regarding what that source allegedly believed that other Russians claimed to have done... so it MUST be true!"

Don't get me wrong, it could be true. If I were a betting man, yes, I'd rather put money on this than on the various Clinton accusations. But at this stage there is literally not a shred of evidence for any of it. It's only one level above "well my friend heard from their friend who heard from their friend who knows someone who works at the grocery store that trump's butler's nanny gets her food from..."

Wastrel wrote: "It is disheartening how little self-awareness some people on the left have shown over this. One month it's all "oh those idiots on the right believing in all these conspiracies when there's no conc..."

Exactly. It would be nice to believe it, but the evidence is flimsy and there is at least one clear mistake (Alpha/Alfa) that no one can explain. It could very easily be a fabrication.

My personal feeling is that much of the substance is true, but this particular thing is a black op designed to discredit similar accusations against Trump/Putin.

https://youtu.be/B584usTRc6g

Splish Splash!

Well, personally I hope it's true, I'll just say that.

On a more lighthearted note, Verso is offering a special deal on all its Marx and Marx-related titles, 40% off, through this Sunday.

As comrade Geoff said earlier on this thread, now is a great time for a new generation of Marxists to spring up

http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3041-...

Manny wrote: "Wastrel wrote: "It is disheartening how little self-awareness some people on the left have shown over this. One month it's all "oh those idiots on the right believing in all these conspiracies when..."

I'm afraid that seems equally naive to me. It's nice to believe that Trump is an evil genius, but come on. The man couldn't organise a piss up in a hang on that might not be the best analogy today, let alone an international conspiracy staged six months in advance. Nixon couldn't do that, and Nixon was a darn sight smarter than Trump.

Wastrel wrote: "I'm afraid that seems equally naive to me. It's nice to believe that Trump is an evil genius, but come on. The man couldn't organise a piss up in a hang on that might not be the best analogy today, let alone an international conspiracy staged six months in advance. Nixon couldn't do that, and Nixon was a darn sight smarter than Trump."

But if this is what happened, I'm sure it wasn't planned or executed by Trump. It would have been a Russian operation - they'd find it very easy to create fake kompromat which could later be discredited. You wouldn't need to be an evil genius to do it, just a competent FSB controller.

Trump has mild dementia, I am positive of it.

Yeah, it's kinda just wishful thinking that it's true, but still, who can resist getting in on this, it's too much fun - finally found a performer for the inauguration:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/gslu5d/...

Finally find something we like about Rump and they tell us it ain't true.

I don't see why do you fear a war. A second cold war seems unlikely with trump as president, since he doesn't see Russia as "the enemy".

No, he just may be being blackmailed by Putin from a sex tape.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slates...

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the sex tape is some kind of false information. Short of actually taking part in a snuff movie, I don't see that people would care enough. Plenty of material has already come out showing that Trump is a pig, and it's made no real difference.

I think Putin's hold on Trump is something else. The most obvious candidate is money.

Daniele wrote: "I don't see why do you fear a war. A second cold war seems unlikely with trump as president, since he doesn't see Russia as "the enemy"."

Because war is how dictators consolidate their power. ISIS will hit us soon after Trump's inauguration, he'll respond with extreme force. I'd put money down that we'll be in a new ground war in the Middle East before summer.

Manny wrote: "The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the sex tape is some kind of false information. Short of actually taking part in a snuff movie, I don't see that people would care enough. Pl..."

One of the truest things Trump ever said is that he could shoot someone in the street in Times Square and not lose any support from his followers. A piss tape? They'd like him more. Paul Ryan would pass around a bucket.

Geoff wrote: "Because war is how dictators consolidate their power. ISIS will hit us soon after Trump's inauguration, he'll respond with extreme force. I'd put money down that we'll be in a ground war in the Middle East before summer."

After seeing what's happened recently in Syria, I'm not so sure. If Russia and the US just do all-out, kill-everyone bombing raids, they may be able to win that way. The argument will be that it gets results and Russia will do it anyway, so why not join in? And hey, if you're married to a terrorist, or the child of a terrorist, or in a hospital also used by the wives and children of terrorists, you had it coming.

Manny wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Because war is how dictators consolidate their power. ISIS will hit us soon after Trump's inauguration, he'll respond with extreme force. I'd put money down that we'll be in a ground ..."

Actually that's a good point

Hard to say if any of that info is completely legit since its derived from oppo research. It's been floating around for a long time and they thought it was important enough to have a 2 page synopsis at hand when they briefed Trump and Obama.

It will be interesting to see what does get released once Trump and Putin have their inevitable falling out. Both are thin skinned egomaniacs so it's just a matter of time.

Manny wrote: "And hey, if you're married to a terrorist, or the child of a terrorist, or in a hospital also used by the wives and children of terrorists, you had it coming. "

This already happens. American war tactics in Afghanistan and northwestern tribal Pakistan have followed this logic for almost a decade now. What's the big deal if Trump ups the ante and spreads it around?

Drones have attacked people on the ground for "behaving like militants" and if there are people around the "target," they are considered "belligerents" and taken out with the "target." The "belligerents" might be their wives and children, extended family, drivers, cooks, servants etc. Or Medecins Sans Frontieres hospital in Afghanistan that was bombed "by mistake" because there were too many militants inside the building reportedly seeking medical treatment to let them go. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34...

This is worth reading: Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan

Sorry Jibran... as you say, the ground has been prepared, people already accept this to quite a large extent. Though I still think I see a substantial quantitative difference between Afghanistan and Aleppo, things have escalated.

Thanks, Jibran... the whole drone campaign is deeply shameful and outrageous.

In the US the possibility of a principled left-wing critique of Obama often gets lost amid all the racist drivel and paranoid conspiracy theories coming from the right. I don't know if it's a similar situation in other countries.

Right now there's this great article in n + 1 about Obama's legacy. The author is good deal more nuanced than, say, Cornel West, but ultimately arrives at similar conclusions.

https://nplusonemag.com/issue-27/poli...

Jibran is right; this ain't new.

By the way, Trump just appointed an end-times rapturist to head the CIA. Read up on Pompeo. The light just gets dimmer.

Did you guys see Le Pen was in Trump tower today?

Jonathan wrote: "Did you guys see Le Pen was in Trump tower today?"

Yep! Things keep getting better and better!

This makes Trump Tower look like Orthanc or the like...

Bloodorange wrote: "This makes Trump Tower look like Orthanc or the like..."

Putin = Sauron, Trump = Saruman, but where are the ents when we need them?

Jibran, Anyone track down these folks yet? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/act...

David wrote: "Right now there's this great article in n + 1 about Obama's legacy"

Great article. Thanks for linking, David. To be fair it would have been impossible for Obama to realise his dreams by identifying himself with the anti-imperial left, even if in his early he days he appeared to be tempted by it. The narrative that he weaved around his racial identity and upbringing in a Perfecting America was perhaps the only way for him to justify his aspirations for the highest office in the land.

His presidency, serious intellectuals on the left have critiqued it from the start. I remember Tariq Ali's devastating analysis of his first two years in office in The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad (2010) who concluded with calling him the President of Can't. Obama has steadily lost ground and abandoned initiative ever since.

James wrote: "Jibran, Anyone track down these folks yet? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/act..."

They are most likely being held by the agencies, but no one has acknowledged it yet. The civilian government is bitterly criticised in the media and by the civil society, but they would not dare to jail activists and deny us the explanation. The reason given in the report is not correct. Pro-secular, anti-conservative, and minority rights activism doesn't get you into trouble today. The real reason has been a few social media sites (administered by at least two of the disappeared) where, besides legitimate criticisms, extremely anti-religious and hateful (for some blasphemous) material was posted regularly. Tbh, I had long feared it might end in tears but I'm hoping they are found and released safely.

David wrote: "n + 1"

That's an excellent article, thanks. Maybe I should subscribe. That or Jacobin. Or both.

Jibran wrote: "David wrote: "Right now there's this great article in n + 1 about Obama's legacy"

Great article. Thanks for linking, David. To be fair it would have been impossible for Obama to realise his dreams..."

At home, Obama has been castrated since 2010, and much of his time before that was devoted to Obamacare and saving the economy from collapse.

Since the Republicans took over, Obama's only really had a free(ish) hand in foreign policy and security policy. In both of those areas he's prosecuted a coherent and radical programme of reform (barring one disastrous hesitation over Syria).

Now, people on the right may not like, for instance, his negotiations with Iran or normalisation with Cuba. And people on the left certainly may not like, for instance, his creation of death squads operated without judicial oversight and in circumvention of the rule of law, his clampdown on civil liberties and his undermining of basic liberal-democratic principles that are meant to safeguard the rights of the public (by, for instance, instructing police officers to perjure themselves to avoid revealing that evidence was obtained illegally). Or, indeed, his escalation of the terror-bombing of civilians, or his continuation of indefinite detention without trial.

But it's hardly fair to call him "the president of can't". Within the fairly narrow parameters of his constitutional powers (and in some cases arguably beyond them), he's been a pretty active president, and reasonably successfull in implementing his own ideological objectives.

Wastrel wrote: "Jibran wrote: "David wrote: "Right now there's this great article in n + 1 about Obama's legacy"

Great article. Thanks for linking, David. To be fair it would have been impossible for Obama to rea..."

This comment starts out in the same way I was going to comment, Wastrel. I'll just add that as soon as Obama took office, the Republican leadership let it be known quite openly that their top priority was to make his presidency a complete failure.

Unfortunately he didn't see how serious they were about that, and tried to compromise with them to fulfill his ideal of being a "unifying" president. But immediately, with the rise of the Tea Party, and the loss of the House majority he had for two years only - from then on, he lost control of the agenda. (It hardly needs to be pointed out that there was a component of the opposition to him which was undoubtedly racist.)

But then I got to the second sentence of your penultimate paragraph. What you state here is extraordinary. It seems worded in such an inflammatory manner, I'm really not sure what is being referred to in much if it. And there's an implication that somehow Obama himself was personally telling people to perjure themselves etc etc. You make him sound like a Nazi, which certainly puts you in agreement with some of his extreme right wing critics. (Needless to say, from the way I'm expressing myself, I disagree.)

Well, there were three things there.

- death squads. It's believed, and has not been denied, that the government has created assassination teams for targets other than Bin Laden. But more generally, this function is usually performed by drones - and they don't stop being death squads when their weapon has a long range. Are these death squads? Well, the administration openly talks of having a "kill list", and using its drones to kill the people on the list. How do you get on the list? Well, the military and the intelligence services can put people on the list. Notably, you don't have to be accused of any crime to be on the list. Your placement on the list cannot be appealed, and there is no advocate to plead your case. Going on the list doesn't require a warrant or any other sort of oversight from a judge. The President reserves the right to personally put people on the kill-list. Bush also had a kill list, but the Republican version required dual oversight of the list by both the Pentagon and the NSC; Obama stripped out that level of protection, making him and John Brennan the only people who get to decide on the list. For targets currently located in Pakistan, even the President's approval is not needed, only Brennan's. It is now the case that many of the killings are not even based on specific intelligence. A large proportion of them are based purely on the recommendations of an AI that analyses phone network contacts (without the content of calls or texts, just their existence and duration and the location of the phone) to guess whether people are enemies of the state or not.

This kill list includes US citizens, and, again, these citizens are not even charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime, and there is no judicial oversight, or even an internal right of appeal. Lawyers for the White House have clarified that if the President, or any senior executive official, believes a US citizen is an enemy of the state, the government has the legal right to kill them. Eric Holder has clarified that the government no longer believes that people accused of certain crimes have a right to a "judicial process" prior to punishment, although they still require appropriate "due process". The form of that due process is to be determined solely by the President - neither the judiciary nor the legislature have any role in deciding who the President can punish, nor for what reasons, nor with what punishment.

The President can and does order the killing of US citizens without any judicial process. This is, by definition, extrajudicial killing. When applied to citizens of other states, the UN has described Obama's actions as war crimes.

And is it going to stop? The administration has clarified that they do not see extrajudicial killing as a reaction to the war on terror specifically, but that they see it as an effectively permanent part of government in the future, for an "indefinite" length of time, and that they intend to continue to expand the number of people on the death list.


The second thing I said was an erosion of civil liberties. Well, Obama has created the largest and most intrusive surveillance state in history. As we now know, intelligence agencies routinely monitor phone and internet use of millions of US citizens, most of whom have never been accused of or even suspected of any crime. They have even been revealed to do things like hijacking personal webcams to watch people - all without a warrant. They have continued to do these things even when ordered to stop by judges. They have, on the administration's orders, lied about these things to Congress.

We're not talking "spies on a few terrorists" here. The NSA records all e-mails, word for word, and keeps records of all phone calls, permanently (although I don't think they have the content of all calls, just the metadata). Bush, under the Patriot Act, massively increased his ability to obtain "relevant" information without warrants. Obama's administration has redefined "relevant" that to mean effectively all information - that's not a conspiracy theory, that's according to Democrat members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Of course, we don't know exactly what powers the government has, because they've prevented any discussion of it, including in courts, on national security grounds. only the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has the right to know what the government considers the law to be exactly. And the FISC is entirely opaque, not accountable to the legislature or the public, and is now not even accountable to the Supreme Court. Yes, the government has decided that some court cases cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court.

And regarding perjury: the administration gives information illegally obtained through the surveillance programmes to ordinary police forces to help them solve non-terrorist crimes. Because this is illegal, the administration has ordered the police to lie in court about the source of their information. To protect the police from FOI requests relating to illegal searches, the administration has claimed ownership of the records and sealed them for national security reasons, even when they relate to minor crimes. The government is even now loaning equipment to conduct illegal searches to local police forces. The government even uses illegal surveillance to pursue minor tax cases! The use of surveillance, without warrants, for law enforcement now far outstrips its original use to fight terrorism.



I don't think anything I've said here is particularly controversial; there seems to be broad bipartisan agreement on what the situation is, more or less. And I think it's clear that it's an unprecedented change in the relation between the government and the citizen.

And I think that more people on the left might have objected to some of this if they weren't immediately labelled as "in agreement with some of his extreme right wing critics". Instead, the Left complained about the baby version of this stuff for eight years under Bush... and then suddenly fell silent for eight years under Obama, even though Obama has reversed none of Bush's power grabs and in several areas gone much, much further. But it's OK, because now that apparatus is in Trump's hands, and suddenly it's OK to be worried about it again...

[No, I don't think Obama has personally supervised every instance of the erosion of civil liberties. But he is responsible for his administration, and he has set the tone that his administration has followed, and in the case of much of the above he has personally defended it.]

@Wastrel, right on. You continue to surprise and enlighten me, my friend.

howl of minerva wrote: "David wrote: "n + 1"

That's an excellent article, thanks. Maybe I should subscribe. That or Jacobin. Or both."

You know I'm definitely going to vote Jacobin. They're such a plucky, dedicated band of socialists.

Are the Jacobins standing for election? Wouldn't surprise me, I guess. Plenty of people would fall over themselves to vote for Robespierre these days. "Fight terror with Terror!" could be the Jacobin slogan...

Trump, on the other hand, is clearly more of a Jacobite.

If the Dems run Cory Booker in 2020, I am writing in Robespierre.