Funny Political Comic

Spoof: Arlen Specter Announces His Defection From the Human Race

Today Senator Arlen Specter formerly of the great state of Pennsylvania, Earth, the United States, announced his permanent removal from the ranks of global citizens, homo sapiens, and residents of the red-blooded patriotic U.S. of A. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, commenting on Specter’s extrication from the greater human community had this to say, “We in the red states always knew their was something different about Arlen, now that the truth is out and we know that Arlen is a star child, a product of the galactic nether worlds, we can surely put that baby to rest.” In explaining what led up to his decision, the post-human senator, Specter stated, “Increasingly the philosophy of the whole of humanity is becoming extreme, and out of step with nearly my entire system of thought. I realized it was time to out myself as a little green person, and not a natural born resident of this, the third planet from this solar system’s great sun.”

Vice President Biden credited his fortitude and encouragement with having inspired Specter to divulge that he was not really a part of the human race. “It’s been a long time coming really”, said Biden. “They don’t call me the third senator from Pennsylvania for naught! I knew that Arlen wasn’t from Scranton, or any place else in my boyhood state, he had to have come from the ether, sent to us by the cosmos, the heavens above.” Barack Obama added, “It was important to have intelligent non-human biological entities in the United States Senate, and he’d be looking forward to working on health care reform and other critically important issues to the American people, with the ex-human senator in the days ahead.” A spokesman for the beltway lobbying group AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) said this, about Sen. Specter’s defection, “As long as he’s with Israel, first and foremost [before the United States] we don’t care if he’s from Venus and has purple polka dots all over his face.”

Obama, in concluding his comments on Specter’s admission, stated, “This is what we’re talking about when we’re talking about change, not only changing policy and national priorities, but changing the composition of the U.S. Senate so that it more accurately reflects the diverse array of characteristics that make up that which is the essence of the citizenry of the United States.” Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader in the Senate, also in attendance at the bipartisan event, made the closing remarks, “Arlen being a Klingon, or whatever the heck he is, will, of course, never be able to attain the high office of the United States President; we in Washington, however, look forward to having him continue to serve the American oligarchy er people in the venerable United States Congress.” Although Specter is not a human, or a native of this planet; he is expected to be backed by the President and Vice President, immunizing the Senior Senator from Pennsylvania from a primary challenger, and, indeed, the will of the voters of the great Keystone State.

More Rhetoric, Very Little Substance Coming from Obama at the Summit of the Americas

The man who says everything he can so as not to upset anyone, once again spoke quite adeptly, but proposed very little that is concrete or tangible to give much merit or believability to the lion’s share of what he said. At the Summit of the Americas, Obama dismissed remarks (about U.S. intervention in Central America) made by Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega, who was also president of Nicaragua in the 1980’s; when Ronald Reagan supported the Contras and aided and abetted attacks on schools, and hospitals, and supported the mining of Nicaragua’s harbors (not to mention supported death squads in other Central American nations as well); stating blithely, “I am very grateful that President Ortega didn’t blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

Moreover, Obama appeared ill-informed and under prepared when he denied it was the policy of the U.S. government to support the violent overthrow of the elected governments of other nations in the hemisphere; particularly when much was made (by the corporate media) of the announcement, made by the Venezuelan government, that they are planning to reappoint an ambassador to the United States (of course no mention was made in the corporate press of why Venezuela recalled its ambassador to the U.S., in the first place, which was because of U.S. support for forces in Bolivia that were using violence against the democratically elected leader of that country, Evo Morales). Obama, instead of boldly advancing the idea that he would be turning over a new leaf in Latin America (and actually treating Latin American countries as sovereign, independent nations, instead of vassal peonages of neocolonialism and global empire), played down the meaning of his statements; which seemed to possibly foreshadow some kind of more robust, more recognizable policy change.

In his closing remarks at the Summit of the Americas, Obama, more than once, made reference to ’stale debates’ and ideology, coming between the United States and other nations in the hemisphere; indeed, Obama even went so far as to say that these differences can often be overcome, and that the U.S. and another nation (or other nations) can frequently come together to solve common concerns. It seems to me, that this brings to the forefront, the sticky subject of the oversized elephant that is alive and well in the living room (which is, of course, the U.S. embargo against Cuba), which is left in place precisely because of ’stale debates’ and adherence to anachronistic ideology! If such barriers to cooperation and mutual understanding don’t have to get between the United States and every other nation in the hemisphere, then why should they get in the way of the United States, and the insurgent, communist nation of Cuba? It makes not one shred of sense whatsoever, and Obama’s statements on this matter, appear inconsistent and lacking credibility to say the very least!

In another point made by Obama, also in his closing remarks from the Summit of the Americas, he cited the example of Cuban doctors being sent all over Latin America (for humanitarian assistance), as reason for the United States to have additional interactions with Latin American nations, that do not include dealings with the U.S. military, or participation in the War on Drugs. It’s interesting that Obama used Cuba as an example in making this point, because the U.S. government is allied with and gives material support to all manner of dictators that engage in no such humanitarian activities (like that which Cuba is involved in); and yet, our president, remains enthusiastically transfixed on keeping a tired, old, failed embargo, unaltered and persisting firmly in place! This embargo goes unchallenged (at least for the most part in Washington) because of ideological disagreements, and Cold War dogma that has no meaning in the realm of today’s global geopolitics. Obama should show more real substance in his administration’s Latin America policy, because, in its present state, it consists of a profusion rhetoric, and a lack of meaningful transformation and change. Obama may appear weak, and like a puppet of Latin America’s leftists to the far right-wing of the Republican Party, but to me he just seems like more of the same, with a new coat of varnish!

Obama: The Democratic-Republican Party Wins Again!

With Barack Obama’s rise and election to the presidency, it’s the same old corporatist story once again! In the two plus months since Obama has been president, it would appear that the Democratic-Republican party has retained firm control over all three branches of ‘our’ government! Since Obama’s election he’s shown that he’s no friend of progressives, those who are for social justice and human rights, ending the stranglehold of the military industrial complex on U.S. foreign policy, and wide-ranging substantive change in national politics and policy. In just a small sampling of Obama’s more disreputable acts (since taking over the office of the president), he tried to eliminate the advocates for single payer from the health care policy debate (a policy Obama once championed as an Illinois state legislator), he appointed the anti-Iran Israel lackey Dennis Ross (and certainly no man of peace) as a special envoy to the Middle East, and he’s embarking upon an escalation of the war in Afghanistan (proving he’s not an anti-war candidate and indeed never was, as he’s really always been against one front of the failed war on terror while supporting another front of that disastrous conflict).

Not only has Obama committed these dishonorable transgressions, but it’s also been reported that he’s admitted, to some like-minded conservative Democratic colleagues, that like them he is a New Democrat (a term associated with corporatism, a militaristic foreign policy, and support for big insurance, big pharma, the energy companies, Monsanto, Wall Street, and many other ill-intentioned groups and individuals). I’ve written before of the hollow, vapid meaning of the Obamian change slogan, but as more and more evidence mounts of this (with each passing day), the point cannot be reinforced enough! Obama had no intention of implementing a profound and socially just, substantive change agenda; he was simply referring to the same ideation of ‘change’ that other corporate ‘New’ Democrats (like Hillary Clinton, who he has of course brought into his administration), advocated during their presidential campaigns.

Progressives, having overwhelming supported Obama, and his enablers (congressional Democrats), seemingly have very few places left to turn (save perhaps the streets or permanent expatriation) now that Obama has been installed into the presidency (with their blessing). Had progressives forced Obama to bargain with them for their support, then perhaps we could be looking forward to the implementation of such progressive policies as single payer health insurance, the Employee Free Choice Act (which it looks as if Obama has left to wither), meaningful campaign finance and lobbying reform, a draw down (rather than an escalation) of the conflict in Afghanistan; you name any number of things that progressives could have bargained for with the wriggly Obama. If progressives had simply had the foresight to support a third party progressive (such as McKinney or Nader), and forced Obama to bring substantive proposals to them in order for him to gain their backing; then perhaps meaningful change could have occurred. Instead progressives seemed to have been wooed, by stump speeches, two books of memoirs, and flowery campaign rhetoric in coming around to support Obama’s decidedly unprogressive agenda. An agenda brought to us by a man who is more of a wordsmith, and an autobiographer than seemingly much else of any substance (at least anything positive), that’s at all worth mentioning.

Bipartisanship Smypartisanship

I had forgotten just how beastly the Republicans actually can be! They scared the hell out of me when they controlled all three branches of the government, and now that they are out of power they are even more bone-chillingly frightening (who would have thought it even possible that this could actually be!)! They seem to be competing for good standing with right-wing AM radio DJ’s, rather than the affinities of those (seemingly a decreasing number of people with each passing day) who voted them into their positions of office. These people are truly dead-enders (Michael Hudson brilliantly takes down their entire philosophy in this article), unyielding keepers of a flame that died out early on in George W. Bush’s second (s)election to the U.S. presidency (remember you guys you lost both houses of Congress and the White House, you know, that big white thing where burly guys in sunglasses stand at attention outside the doorway, and where, thanks to the voters aka those who also give you the authority to ’serve’ them in Congress, a Democrat and his family, now openly reside!).

I don’t like Obama (he may be an amiable guy to have over for crumpets and tea, but I’m referring to him, more importantly, in his dual roles as the leading U.S. politician and, at least theoretically, an agent for social change), but he seems to be fairly popular, and a majority of Americans seem to want to give him a chance to advance his agenda and policy prescriptions. The Republicans, however, don’t appear to be attuned to this at all (or don’t care even one little bitty iota) and seem to be committed to their usual special interest donors, and, more importantly, intent on fighting Barack Obama tooth and nail on nearly everything that he’d like to achieve (which is a very mild center-left/centrist, even moderate right agenda). The funny thing is that Obama coasted to an electoral victory over the tired, old, ideologically and intellectually bankrupt John McCain (and I can still remember the day when George W. Bush eked out a second term victory and thought he had garnered a vast swathe of political capital, lol, after barely scraping by the inept, non-starter John Kerry, and aided by suspected Ohio voting machine chicanery, he thought he was the second coming of Louis the fifteenth!).

The Republicans are red baiting and trying to scare the hell out of people, saying things like Obama’s program will sink the economy and bankrupt the treasury (where the hell have these people been the past eight years? their man Bush, already did precisely what it is that they are suggesting Obama’s policies will bring about and foster!). I think I understand the theory behind bipartisanship (that representatives from both parties have been elected by the people and therefore all should, according to this theory, work together to pursue the people’s collective agenda), however if some regions of this country are so naive and poorly informed as to elect irrational, high strung, short sighted, narrow minded, cold-hearted right-wing ghouls, thugs, and rapacious predators; then I say what other option do Obama and Congressional Democrats have then to cast aside these villainous ‘people’s representatives’, and work for things that benefit the majority of all the citizens of this great country!

The Republicans only want to work for the chemical industry (the polluting industries in general), Wall Street, billionaires and the extreme wealthy, lobbyists, credit card companies (avaricious financial organizations in general), all of their recognizable rapacious, myopic special interest ‘betters’! I personally don’t think all these interests are out of the mix with Obama either (he and the Democrats have plenty of the same and and even more puppeteers and special interest ear whisperers behind the curtain as well), but the Republicans are scared to death, nonetheless, for their disreputable marching order givers; and they will raise a great fury (at the expense of the majority of Americans and the voters who put them in power), if the deep pockets behind their ignoble agenda are not given enough power and influence in creating the forthcoming itinerary that takes shape in Washington. If who the Republicans represent, and what they are fundamentally about, are who and what Barack Obama wants to give an ear to (and to give a seat at the table), then I say he should, by all means, make every effort to pursue a bipartisan agenda. But if democracy, human rights, social justice, and creating an economy that works for the many (instead of the few) mean anything to Congressional Democrats and POTUS Obama; then I say they should eschew bipartisanship, for an agenda that more closely meets the needs of those that voted them into high political office!

WTF are ‘U.S. Interests’?

Obama, Hillary, Biden, etc., when they speak about U.S. foreign policy are always bandying about the term ‘U.S. interests’. This raises the question just what are these interests and who defines what it is, exactly, that they specifically are? I ask this question because, in my opinion, U.S. interests should be one and the same with the interests of the human community (if I can be so bold as to entertain such a concept) in general. It seems to me that some of these interests should include, peace, justice, an equitable distribution of wealth, human rights, and individuals (and groups) having the ability to have a meaningful say in the policies and practices taken up in their name (by their leaders and governments).

I don’t think this is what Hillary, Obama, Biden, et. al. mean when they refer to what it is that they define as ‘U.S. interests’. When they (and other vaunted ‘leaders’) refer to so-called U.S. interests they are talking about a paternalistic idea of what the U.S. wants another nation (or other nations in general) and its citizens to do. They are referring to the ways in which they want a nation’s (or multiple nations) citizens and leaders to think and act. If we, as a nation (and our leaders), would stop defining our so-called national interests in this manner, we’d be received by many of the nations of the world, that we don’t (currently) have the best relations with, much more warmly (and in indeed we’d be much more likely to end the existing tensions that we have with these peoples and their governments).

I wonder how ‘U.S. interests’ are defined, and who (what special interests) are involved in the conception of our so-called national interests? After all this nation is a democracy, so who was it that gave our ‘public servants’ the authority to go and define what the interests of the American people are to the rest of the peoples and the nations on this planet! Do Iranians, or Venezuelans not want peace, justice, social harmony, egalitarianism, human rights, and a say in the power and authority that rules over them!

Obviously, everyone in every corner of the world is aware at this point that Barack Obama campaigned on a message of change, not only this, but he campaigned on the message of the U.S. taking on a role of having more humility with our actions in the world, and having more of a willingness to talk with other nations; and work, to a much greater extent, in conjunction with our allies (and even our enemies, whatever the case may be). Therefore, I think Team Obama, needs to drop the notion of ‘U.S. interests’ that they are currently so adept at making reference to and bandying about (when they go about their diplomatic undertakings in the world). If it doesn’t seem too bold and/or overly presumptuous, the United States needs to take it upon ourselves to promote the consensual interests of humanity in toto. Our political leaders should stop promoting the interests of big business and/or ‘defense’ contractors that might be based in, and that operate out of this country; but that do not necessarily have the bests interests for the majority of humanity as amongst the top priorities of their deeply coveted goals and agenda. This could be a real critical element towards bringing significant change to U.S. foreign policy, instead of just the window dressing and alteration in rhetoric that we’ve seen coming from the Obama administration thus far in Barack Obama’s short lived presidency.

Now That Obama is in Office, He’s Unabashedly Pro ‘Free’ Trade

While on the campaign trail Obama talked out of both sides of his mouth about the trade issue. He made noises as if he might renegotiate NAFTA (his campaign even stated he’d been consistently opposed to it), but in the final presidential debate, he came out of the closet as unashamedly in support of free trade. In recent days we’ve seen Obama do everything he can to distance himself from a Buy America proposal in the stimulus plan. As on nearly every issue, Obama had to portray himself as all things to all people when it comes to the trade issue too (why should it be different than any other?).

In an Orwellian use of the term, barackobama.com states that the Obama/Biden team supports fair trade. What possibly can Obama/Biden mean by the ‘fair trade’ that they make reference to on their website, when Obama has come out in numerous fora in support of corporate globalization, third world slave labor conditions, and longstanding global ‘free’ trade agreements. Indeed, no one on Obama’s economic team has a history of supporting anything but free trade economic theory.

Both Obama and his competitor Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary attempted to tap into the populist furor against free trade agreements (by trying to outdo each other on who is more opposed to job killing ‘free’ trade deals such as NAFTA), while on the campaign trail, however, now that the deal has been sealed (now that Obama has four years before having to face the wrath of the voters again) we see what Barack Obama’s true feelings actually are on trade. Obama stands with the global corporate oligarchy, and not with the working people and wage laborers who voted him into the office of the presidency. Obama stands for continuing the race to the bottom, and the third worldization of the country he ostensibly supports a good standard of living for and believes in and loves.

Obama is a Progressive? Obama is for Social Change?

What facts or evidence bear this out? ‘Cause I’ve seen Obama appoint a lot of cold warriors, veterans of the military industrial complex, Friedmanite economists, moderate to conservative Democrats, and throw change out the window in favor of Clinton era retreads and Washington’s most entrenched and corrupted insiders. We’ve also seen Obama, in the face of Israel’s slaughtering of innocent civilians in Gaza and commission of heinous acts of unconscionable terror, hold steady to the ridiculous ‘justification’ (for his inexplicable inaction) of ‘one president at a time’ while all of this occurs.

I thought progressives were rational and right-wingers were the irrational ones? The ‘progressives’ who were reveling at the Obama inauguration or on cloud nine because of it, are really looking at Obama through rose-colored lenses. If progressives are going to get anything positive out of Barack Obama (and his administration) it will be from condemning his accommodationist actions with the status quo and the Democratic Party/duopoly orthodoxy, and through working to steer Obama towards a more visionary/establishment-challenging agenda.

It’s true one catches more flies with honey than one does with vinegar, but Barack Obama has not even given us (progressives) virtually any basis to assess the majority of his actions as anything other than nearly wholly unacceptable and almost completely worthy of condemnation. The continuation of the idea that Obama has taken all his political actions up to the current point, in an effort to unleash his secret, true progressive agenda, grows more and more pitiable (and divorced from reality) by the day. Barack Obama is not a man of peace, Barack Obama is not a tireless worker for egalitarianism and fairer, more inclusive democracy, Barack Obama is not a man of the people, Barack Obama is not a panacea, Barack Obama is not a progressive, Barack Obama is not for meaningful social change.

Where’s the Mea Culpa? The Complete and Total Failure of the Liberal Intelligensia

Now that the corporatist to install the permanent corporatist revolution has been elected, I’ve heard a lot of rumblings about the abysmal selections to Obama’s government from ‘progressive’ commentators and pundits. Some of us, all along were talking about, precisely what Barack Obama is doing (and has done since winning the election); before we watched him install some of the most regressive Democrats possible (obviously I’m well aware the Democratic Party seems to be on an eternal march rightward, but how some of these appointments are even Democrats is beyond my comprehension), to the highest positions of power and authority in his administration (he’s seem to be playing pick the Monsanto, Raytheon, Wall Street, military-industrial complex ’star’ player of the day). I haven’t heard any of the most prominent liberals/progressives (except for maybe this one article), who voted for Obama (and many no doubt encouraged others to do so) come out yet and say McKinney was right or that Nader was right (or that those progressives who were saying they can no longer support Republican-lite neoliberal Democrats were right) about Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Of course, Obama is not even president yet, but based upon his thin moderate to center-left record in the Senate, and his record of being to the right of his constituents in a very liberal Chicago district; it’s already clear to me that little to no progressive policy will be made (and advanced) during the Obama presidency. Some have already called for a wide ranging and vigorous social movement to push Obama toward a more socially just, progressive orientation, but these commentators fail to understand what country it is that they are analyzing and talking about. This isn’t France or Greece or Iceland, this is the United States of America! We don’t have the kind of militant engaged citizenry that you see in many Western Europe countries (and there’s no social democratic or labor party in this country to enact good policies if politicians could be pushed to do so).

If the major progressive/liberal publications and websites had gotten behind Nader or McKinney or another third party progressive, I’m not saying s/he would have won; but there would have been a much greater showing for such an alternative candidate. The work of building a third progressive party or social movement at the local and state level still needs to be done, but a far greater showing for a non-duopoly candidate could have been a productive jumping-off point from which to build a party or movement outside of the Democratic establishment. Now progressives will be left (out), merely to criticize nearly every appointment and policy that Obama pursues during the next four to eight years of his presidency; instead of showing ourselves to be a powerful force, and showing the kind of backing we have all over this country.

The progressives who aided and abetted Obama Inc., supported an agenda that, while different than George Bush’s; will only lead to better PR efforts for foreign wars, and larger scraps for the majority of Americans on their dinner tables. What has been the overall gain from the lesser evilism strategy (if one can even call it a strategy, it’s more akin to battered wife syndrome)? Perhaps a stop to the installation of pure unmitigated fascism? Corporate power (it’s not too distant cousin), however, has not been seriously curtailed or impeded. I’m reminded of a quote I came across in an article I read the other day, it’s from an active member of the NDP (New Democratic Party, a social democratic party in Canada), “I don’t have one minute’s use for strategic voting.” He went on to say, “I just believe in the most intransigent of ways that you vote for your convictions.”

untitled twenty six

Making pot brownies was easier than Rodney had thought. Thanks to Duncan Hines, whoever that was, one order of the world’s finest brainfuck was coming up hot and ready. Yeah, there was nothing like whatever this stuff was laced with. Rodney thought he’d be better off not being able to identify the mystery meat. This was the stuff of champions anyway, and Rodney was a serial gold medalist.