angry negresses will only accept the blackest bish if she gets N-1 industrial sponsorship...,

pimppreacher |  Rachel should look and learn. As black as she thinks she is because the “dues” she thinks she’s paid by attending a HBCU, studying Black culture and history and becoming a Black woman subject matter expert in her mind is just more insult to injury and is dismissed by us. No, she still lacks one facet of negro culture that is essential for her to be let into the club: The Black Church. Politicians know this and so do Corporations which is why you see more and more corporate sponsors of church events. All this studying of black culture and one would think Rachel would have gone this route already by getting a black pastor sponsor. If she wants to make it, a black pastor sponsor is a MUST. That said, due to her DEFCON-5 Level of transgression with black women, it is going to take someone really powerful to wash all her sins away. The only one with this much domination and influence with black women is the Kingpin of the Black Church itself: TD Jakes.  

Yes, if Rachel somehow got mentored and counseled by TD Jakes, she would be redeemed. She could “church” with us and eventually get promoted to Armor Bearer or First Assistant. He could help her get her black hair care beauty line to be picked up at Target. The invitations to speak would begin pouring in again, and women everywhere would come hear her testify of how God brought her a mighty long way. She will never really repent, but we won’t care. All that matters is that she has learned how to preach and can make hair weave references in her messages for added humor. Then she would meet the criteria to be a panelist speaker for Mega Fest because she has been Jakes-Redeemed. Once you are Jakes-Redeemed, you become Teflon. This Jakes-Redemption is a Willy-Wonka Golden Ticket to write her own path.  

Why do you say this Ms. Justice? Well because there are so many others that are under this protection and no one is able to touch them. Who I say? Well let’s see, there’s Oprah Winfrey who also needed Jakes-Redemption so her own spirituality can be finally validated. It doesn’t matter if Oprah has or has not accepted the salvation of Jesus Christ. 

Look at Tyler Perry. Tyler, also very wealthy, needed Jakes-Redemption and protection to steer rumors away about his sexuality. And if he were to have a Bruce Jenner moment of courage in the future, the Teflon Jacket he got with his Jakes-Redemption Packet (please see his $1 million dollar donation at the last MegaFest), would still keep him from any condemnation or loss of revenue because of it. 

N-1 is what makes you deuterostems unique...,

delanceyplace |  Today's selection -- from Sapiens A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. According to Dr. Harari in this monumental best-seller, the truly unique thing about human beings -- the key thing that distinguishes us radically from other animals and allows us to create large, complex social organizations -- is our ability to have a commonly held belief about things that do not exist or cannot be empirically demonstrated at all:

"The truly unique feature of [Homo Sapiens or Sapiens] language is not its ability to transmit information about the [tangible]. Rather, it's the ability to transmit information about things that do not exist at all. As far as we know, only Sapiens can talk about entire kinds of entities that they have never seen, touched or smelled.

"Legends, myths, gods and religions appeared for the first time with the Cognitive Revolution. Many animals and human species could previously say, 'Careful! A lion!' Thanks to the Cognitive Revolution (which occurred about 70,000 years ago), Homo sapiens acquired the ability to say, 'The lion is the guardian spirit of our tribe.' This ability to speak about fictions is the most unique feature of Sapiens language.

"It's relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don't really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven. But why is it important? After all, fiction can be dangerously misleading or distracting. ...

"But fiction has enabled us not merely to imagine things, but to do so collectively. We can weave common myths such as the biblical creation story, the Dreamtime myths of Aboriginal Australians, and the nationalist myths of modern states. Such myths give Sapiens the unprecedented ability to cooperate flexibly in large numbers. Ants and bees can also work together in huge numbers, but they do so in a very rigid manner and only with close relatives. Wolves and chimpanzees cooperate far more flexibly than ants, but they can do so only with small numbers of other individuals that they know intimately. Sapiens can cooperate in extremely flexible ways with countless numbers of strangers. That's why Sapiens rule the world, whereas ants eat our leftovers and chimps are locked up in zoos and research laboratories.

"Our chimpanzee cousins usually live in small troops of several dozen individuals. ... There are clear limits to the size of groups that can be formed and maintained in such a way. In order to function, all members of a group must know each other intimately. Two chimpanzees who have never met, never fought, and never engaged in mutual grooming will not know whether they can trust one another, whether it would be worthwhile to help one another, and which of them ranks higher. Under natural conditions, a typical chimpanzee troop consists of about twenty to fifty individuals. As the number of chimpanzees in a troop increases, the social order destabilises, eventually leading to a rupture and the formation of a new troop by some of the animals. ...

someone collect the establishment's tears in a shot glass...,

fictional democrat version of Trump, or, Bro. Feed's whole screed with no struggle to read...,

wikipedia |  A down-on-his-luck Democratic Senator, Jay Bulworth is losing his bid for re-election to a fiery young populist. Bulworth's socialist views, formed in the 1960s and 1970s, have lost favor with voters, so he has conceded to more conservative politics and to accepting donations from big corporations. In addition, though he and his wife have been having affairs with each other's knowledge for years, they must still present a happy façade in the interest of maintaining a good public image.

Tired of politics, unhappy with his life in general, and planning to commit suicide, Bulworth negotiates a $10 million life insurance policy with his daughter as the beneficiary in exchange for a favorable vote from the insurance industry. Knowing that a suicide will void his daughter's inheritance, he contracts to have himself assassinated within two days' time.

Turning up in California for his campaign extremely drunk, Bulworth begins speaking his mind freely at public events and in the presence of the C-SPAN film crew following his campaign. After dancing all night in a club and smoking marijuana, he even starts rapping in public. His frank, potentially offensive remarks make him an instant media darling and re-energize his campaign. Along the way he becomes romantically involved with a young black activist named Nina, who tags along with him on his campaign stops. Along the way he is pursued by the paparazzi, his insurance company, his campaign managers and an increasingly adoring public, all the while fearful of his impending assassination.

After a televised debate where Bulworth drinks out of a flask on air and derides insurance companies and the American healthcare system, he decides to hide at Nina's family's home, located in the ghetto of South-Central Los Angeles. While hiding at Nina's he wanders around the neighborhood, where he witnesses a group of kids selling crack, and buys the group ice cream. After saving the group from a racially motivated encounter with a cop, he finds out they are "soldiers" of L.D., a local drug kingpin whom Nina's brother owes money to. Bulworth eventually makes it to a television appearance arranged earlier by his campaign manager, during which he raps and repeats truths Nina and L.D. told him about the lives of poor black people and their opinions of various American institutions, like education and employment. Eventually he offers the solution that "everybody should fuck everybody" until everyone is "all the same color" stunning the audience and his interviewer.

After Bulworth's TV appearance he escapes with Nina and goes with her back to her house, where she reveals that she is the assassin he indirectly hired (ostensibly to make the money needed to pay off the debt her brother owes to L.D.) and will now not carry out the job. Bulworth, finally relieved that he is not in danger of being killed, falls asleep, having not slept for the past several days.

The next morning the press and Bulworth's campaign managers converge on Nina's house, all eager to talk to him. L.D. also comes to Nina's house, and having had a change of heart says he will let Nina's brother work off his debt instead of hurting or killing him. Bulworth emerges from the bedroom looking rested, and as he steps outside he invites Nina to go with him, who eventually joins him after some hesitation. Bulworth and Nina embrace and begin to kiss as people cheer. As Bulworth happily accepts a new campaign for the presidency, he is suddenly shot in front of the crowd of reporters and supporters by an agent of the insurance company lobbyists, who were fearful of Bulworth's recent push for single-payer health care.

Bulworth's fate is left ambiguous. The final scene shows an elderly vagrant, played by Amiri Baraka, whom Bulworth met previously, standing alone outside a hospital. He exhorts Bulworth, who is presumably inside, to not be 'a ghost' but 'a spirit' which, as he had mentioned earlier, can only happen if you have 'a song'. In the final shot of the film, he asks the same of the audience.

donald trump singlehandedly destroying establishment newspeak doublethink and political correctness...,

McCain did graduate at the bottom of his class, 894 out of 899...crashed three very expensive Navy jets...two in training...A “war hero” doesn’t get promoted to squadron commander of the air field named after his own grandfather; immediately after crashing his third airplane. A “war hero” doesn’t have all military records that cover his time in Vietnam and all disciplinary actions against him censored and sealed “as a matter of national security.” A “war hero” doesn’t get 28 medals awarded “for bravery” for no other reason than being shot down and captured. A war hero doesn't allow himself to be used as a pawn and go on a celebrity public relations tour, because he’s the son of two acclaimed Navy admirals. A war hero doesn't repeatedly try to send other people's son's into war and harms way. A “war hero” doesn’t repeatedly cheat on the wife who dutifully waited for him at home and then divorce and abandon her. A "war hero" doesn't unleash the consummate tard's tard Sarah Palin on a unsuspecting American public.

skip gates on afro-cubans worse than david brooks on tahnussy coates....,

theroot |  As much as I love Professor Gates and ALL that he has and continues to do to reveal the true state of affairs and the imbalances that are yet to be addressed by the U.S. in particular, I was a bit disappointed in the article.  The article seems to suggest that there is a place on earth where the poison of racism has been or could be eradicated!  To reiterate the sentiments of 'Haile Selassie' on this forum, THIS CANCER has infected the WORLD.

With all the best intentions the Cuban Government could only do its best to encourage equality.  The white scourge of Cuba that fled to Florida/the U.S. were the ones upholding racism and oppressing blacks - period.  The fact that where the money flowed, the status quo was bound to remain unchanged does not require a leap in comprehension.  In similar fashion, despite the efforts of many political parties to open education to lower income folks i.e. blacks, the status quo of "white moneyed-power" remains the same throughout the West Indies.  Indeed, this is the situation with America and the climb for blacks out of poverty remains a steep hill.

The above struggle of blacks to deal with all they have been subjected to from the original crossing to-date, is clearly demonstrated by Prof. Gates's own "Many Rivers To Cross" documentary.  Thus I am surprised the article does not appear to have taken into account the effect of such oppression on future generations.  Worse than just the racism that was in play before the economic collapse in Cuba, the economic collapse itself would be much more devastating to the blacks already at the bottom of the economic rung.  In addition, the logic in the slaveholders' strategy to withhold education from their slaves, is inescapable.  How could the slaves seize the reins of power without knowledge? Therefore, lack of empowerment of blacks was almost sealed from nation to nation. 

I have travelled several times to Cuba but never used the tourist package.  Instead I was honoured to be hosted by a family in Havana, the couple Alex and Conchita with their wonderful WELL-EDUCATED, eleven-year old son.  Yes, the downside included flies, the inability to even purchase bare necessities (and things appeared to have gotten worse after 2008 as well; perhaps less money in circulation due to the U.S.A's own economic woes?), etc., etc but the love and friendliness I experienced, I had not found on any of my other travels except maybe, in Panama.  Alex and Conchita's son could speak fluently three languages, Spanish (of course), English and Italian!  Plus he stumbled through some conversational French.  He could also play the piano.  They were brown-skinned, their neighbour had a white complexion.  They had grown up in Havana and white or brown were very good friends.  I was truly impressed by the comraderie.

It is fortunate that due to less overt racism, the dark Cubans aren't as persecuted as black Americans.  IMO if America had not helped to suffocate the Cuban economy, there would have been a good chance of lifting the darker Cuban farther up the educational ladder and thereby ensuring access to positions of power.  ALL Cubans are definitely more accepting of people of different complexions - what with half of Africa, Germans and Italians inundating the Island every year - than are Americans.  One of my most horrible experiences was in MIAMI when my BLACK wife was almost refused service.  They don't look at your mixed complexion children and ask if the BLACK one is adopted for instance! Cubans are so mixed that they are accustomed to dark-complexioned people with green eyes, or three children of the same parentage looking different to each other.  Despite, continuous mixing of races in America, you still get these ignoramuses asking these intrusively rude questions. 

Another overlooked fact is that MOST of the impoverished Caribbean and Latin America look to SPORTS to lift them out of poverty.  Not just because the Cuban Government used sports to give its populace a means of validation but because it is general knowledge that the Americans are batsh*t crazy about sports.  American sports scouts traverse Latin America and the Caribbean particularly.  Cubans know that if they could get to say, Santo Domingo, they might get recruited.  There are groups that review and broadcast scoring stats to U.S. scouts.  The fact is NO HUMAN wants to live in POVERTY and the good ole U.S.A. ensured that Cuba would be punished for ejecting its racist, criminal overlords.  Despite the embargo, Cuba managed to educate its population. People from other Caribbean Islands go to Cuba for its medical advantages.  Cuba offers the opportunity to study medicine for almost free, on the condition that you return to your country and serve your people.

brooks resents tahnussy resents uhmurkah while the sages smile and continue prepping for hard rain...,

 

crooksandliars |  In his much-mocked column "Listening to Ta-Nehisi Coates While White," David Brooks makes a great show of deference to his subject, and to black political activists in general:

The last year has been an education for white people. There has been a depth, power and richness to the African-American conversation about Ferguson, Baltimore, Charleston and the other killings that has been humbling and instructive.

Your new book, “Between the World and Me,” is a great and searing contribution to this public education. It is a mind-altering account of the black male experience. Every conscientious American should read it.

But I think Corey Robin reads the column correctly:

Near the end of the column, Brooks actually seems to blame Coates himself for black Americans' failure to achieve the American Dream:

This dream is a secular faith that has unified people across every known divide. It has unleashed ennobling energies and mobilized heroic social reform movements. By dissolving the dream under the acid of an excessive realism, you trap generations in the past and destroy the guiding star that points to a better future.

Read that last sentence again. Brooks is suggesting that Coates's own book is going to destroy the American Dream for multiple generations of black people -- a dream to which they could otherwise readily gain access.

The opening statements of respect in this column are not to be read literally. They're Brooks's version of "Brutus is an honorable man." Brooks may respect Coates's book as memoir, but, as political and cultural analysis, it's repellent and dangerous, in his view. Don't let the kind-sounding words fool you.

info-capitalism is inherently malthusian, sharply favoring the right side of the bell curve...,

guardian |  Today, the thing that is corroding capitalism, barely rationalised by mainstream economics, is information. Most laws concerning information define the right of corporations to hoard it and the right of states to access it, irrespective of the human rights of citizens. The equivalent of the printing press and the scientific method is information technology and its spillover into all other technologies, from genetics to healthcare to agriculture to the movies, where it is quickly reducing costs.

The modern equivalent of the long stagnation of late feudalism is the stalled take-off of the third industrial revolution, where instead of rapidly automating work out of existence, we are reduced to creating what David Graeber calls “bullshit jobs” on low pay. And many economies are stagnating.

The equivalent of the new source of free wealth? It’s not exactly wealth: it’s the “externalities” – the free stuff and wellbeing generated by networked interaction. It is the rise of non-market production, of unownable information, of peer networks and unmanaged enterprises. The internet, French economist Yann Moulier-Boutang says, is “both the ship and the ocean” when it comes to the modern equivalent of the discovery of the new world. In fact, it is the ship, the compass, the ocean and the gold.

The modern day external shocks are clear: energy depletion, climate change, ageing populations and migration. They are altering the dynamics of capitalism and making it unworkable in the long term. They have not yet had the same impact as the Black Death – but as we saw in New Orleans in 2005, it does not take the bubonic plague to destroy social order and functional infrastructure in a financially complex and impoverished society.

Once you understand the transition in this way, the need is not for a supercomputed Five Year Plan – but a project, the aim of which should be to expand those technologies, business models and behaviours that dissolve market forces, socialise knowledge, eradicate the need for work and push the economy towards abundance. I call it Project Zero – because its aims are a zero-carbon-energy system; the production of machines, products and services with zero marginal costs; and the reduction of necessary work time as close as possible to zero.

Most 20th-century leftists believed that they did not have the luxury of a managed transition: it was an article of faith for them that nothing of the coming system could exist within the old one – though the working class always attempted to create an alternative life within and “despite” capitalism. As a result, once the possibility of a Soviet-style transition disappeared, the modern left became preoccupied simply with opposing things: the privatisation of healthcare, anti-union laws, fracking – the list goes on.

If I am right, the logical focus for supporters of postcapitalism is to build alternatives within the system; to use governmental power in a radical and disruptive way; and to direct all actions towards the transition – not the defence of random elements of the old system. We have to learn what’s urgent, and what’s important, and that sometimes they do not coincide.

all money in existence is owned by the rich - the rich rent it to poor - the cost to pay the rent is hidden in the price of everything

guardian |  With its shuttered banks, furious public protests and iconoclastic politicians, the plight of Greece, brought to its knees by a crippling debt burden, has been gripping and heartbreaking in equal measure: a full-blown sovereign debt crisis on the doorstep of some of the wealthiest countries in the world.

Yet new analysis by the Jubilee Debt Campaign reveals that Greece’s plight is far from unique: more than 20 other countries are also wrestling with their own debt crises. Many more, from Senegal to Laos, lie in a debt danger zone, where an economic downturn or a sudden jump in interest rates on world debt markets could lead to disaster.

One of the lessons from the 2008 crash was that hefty debt levels can leave countries vulnerable to sudden shifts in market mood. But Jubilee reports that the rock-bottom interest rates across major economies, which have been a key response to the crisis, have in many cases prompted governments, firms and consumers to go on a fresh borrowing binge, storing up potential problems for the future.

Judith Tyson of the Overseas Development Institute thinktank says the flipside of the latest round of borrowing has been investors and lenders in the west looking for bigger returns than they could get at home, a process known in the markets as a “search for yield”.

“Since 2012, there’s been a huge increase in sovereign debt, in Africa in particular,” she says. Some of the countries involved were beneficiaries of the debt relief programme that G8 leaders signed up to at the Gleneagles summit in 2005. “They were given debt relief with the idea that it would give a clean slate to go forward,” Tyson says.

She warns that a number of countries have since “loaded up” on debt – and while some governments had invested the money wisely, diversifying their economies and improving infrastructure, others have not. She points to Ghana, in west Africa, where a sharp increase in borrowing has been spent on what she calls “pork-barrel politics. They’ve spent it in a frivolous way.”

Jubilee’s analysis defines countries as at high risk of a government debt crisis if they have net debt higher than 30% of GDP, a current-account deficit of over 5% of GDP and future debt repayments worth more than 10% of government revenue. “We estimate that 14 countries are rapidly heading towards new government debt crises, based on their large external debts, large and persistent current account deficits, and high projected future government debt payments,” it says.

"bush is not gonna win the latino vote, even though he'll say five words in spanish...,"

NYTimes |  Mr. Bush is leading the crowded Republican field in fund-raising so far, and Mr. Trump, a billionaire businessman, argues that his personal wealth empowers him as a candidate. He also said that he will file the required personal financial disclosure forms on Wednesday or Thursday. 

“Every single person is expecting something for that money and that’s not good for the country,” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Bush. “That means you can’t make deals that are good for the country.”

Mr. Bush has taken issue with Mr. Trump’s comments in recent weeks, particularly his remarks that undocumented immigrants from Mexico are criminals and “rapists.” Mr. Bush also took offense to Mr. Trump’s suggestion that he has an affinity for Mexicans because his wife is Mexican-American.

“A Republican will never win by striking fear in people’s hearts,” Mr. Bush said in Iowa on Tuesday, suggesting that his rival was preying on people’s angst.

Mr. Trump continues to stand by his remarks, but said that they have been distorted and blown out of proportion. He vowed again on Wednesday that he will win the Hispanic vote because he employs thousands of them and knows how to create jobs.

“The Hispanics love me,” he said.

rotflmbao..., trump calls a tard a tard...,

thehill |  Donald Trump on Thursday fired back at criticism from presidential rival Rick Perry.

The former Texas governor "failed on the border. He should be forced to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate," Trump tweeted Thursday afternoon.

The comment came hours after Perry issued a blistering statement that said Trump was mistaken on border security and only offered "a toxic mix of demagoguery and nonsense."

It was another in a series of jabs between the two candidates, to which Trump countered in another tweet by saying that Perry "doesn't understand what the word demagoguery means."

Perry, whose "oops" moment during a televised debate during the 2012 campaign kneecapped his previous White House bid, has himself addressed the relationship of intelligence and the presidency.

"Running for president is not an IQ test," Perry said in December when preparing to exit office.

"It is a test of an individual’s resolve; it is a test of an individual’s philosophy; it is a test of an individual’s life experiences," Perry said then, alluding to his 14-year tenure as governor.

krauthammer - a dummy and a clown...,

thehill |  Donald Trump lashed out at Charles Krauthammer, a conservative columnist and Fox News analyst, after Krauthammer panned the potential 2016 contender, citing his low standing in presidential polls.

Trump fired off multiple tweets late Thursday evening calling the pundit a "dummy" and "overrated clown," and even taking issue with him over the Iraq war.

i'ma have to follow the "donald's" utterances more closely...,

 

thehill |  Real estate tycoon Donald Trump cast doubt Monday on whether Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) can run for president, because Cruz was born in Canada.

"It’s a hurdle; somebody could certainly look at it very seriously," Trump said during a phone interview Monday on My Fox New York.

"He was born in Canada. If you know and when we all studied our history lessons, you are supposed to be born in this country, so I just don't know how the courts will rule on this."

Trump, who says he is exploring a bid for president in 2016, was part of the "birther" movement that questioned President Obama's birth place, as well as the veracity of his birth certificate. He recently took credit for getting Obama to release his birth certificate while speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February.

After flirting with a 2012 presidential bid, Trump has announced an exploratory committee for 2016 and says he will not renew his contract for his TV show, "The Apprentice" on NBC.  

Cruz confirmed his bid for president on Monday morning during a speech at Liberty University.

“It’s going to take a new generation of courageous conservatives to help make America great again, and I’m ready to stand with you to lead the fight," he said in a video touting the speech.

hon.bro.preznit outsmarts tards at home and chess-masters abroad - to lead america...,

aljazeera |  The reality of the Iran deal: Congress can't 'kill' it. US President Obama does not need congressional approval to sign an Iran deal or go to the UN to lift sanctions.

I keep hearing very reputable journalists report that the new law on Iran sanctions will give Congress the ability to "kill" any potential agreement.

I don't think that is right, but I've been doubting myself because so many people are saying it. I've gone back three times and read the bill.

Here is what the law actually does. It gives Congress the power to stop the US president from lifting US sanctions on Iran.

If you look at the numbers, it's pretty certain that they will only be able to stop him for a short time. It doesn't stop President Barack Obama from making the agreement or going to the UN and lifting international sanctions.

So I've been trying to figure out how that could "kill" any potential agreement.

The only thing I can think of is the mentality that the US is the centre of the world is behind the assumption.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Congress will override a presidential veto and forbid him from waiving most US sanctions on Iran.

I can only guess that these people are assuming that without US sanctions relief Iran would walk away from their side of the bargain.

Why would they do that? They would basically be saying "I can now do business with the entire globe except America, but that is just not good enough."

The White House doesn't believe Congress can now say yes or no to a deal. This is what White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said as the bill was making its way through Congress:

"The bill that has passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with bipartisan support essentially is a vote to vote later on congressional sanctions and not the decision about whether or not to enter into the agreement, that would certainly resolve some of the concerns we've expressed about the authority that is exercised by the president of the United States to conduct foreign policy."

The president would never give up his right to act as the sole "decider" on foreign policy.

He doesn't need congressional approval to do whatever he feels like at the UN. He was smart enough to not frame this as an official treaty.

The Senate would have had to weigh in on that and with the lobbying that is taking place, it never would have passed.

I have to think the reason behind this mischaracterisation is coming from some members of Congress. They can tell their constituents that they are "being tough".

They can vote their disapproval knowing, in the end, it won't change a thing.

working twice as hard to get half as far...,

theatlantic |  Some of the greatest moments in human history were fueled by emotional intelligence. When Martin Luther King, Jr. presented his dream, he chose language that would stir the hearts of his audience. “Instead of honoring this sacred obligation” to liberty, King thundered, “America has given the Negro people a bad check.” He promised that a land “sweltering with the heat of oppression” could be “transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice,” and envisioned a future in which “on the red hills of Georgia sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.”

Delivering this electrifying message required emotional intelligence—the ability to recognize, understand, and manage emotions. Dr. King demonstrated remarkable skill in managing his own emotions and in sparking emotions that moved his audience to action. As his speechwriter Clarence Jones reflected, King delivered “a perfectly balanced outcry of reason and emotion, of anger and hope. His tone of pained indignation matched that note for note.”

tards: nothing to offer but stupid, delusional, and mad...,

theatlantic | The nuclear agreement highlights the limits of American power—something the president’s opponents won’t accept. 

“Mankind faces a crossroads,” declared Woody Allen. “One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”

The point is simple: In life, what matters most isn’t how a decision compares to your ideal outcome. It’s how it compares to the alternative at hand.

The same is true for the Iran deal, announced Tuesday between Iran and six world powers. As Congress begins debating the agreement, its opponents have three real alternatives. The first is to kill the deal, and the interim agreement that preceded it, and do nothing else, which means few restraints on Iran’s nuclear program. The second is war. But top American and Israeli officials have warned that military action against Iranian nuclear facilities could ignite a catastrophic regional conflict and would be ineffective, if not counterproductive, in delaying Iran’s path to the bomb. Meir Dagan, who oversaw the Iran file as head of Israel’s external spy agency, the Mossad, from 2002 to 2011, has said an attack “would mean regional war, and in that case you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program.” Michael Hayden, who ran the CIA under George W. Bush from 2006 to 2009, has warned that an attack would “guarantee that which we are trying to prevent: an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon.”

Implicitly acknowledging this, most critics of the Iran deal propose a third alternative: increase sanctions in hopes of forcing Iran to make further concessions. But in the short term, the third alternative looks a lot like the first. Whatever its deficiencies, the Iran deal places limits on Iran’s nuclear program and enhances oversight of it. Walk away from the agreement in hopes of getting tougher restrictions and you’re guaranteeing, at least for the time being, that there are barely any restrictions on the program at all.

What’s more, even if Congress passes new sanctions, it’s quite likely that the overall economic pressure on Iran will go down, not up. Most major European and Asian countries have closer economic ties to Iran than does the United States, and thus more domestic pressure to resume them. These countries have abided by international sanctions against Iran, to varying degrees, because the Obama administration convinced their leaders that sanctions were a necessary prelude to a diplomatic deal. If U.S. officials reject a deal, Iran’s historic trading partners will not economically injure themselves indefinitely. Sanctions, declared Britain’s ambassador to the United States in May, have already reached “the high-water mark,” noting that “you would probably see more sanctions erosion” if nuclear talks fail. Germany’s ambassador added that, “If diplomacy fails, then the sanctions regime might unravel.”

The actual alternatives to a deal, in other words, are grim. Which is why critics discuss them as little as possible.

many of today's leaders aren't - so what are they?

medium |  So what gives? What happened to this generation of leaders?

There is something very different about many of today’s so-called leaders. And it is not merely that we, or they, are the helpless victims of “late capitalism”, or any other number of modish buzzwords, for, like every kind of buzzword, that sophomoric grad-school 101 level non-explanation does not illuminate much at all, except perhaps our own outmoded beliefs.

It is that they are demagogues. Let’s review what “demagogue” actually means. Here’s a decent definition:

“a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.”

Let me explain why that’s important, using the example of the 80s. A generation of conservative politicians then — Thatcher, Reagan — and the like — ripped up and rewrote social contracts wholesale.

So what is the difference between them — and the Merkels and Schauebles, Osbornes and Camerons, Jindals and Jebs, of today? A very great one indeed. There was great intellectual and perhaps moral support for the decisions the leaders of yesterday — in the age of modernity — took. Here’s a simple example. We may disagree now over trickle-down economics, since prosperity hasn’t trickled down. But at the time there was at least a reasoned position in support of it, built on a consensus amongst thinkers. You may think of the Laffer Curve as a simple illustration: it may have been proven largely wrong now, but at least there was an effort to produce a reason to slash public services then.

The neo-demagogues of meta-modernity are very different. There is no serious intellectual, moral, or ethical support for their decisions at all. There’s not a serious economist left in the world who agrees with their economic policies; political scientist with their social policies; etcetera. As a simple moral measure of how far today’s not-quite-leaders have slunk, consider: even the Pope—in his much celebrated Laudato Si — has challenged them to rise to today’s great challenges.

Demaogues are irrational, insensible, not beyond reason — but scurrying in the abyss deep below it. They are simply, as the definition simply says, “arousing the passions and prejudices of people”. Let’s take immigration as a simple example. David Cameron’s government has literally banned immigration in the UK. But decades of the logic — not to mention evidence — confirm that immigration only benefits advanced economies. So demagogues do not act rationally or sensibly, reasonably or sanely — whether in terms of economics, morality, politics, or anything else that might justifiably be called a system of thought. Why not? They prey on our emotions; they exploit our biases and prejudices; like magicians, they devour our fears and dangle before us our wishes. They are sorcerers of our animal beings. Pumping the bellows of unreason, they stoke the dark fires that burn deep in the human soul.

It’s true: empiricism alone can never guide us in the human world — but still, we must struggle not merely to be prisoners of our biases and prejudices. And that is precisely what demagogues reduce us to. Unthinking servants of our own worst selves. The selves that, instead of thinking, dreaming, wondering, rebelling, defying, creating, loving — are filled with spite, greed, jealousy, fear, and, at last, hate, of the self and the other, of god and man, of life and death alike.

greece, lift up your nutsack and cough...,

stratfor |  Several nations supported the German position from the beginning — particularly the Eastern European nations that, in addition to opposing Greece soaking up European money, do not trust Greece's relationship with Russia. Germany had allies. But it also had major powers as opponents, and these were brushed aside.  

These powerful opponents were brushed aside particularly on two issues. One was any temporary infusion of cash into Greek banks. The other was the German demand, in a more extreme way than ever before, that the Greeks cede fundamental sovereignty over their national economy and, in effect, over Greece itself. Germany demanded that Greece place itself under the supervision of a foreign EU monitoring force that, as Germany demonstrated in these negotiations, ultimately would be under German control.

The Germans did not want to do this, but what a nation wants to do and what it will do are two different things. What Germany wanted was Greek submission to greater austerity in return for support for its banking system. It was not the government's position that troubled Germany the most, but the Greek referendum. If Germany forced the Greek government to capitulate, it was a conventional international negotiation.  If it forced the government to capitulate in the face of the electoral mandate of the Greek public, it was in many ways an attack on national sovereignty, forcing a settlement not in opposition to the government but a direct confrontation with the electorate. The Germans could not accommodate the vote. They had to respond by demanding concessions on Greek sovereignty.

This is not over, of course. It is now up to the Greek government to implement its agreements, and it does so in the face of the Greek referendum. The situation in Greece is desperate because of the condition of the banking system. It was the pressure point that the Germans used to force Greek capitulation. But Greece is now facing not only austerity, but also foreign governance. The Germans' position is they do not trust the Greeks. They do not mean the government now, but the Greek electorate. Therefore, they want monitoring and controls. This is reasonable from the German point of view, but it will be explosive to the Greeks.

The Potential for Continental Unease

In World War II, the Germans occupied Greece. As in much of the rest of Europe, the memory of that occupation is now in the country's DNA. This will be seen as the return of German occupation, and opponents of the deal will certainly use that argument. The manner in which the deal was made and extended by the Germans to provide outside control will resurrect historical memories of German occupation. It has already started. The aggressive inflexibility of the Germans can be understood as an attitude motivated by German fears, but then Germany has always been a frightened country responding with bravado and self-confidence.

The point of the matter is not going away, and not only because the Greek response is unpredictable; poverty versus sovereignty is a heady issue, especially when the Greeks will both remain poor and lose some sovereignty. The Germans made an example of Cyprus and now Greece. The leading power of Europe will not underwrite defaulting debtors. It will demand political submission for what help is given. This is not a message that will be lost in Europe, whatever the anti-Greek feeling is now.

the fall of puerto rico - prepare yourself accordingly...,

NYTimes |   If a meeting on Monday between Puerto Rico and its creditors is any indication, restructuring the island’s $72 billion in debt could be a long process.

At that meeting, the commonwealth’s finance team said it had not yet determined how it would seek to revamp the island’s obligations.

The roughly 350 creditors, such as hedge funds and money managers, that had packed into a Park Avenue auditorium on Monday afternoon were told they would have to wait several more weeks until a working group made up of Puerto Rico political leaders came up with formal recommendations for ending the island’s fiscal crisis.

“I ask for your patience while we develop a credible plan that meets all of our stakeholders’ objectives,” Melba Acosta Febo, the president of the Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico, told the creditors gathered at Citigroup’s executive headquarters.

The meeting, which lasted more than an hour, was the first time that creditors heard directly from Puerto Rico officials since Gov. Alejandro García Padilla declared two weeks ago that the island’s debt was not payable.

The government spent most of its presentation on Monday reiterating the bleak condition of the island’s economy and calling for drastic measures like cutting sick leave for local workers and lowering the minimum wage to jump-start hiring. It has more municipal bond debt per capita than any American state.

pan-troglodytic deuterostems are not the endpoint of terrestrial evolution...,

theatlantic |  “Most educated people are aware that we are the outcome of nearly 4 billion years of Darwinian selection, but many tend to think that humans are somehow the culmination. Our sun, however, is less than halfway through its lifespan. It will not be humans who watch the sun’s demise, 6 billion years from now. Any creatures that then exist will be as different from us as we are from bacteria or amoebae.”

Among the several questions that jostled for the uppermost in my mind was this: Where is the fiction that can rise to the level of this stupefying reality? (Only one novelist, Julian Barnes, was sufficiently struck to include Rees’s passage in a book, but that was in his extended nonfiction memoir about death, Nothing to Be Frightened Of.) I quite soon came to realize that there was indeed a writer who could have heard or read those words with equanimity, even satisfaction, and that this was J. G. Ballard. For him, the possibility of any mutation or metamorphosis was to be taken for granted, if not indeed welcomed, as was the contingency that, dead sun or no dead sun, the terrestrial globe could very readily be imagined after we’re gone.

As one who has always disliked and distrusted so-called science fiction (the votaries of this cult disagreeing pointlessly about whether to refer to it as “SF” or “sci-fi”), I was prepared to be unimpressed even after Kingsley Amis praised Ballard as “the most imaginative of H. G. Wells’s successors.” The natural universe is far too complex and frightening and impressive on its own to require the puerile add-ons of space aliens and super-weapons: the interplanetary genre made even C. S. Lewis write more falsely than he normally did. Hearing me drone on in this vein about 30 years ago, Amis fils (who contributes a highly lucid introduction to this collection) wordlessly handed me The Drowned World, The Day of Forever, and, for a shift in pace and rhythm, Crash. Any one of these would have done the trick.

For all that, Ballard is arguably best-known to a wide audience because of his relatively “straight” novel, Empire of the Sun, and the resulting movie by Steven Spielberg. Some of his devotees were depressed by the literalness of the subject matter, which is a quasi-autobiographical account of being 13 years old and an inmate in a Japanese internment camp in Shanghai. It’s not possible to read that book, however, and fail to see the germinal effect that experience had on Ballard the man. To see a once-thriving city reduced to beggary and emptiness, to live one day at a time in point of food and medicine, to see an old European order brutally and efficiently overturned, to notice the utterly casual way in which human life can be snuffed out, and to see war machines wheeling and diving in the overcast sky: such an education! Don’t forget, either, that young Ballard was ecstatic at the news of the atomic obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an emotion that makes him practically unique among postwar literati. Included in this collection is a very strong 1977 story, “The Dead Time,” a sort of curtain-raiser to Empire—Ballard’s own preferred name for his book—in which a young man released from Japanese captivity drives a truckload of cadavers across a stricken landscape and ends up feeding a scrap of his own torn flesh to a ravenous child.

Miracles of Life (a book with a slightly but not entirely misleading title) will soon enough discern that he built on his wartime Shanghai traumas in three related ways. As a teenager in post-war England he came across first Freud, and second the surrealists. He describes the two encounters as devastating in that they taught him what he already knew: religion is abject nonsense, human beings positively enjoy inflicting cruelty, and our species is prone to, and can coexist with, the most grotesque absurdities.