Home » Posts tagged with » america (Page 98)

Rumors of Hugo Chavez’s pending death have been greatly exaggerated—or at least somewhat exaggerated—as new video aired on Cuban television yesterday shows a healthy looking Chavez talking with Fidel Castro, reports the BBC . Reports have swirled that the Venezuelan president is in critical condition in a Cuban hospital,…

Continue reading …

“It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games , sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.” -John Adams, July 3 rd , 1776 Seems like a lot of fuss over a document written to form a political agreement between some loosely unified colonies more than 200 years ago. When Adams wrote that, a nation had been created, yes, but it had yet to win any significant victories in its war against the most powerful military in the world. Many states were nearly bankrupt and it wasn't certain they'd hang together. And for all its noble ideas about equality, the Declaration did nothing to end slavery, which Adams called “as offensive in the sight of God as it is derogatory from our own honor or interest of happiness.” But despite all that, John Adams understood that the founding of the United States was … exceptional. And since the founding, right down to this July 4 th weekend 2011, Americans have sensed that America is unique among the nations of the world – in its liberties, its republic, its resources and its opportunities – and in its unique role as a force for good. But for the modern left and their media allies, not so much. As the Culture and Media Institute has documented in the past , the idea of American exceptionalism at best makes liberals and the mainstream media uncomfortable. At worst they flatly deny that the United States can stake any claim to greatness, let alone being exceptional. President Obama has shown ambivalence toward the notion that America is exceptional. That, coupled with his administration's European-style government-centered philosophy, have left him open to the charge that he sees America as just another nation, and is as comfortable apologizing for its sins as touting its virtues. The conservative hopefuls looking to take on Obama in the 2012 election continue to hit him with the charge. This has prompted two often contradictory responses from the left. On one hand, NPR's Tavis Smiley dismisses American exceptionalism as “overrated,” while the Washington Post's Richard Cohen calls it a “myth” born of “smugness” and “narcissism,” and points to the country's imperfections as proof that America is no more exceptional than Belgium or Honduras. On the other, the Post's Greg Sargent believes any mention of exceptionalism is part of a plot to make President Obama into the “Other.” Times Joe Klein calls charges “subtly venomous” and a Nation columnist asserts that American exceptionalism is based on “racialized hierarchies.” In either case, American exceptionalism as its been traditionally understood, has become a taboo topic for liberal journalists. 'Smugness' So is America exceptional? According to the liberal Brookings Institution, 58 percent of Americans think so, and say “God has granted America a special role in human history.” But not the liberal media establishment. “This notion of American exceptionalism is,” in the words of NPR's Tavis Smiley , “overrated.” In his victory speech Nov. 2, Florida Senator Marco Rubio declared, “America is the single greatest nation in all of human history. A place without equal in the history of all mankind.” Perhaps liberals heard this as adding insult to injury with the Democrats' electoral rout in November, because they got angry. In the Huffington Post, Peter Beinart raved about “the lunatic notion that America is the only truly free and successful country in the world.” Michael Kinsley penned a column flatly declaring, “U.S. is not greatest county ever.” Apparently, the concept hasn't grown more attractive with age. On May 9, liberal Washington Post writer Richard Cohen penned a column on “The myth of American exceptionalism.” Cohen bemoaned a “culture of smugness. The emblem of this culture is the term 'American exceptionalism.'” “American exceptionalism once applied to the hostility that the American worker – virtually alone in the industrialized world – had toward socialism,” Cohen wrote. “Now, though, it is infused with religious meaning …” (Untrue. Many date the birth of American exceptionalism to a 1630 sermon written by Puritan John Winthrop, who declared that the Massachusetts Bay colony would be a “city upon a hill,” a Christian example to mankind. But never interrupt a liberal rewriting history.) Unsurprisingly, Cohen trotted out a litany of the nation's problems and blemishes – the murder rate, the national debt and the “dysfunctional education system – more than 14,000 school districts, lots of bad (but job-protected) teachers, oblivious parents and students who are too dumb to know they're dumb.” (Cohen never, of course, acknowledged the culpability of liberal policies in creating or exacerbating these problems.) We can't be exceptional because Japanese kids to much better in math than our kids. “Let no person think there is not a certain kind of American exceptionalism that I believe in and cherish,” Cohen asserted. 'It is our astounding capacity for tolerance.” He held America up against the “massacres, pogroms, population transfers and genocides” of European history (no mention of African or Asian history, though) and, except for blacks and American Indians, America comes out looking ok. Wow. That's like being told your blind date “loves pets” and “is great with kids.” To Cohen, religion is to blame for American exceptionalism since its adherents believe “what God has made exceptional, man must not alter.” The result is that Americans are taken with “a phrase that reeks of arrogance and discourages compromise. American exceptionalism ought to be American narcissism.” Poor Cohen. It must be hard to live in a nation disgusts you so. An Exceptionally Sinister Weapon Cohen also hit on a common theme for liberals, that American exceptionalism is merely a weapon conservatives use to beat liberals. “It turns out, however, that some of those most inclined to exalt American exceptionalism are simply using the imaginary past to defend their cultural tics – conventional marriage or school prayer or, for some odd reason, a furious antipathy to the notion that mankind has contributed (just a bit) to global warming.” Conventional marriage is a “cultural tic?” Since liberals will use any tool at hand to further an agenda, they're incapable of seeing a principle for what it is. They're also incapable of seeing an almost comical contradiction: American exceptionalism they say, is a “myth,” mere bigotry or narcissism, but tell them the president agrees with them and watch the fireworks. Liberal Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent gets particularly incensed at “the mindlessness and vapidity of the right's attack on Obama for allegedly not believing in 'American exceptionalism.'” It's an “ongoing attack that has become ” absurd and self-parodic. ” When in January Obama, still smarting from his November electoral defeats, seemed to strike a new tone when talking about the nation, Sargent's exceptionalism radar was working overtime. A Kathleen Parker column wondering why Obama hadn't actually used the phrase 'American Exceptionalism' in his State of the Union speech was part of “the nonstop idiocy.” The “idiocy” of the Weekly Standard's Bill Krystol's was to assert that Obama calling America “the greatest nation on earth,” and “the greatest country in the world” in a January weekly radio address was a concession to the right. Sargent pointed out prior Obama statements about the nation. But around the same time, over at MSNBC, Sargent's fellow liberals were undercutting his argument. On Jan. 30, Chris Matthews hailed “another good week for Barack Obama's move to the center. And if you need to move to the center, what better way than to talk up American exceptionalism?” Time magazine editor Rick Stengel agreed. “I think clearly what Obama's self-interest is is that he's mimicking Reagan's style, not his substance. As you say, Reagan was the great prophet of American exceptionalism.” So even Obama's cheerleaders at MSNBC and Time thought touting American exceptionalism was a new tactic for the president. On Memorial Day, when Sarah Palin criticized Obama for characterizing the U.S. military as “one of the finest fighting forces the world has ever known,” rather than the best, Sargent was ready to mock her . “If Obama doesn't say that our armed forces are the bestest, baddest, most a**-kicking-ist fighting forces in all of human history , he's subtly denigrating the troops.” Race to the Bottom After lambasting Palin, Sargent reminded readers of “what this attack line is really about … part of a much broader effort to insinuate that you should find Obama's character, story, motives, identity, cultural instincts and intentions towards our country to be alien and fundamentally suspect.”

Continue reading …
Bank of America close to $8.5bn settlement over sub-prime loans

Group of investors includes the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Pimco Investment Management, the world’s largest bondholder, and BlackRock Financial Management Bank of America (BoA) is close to finalising a deal to pay $8.5bn (£5.3bn) to settle claims by a group of investors that the bank sold them poor-quality mortgage-backed securities that went sour when the housing market tanked, according to a person familiar with the settlement talks. The North Carolina-based bank was continuing talks late on Tuesday with the group, which includes the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Pimco Investment Management, the world’s largest bondholder, and BlackRock Financial Management. It is expected to announce an agreement as early as Wednesday, the person said on condition of anonymity because the matter was still developing. The deal comes eight months after the group fired off a letter to Bank of America demanding that it repurchase $47bn in mortgages that its Countrywide unit sold to them in the form of bonds. The investors have argued that Countrywide’s practice of modifying loans found to have faulty paperwork or those written outside of normal underwriting standards breached signed agreements with the investors. By continuing to service bad loans rather than speeding up foreclosures, the group has claimed that Countrywide ran up servicing fees, enriching itself at the expense of investors. The New York Fed is involved because it took over assets held by American International Group, which faltered under the weight of bad home loans that it insured. Bank of America, which paid $4bn for Countrywide in 2008, has dismissed suggestions that its handling of loan modifications and other efforts to prevent foreclosure have violated the terms of the mortgage-backed securities that the investors hold. In November, CEO Brian Moynihan said he was in day-to-day “hand-to-hand combat” with investors’ demands. But the combined effect of the Countrywide deal, mortgage crisis and the risk overhang of the soured loans have been a drain on BoA’s bottom line and stock price, eventually prompting a reversal in strategy. Since the beginning of the year, the bank has struck large settlements with multiple investors. In January, the lender paid $2.6bn to settle buyback claims on home loans sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And in April, the bank agreed to pay up to $1.6bn to Assured Guaranty, an insurer that also pressed the bank to repurchase shoddy mortgages. If approved, the latest settlement would address a significant remaining slice of Bank of America’s mortgage buyback claim risk. A Bank of America spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment. Bank of America US housing and sub-prime crisis US economy United States guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
US cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting

When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion price tag for America’s wars. Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the US Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday. The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project ‘Costs of War’ by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies. (http://www.costsofwar.org) In the 10 years since US troops went into Afghanistan to root out the Al Qaeda leaders behind the…

Continue reading …

Bank of America is close to a deal that calls for the lender to pay $8.5 billion to settle claims from a group of heavyweight investors who bought mortgage-backed securities before the housing collapse and lost a ton of money in the process. A person familiar with the discussions…

Continue reading …

Ultimately, there are only two things that will help rescue our economy — and our democracy — from the dangers posed to us by Too Big to Fail banks. The first is to arrest a lot of Wall Street bank executives for the massive and intentional fraud perpetrated on homeowners, clients, shareholders, and taxpayers. Crimes were clearly committed in great numbers, and those who commit large numbers of crimes — serious, egregious, intentional crimes — should be prosecuted. The kinds of very modest negotiated fines we see coming out of the SEC from time to time — a couple hundred million dollars paid by the shareholders of companies whose quarterly profits and executive bonuses are in the billions — are just not going to change the criminal behavior of so many of those executives. The second is to break up the Too Big to Fail banks. Period. As long as these banks are as huge as they are (the six largest own assets equivalent to 64 percent of America’s GDP), if they teeter at all, no matter the cause, they will have to be bailed out. And as long as they are that big and powerful — economically and politically — they will always have the ability to unduly influence and, yes, capture and corrupt regulators, members of Congress, and judges so that whatever restraints might be proposed or put on them are eventually weakened, watered down, or swept away. Institutions that big and wealthy and powerful are a threat to our economy and the very basis of our pluralistic democracy. In the meantime, though, until these two big fundamental things begin to happen, we are left with more modest legislative and regulatory action. This Wednesday , after a brutal fight involving last year’s financial reform legislation, a more recent amendment fight in the Senate, and an exhaustive round of regulatory review by the Federal Reserve, it looks like we will finally have a new regulation put in place on the swipe fee issue — which until now had been completely unregulated and had allowed the big banks and credit card companies to run completely roughshod over consumers and small businesses. I have been working on this issue as part of a truly strange coalition of consumer groups and retailers. The proposed rule that came out from the Fed a while back was reasonably fair to the retailers, which was a major upset given how kind to Wall Street banks the Fed has historically been. This prompted the big banks to scream bloody murder and try to delay the rule in Congress. But after they were once again defeated in another big upset (big Wall Street banks rarely lose Congressional fights either), the rulemaking is going forward. Let’s hope Wall Street doesn’t have another sleazy trick up its sleeve and the Fed finally puts in place the kind of modest new rule they first proposed on swipe fees. As long as these Wall Street banks are this powerful, this kind of very small reform on very modest issues is all we are left with in terms of restraining these banks. But we’ll take whatever we can get. Let’s hope the Federal Reserve does the right thing on Wednesday.

Continue reading …

Ultimately, there are only two things that will help rescue our economy — and our democracy — from the dangers posed to us by Too Big to Fail banks. The first is to arrest a lot of Wall Street bank executives for the massive and intentional fraud perpetrated on homeowners, clients, shareholders, and taxpayers. Crimes were clearly committed in great numbers, and those who commit large numbers of crimes — serious, egregious, intentional crimes — should be prosecuted. The kinds of very modest negotiated fines we see coming out of the SEC from time to time — a couple hundred million dollars paid by the shareholders of companies whose quarterly profits and executive bonuses are in the billions — are just not going to change the criminal behavior of so many of those executives. The second is to break up the Too Big to Fail banks. Period. As long as these banks are as huge as they are (the six largest own assets equivalent to 64 percent of America’s GDP), if they teeter at all, no matter the cause, they will have to be bailed out. And as long as they are that big and powerful — economically and politically — they will always have the ability to unduly influence and, yes, capture and corrupt regulators, members of Congress, and judges so that whatever restraints might be proposed or put on them are eventually weakened, watered down, or swept away. Institutions that big and wealthy and powerful are a threat to our economy and the very basis of our pluralistic democracy. In the meantime, though, until these two big fundamental things begin to happen, we are left with more modest legislative and regulatory action. This Wednesday , after a brutal fight involving last year’s financial reform legislation, a more recent amendment fight in the Senate, and an exhaustive round of regulatory review by the Federal Reserve, it looks like we will finally have a new regulation put in place on the swipe fee issue — which until now had been completely unregulated and had allowed the big banks and credit card companies to run completely roughshod over consumers and small businesses. I have been working on this issue as part of a truly strange coalition of consumer groups and retailers. The proposed rule that came out from the Fed a while back was reasonably fair to the retailers, which was a major upset given how kind to Wall Street banks the Fed has historically been. This prompted the big banks to scream bloody murder and try to delay the rule in Congress. But after they were once again defeated in another big upset (big Wall Street banks rarely lose Congressional fights either), the rulemaking is going forward. Let’s hope Wall Street doesn’t have another sleazy trick up its sleeve and the Fed finally puts in place the kind of modest new rule they first proposed on swipe fees. As long as these Wall Street banks are this powerful, this kind of very small reform on very modest issues is all we are left with in terms of restraining these banks. But we’ll take whatever we can get. Let’s hope the Federal Reserve does the right thing on Wednesday.

Continue reading …
Morning Joe Crew Decries Blago Convictions: A ‘Miscarriage of Justice’

Tuesday's Morning Joe treated the conviction of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich as a relatively minor affair, and gave it little to no coverage save a brief discussion about the supposed injustice of the process. “It's any other day and that's any other news story,” said Mika Brzezinski, who appeared annoyed at being asked to cover the story at all. Later, she insisted “We're not going to waste the first block on this.”

Continue reading …

It was with gladness in our hearts that all of us at Blue America celebrated the state of New York legalizing gay marriage this past week-end. It was a welcome reminder that even in this era of Tea Parties and economic malaise, human progress cannot be stopped. Imagine if we had a national government with enough fighters for working families to make progress on all fronts, from civil rights to economic justice to ending our useless expensive wars. Imagine if we had more leaders like Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison and Donna Edwards to press for that agenda.

 Yesterday, longtime progressive congresswoman Lynn Woolsey announced her retirement from the Congress after a long and illustrious career. And Blue America endorsee and longtime political activist and author Norman Solomon stands ready and able to carry on the progressive tradition of that district and join the above list of progressive leaders. 

“We’re gaining the kind of traction that a grassroots campaign needs in order to win,” Solomon says, “the groundswell of support is very encouraging.” 

Indeed it is. We need congressional representatives who understand that we are no longer able to afford open ended military adventures and corrupt political boondoggles and Norman has been fighting to end them his entire life.These issues are no longer matters of abstract ideology– they are necessary and pragmatic approaches to the problems of our time. We need people like Norman Solomon in congress to lead the way.

 

And please help Norman with a donation if you can. 

The good news is that it looks as though we aren’t the only progressives who are enthusiastic about him– the campaign has managed to collect $100,000 already from small donors. But he is not a corporate funded Democrat and will need our help to compete. 

 Howie writes today (all the way from Asia!): Yesterday Norman penned a guest Op-E d for the Marin Independent Journal that presents a lot of insight into what kind of congressman he’d be– and into why Blue America is so committed to his candidacy. I bet this is what you wish YOUR congressmember and senator– not to mention our president– was saying about the dangers of nuclear energy… and what to do about it. But they’re not. It’s why it’s so crucial that we need real leaders like Norman Solomon, not just someone who will probably vote well in the House. Several decades ago, three expert nuclear engineers told a congressional panel why they decided to quit: “We could no longer justify devoting our life energies to the continued development and expansion of nuclear fission power– a system we believe to be so dangerous that it now threatens the very existence of life on this planet.” The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy heard that testimony in 1977, when the conventional wisdom was still hailing “the peaceful atom” as a flawless marvel. During the same year, solid information convinced me to move from concern to action against nuclear power. By the time the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant came close to rendering much of central Pennsylvania uninhabitable, I was nearly two years into full-time anti-nuclear work that included public education, civic activism and nonviolent direct action. Given what was at stake, I didn’t mind spending a month in jail for civil disobedience. More than 30 years later, the ongoing disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant underscores the grim realities of nuclear power, ranging from catastrophic reactor accidents to highly radioactive waste that will remain deadly for many thousands of years. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Energy Department have been avidly promoting nuclear power for decades. Periodic calls for more “studies” have kicked the radioactive can down the road. I reject the notion that we should wait for such nuclear-enthralled agencies to tell us whether nuclear power is an acceptable risk for Californians. As the director of the National Citizens Hearings for Radiation Victims in 1980, I learned a lot about patterns of official enabling of the nuclear industry– with awful results for human health and the environment. Similar patterns persist in this country. In contrast, the government of Germany has seen the light. At the end of last month, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a reversal of policy– moving to shut down nuclear power instead of trying to expand it. The decision to immediately close eight German nuclear power plants and shut the rest by 2022 came in a country that had been getting 23 percent of its electricity from nukes. Here in California, we’re less reliant on this Faustian technology, getting just 15 percent of our electricity from nuclear power. The state has a lot of excess generating capacity from other sources, but far better choices for the environment are within our grasp. Don’t you think that’s a point of view that deserves to have representation in the congress? Is it too much to ask that we have at least a few liberal voices willing to speak out on issues like nuclear power and endless wars in the US Congress? We don’t think so. Please consider helping Norman bring this kind of thinking to Washington by contribution to his campaign through ActBlue . Norman summed his platform up in one powerful sentence today saying is he’s elected to Congress, he “will insist that we need to bring our troops and tax dollars home– that we need healthcare not warfare– that we must resist corporate power– that caving in to Wall Street and polluters and enemies of civil liberties is unacceptable.” Please welcome Norman Solomon back to Blue America.

Continue reading …
‘Horrible Bosses’ Red Band Trailer: Jennifer Aniston Gets Raunchy, Charlie Day Gets Pissed (VIDEO)

Almost two decades in to being one of America’s Sweethearts, Jennifer Aniston is reaching a new high — by going for a new low. Aniston, as has been consistently highlighted, stars in the upcoming hard-R film, “Horrible Bosses,” the tale of three men (Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day) who want to murder their, well, horrible bosses. Aniston plays one of those awful employers, a sexual harassment-happy dentist with a very non-traditional definition of rape. And order in which she eats her courses at dinner. Kevin Spacey and a barely recognizable Collin Farrell take on the roles of the other two bosses, while Jamie Foxx, as Motherf*cker Jones, plays a hitman inspiring the three beleaguered employees to pull off the killings. This new trailer gives the most graphic details of the film yet; come July 8th, all the horribleness will be in full view. WATCH: Video: Exclusive RED BAND Trailer: Horrible Bosses

Continue reading …