Chilly drafts of wind pour through cracked windows and holes in the roof of Bethlehem Steel's tool shop. The interior looks like life had suddenly stopped, as though men had simply abandoned work stations and left their equipment to rot. Pigeon dirt covers rolling tables where streams of steel billets used to flow. In nearby sheds, hundreds of dies, once meticulously cut by skilled craftsmen, sit rusting and neglected because someone else's dies are now shaping this nation's tool steel.
     - - John Strohmeyer, 1985

Abandoned oil refining plant, near Philadelphia, 2007

America began de-industrializing 35-40 years ago, but the process continues. It is a problem that free market capitalism cannot solve, because it is natural for capital to avoid long-term investment, in particular avoiding high-wage nations. It will be hard on us here in the U.S. if our Ivy League masters fail to understand what America's basic economic problem is, or are too sold out to do anything about it even if they do understand. Only government can do anything here, and foregoing short-term profit for long-term benefit would involve short-term pain for the capitalist class. One person who does understand the underlying problem is Michael Perelman, who writes (emphasis added):

With all the attention to the current financial crisis, the time has come to look at another part of market failure -- the reluctance to invest in long-lived plant and equipment. I'm not merely thinking about the deindustrialization of the US economy, but a more general reluctance. . . .

The most popular response to this reluctance to invest [was the Joseph Schumpeter concept,] creative destruction.

The idea was that when the economy became sluggish, new innovations would be so profitable that investors would rush in and build up whole new industries. In doing so, they would destroy existing industry, but the net effect was to enliven the entire economy. For Schumpeter, this creative destruction was the lifeblood of capitalism.

Schumpeter liked to use transportation as a dramatic example of creative destruction. [In the early 19th Century, c]anals slashed the cost of transportation, while setting off an economic boom. Railroads followed with another revolution in transportation, setting off another boom. Finally, the internal combustion engine allowed trucks to haul freight with even more savings, creating still another boom.

But wait! Where are the entrepreneurs? Government, not entrepreneurs, provided the wherewithal for these transportation revolutions. Governments built the canals. Governments financed the railroads with land grants and other subsidies. Governments built the highways that made possible freight hauling by trucks. Schumpeter could not have chosen a more perfect example [of how uninvolved entrepreneurs were in the long-term investment that created new transportation infrastructures]..

The Obama doom and gloom vibe is not rooted just in poll numbers, though those are fairly bad, and it's not so much the 'surprised leftist' complaint that he has 'tacked right' in recent weeks and months (he actually hasn't, he was already there (but that's another, deleted by Peeder diary)).

No, it's the smell of fear, insecurity and typical Dem conventional wisdom. The vice president thing showed the real Obama (one I've been talking about for months (in many many deleted by Peeder diaries)), an insecure guy very strictly obedient to wuss party conventional wisdom. The recent sky-is-falling was "They say WE'RE WEAK ON FOREIGN POLICY!!!!" and so (showing poor judgment even there) Obama chose the insider-as-parody Biden.

Then McCain and his advisers, showing good strategic judgment, chose a candidate who resonates with and amplifies McCain's maverick theme. (Biden resonates only to the sound of his own voice.) Obama should've chosen as McCain did, a candidate like Bill Richardson who resonates with and amplifies Obama's (apparent) 'ethnics r the shit' message.  

Spengler, an asshole over at atimes.com, sums up:

McCain's choice of vice presidential candidate made obvious after the fact what the party professionals felt in their fingertips at the stadium extravaganza [Obama's acceptance speech] yesterday: rejecting Clinton [well, Spengler is wrong on a lot of things] in favor of the colorless, unpopular, tangle-tongued Washington perennial Joe Biden was a statement of weakness. McCain's selection was a statement of strength. America's voters will forgive many things in a politician, including sexual misconduct, but they will not forgive weakness.

That is why McCain will win in November, and by a landslide, barring some unforeseen event [again, imho Spengler is wrong here and with the economy sucking so bad this still looks like a close election]. Obama [has] a fatally insecure personality. American voters are not intellectual, but they are shrewd, like animals. They can smell insecurity, and the convention stank of it. Obama's prospective defeat is entirely of its own making. No one is more surprised than Republican strategists, who were convinced just weeks ago that a weakening economy ensured a Democratic victory. . . .

McCain doesn't have a tenth of Obama's synaptic fire-power, but he is a nasty old sailor who knows when to come about for a broadside. Given Obama's defensive, even wimpy selection of a running-mate, McCain's choice was obvious. He picked the available candidate most like himself: a maverick with impeccable reform credentials, a risk-seeking commercial fisherwoman and huntress married to a marathon snowmobile racer who carries a steelworkers union card. The Democratic order of battle was to tie McCain to the Bush administration and attack McCain by attacking Bush. With Palin on the ticket, McCain has re-emerged as the maverick he really is.

As I said, Spengler's an asshole: McCain's as much a maverick as James Garner was, i.e. he plays one on TV (well, in that lame-ass movie with Jodie Foster too). And Palin's 'reform credentials' are all bullshit. But, anyway, Spengler's right about McCain refurbishing his image and Obama messing up his (the article also goes into Spengler's psycho-analysis of Obama, which is a worthwhile read imho).

FAIRLEFT'S Predictable ADVICE TO OBAMA:

As the Daily Howler wrote on Friday, it was a week for peering inside the dead souls of the U.S. media elite. And the most revealing two paragraphs came from the corporate media's least self-aware disinfotainer, Chris Matthews. Jealousy probably underlay the MSNBC Hardballer stating, immediately after hearing of boss Tim Russert's death, that Russert was the targeted dupe for the 'scary nukes' issue that Bush/Cheney used to get us into Iraq. Here's Matthews on Thursday, June 13 (emphasis added):

One other thing, and may be tricky to say this and I'll say it. When we went to war with Iraq, he and I had a little discussion about that and this is where he is every man. This is where Tim is Mr. or Miss America or Mrs. America. He is us as a country. I said, why--how can you believe this war is justified?  And he said, "The nuclear thing. If they have a bomb that they can use, we've got to deal with. We can't walk away from that."

And that to me was the essence of what was wrong with the whole case of the war. They knew the argument that would sell with Mr. America, with the regular guy, with the true American patriot. They used the argument that would sell, that would get us into that war. Tim was right on the nail. He was us, the American people. And that to me is something that has been coming in my head the last couple of hours when Tim and I had that conversation, that that was the thing that sold America. And the guys who wanted the war used that one thing that would sell the patriot in Tim Russert.

In sum, Cheney felt that Russert was the key guy he had to dupe, and it couldn't have been easier: 'TRUST ME TIM, SADDAM'S GOT NUKES!' That's all: no push back, no inquiry, End of F-cking Story. The Howler quotes Matthews and adds (emphasis by fairleft):

Matthews, of course, is describing a private discussion. There's no proof that this discussion occurred . . . But did Russert really get played, as embellishments led us to war in Iraq? You don't have to rely on Matthews. Who can forget the embarrassing exchange Russert had with Bill Moyers, just last year? Had Russert been duped by the war machine? Fairly plainly, Moyers was asking--and as he answered, Russert made one of the most embarrassing statements a big journalist ever has made:

As for US President George W Bush, he had just spoken praising Maliki for waging a "historic and decisive" battle against the Mahdi Army, which he said was "a defining moment" in the history of a "free Iraq". Both Maliki and Bush look very foolish. . . .

. . . nothing infuriates Cheney more than when US oil interests are hit. Thus, the most critical few weeks in the decades-long US-Iran standoff may have just begun.

Yes, the terrorists have won again. Or, as the Asia Times headlines it, Iran torpedoes US plans for Iraqi oil. The excellent M K Bhadrakumar writes:

It appears that one of the most shadowy figures of the Iranian security establishment, General Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Quds Force of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) personally mediated in the intra-Iraqi Shi'ite negotiations. Suleimani is in charge of the IRGC's operations abroad.

US military commanders routinely blame the Quds for all their woes in Iraq. The fact that the representatives of Da'wa and SIIC secretly traveled to Qom under the very nose of American and British intelligence and sought Quds mediation to broker a deal conveys a huge political message. Iran signals that security considerations rather than politics or religion prevailed.

But the politics of the deal are all too apparent. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who was camping in Basra and personally supervising the operations against the Mahdi Army, was not in the loop about the goings-on. As for US President George W Bush, he had just spoken praising Maliki for waging a "historic and decisive" battle against the Mahdi Army, which he said was "a defining moment" in the history of a "free Iraq". Both Maliki and Bush look very foolish. . . .

according to the Drum Major Institute, if you average their newly released 2007 grades with earlier ones:

Hillary Clinton:

2007. A+
      
2005. A
      
2004. B
      
2003. A

Barack Obama:

2007. A+
      
2005. C

Obama received a poor grade in 2005 for two votes. First, he voted for H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Drum Major Institute commented:

The most startling thing about this legislation is what it does not do. In the first place, the 1,700-page multi-billion dollar bill fails to help middle-class consumers squeezed by high gas and fuel costs. The rollback in public safety protections also puts middle-class families at risk, for example by exempting oil and gas companies from the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act when these companies inject carcinogenic chemicals into the ground. At the same time, the deregulation of public utilities exposes the middle class to a different kind of risk: stemming from increased consolidation of utilities that could raise electric rates and manipulate energy markets. What the bill does do is provide massive taxpayer subsidies - to the tune of $85.1 billion dollars - for some of the world's most profitable corporations, so that, among other things, they can drill on public land while paying the public less, ultimately leaving middle-class families to pick up a bigger share of the cost of public services. Finally, although the legislation comes at a time of overwhelming scientific evidence about the dangers of global warming and increased concern about the nation's dependence on foreign oil, it does very little to address either problem, neglecting to even increase fuel efficiency standards for cars.

Yeah, I'm a sucker for a little optimism, and this guy Mark Perry* makes some sense. And like anybody awake, I appreciate his honest 'one-party government' take on U.S. foreign policy, in this case specifically Israel/Palestine policy. Anywho, he talks optimism after naming the politically near-identical 'bipartisan foreign policy' suspects guiding all three of the major candidates:

Clinton's advisors include a large number of near-greats from her husband's administration (Richard Holbrooke, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger and Wes Clark), while Obama's list is peppered with experienced officials (former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, Africa expert Susan Rice and former NSC chiefs Zbigniew Brzezinski and Tony Lake) and some surprises (former Clinton envoy Dennis Ross and Reagan Defense Department stalwart Noel Koch). John McCain's administration-in-waiting, however, is by far the most interesting - and imposing: Richard Armitage, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell and Lawrence Eagleburger.

None of the candidates has said a word about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would ruffle any feathers ("we're not even going to talk about the issue during the campaign," a senior campaign official told me) and all have expressed their uncompromising support for Israel, their unyielding condemnation of terror and their disdain for the irrational shortsightedness of Israel's enemies. . . . Which is not to say that a few headliners have not caused concern either in Israel or among its most adamant American friends. For example: Clinton advisor Wes Clark has been widely derided for calling Israel's war against Hizballah a "serious mistake" (no, really, it was a great idea), [Obama advisor] Zbigniew Brzezinski has been called "an Israel hater" (his friendship with Menachem Begin must have been a charade), while John McCain has been taken to task for once suggesting that peace between Israel and the Palestinians would require "concessions and sacrifices by both sides" (now there's an idiotic concept). [Yippee, one 'off-the-reservation' remark by each team!]

These breathless rantings aside, it is clear that Clinton, Obama and McCain will break with the policies of George Bush. The reason has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but with America's disaster in Iraq. Bush's claim that the road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad is so thoroughly discredited that it has now been turned on its head: peace between Israelis and Palestinians is now quietly accepted by each of the candidates as a prerequisite for regional stability-and not the other way around.

It was Prozac. And let the drug-money-addled MSM's defense begin before that word drops onto the page. Hey, do you think Jeremy Manier might drop in a quote next time from Elliot Valenstein or David Healy?

Doctors: Prozac, violence rarely linked
Experts doubtful that halting medication led directly to shooting at NIU
By Jeremy Manier | TRIBUNE REPORTER
February 19, 2008

In the wake of Steven Kazmierczak's murderous shooting spree at Northern Illinois University, law-enforcement officials noted he had begun to behave erratically after he recently stopped taking psychiatric medication.

That fact might seem to offer a tidy explanation for his rampage, or at least some insight into his troubled mind. But psychiatrists say suspending a patient's use of antidepressants -- Prozac, in Kazmierczak's case -- is rarely linked to violence toward others.

When used under a therapist's supervision, they stress, such medication can help people overcome depression and other mental ailments. And while the source of Kazmierczak's state of mind remains a mystery, experts said it's unlikely that halting his Prozac therapy would have led directly to his shooting plot. [Weasel Words Alert 1: Well, how unlikely? Less than a .001% chance, or less than a 50% chance?]

At the same time, psychiatrists say, his case may help reinforce a key lesson: Stopping antidepressant therapy suddenly can be risky if patients do not follow a doctor's instructions and don't report any negative effects.

About one-fifth of people who halt a course of Prozac-like drugs report symptoms associated with a condition known as discontinuation syndrome [Weasel Words Alert 2: the syndrome is not known as "withdrawal symptoms" because drug PR muscle prevented describing accurately the Prozac realities of addiction and withdrawal], which can include abdominal pain, dizziness, crying spells, irritability and even a sensation similar to an electrical shock in the patient's arms or legs. [That's all? Nothing about wanting to kill others and yourself?]

Police have yet to uncover a motive. [Stephen] Kazmierczak was an NIU graduate student in sociology in the spring of 2007, but was not currently enrolled, according to a release on the school's Web site.

The Chicago Tribune reported that the school honored the gunman two years ago for his research on the U.S. prison system. The research included a study of self-inflicted wounds among prisoners.

"He was an outstanding student. An awarded student," said NIU Police Chief Donald Grady. "Those he had communication with felt he was a very good student and a fairly normal, unstressed person."

Grady said that Kazmierczak was a graduate student in social work at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Kazmierczak was taking some kind of medication, Grady said, but declined to name the drug or provide other details.

"He had stopped taking medication and become somewhat erratic in the last couple of weeks," Grady said.

http://www.cbs46.com/news/15304821/detail.html

When's the medication going to be named? Who has the police chief chosen to serve and protect, and who to put in danger?

Eat or stop eating yer Prozac, Paxil, or Zoloft, and have uncontrollable urge to commmit suicide and mass murder?

Lilly fights journal article on Prozac
By Barry Meier
Published: TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2005

Last year was an especially bad one for the pharmaceutical industry, which experienced controversies over how drug studies are disclosed and the implosion of the painkiller Vioxx.

Now, as a result of the recent publication of an article about the antidepressant Prozac, it appears that the staid, usually methodical world of medical journals could suffer its own black eye.

On New Year's Day, BMJ, a British medical journal, published a news article suggesting that "missing" documents from a decade-old lawsuit indicated that Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, had minimized data about the drug's risks of causing suicidal or violent behavior.

The article's appearance came shortly after a controversy erupted over whether drug makers had adequately disclosed the risks that antidepressants posed to pediatric patients. Meanwhile, Christopher Pittman, a teenager from South Carolina, is facing trial for murder as an adult on charges that he killed his grandparents when he was 12. Pittman has acknowledged the crime, but his lawyers contend that he became violent after taking Zoloft, an antidepressant similar to Prozac. . . .

Does this look like a comment expanded into a dairy? Morning ramblings inspired by TheHater's late night ramblings:

Hill or Bama, 2009 Summarized (0.00 / 0)

It is sad to see the left fantasizing hope about either Hillary or Obama. But in the real 'liberal' networld (everywhere outside mydd.com) the only people doing that are Obamamaniacs.

On the two big issues I've focused on here's what I think Hillbama would do:

Bama: Based on who his major donors are, who his major advisors are, and on what Obama has said repeatedly, he'll use his first 100 days 'grace period' to bipartisanly compromise with the Republicans and get some 'deforms' passed which will cutback on Medicare (whose costs truly are exploding) while instituting privatized so very expensive almost-universal health care, and cutback and partially privatize (with Wall Street managed mini-accounts) Social Security ('I had to do it, the Republicans forced me; it was either that or we'd 'soon' have a 'crisis' on our hands.')

Hill: With Hillaryrule (and despite her properly attacking Obama for his explicit pushing of privatization & 'everything on the table') we'd probably get nearly the same on Social Security. But we'd get a stalemate on health care, cuz the Republicans and conservative/Obama Dems would be less willing to let her pass privatized so very expensive 'mandated' universal health care. That would be bad, but good too, cuz the poor and old wouldn't suffer those Medicare 'compromise' cutbacks.

Imperialism: Other than that, it's a guessing game, except perhaps on imperialism. Obama would probably get us halfway (but that's all) out of Iraq faster than Hillary. On the other hand, I think the media and 'liberals' would give him much much more leeway than they would give Hillary to be dynamically imperialist for the great God Corporate Globalization. So, that's about a wash.

Damn, she's taking (some of) my advice! If she pushes this stuff in Obama's face and the MSM lets the populist Hillary through (uh, here's yesterday's AP Obama press release 'news' on Hillary's populist speech), we might actually have a Democratic nomination race on our hands, and it will be a left vs. right race as it should be. Three highlights from Hillary's speech yesterday to Ohio GM workers:

Restore fairness to our tax code by making sure Wall Street investment managers never pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries, and by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Crack down on unscrupulous mortgage lenders to ensure that families are no longer lured into mortgages they can't afford.

Enact a Fair Credit for Families Agenda to protect American families from abusive credit card practices like excessive fees and sudden rate hikes. . . . She will immediately impose a 30 percent cap on annual interest rates for credit cards and work toward a lower cap that is linked to a standard benchmark.

Saying Social Security is in crisis is anti-Social Security; it is repeating a Republican lie, the same one Prez Bush tried to use in 2005 to get Social Security cutbacks and private accounts started. Saying 'everything is on the table' twice in early 2007 is anti-Social Security, message effectively sent to Wall Street even when he later backtracks from it.

But Tuesday in Wisconsin Barack Obama proposed forcing employers to open private accounts for workers:

A Secure Retirement - Obama will require employers to enroll every worker in a direct deposit retirement account that places a small percentage of each paycheck into savings.  Workers would be able to retain this account even if they change jobs, and the federal government will match the savings for working families.

Why the heck do that? If you support Social Security, why not instead force employers to contribute more money to Social Security?

Upstate Dem nails Mr. Bipartisan, Barack Obama, with this dairy over at mydd (bold added):

President Obama's Compromises
by Upstate Dem, Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:20:00 AM CDT

After 9/11 George W. Bush put the country on a permanent war footing and created a new role for himself -- The Decider. In so doing he revitalized his presidency and greatly expanded and solidified his political base. . . . They were both enemies of Bush and needed to be defeated by any means necessary. In this domestic war confrontation was unavoidable and to be welcomed. . . .

In the wreckage of the Bush presidency Barack Obama has pursued a different means of obtaining power. He would end the political wars and declare himself The Uniter. In this role confrontation is his enemy and must be avoided. (This does not apply in Obama's current struggle with Hillary Clinton because she is seen as a Divider. She and her supporters just don't get it. Once they are disposed of, Obama can begin bringing us together.)

President Obama will be under tremendous pressure from his base to fulfill his role as a uniter. They trust him to worry about the details and are unlikely to push him in any particular direction.  His election will be victory in itself. On policy Obama's path of least resistance will be to the right. Confrontation will sap his power. (The media will also provide a check on Obama's liberal impulses.  For them Republican rule is the natural order of things. Democrats must be bipartisan.)

Premeditated capitulation will likely be the legislative strategy of the Obama administration. This helps account for Obama's disturbing language on health care and Social Security.

Kill That Arab! A Marine crosses a downtown Toledo street during 2005 urban warfare training exercise. (All Toledo photos are from the Toledo Blade.)

Invaders attempting to kill patriots defending their country. Ramadi, Iraq.

Toledo mayor defends decision to send Michigan Marines away
2/10/2008, 6:42 p.m. EST
The Associated Press

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) -- Mayor Carty Finkbeiner said Sunday that he stands by his decision to stop a Michigan-based Marine battalion from holding an urban warfare training session downtown.

About 200 Marine reservists had prepared to conduct the exercise at a vacant building Friday when city officials put a stop to it. Residents had complained about previous exercises, city officials said.

Finkbeiner said in a statement that more than 10,000 people would have been leaving their downtown offices as Friday's exercise unfolded.

"The mayor asked them to leave because they frighten people," Finkbeiner spokesman Brian Schwartz said. "He did not want them drilling and practicing in a highly visible area."

Of course, if you want the way the right-wing media plays this 'abuse of our heroes', watch CNN 'news':

Which you have to be to make Chris Matthews look good. You'd think every leftist would be celebrating after the stupid right-wing asshole got taken down for a typically coarse Hardball anti-Clinton remark. But, oh yeah, it was about a Clinton, and, oh yeah, we're in the middle of irrational Obamamania, even at increasingly myleftwingian fleshfeast.

Let's take a walk through some of Shuster the Nose Picker's greatest flubs, courtesy mostly of the Daily Howler. Here he is 'truth squading' after the Dem debate last August (my bold):

SHUSTER (8/7/07): There were a few instances in this forum tonight where Democrats gave some untruthful descriptions of the Bush administration and the impact of administration policies on the nation. Watch.

CLINTON (videotape): Well, the first thing I would do would put somebody in charge who actually cared about the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.

BIDEN (videotape): We know how badly this president has ruined the country.

SHUSTER: The use of the word "ruin" is pretty amazing, Chris, because you think "ruin" is defined as "irreparable damage," and for Joe Biden to say the nation is irreparably damaged--is ruined permanently--that is a bit of a stretch. And also, you can have arguments about whether it is right policy as far as rebuilding New Orleans and what they`re doing, but to say that the Bush administration doesn't care about New Orleans, that's a leap. [Shuster's emphasis]

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you, David Shuster.