Now, the story begins to change. From The Guardian:

The Guardian has learned from Saudi sources that the agent was not a Saudi national as was widely reported, but a Yemeni. He was born in Saudi Arabia, in the port city of Jeddah, and then studied and worked in the UK, where he acquired a British passport.

Mike Scheur, the former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, said the leaking about the nuts and bolts of British involvement was despicable and would make a repeat of the operation difficult. “MI6 should be as angry as hell. This is something that the prime minister should raise with the president, if he has the balls. This is really tragic,” Scheur said.

They gave up a plant who has been there for years in order to expose something like this? What a waste that would be.

Given the CIA’s past bumbling that resulted in seven dead agents, I would more readily believe that the US thought the double agent was working for them and only recently discovered that he was working for someone else whereupon they would take whatever they squeeze out of him and call it a day. They could say he is “in hiding” and in fact have him at a foreign rendition site. The American people would have no way of knowing the truth.

Someone who works in the USPS has told me several times about wasteful practices there. The fact that USPS officials never mention waste in their public discussions of income “shortfalls” suggests that management allows the practices to continue, intentionally to promote the outcome desired by politicians. Of course, there will be cushy jobs available for those who aided privatization. Also, it has been pointed out that the USPS, while it lost some of its First Class mail income, has had an increase in other kinds of mail. Personally, I receive as much mail as I ever did–which has always been mainly commercial mail.

Where are the jobs for women, older workers and people with disabilities? The emphasis is always on construction work, which is done mainly by young, able men.

The job creation plans are therefore highly discriminatory and futher marginalize groups that already are targeted for cuts in benefits. Moreover, some people in these groups are hit with multiple cuts…but are shut out of the job market. This is outrageous.

Another thing–you can tell these plans were concocted by big business because they focus spending on things, not people. School buildings, not dental care for schoolchildren. Road construction, not services for homebound elders. And, those things reduce costs for big businesses. And, if it isn’t useful to big business, it’s not likely to get funded.

Voters need to learn to think several steps ahead, like the plutocracy does in manipulating them. The strategy here is obvious. First, they drastically cut Social Security coverage for younger people. Then, they stir up resentment among younger people, dividing them from older voters. This is already happening via the “Social Security is a Ponzi scheme” rhetoric. It aims to convince younger people that they are paying for a luxurious retirement for older people that they can never enjoy. Once they have succeeded in turning young people against their elders, the plutocracy will go after the benefits of retirees in earnest.

Both parties are puppets, serving the same wealthy elite. Their bosses win no matter if you vote Rep or Dem, and the puppets get paid off, too, whether they win or lose.

If you really want to send a message, vote for a third party–any third party–or write someone in. Better yet, take you complaints straight to the power brokers–the transnational corporations. Trying to get what you want from the politicians is like expecting the WalMart greeter to settle your gripe about store services.

One thing that is often overlooked is the impact on children of elderly parents who need assistance. Reductions in both SS and Medicare benefits will force many adult children to make up the difference. In other cases, unemployed adult children may be currently living with their elderly parents who may have the only source of income. That will hurt the younger people, too. Mainly, Republican support comes from the 30 and under crowd, whose parents probably haven’t reached SS retirement age, yet. But, just wait….

IMO, the “jobs” plan is being introduced now, so late in the game, in order to divert attention from the proposed benefit cuts. But, the plan won’t help most Americans in need of work (particularly women and seniors) and forcing Americans to work longer before Social Security will create a larger job deficit than Obama’s proposal could possibly fill. Robbing Peter to pay Mary and Mary gets stiffed is how I would describe it.

At first, it seem insensible that Pawlenty would let something as meaningless as the straw poll discourage him. Then, it occurred that participating in such an event would provide some good opportunities to get promised benefits in exchange for withdrawing from the field.

I don’t believe I have ever heard this idea expressed better.

Political debates will ALWAYS be about issues that don’t involve corporate profits, thus providing the impression that the public has a choice about SOMETHING, even though both parties’ candidates plan to implement more or less the same economic strategies desired by the corporate elites.

Thus, when a CEO or lobbyist says that regulations must be jettisoned before corporations will spend their offshored profits on hiring US workers, the leaders of both parties fail to question it’s absurdity or to offer any alternatives.

So, basically, on advice from S & P, a shill for the banking industry, Congress has parked America in the bad part of town (Wall Street) where banking industry thieves can strip it clean. A shining example of stewardship.

It’s noteworthy, I think, that the exact same talking points are being promoted by the Wall Street Journal (a News Corp publication) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The later, of course, is operated by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an independent agency of the U.S. government, whose board is comprised of political appointees. Notwithstanding that obvious conflict of interest, RFE/RL insists that its journalists are independent of political influence. This article demonstrates that it is not. Moreover, it suggests that the relationship between News Corp and the US executive branch is alarmingly cozy. One wonders, what other information, besides talking points are they sharing?

The “free trade” deal received precious little media coverage. Instead, the media covered a murder trial night and day and obsessed over the credibility of a maid in a rape investigation. As if those had anywhere near the same impact. So, today I pulled the plug on cable TV.