I find it interesting that Hillary won Ohio by 10 points yesterday while in spite of an Ohio Poll released on Sunday that showed her ahead by 9, the MSM kept saying Obama was surging and the race was too close to call. Interesting that she also won with a "wider than expected" margin in Texas too.
Hmmmm, do you think the MSM might just be trying to manipulate the process a bit? Why do they dislike Hillary so much? Is this going to be a repeat of Gore v W in '00 where the MSM could not find enough good to say about W and willingly propagated every falsehood and lie it was handed, and made fun of Gore for being a wooden wonk at every opportunity?
I held my nose and did something I said I would l not do yesterday. I wanted to vote for Edwards as he was still on the ballot and got 4% of the popular, but no delegates. I just could not stomach throwing my vote away in protest this year.
Obama does seem to have a problem in large states. I wonder why? I have no idea except that perhaps his charisma is more potent when people see him in person.
Pennsylvania is very similar to Ohio, so unless Obama can flesh out his message, and be less compromising, he may not have much of a chance. My own feeling is the voters of Ohio saw the lack of clothes on Obama, and do not want compromise after having been given the short end for so long.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Now is Not the Time for Bipartisanship
It is all over the main stream media. Like W’s promise to be a “uniter not a divider” it is the central theme of Obama’s concept of change. There is a conference in Lawrence, Kansas bringing together DINOs like former Senators Nunn and Brownback, with GOP moderates like former NJ governor Whitman and NYC mayor Bloomberg.
It is all a big bait and switch. A scam pure and simple. The economic elites who have benefited from the past 25 years of redistribution of wealth are scared and doing their best to limit the damage of the coming wave.
To me the plan goes something like this:
- Given the utter dissatisfaction the electorate has with conservatism and the GOP the first play is to get the Democrats to nominate someone who is unelectable for President. Hillary is very polarizing. Obama’s race may not be a factor among Democrats, but among white males of whom a majority vote conservative you had better believe race is an issue. The nomination of either of these candidates will narrow the margins in the general election. Heaven forbid Democrats pick a white male from a southern or western state as their nominee.
- In case no. 1 above fails, co opt the anointed Democratic candidates so that if one of them does win in the general election they will not push for radical changes. Both Hillary and Obama have been co-opted in this way from my perspective.
- Call for “bipartisanship” which translates as liberals compromising to adopt more conservative policies. Make any candidate who is unwilling to adopt this line appear to be a left wing whacko, or out of touch. (The treatment John Edwards is getting in the MSM)
- Keep the electorate unhappy with congress. Just imagine how much the Democrats could accomplish with a 60 vote majority in the Senate? The best hope here is to create an anti incumbent furor, so people vote against the current office holder rather than for a particular party. Do this by having the MSM talk about how the Democratic congress cannot get anything done, without mentioning it is because of Senate filibusters by the GOP and vetoes by the current occupant of the White House.
So, to a tin foil hat wearing nut like me, a vote for bi partisan change and compromise is really a vote for the status quo. My question is how do we get people to realize they are being manipulated? It is one of those things no one really wants to know. They would much rather believe they are actually choosing for themselves.
Friday, January 4, 2008
What a Way to Choose a President
Finally, after a year of campaigning, it has begun, the Iowa results are in and it does not look good. I’ll ignore the GOP side of things for now because the Democrats seem determined to give the presidency to whatever wing nut the Republicans nominate.
What I find so discouraging is how the main stream media do everything they can to limit the field to the few candidates they and their corporate masters find to be acceptable. On the Democratic side there are 2: Hillary, the choice of Wall Street, and Obama, the choice of energy and agri-businesses. Edwards has been written off as being “too populist”, a fault that is just beyond my comprehension.
To me this is all just so obvious. But then again I am just a tin foil hat wearing nut. The elites who control the MSM have determined a Republican is close to unelectable in ’08 so they hand picked 2 right of center “Democrats”, candidates who would not do much to disrupt the status quo and the continued redistribution of wealth. They then declared these 2 candidates to be the only ones who were “viable” or top tier. Unfortunately, John Edwards muddled things up by raising if not equal, comparable amounts of money and doing well in polls. Well now the Iowa results are in. A “must win” for Edwards. So according to the analysts he is no longer viable because he came in 2nd based upon the choice of roughly 250,000 people. For example writing about Obama's win NY Times columnist, David Brooks said: "He’s(Obama) made John Edwards, with his angry cries that “corporate greed is killing your children’s future,” seem old-fashioned. Edwards’s political career is probably over. " But keep in mind that Brooks is good source for the next set of conservative talking points so you can see where this is headed. On the other hand, Hillary, who finished 3rd still can win if she can do well in New Hampshire and so on according to the MSM.
It bothers me is that statements of this sort on or in the MSM do effect the way people perceive candidates and vote. It really is rather disgusting. What is perhaps more disgusting is how we (the American electorate) are so easily manipulated by people with an agenda so contrary to the self interest of the majority.
The irony is that Obama won on a platform of change, where when you look at his positions his proposals he offers the least change to the current way the country operates. You just have to wonder how a guy comes out of a state legislature to run for president in just 4 years. Who has been greasing the rails? As stated above: big energy and agri-business. Is it any wonder he won in a state so dependent on agriculture and looking forward to bio fuels? But you won’t hear that from the MSM.
What I find so discouraging is how the main stream media do everything they can to limit the field to the few candidates they and their corporate masters find to be acceptable. On the Democratic side there are 2: Hillary, the choice of Wall Street, and Obama, the choice of energy and agri-businesses. Edwards has been written off as being “too populist”, a fault that is just beyond my comprehension.
To me this is all just so obvious. But then again I am just a tin foil hat wearing nut. The elites who control the MSM have determined a Republican is close to unelectable in ’08 so they hand picked 2 right of center “Democrats”, candidates who would not do much to disrupt the status quo and the continued redistribution of wealth. They then declared these 2 candidates to be the only ones who were “viable” or top tier. Unfortunately, John Edwards muddled things up by raising if not equal, comparable amounts of money and doing well in polls. Well now the Iowa results are in. A “must win” for Edwards. So according to the analysts he is no longer viable because he came in 2nd based upon the choice of roughly 250,000 people. For example writing about Obama's win NY Times columnist, David Brooks said: "He’s(Obama) made John Edwards, with his angry cries that “corporate greed is killing your children’s future,” seem old-fashioned. Edwards’s political career is probably over. " But keep in mind that Brooks is good source for the next set of conservative talking points so you can see where this is headed. On the other hand, Hillary, who finished 3rd still can win if she can do well in New Hampshire and so on according to the MSM.
It bothers me is that statements of this sort on or in the MSM do effect the way people perceive candidates and vote. It really is rather disgusting. What is perhaps more disgusting is how we (the American electorate) are so easily manipulated by people with an agenda so contrary to the self interest of the majority.
The irony is that Obama won on a platform of change, where when you look at his positions his proposals he offers the least change to the current way the country operates. You just have to wonder how a guy comes out of a state legislature to run for president in just 4 years. Who has been greasing the rails? As stated above: big energy and agri-business. Is it any wonder he won in a state so dependent on agriculture and looking forward to bio fuels? But you won’t hear that from the MSM.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Create One Two Three… Many Irans
Back during the cold war, when the war in Vietnam was justified as part of our policy of the containment of “Communism”. I read an essay by the brilliant Argentinean revolutionary Che’ Guevara, which advocated creating many Vietnam wars to bring down the United States. Che’ felt that the best way to defeat the United States was by playing on our fear of communism to involve the U.S. in many foreign entanglements, which would eventually result in our system being overwhelmed and crumbling under the weight of these multiple burdens.
The current occupants of our executive branch seem to have adopted Che’s stratagem in their attempt to destroy the United States government as we know it. With our policies in Iraq, and now with Pakistan we do what is contrary to the real interests of the we the people. One has to see through the Orwellian newspeak of the advocates of the war on terrorism, the “long war”, or war against the islamofascists, what ever you care to call it. But by peeling back that superficial layer the real goal becomes clear.
First let’s go back to 1981. On January 20th of that year, the revolutionary guards in Iran released their hostages per the agreement made with the man inaugurated as President of the United States of America, on that day. The fact that he made this deal with our enemies while he was still a candidate, a private citizen, and purely for his own political advantage seems to be lost on those who remember the 40th president. Jimmy Carter, left the White House on that day, and he felt that we would soon have normal and cordial relations with Iran. This was not to be. Instead U.S. policies toward Iran were hostile and consolidated the power of the anti democratic, religious right. While there was some softening of our stance during the 1990’s which resulted in more moderate governments being elected, since 2001 our foreign policy seems to have been designed to push Iran toward the hard liners and the mullahs, who oppose liberalization of Iranian society.
Our next Iran is its’ neighbor Iraq. Our strategy in that county has resulted it the strengthening the religious right and those who use terrorism to achieve their goals. In addition to creating an unstable Iraq our policy has driven many in the Islamic world toward those who advocate theocracy over democracy, because our current government promotes “democracy” through occupation, oppression and torture.
Now we have Pakistan. Musharraf’s suspension of the rule of law in the name of promoting democracy, and defeating terrorism, is in reality a stratagem which enhances the power of the religious right. Those being arrested in Pakistan are the not the theocrats, not the terrorists. No, they are the advocates of the rule of law and of liberalization. They are lawyers and others who advocate a free and open society. They are those who oppose the adoption of Islamic law and advocate human rights for women and religious minorities. Yet the current occupant of the White House has supported the Musharraf regime and continues to do so because “he is an ally in the war on terrorism”.
I don’t believe the current administration is so naïve as to believe that by promoting oppressive regimes and instability they are promoting democracy. I don’t believe they don’t understand how suppressing liberal forces in a society promotes Islamic fundamentalism and hatred of the United States. I don’t believe they do not understand how terrorism is used as an instrument of foreign policy when one’s enemy has an over whelming advantage in military force and that by making enemies among the general population of these countries we promote terrorism.
They may play incompetent, but to a tin foil hat wearing nut like me, the real agenda is clear. The destruction of our republic so that power may be concentrated in the hands of a few elites. They have created and played on a fear of terrorism to create an environment where terrorism thrives. They use the threat of terrorism they create to justify the violation of our law, and ignoring our basic and fundamental rights. The real enemy lies within.
The current occupants of our executive branch seem to have adopted Che’s stratagem in their attempt to destroy the United States government as we know it. With our policies in Iraq, and now with Pakistan we do what is contrary to the real interests of the we the people. One has to see through the Orwellian newspeak of the advocates of the war on terrorism, the “long war”, or war against the islamofascists, what ever you care to call it. But by peeling back that superficial layer the real goal becomes clear.
First let’s go back to 1981. On January 20th of that year, the revolutionary guards in Iran released their hostages per the agreement made with the man inaugurated as President of the United States of America, on that day. The fact that he made this deal with our enemies while he was still a candidate, a private citizen, and purely for his own political advantage seems to be lost on those who remember the 40th president. Jimmy Carter, left the White House on that day, and he felt that we would soon have normal and cordial relations with Iran. This was not to be. Instead U.S. policies toward Iran were hostile and consolidated the power of the anti democratic, religious right. While there was some softening of our stance during the 1990’s which resulted in more moderate governments being elected, since 2001 our foreign policy seems to have been designed to push Iran toward the hard liners and the mullahs, who oppose liberalization of Iranian society.
Our next Iran is its’ neighbor Iraq. Our strategy in that county has resulted it the strengthening the religious right and those who use terrorism to achieve their goals. In addition to creating an unstable Iraq our policy has driven many in the Islamic world toward those who advocate theocracy over democracy, because our current government promotes “democracy” through occupation, oppression and torture.
Now we have Pakistan. Musharraf’s suspension of the rule of law in the name of promoting democracy, and defeating terrorism, is in reality a stratagem which enhances the power of the religious right. Those being arrested in Pakistan are the not the theocrats, not the terrorists. No, they are the advocates of the rule of law and of liberalization. They are lawyers and others who advocate a free and open society. They are those who oppose the adoption of Islamic law and advocate human rights for women and religious minorities. Yet the current occupant of the White House has supported the Musharraf regime and continues to do so because “he is an ally in the war on terrorism”.
I don’t believe the current administration is so naïve as to believe that by promoting oppressive regimes and instability they are promoting democracy. I don’t believe they don’t understand how suppressing liberal forces in a society promotes Islamic fundamentalism and hatred of the United States. I don’t believe they do not understand how terrorism is used as an instrument of foreign policy when one’s enemy has an over whelming advantage in military force and that by making enemies among the general population of these countries we promote terrorism.
They may play incompetent, but to a tin foil hat wearing nut like me, the real agenda is clear. The destruction of our republic so that power may be concentrated in the hands of a few elites. They have created and played on a fear of terrorism to create an environment where terrorism thrives. They use the threat of terrorism they create to justify the violation of our law, and ignoring our basic and fundamental rights. The real enemy lies within.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Is NPR’s Right Turn Straightening?
Anyone who listens carefully to NPR has noticed a sharp right turn over at least the past 7 years. This is not just my perspective. Before he quit, former NPR Ombudsman Jeff Dvorkin, found that NPR used “experts” from right wing think tanks, (e.g. Heritage, Cato) 4 times as often as “experts” from moderate think tanks (Brookings). The fact that Liberal “experts” were never consulted went unsaid. Additionally, comments to from listeners run strongly to the position that NPR is too right wing.
To any critical listener to the main NPR news programs, (Morning Edition and All Things Considered) it has been obvious that NPR’s agenda was closer to Fox News than an unbiased reporting of all sides of the issue. For example, the Pennsylvania trial on intelligent design, being taught along with evolution in public school science classes, was reported as if there were real scientific controversy. Unless you realized the story was being covered by NPR’s religion reporter, you may have gotten the impression that there was actual merit to the intelligent design hypothesis.
While not as shrill as Fox News, NPR has used its’ subtle low key style, to push the right wing agenda for years while maintaining an image of impeccable unbiased credibility.
Perhaps that is changing. This week on the NPR program “On The Media”, there was the story of how NPR declined an interview with Bush (43) because the organization did not want to have the reporter specified by the White House, Juan Williams, (who also works for Fox News) conduct the interview. NPR would take the interview only if it were with NPR and not a specified reporter.
In January Willams did an interview with the current occupant of the White House. The softball questions, and doting praise for Bush, during this interview by Williams, would make the bile churn in the most cynical listener.
So NPR declined the interview offer. Interesting. Is there a change of direction in the works? Will the organization that covered the Watergate hearings and Iran-Contra with unbiased professionalism, shedding the bias that has been its’ hallmark for at least the past 7 years? Only time will tell.
To any critical listener to the main NPR news programs, (Morning Edition and All Things Considered) it has been obvious that NPR’s agenda was closer to Fox News than an unbiased reporting of all sides of the issue. For example, the Pennsylvania trial on intelligent design, being taught along with evolution in public school science classes, was reported as if there were real scientific controversy. Unless you realized the story was being covered by NPR’s religion reporter, you may have gotten the impression that there was actual merit to the intelligent design hypothesis.
While not as shrill as Fox News, NPR has used its’ subtle low key style, to push the right wing agenda for years while maintaining an image of impeccable unbiased credibility.
Perhaps that is changing. This week on the NPR program “On The Media”, there was the story of how NPR declined an interview with Bush (43) because the organization did not want to have the reporter specified by the White House, Juan Williams, (who also works for Fox News) conduct the interview. NPR would take the interview only if it were with NPR and not a specified reporter.
In January Willams did an interview with the current occupant of the White House. The softball questions, and doting praise for Bush, during this interview by Williams, would make the bile churn in the most cynical listener.
So NPR declined the interview offer. Interesting. Is there a change of direction in the works? Will the organization that covered the Watergate hearings and Iran-Contra with unbiased professionalism, shedding the bias that has been its’ hallmark for at least the past 7 years? Only time will tell.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The Dismal Science of Alan Greenspan
Last night on NPR’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross. Terry Gross interviewed former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Greenspan is promoting his new memoir.
All I can say is: No wonder we are in such a mess if we allow the likes of Greenspan to have such a major influence on economic policy.
In practically the same breath Greenspan said basically this:
Under Clinton’s budget surplus policies we (the people and the government we create) would have been debt free in 2006. Greenspan felt this would have been bad because this surplus would have to be invested and would have given the Government ( us the people) too much power over the financial markets. Then he goes on to say we have a pending financial crisis as boomers retire, especially in Medicaid, because there will not be enough money to pay for health care as this group starts to rely on the government funded system.
OK Mr. Greenspan what makes you feel you can have it both ways?
It seems to me that a surplus, which we (the government) could invest, might just produce a return that would generate the money to cover the Medicaid and perhaps social security shortages. What am I missing here?
Later in the interview Greenspan admits he is a member of the Libertarian wing of the Republican party. He has a "post enlightenment" philosophy. A post enlightenment philosophy? So he does not believe in the enlightenment? He does not believe in reason, or the public interest? In short Alan Greenspan is either a selfish individualist or an idiot. Most likely both. From my perspective these terms are not mutually exclusive. A philosophy of every person for them self causes devolution of society. To take this a step further: Greenspan hates America and the Constitution. He wants to see a return to an aristocratic society. He is an advocate of the Norquist strategy to kill our democracy: “starve the beast. ”
To me, hearing this, the fact that President Clinton (42) kept Greenspan on as Fed chairman, is perhaps his greatest disservice to our nation. The fact that a Democrat (D) would keep a Libertarian in charge of the fundamentals of our economy is unconscionable. A deadly sin. In spite of my human desire, I cannot curse these men or judge them. I will not judge, I will leave that to a higher power. Let them receive their just reward for their selfishness.
All I can say is: No wonder we are in such a mess if we allow the likes of Greenspan to have such a major influence on economic policy.
In practically the same breath Greenspan said basically this:
Under Clinton’s budget surplus policies we (the people and the government we create) would have been debt free in 2006. Greenspan felt this would have been bad because this surplus would have to be invested and would have given the Government ( us the people) too much power over the financial markets. Then he goes on to say we have a pending financial crisis as boomers retire, especially in Medicaid, because there will not be enough money to pay for health care as this group starts to rely on the government funded system.
OK Mr. Greenspan what makes you feel you can have it both ways?
It seems to me that a surplus, which we (the government) could invest, might just produce a return that would generate the money to cover the Medicaid and perhaps social security shortages. What am I missing here?
Later in the interview Greenspan admits he is a member of the Libertarian wing of the Republican party. He has a "post enlightenment" philosophy. A post enlightenment philosophy? So he does not believe in the enlightenment? He does not believe in reason, or the public interest? In short Alan Greenspan is either a selfish individualist or an idiot. Most likely both. From my perspective these terms are not mutually exclusive. A philosophy of every person for them self causes devolution of society. To take this a step further: Greenspan hates America and the Constitution. He wants to see a return to an aristocratic society. He is an advocate of the Norquist strategy to kill our democracy: “starve the beast. ”
To me, hearing this, the fact that President Clinton (42) kept Greenspan on as Fed chairman, is perhaps his greatest disservice to our nation. The fact that a Democrat (D) would keep a Libertarian in charge of the fundamentals of our economy is unconscionable. A deadly sin. In spite of my human desire, I cannot curse these men or judge them. I will not judge, I will leave that to a higher power. Let them receive their just reward for their selfishness.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Hillary and the War
OK this is about as simple as it gets. Millions of us were not misled by the lies that lead up to the war in Iraq. Any member of Congress who uses that as an excuse for their vote to authorize the war was at best stupid, and therefore not fit to hold office now, or they are using it as a convenient excuse now, for what was politically expedient then.
Unestimateable numbers of us protested, wrote to our representatives and otherwise said this war was a bad idea, but we were ignored. Not covered by the media, nor listened to by our represenitives. Our judgment proved to be correct. Our prediciton of the outcome was dead on. Hillary was wrong, so wrong in fact, that we should not trust her with any position of leadership.
Whatever she is doing now, is the same as she was doing in 2002 and 2003. She is being politically expedient, not what serves the best interests of the republic. She is going with the flow, not leading. If she makes decisions based upon expediency and not the possible and what is best, she is unfit to lead. Period.
Unestimateable numbers of us protested, wrote to our representatives and otherwise said this war was a bad idea, but we were ignored. Not covered by the media, nor listened to by our represenitives. Our judgment proved to be correct. Our prediciton of the outcome was dead on. Hillary was wrong, so wrong in fact, that we should not trust her with any position of leadership.
Whatever she is doing now, is the same as she was doing in 2002 and 2003. She is being politically expedient, not what serves the best interests of the republic. She is going with the flow, not leading. If she makes decisions based upon expediency and not the possible and what is best, she is unfit to lead. Period.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Drinking the Same Kool-aid
Al Gore, and I must be drinking the same Kool aid. I wonder what you have heard about his latest book, The Assault on Reason? Probably not much, so great has been the main stream media's suppression of the content. Why is that? Perhaps because the MSM are one of the perpetrators of the assault Gore describes.
The Assault on Reason, is largely an indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration, book ended by essays on political philosophy. How we came to find ourselves in the current state of affairs, and our prospects for extracting ourselves and saving democracy in the United States of America.
I was astounded by this book. Not because it produced any revelations, but because it validated so many of my own feelings on the current state of our political economy. In a way I find this scary because it is often dangerous to have ones ideas validated. One’s thinking becomes less critical. However, in my case, as long time readers of my missives may recognize, my ideas are so far out of the box, so far from the main stream, any validation in any form can be profound, and to find someone as prominent as Gore, espousing thoughts that parallel my own is indeed scary.
I have certain central themes in my ideas about our political economy. Cardinal among these are that conservatives are neo feudalists, intent on dismantling our republic and re establishing an aristocracy, that mass marketing controls the vast majority of Americans, and that the confluence of the above have resulted in a marketplace that is no longer free as described by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. These are Gore’s central themes as well.
Prior to the age of enlightenment, European society was controlled by 2 forces, Royalty and the Church. The power of both over the masses was by “divine” right, The relationship was symbiotic and self validating. The Church confirmed the divine right of Kings to rule, and the King confirmed the power of the Church. A convenient concentration of both wealth and power in the hands of very few. The invention of movable type resulted in the broad dissemination of ideas based upon reason. These ideas pushed royalty and organized religion from their preeminent positions in society. The idea that power (political and economic) resides in the individual is the fundamental thesis of the enlightenment.
Gore identifies the 4 members of the reactionary coalition who are the antithesis of the enlightenment. These are: Economic royalists (who fund the whole proposition), foreign policy hawks, a cabal of pundits (who enforce the dogma), and extreme religious conservatives and fundamentalists. Gore goes on the point out how successful this coalition has been. How in just 40 years they have brought us to the brink or past it. To a point where democracy in America no longer really works as the framers of the Constitution intended. From my perspective this is by design and has culminated in the reign of the Bush-Cheney regime.
At this point, I highly doubt very many of my tiny readership have bothered to read, let alone think about the above ideas. We have become so disinterested in civics, let alone political philosophy, that individuals like myself and Mr. Gore are branded as exceedingly strange. Even the best educated among us do not want to think about these issues. They feel their civic obligation begins and ends at the ballot box. Politics and political discourse are fine as infotainment, but taboo if there is any action or thought required. Again I would argue this is by design. This is the manipulation of the electorate through mass marketing to achieve outcome desired by Gore’s economic royalists. “If wealth can easily be exchanged for power, then the concentration of either can double the corrupting potential of both” (Pg. 73)
The bulk of The Assault on Reason, reminds me of the Declaration of Independence. As Jefferson did with George III, in a highly organized manner, Gore lays out the grievances against the George W. and then sets forth an indictment on a charge of violating our Constitution and the principals at the core of our republic.
Gore shows the courage of a leader. Something, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, lacking in our current crop of Democratic presidential candidates. Gore is very brave indeed. It has long been my contention that had he been president in 2001, the attacks of September 11, would never have happened. Gore concures. Gore states that the failure to connect the dots, pre 911, was due to incompetence rather than design, but in his categorical denial of this being by design, he is brave enough to state this possibility. Anything other than denial, exposure of this dirty secret, would bring down our system and foment revolution. At this time in our history, given the state of the public mind, a revolution would play into the hands of the neo feudalists and religious extremists.
Gore sees salvation of or democracy in the displacement of the medium of television by the more interactive medium of the internet. The viability of democracy in the United States is dependent upon the engagement and participation of the governed. Television and mass marketing create a system where influence can be spread far and wide though the use of propaganda based upon an intimate understanding of human psychology. The internet provides a means for individuals to reassert themselves. Time shifting is making television less effective, so the coercion of the the economic royalists has shifted from overt adverts to covert content as in the Fox program 24. As the internet becomes the dominant medium, Gore feels it will be more and more difficult for the neo feudalists to have such a one sided influence on the public. Providing of course that we prevent them from controlling this medium as they do television.
My only criticism of Gore’s work is that it is overly complex. The first step in systemic change is the dissatisfaction of the intellectuals. Perhaps this is Gore’s intended audience. It is certainly not a work that will interest a wider audience. The ideas presented are rooted in the philosophy of the enlightenment. Something it seems, very few people in the United States care to think about, or understand anymore. Again I would argue this is by design.
There is a Persian proverb that one can only be one step ahead of the people to lead them. If someone is two steps ahead the people cannot see the goal and will not follow. The conservatives / economic royalists have been very effective at using deceit and misdirection to push the public consent in a direction that does not serve the public interest. Until we learn to counter those deceits and misdirections in a way more compelling than those currently in control we will never put power back into the hands of the people.
The Assault on Reason, is largely an indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration, book ended by essays on political philosophy. How we came to find ourselves in the current state of affairs, and our prospects for extracting ourselves and saving democracy in the United States of America.
I was astounded by this book. Not because it produced any revelations, but because it validated so many of my own feelings on the current state of our political economy. In a way I find this scary because it is often dangerous to have ones ideas validated. One’s thinking becomes less critical. However, in my case, as long time readers of my missives may recognize, my ideas are so far out of the box, so far from the main stream, any validation in any form can be profound, and to find someone as prominent as Gore, espousing thoughts that parallel my own is indeed scary.
I have certain central themes in my ideas about our political economy. Cardinal among these are that conservatives are neo feudalists, intent on dismantling our republic and re establishing an aristocracy, that mass marketing controls the vast majority of Americans, and that the confluence of the above have resulted in a marketplace that is no longer free as described by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. These are Gore’s central themes as well.
Prior to the age of enlightenment, European society was controlled by 2 forces, Royalty and the Church. The power of both over the masses was by “divine” right, The relationship was symbiotic and self validating. The Church confirmed the divine right of Kings to rule, and the King confirmed the power of the Church. A convenient concentration of both wealth and power in the hands of very few. The invention of movable type resulted in the broad dissemination of ideas based upon reason. These ideas pushed royalty and organized religion from their preeminent positions in society. The idea that power (political and economic) resides in the individual is the fundamental thesis of the enlightenment.
Gore identifies the 4 members of the reactionary coalition who are the antithesis of the enlightenment. These are: Economic royalists (who fund the whole proposition), foreign policy hawks, a cabal of pundits (who enforce the dogma), and extreme religious conservatives and fundamentalists. Gore goes on the point out how successful this coalition has been. How in just 40 years they have brought us to the brink or past it. To a point where democracy in America no longer really works as the framers of the Constitution intended. From my perspective this is by design and has culminated in the reign of the Bush-Cheney regime.
At this point, I highly doubt very many of my tiny readership have bothered to read, let alone think about the above ideas. We have become so disinterested in civics, let alone political philosophy, that individuals like myself and Mr. Gore are branded as exceedingly strange. Even the best educated among us do not want to think about these issues. They feel their civic obligation begins and ends at the ballot box. Politics and political discourse are fine as infotainment, but taboo if there is any action or thought required. Again I would argue this is by design. This is the manipulation of the electorate through mass marketing to achieve outcome desired by Gore’s economic royalists. “If wealth can easily be exchanged for power, then the concentration of either can double the corrupting potential of both” (Pg. 73)
The bulk of The Assault on Reason, reminds me of the Declaration of Independence. As Jefferson did with George III, in a highly organized manner, Gore lays out the grievances against the George W. and then sets forth an indictment on a charge of violating our Constitution and the principals at the core of our republic.
Gore shows the courage of a leader. Something, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, lacking in our current crop of Democratic presidential candidates. Gore is very brave indeed. It has long been my contention that had he been president in 2001, the attacks of September 11, would never have happened. Gore concures. Gore states that the failure to connect the dots, pre 911, was due to incompetence rather than design, but in his categorical denial of this being by design, he is brave enough to state this possibility. Anything other than denial, exposure of this dirty secret, would bring down our system and foment revolution. At this time in our history, given the state of the public mind, a revolution would play into the hands of the neo feudalists and religious extremists.
Gore sees salvation of or democracy in the displacement of the medium of television by the more interactive medium of the internet. The viability of democracy in the United States is dependent upon the engagement and participation of the governed. Television and mass marketing create a system where influence can be spread far and wide though the use of propaganda based upon an intimate understanding of human psychology. The internet provides a means for individuals to reassert themselves. Time shifting is making television less effective, so the coercion of the the economic royalists has shifted from overt adverts to covert content as in the Fox program 24. As the internet becomes the dominant medium, Gore feels it will be more and more difficult for the neo feudalists to have such a one sided influence on the public. Providing of course that we prevent them from controlling this medium as they do television.
My only criticism of Gore’s work is that it is overly complex. The first step in systemic change is the dissatisfaction of the intellectuals. Perhaps this is Gore’s intended audience. It is certainly not a work that will interest a wider audience. The ideas presented are rooted in the philosophy of the enlightenment. Something it seems, very few people in the United States care to think about, or understand anymore. Again I would argue this is by design.
There is a Persian proverb that one can only be one step ahead of the people to lead them. If someone is two steps ahead the people cannot see the goal and will not follow. The conservatives / economic royalists have been very effective at using deceit and misdirection to push the public consent in a direction that does not serve the public interest. Until we learn to counter those deceits and misdirections in a way more compelling than those currently in control we will never put power back into the hands of the people.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
We are All "Sicko"
I applaud Michael Moore. His latest movie "Sicko" is undoubtedly his best. In showing how our lousy health care system costs us more, and does not provide the treatment we need, Moore is able to demonstrate how we are more oppressed and less free than people of any other industrialized nation.
But we will not stand for this! We are brainwashed from birth to believe that the United States is the best. That our system provides the best for everyone. That in other countries people are far worse off. They pay higher taxes, wait in line, suffer rationing. Yes we do not want to hear anything that will contradict what we want to believe.
We want to believe that in Europe, because there is a mandatory 4 weeks of vacation, plus an additional 18 paid holidays per year they suffer high unemployment. We want to believe that because taxes are so high to pay for health care and other social services, people in Europe cannot afford decent housing, cars, or consumer goods. We want to believe that in Europe there is less opportunity to better oneself. In spite of free secondary education
We are delusional.
In a subtle way, Moore shows how our system is run for the benefit of the elites. The elites have been very clever with their propaganda. Because they control our elected officials with their campaign contributions, and control our media with their ownership, we only hear what they want us to hear. We want to believe we live in the greatest place on Earth. We want to believe we cannot make it better by changing the system, because that is the crap we are sold. Day in and day out.
We are the victims of a con game. We are the perfect marks, because in confidence games, the mark never wants to believe they have been conned. That would make them feel stupid, and no one wants to feel stupid, do they?
I applaud Michael Moore. Everyone should see his latest film. Change only comes with awareness. Sicko, provides 2 hours outside the conservative mind control beam.
Will it have any effect? Will it create a critical mass needed to effect change? I don’t think so. We are such sheep it is disgusting. We don’t what to think about this because it conflicts with what we want to believe. It makes our little heads hurt.
There is an old expression: “My country right or wrong.” The United States is my country and I love it even when it is so very wrong. What can I do to make it right? What can I do to change it? We should all be asking ourselves that question every day. Instead we do exactly what we are told to do. We are all Sicko.
But we will not stand for this! We are brainwashed from birth to believe that the United States is the best. That our system provides the best for everyone. That in other countries people are far worse off. They pay higher taxes, wait in line, suffer rationing. Yes we do not want to hear anything that will contradict what we want to believe.
We want to believe that in Europe, because there is a mandatory 4 weeks of vacation, plus an additional 18 paid holidays per year they suffer high unemployment. We want to believe that because taxes are so high to pay for health care and other social services, people in Europe cannot afford decent housing, cars, or consumer goods. We want to believe that in Europe there is less opportunity to better oneself. In spite of free secondary education
We are delusional.
In a subtle way, Moore shows how our system is run for the benefit of the elites. The elites have been very clever with their propaganda. Because they control our elected officials with their campaign contributions, and control our media with their ownership, we only hear what they want us to hear. We want to believe we live in the greatest place on Earth. We want to believe we cannot make it better by changing the system, because that is the crap we are sold. Day in and day out.
We are the victims of a con game. We are the perfect marks, because in confidence games, the mark never wants to believe they have been conned. That would make them feel stupid, and no one wants to feel stupid, do they?
I applaud Michael Moore. Everyone should see his latest film. Change only comes with awareness. Sicko, provides 2 hours outside the conservative mind control beam.
Will it have any effect? Will it create a critical mass needed to effect change? I don’t think so. We are such sheep it is disgusting. We don’t what to think about this because it conflicts with what we want to believe. It makes our little heads hurt.
There is an old expression: “My country right or wrong.” The United States is my country and I love it even when it is so very wrong. What can I do to make it right? What can I do to change it? We should all be asking ourselves that question every day. Instead we do exactly what we are told to do. We are all Sicko.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Why The Democrats Will Continue to be Losers
If you read these thoughts on the last debate by liberal blogger Digby you find this little gem:
“If I had to pick a winner, I think tonight was Obama's night. He seemed loose and comfortable and in charge. He certainly had the best laugh line ---“
Liberals and Democrats just don’t get it. They continue to choose based upon who looks best or who is the most “electable”, not based on the quality of ideas.
What the Republicans realized a long time ago, is the electorate prefers conviction over looks, and values over electability. It does not matter if 99% of it is crap. The electorate wants consistency. They want to know where a candidate stands. They equate this with leadership, even if they disagree with the position. They do not want a wishy washy, flip flopper, who gives a complicated answer they cannot follow or understand. Republicans are not dumb, they know how to speak in complete sentences. It is Democrats who are too stupid to realize they have to communicate to an audience with the attention span of a 5 year old, who has just downed a litre of caffeinated pop and needs to find a toilet fast
Democratic candidates need to learn how to speak in simple declarative sentences. Democratic voters need to listen to what candidates say, and not how they look. For gosh sake forget the Nixon-Kennedy debate already. That was almost 50 years ago.
Pay attention dammit! Democrats have only had the White House once in the past 27 years. It is because they need to act more like Republicans, not be more like Republicans.
I like Ted Rall’s take on this.
“If I had to pick a winner, I think tonight was Obama's night. He seemed loose and comfortable and in charge. He certainly had the best laugh line ---“
Liberals and Democrats just don’t get it. They continue to choose based upon who looks best or who is the most “electable”, not based on the quality of ideas.
What the Republicans realized a long time ago, is the electorate prefers conviction over looks, and values over electability. It does not matter if 99% of it is crap. The electorate wants consistency. They want to know where a candidate stands. They equate this with leadership, even if they disagree with the position. They do not want a wishy washy, flip flopper, who gives a complicated answer they cannot follow or understand. Republicans are not dumb, they know how to speak in complete sentences. It is Democrats who are too stupid to realize they have to communicate to an audience with the attention span of a 5 year old, who has just downed a litre of caffeinated pop and needs to find a toilet fast
Democratic candidates need to learn how to speak in simple declarative sentences. Democratic voters need to listen to what candidates say, and not how they look. For gosh sake forget the Nixon-Kennedy debate already. That was almost 50 years ago.
Pay attention dammit! Democrats have only had the White House once in the past 27 years. It is because they need to act more like Republicans, not be more like Republicans.
I like Ted Rall’s take on this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
