Folktruther, when you reduce everything anyone has to say that disagrees with your take on tactics to “drivel” you eliminate all possibility for meaningful discourse.  The positions I have posted previously reflect the essence of my thinking, but unlike you, I have an acute appreciation for the historical imperative of the moment.

If you go back and examine the “when” of the Ritter thread, you will see a moment when I was seeking to educate on a broader reality “before” the primaries had been completed and options narrowed. 

History reveals that the success of progressive movement requires the ability to understand the historical imperative of forming coalitions at particular moments in time; moving to expand the knowledge base of progressive thought at others.

As indicated in my previous posts, the substantive difference between us is not as great as you would think.  But when it comes to tactics, I see myself as more flexible; you as far too rigid, and that’s about as honest an assessment of our differences I can think of.  It is also the reason why I believe the only rational choice at this moment is to elect Obama and why I believe your insistence on ideological purity—of feeling good about your voting for Nader or McKinney—is a fool’s errand.

Sad, you can’t see that; can only offer derision for those who do.

Frank—I am very sorry to hear about your kidney surgery. I hope that it is not too painful.

Dr. Bergman is no “traveling lecturer”. He currently practices in NYC. He received a BS from SUNY/Stony Brook, MS from Connecticut College, and his PhD from Bowling Green. While this may not be Ivy League (we’ve certainly had great luck with those people lately havent we?) He is a member of the Am. Family Therapy Academy. If you had paid attention to my post, you would have noticed aht I said that you should have already tried other things, know the client well enough to know whether they were just lonely, and that, you dont leave them alone. I dont know what else you can do. If someone really wants to die, in my experience (yes, I did have people come to me suicidal)you cannot stop them. (They wil just do it when they get out) Or, more likely, if theyre going to actually do it, they probably wont tell you. I have never worked in an ER setting—mostly with long term de-institutionaluized. They had spent so much time institutionalied that, if they wanted the dignity of risk, I was willing to give it to them.

If we have the “best mh system in the world”, why do 33,000 people commit suicide every year? Maybe its only the best if yu can afford a private phD.

With such a failure record, I would think that the mental health “profession” would be open to some new ideas. I also listed Jay Haleuy, Milton Ericksson, Silvano Arieti, R.D. Laing (I said Kingdom Hall, I meant Kingsldey Hall), and I could name many others.

Brief systemic therapy attempts to reach people who have been institutionalized and spend years and years trying to maintain “therapeutic relatinships”, in an attempt to avoid the real relationsships. This is very understandable, and when they first leave an institution, it would be unwise to throw them out the door (although our great “mental health system” does it ALL the time—thats where we came in). If years go by, and its the same song and dance, its probabhly a song and dance. Many times, they just want company that night. As a social worker, I was able to provide that at times, although I know PhDs arent supposed to. (We were part of the AACT Team approach, which I abandoned after 2 years, as it seemed to be just a way to save money)

An alternative would be to hospitalize everyone that says that. I have no idea how you would (or why you would want ot) accomplish that. Or you could put them in jail, where they will probably be abused.(Well, in the hospital , too) . You could drug them up to where they cant say it anymore. Then, your job is done? I’ve tried to do therapy (not just brief systemic—I was answering a question to Truthfolker about what type of psychology I thought might apply to changing systems—like the govt)with people who are drugged, and it is literally impossible. The exception would be bipolar disorder, which appears to be a true chemical imbalance—although THEY have to decide. I feel that forcing meds on someone who is not (in you professional judgement) going to hurt anyone else to be an act of violence. “Schizophrenia” is NOT a “deficiency of prolixin ot thorazine”, and the point of the drugs (whether they admit it or not)is to make clients easier to handle. It causes brain damage. Severe brain damage.It is often called a chemical straightjakcet.It has been used as a torture device in many countries. If we would put more money into community mental health (better clientt to therapist ratios) , maybe they could be dealt with more humanely. Maybe even like human beings.

Cann4ing—I went back and read your comments last year on Scott Ritter’s thread and they were sharp, vital and gave information and insights that I for one did’t have or know.  Now you are regurgitating the standard Dem drivel.  What Happened?

I think the election happened.  It is a conservatizing influence, deluding people that a minor power tactic, voting in an obsolete electoral system, actually is a major form of social change.  Election trivia drowns out what is significant in the power process.

For example, when journalists were manhandled and arrested with other protesters in a pre-emptive attack, the protesters were then systematically tortured.  They were not tortured by the military or CIA but by a squad of police. that means that the police were trained to torture. An article by Dennis Loo at Counterpunch a few days ago gives someof the details.

A number of small towns around the country were put on 24 hour curfew, like the Israeli’s put the Palestians.  You don’t have to put the whole country under martial law if you can do it selectively.

Where are the Dems when this kind of thing is happening?  Why, they are running for office of course.  Where are the mainstream progresseives like Scheer and those of Truthdig; why they are commnenting on the election drivel of course.

These elections do not promote democracy, they prevent it. The implications of issues for the population, and their children, are not discussed.  I am not saying that you shouldn’t vote for Obama as a tactical device but that it will make little policy difference.  And elevating it into a major political strategy diverts attention from matters vital to the population, and prevents the criticism of fake Progressives like Obama-Biden.

Folktruther, I do not agree with your statement that Obama/Biden would necessarily increase the military budget or expand wars.  I believe your assertions to be both speculative and far too dependent upon campaign rhetoric.

There is much in the way of substance, however, on which you and I do agree.  Where I and other members of the progressive left who have joined PDA disagree vehemently with you is on tactics.

Nader’s big mistake is precisely an inability to count.  He would have had a far greater prospect in 2000 and again in 2004 if he had tried to retake the Democratic Party from the corporatists who have coopted it, in the same manner Kucinich did, but with a better prospect for success than Kucinich.

By insisting first on a third party route, then failing to build that third party and going it alone, Nader insured only that he will go down in history as a perennial footnote—worse, as an individual whose divisive general electoral tactic gave rise to the Bush/Cheney regime and America’s slide into fascism.

I know that you are so ideologically blinded that you can’t see the fundamental difference between appointing jurists who will uphold the law and those bent on a destruction of constitutional democracy.  I know, for you, none of that matters, since you insist on ideological purity—can’t vote for anyone who doesn’t support dismantling of the military industrial complex, bringing an immediate end to Empire; someone prepared to replace the greed of capitalism with the common good of socialism.

I understand that.  I also understand that, because of your inability to count, you will insist on an exercise in futility as your vote for either Nader or McKinney disappears into the dust bin of history.

Thank goodness, so many solid progressives are not so ideologically narrow-minded.  They are able to see the fundamental distinctions between Obama and McCain that you deride as unimportant; they understand that change—real change toward our common egalitarian goals—will not come about suddenly as a result of electing Obama, but that such an election is an essential starting point for movement in the right direction—just as the election of George W. Bush in 2000 started us down a deep slope, definitely in the wrong direction.

You are quite right, cann4ing, that my Manichean worldview is like Bush’s, only in reverse.  Im against nuclear war, class inequality, global warming and a police state.  And I don’t give a shit who implements and leads those policies.  I don’t do nuance either.

And while I am very concerned about a reasonable policy, I am against the Education and Information that indoctrinates and deludes the population to support authority, and legitimates irrational and oppresses poliices.  When Educated intellectuals do so, cann4ing, I am anti-intellectual.

You, and other Dem activists, are very concerned about the Supreme court, which has almost nothing to do with war, class inequality, global warming or a Democratic police state.  There was a legal system under Hitler, and they bowed to power as the universites, media, religion, and law always do.

But many of the Dem leaders have a legal Education, and who the judges are have a special interest for them.  the general population is far less concerned. They are concerned with who controls the money, guns and truth, and the Supreme Court, no matter who is one, will assure that it isn’t the people.

he Supreme court has been set up to prevent democracy, not promote it, and has historically been a bulwark agains reform.  The Constitution is a racist document that orginally excluded Indians and African-Americans, and interpreted the reconstruction ammendments to allow lynching parties and similar racist terrorism to continue for a century.  In flat conflict with the paper 13th, 14th and 15th ammendments. 

There is a distinction between paper laws that are taught to children in school, and to lawyers,  which reinforces the paper ideology, and the enforced laws which are used to oppression the population.  The president has just getted Congress, and as to the Supreme Court-what, we worry?  In a lawless country like the US, the courts have only the power to oppress.

And you are qauite right, cann4ing, you realist you, that Obama-Biden are not yet ready to dismantle the US war machine.  What you omit to say is that they plan to INCREASE IT AND EXPLAND WARS.  Biden is a Zionist warmonger who Obama appointed to be his Cheney, who initiated the billion dollars that the US is giving Geogia.  Obama for years has advocated escalating the Afghan war to Pakistan, a nuclear country on the border of China.  He and McCain both came out for a draft on 9/11 to allow for this escalation.  Kennedy has introduced an opening bill that can be expanded as necessary.

This is the Dem function, to help the ruling class promote and legitimate reactionary policies to the progressive population.  Just as Wilson instituted a draft in WW1, Roosevelt in WW2, Truman the first peace time draft, which was used by Johnson in the Vietnam war, so Obama-Biden is following in their footstep, to prove their usefulness to their corporate and nilitarist backers.

As you say, Obama is not yet ready to deconstruct the US war machine.  I repeat, you ommitted to say that he is planning to increase it.  I forget most of the math that I learned in graduate school, cann4ing, but I still can count to one (1) crucial ommission.  The deception of the American people, cann4ing, is implemented primarily by what the Educated and Informed leaders and truthers DO NOT TELL THE PEOPLE.

And when your professor told you that leftists can’t count, he was probably drunk.

Interesting, Folktruther.  I see that anti-intellectualism is not confined to America’s right wing, but is advanced by Marxist ideologues like yourself—whose Manician world view is substantially similar to that of George Bush—either with us or against us.

First, I am reminded of something my freshman college history professor said way back in 1969 when I had first returned from Vietnam.  I regarded it as so profound, it has stuck with me ever since.  He said that if the American right can always be criticized by its absolute insensitivity to the human condition, the American left can always be criticized by its inability to count.

I’ve been round-and-round on this subject with other leftist ideologues—am growing a bit weary of having to address it again.  Is Obama the ideal candidate for getting “everything” progressives want?  E.g., dismantling the military-industrial complex, single-payer health care.  The answer is no, not yet.

But, intelligent progressives understand numbers and do not wish to engage in an exercise in futility that gives us four more years that, with the appointment of just one more Federalist Society jurist, creating a permanent majority of five—will end the rule of law as we know it, as a lawless “Unitary Executive” be it McCain or Palin, in the likely event McCain dies in office, finalizing the descent into a fascist America—that is if they don’t annihilate all life on the planet by pushing the red button.

An Obama presidency is not the end point for progressives.  It is the beginning.  PDA is now the largest caucus in Congress.  It’s members were able to push a health care for all plank at the DNC.  A President Obama will be receptive to pressure from the grass roots.  McCain/Palin could care less about the grass roots.  Their answer to the grass roots is jack boots, as evidenced by the preemptive raids on peaceful protest and even the media outside the RNC.

Supporting either McKinney or Nader in this election at this moment in our nation’s history is a fool’s errand.  Thanks but no thanks to the Folktruther bridge to nowhere.

Truth—Yes. The disloyal opposition.

Really good comments, TD truthers.  We may be getting more in touch with political and social reality.

But this is still strongly impeded by progressive American ideology, with which cann4ing identifies in its purist form.  As an honest liberal, against racism and oppression, he is the best exponent of an inadequate response to a fundamentally changed historical condition.  Being higly Educated, indoctrinated by both Amereican law and American political science in the preconceptions of Americanism ideology, he adopts the Kucinich strategy.

The operative function of mainstream progressives is to lead rank and file progressives to support regressive policies.

Kucinich is against war so he marshalls people to vote for the Democratic leaders who SUPPORT it.

He is for decreasing class inequality so campaigns for Dem leaders who INCREASE it.

He is for civil liberties so he wants to put Dems in office that, by their silence and actions, support the attack on journalists and protesters.  Indeed, Kucinich himself, as far as I know, may not have attacked the police actions against the representatives of the population, many of them being AGAINST the Dem party from the left.

Cann4ing says that you are wasting your vote by supporting third parties.  He advocates making your vote count by voting for candidates who favor war, oppression, impoverishment, and a police state.

Why?  Why would cann4ing with his incredible Education and massive intelligence advocate tactics that go contrary to the issues he espouses.  He is not cynical or dishonest.  Why?

It’s the LESSER EVIL, folks.  Yes!  Like the mass media does, the committed Dems continue to parrot the phrases that most American use instead of thinking.

  WHARK! LESSER EVIL! LESSER EVIL! WHARK!

But friends, the Dems will ALWAYS be the lesser evil as the Gops go to the right, and psuedo-progressives following blindly the Pied Pipers of the Dems, while they shit on us in their policies, will lead the US ever downward into an impovrished, war-embattled police state.

That is the operative historical function of the Dems, to lead progressives to support the reactionary policies of the power system. 

The more conventional of us-dare I impute conventionality to cann4ing?- tend to do what they did the last time.  The dendrites of their brain cells recoil in horror at unfamiliar ideas and new forms of actions, and refuse to communicate them to the axels of their neighbors.

Although the War on Terrorism is based on the American racism, violence and oppression of the past, it is a new form of tyranny.  I suggest to you, CD truthers, that it needs a new historical response from us.  And that response does not include identifying with Dem leaders.

@ G.Anderson
, the problem is that people cannot support themselves, and so they turned to their houses to make up for the wages they don’t make.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree and now there is an added factor; the Chinese and Middle Eastern countries are no longer investing in our debt.  There is a report the Chinese, particularly, are trying to diversify away from their holdings in dollars.  Those dollars represent investment in American debt.  If they just dumped them we’d go down.  Further, I agree the powers that be will never knowingly tell us the truth.  Because this has never happened before, even the truthful financial experts aren’t quite sure just how far this will go.  Time to fasten your seat belt.

Goodpoints, G. Anderson. Me thinks you have the gist of it in hand!

Re: Cann4ing

Your comment: “Nader’s proposals are all outstanding, but throwing one’s vote away on Nader will insure that we will only sink deeper into the mire.”

I understand your position.  But I don’t consider a vote for Nader “throwing one’s vote away”.  I do not hate Obama, he seems a likeable enough guy.  Recent events have given rise to grave concerns, at least in my mind.  We will not sink deeper than giving up our rights by our current or would be president.  I didn’t create the conditions wherein we now find ourselves, and I seriously doubt you did either.

But if we want our legislators to show some backbone, maybe we ought to do a little bit of that ourselves.  Stand up.

Demand open debates, and let us witness first hand what the people would do if they actually KNEW they had the option.

So, tomorrow remember when they crank out the disinformation, when they say once again as you will hear over and over again. That the financial crisis we are facing is a result of the housing mortgage meltdown, that they are minimizing things, to control perception, it’s psyops.

The problem is not the mortgage meltdown, although that may be a big part of it, the problem is that people cannot support themselves, and so they turned to their houses to make up for the wages they don’t make.

This is the central issue, falling wages since well before Reagan, and a lifestyle financed any way possible, home equity loans, credit cards maxed out…

Not to live a life of luxury by any means but in many cases to put food on the table for the family..

Then came leveraging of the debt to make more money, and credit card reform to guarantee that debt..and bankrupcy reform to turn American’s into debt slaves… and still they continue..

the other night…I actually saw a spokesman for the a financial organizatin say, that America’s debt is still a good investment for the rest of the world.

Outraged, Nader’s proposals are all outstanding, but throwing one’s vote away on Nader will insure that we will only sink deeper into the mire.  The only rational choice for progressives is to elect Obama over McCain, then push to like crazy to get Obama to listen.

It is impossible to see this as some type of unknown catastrophe.  And it was known.  It was known for years.  Yet, things were allowed to float along at the highest echelons of our government because so many of our legislators and presidents were bought out or outright owned by special interests.

Ralph Nader (an excerpt):

“On Sunday, September 7, 2008, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said, “Since this difficult period for the GSEs began, I have clearly stated three critical objectives: providing stability to financial markets, supporting the availability of mortgage finance, and protecting taxpayers - both by minimizing the near term costs to the taxpayer and by setting policymakers on a course to resolve the systemic risk created by the inherent conflict in the GSE structure.”

Nice words – but they will provide little comfort to the many common shareholders who have seen the value of their Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock collapse to pennies per share. And more than a few taxpayers are wondering what the Fannie/Freddie debacle will end up costing them.

We and others have been telling members of Congress, government regulators and members of the media about the structural and operational problems of Fannie and Freddie for years. I have written many columns about the lack of proper regulation of Fannie and Freddie. I testified before Congress about the need to focus Fannie and Freddie and my long-time associates Jonathan Brown and Jake Lewis have spent countless hours advocating that federal regulators push Fannie and Freddie to meet housing goals that would benefit under-served populations.

In 1991, lawyer Tom Stanton, a former colleague, warned about the risks and non-regulation of Fannie and Freddie in his prophetic book—A State of Risk (Harper Business).

In May of 1998, we even held a conference dedicated to Fannie and Freddie….”

(It continues)”...So here we are. On Monday September 8, 2008, the value of common Fannie and Freddie stock dropped to under one dollar – just one day after Secretary of the Treasury announced the government takeover. White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said, “[F]or years we have encouraged Congress to put in place a strong, independent regulator to oversee the institutions. We believe the actions will help to improve conditions in the housing market.”

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn has questions for the Administration, so there is more to be revealed. And, reporters are spilling buckets of ink talking about the takeover of Fannie and Freddie and the lack of proper oversight by regulators and Congress which brought us to this day of appreciation for regulation. Too bad it is all a little late for the small shareholders, and pensioners and taxpayers who pay the bill for speculators and executives, many of whom seem to escape with lots of money.”

http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/09/10/bailing-out-fannie-and-freddie/

Nader’s proposals to help end this mess.

* Adopt a Wall Street Securities Speculation Tax
* Work to end Corporate Personhood
* Increase Corporate Crime Prosecution Budgets
* Ban Corporate Criminals from Government Contracts
* Crack Down on Corporate Tax Avoidance
* Democratize Corporate Governance
* Expand Corporate Disclosure
* Rein in Excessive Executive Pay
* Fix the Pension System
* Restore the Rights of Defrauded Investors
* Regulate Derivatives Trading
* End Conflicts of Interest on Wall Street
* Track the Extent and Cost of Corporate Crime
* Foster a National Discussion on Corporate Power

http://www.votenader.org/issues/market/corporate-crime/

The leveraging is what gets you every time.  Bears Stearns was leveraged at like 30 to 1; Carlyle at 32 to 1; Merrill was 36 to 1. (these are from memory, maybe a tick or two in either direction)

But hold on, Frannie Mae was/is leveraged at a whopping 80 to 1.  I’m not sure what 5.3 Trillion divided by 80 is off the top of my head, but that’s how much money they actually have…in other words, not enough.

As an aside, the Chinese government has made it fairly official that they will work hard to diversify their foreign currency reserves.  Their economy is slowing and will slow more if/when the US consumer economy slows more.  So they have little reason to prop the US up if US spending isn’t going to get them anything.

We hear all about peak oil, but maybe its time to start talking about peak capital. 

Or, what will it be like if the wheels of the bus come off at freeway speeds?

Some factors that make 2008 more precarious than 1931:

1) A $10 trillion national debt;

2) An endless war which Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates has already cost $3 trillion;

3) Excluding the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, a $600 billion budget for the military-industrial complex—money that, as Seymour Melman astutely noted in 1970, The Pentagon system produces products that do not enter the marketplace and cannot be used for future production.  Sixteen years later, Gore Vidal would analogously observe:  “The Pentagon is like a black hole; what goes in is forever lost to us, and no new wealth is created.”  The enormous size of today’s “black hole” is perhaps reflected in a 2006 study released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute that revealed that global military spending has topped $1.1 trillion and that the “United States accounted for nearly half of the world’s spending.”  The U.S. spends $1,600 for every American; China, just $31/person.

4) In 1931 we still had our own manufacturing base.  Today, we don’t thanks to outsourcing by an economic elite which is always in the market for the $2/day laborer to replace the once middle class union wages paid here in the U.S.

There is some hope that an Obama presidency will lead to new, decent paying jobs in new green technologies, but even Obama is far too committed to military spending.  And unless the runaway train wreck that is the military-industrial complex is brought under control, there is not much hope for extracting the nation from the economic disaster that lies ahead.

Agree in poart. But please dont call the Chinesse govt “communist”. It gives communism a bad name. It is a capitalist dictatorship

Yeah, playing Russian Roulette with a 3 shot revolver.  I’m retired and very nervous.

Every single one of these bailouts (al the way back to the Savings and Loans) has been a good ole boys bailout. There is NO mention of the consumers involved, other then that they may precipitate a “moral hazard”. I say it is a moral imperative, that the “small people” (401k pension investors, homeowners) , if not made whole, should, at least, not have to bear the burden of paying for the rich CEOs golden parachutes! These bailouts for the big guys (and screw everyone else) are absurd to the extreme. Ane people keep saying it will be worse when the ARMs re-set—why in hell should we let them?? WE are paying for them now!