IMAX, I don’t see how you can look at our history and say that Gould was wrong. The hope is that we will not be found standing with one half that;s doing all the killimg.

Ed Romano,

Jay Gould, as it turned out, was wrong.

Bill, Certainly the culture has a heavy impact on the development of people.It would be hard, I think to argue against the idea that the ethos of America fosters selfishness, violence and a kind of collective narcissism. This is the kind of statement that requires the evidence of incidents to back it up, and I think there are a lot of these out there. Reasonable (?) people may disagree. But it is merely a matter of degree as to which nation or collectivity is more prone to these defects. They are the general inheritance of humanity. People will sometimes do things in a pack that they would not agree to as individuals…. In a follow up interview with Chris Hedges concerning what he called, The Cancer Of Black Bloc In The OWS Movement, he said, “I’ve spent my life around mobs and groups and crowds and armies and they foster in me very frightening and emotional responses”.... I am familiar with what he is talking about.
  Having said all this I would not for a minute use it as an excuse to absent myself from what is shaping up to be an historic struggle against the vampire classes. We are capable of responding to our better angels, and those of us who are able should be pointing the way. History shows us examples of what heroic action can accomplish. But, I can’t look at the long struggle through rose colored glasses because it also shows far more how mindless, selfish and murderous action usually wins the day. In any struggle it behooves us to remember that often what starts out as a cry for justice ends at the guillotine. Onward.  Ed R

Ed, my impression was that Berman’s thesis was that “inclinations toward selfishness, clanishness and callousness” are significantly MORE hard-wired into most of the populace of the good ol’ U.S. of A. than they are into many other cultures (rather than being evenly-distributed throughout humanity, as your characterization seemed to suggest).  Even if that’s true (which I suggest is debatable, though possible), I’m still inclined to disagree with his suggestion that such character defects are the SOLE reason that our country (more than others) misbehaves so badly without more push-back from most of its citizens.

In other words, while I whole-heartedly accept our responsibility for not demanding that our government clean up its acts (both foreign and domestic), I’m inclined to ascribe our failure to meet that responsibility in at least some part (though by no means entirely) to fear and ignorance (and resulting ease of manipulation) rather than solely to those other character defects.

Which is why I’m much more in agreement with your other statement ‘I think “the country acts the way it does” mostly because people are afraid and it takes guts for someone to stand outside their own herd and take an opposing view’ - especially for the past decade or so.  Fear, and adept manipulation of it, strike me as being as much at the core of our recent behavior as innate “inclinations toward selfishness, clanishness and callousness” (traits which certainly exist in us and in humanity as a whole, but which at least many people when not so adroitly shepherded by politicians and the media have traditionally tried to rise above).

The progress of those ‘better angels of our nature’ does not occur in a straight line, but I think that sufficient net progress has been made over time to be a bit less pessimistic about the future and our ability to mold it positively than Berman is - IF we can break out of the stranglehold that corporate and individual wealth have on the country and its behavior.  That’s still a very tall order, but (as I observed before) probably less daunting than wholesale modification of our basic nature would be (if Berman is right in characterizing that as the fundamental problem).

EdR:I have great faith in God or perthaps in the idea that the individual human being is ultimately meant for greater things than he or she can ever hope to get in this life….I have often been struck by folks who speak of great concern for others and have little or no concern for the person standing right in front of them.”

I wholeheartedly agree on both counts. A rather interesting twist especially considering this is known as an atheistic/agnostic forum. My response to Yogi’s phrase, “It ain’t over til it’s over” might be:“Will it ever be over?” Here’s to that mysterious force that thus far has seen humanity through the many dangerous twists and turns of that wondrous journey called life.

Bill, Glad you found Berman worthwhile I was half way through the video when I realized that I had read his- Twilight Of American Culture - awhile back. His book reminded me of Karl Marx inasmuch as the analysis of the problem was magnificent,but the proposals to confront or eliminate it left a lot to be desired. But the, critics of a system always seem to think it a duty to provide solutions for the problems they describe….That was sharp of you to pick up on Berman’s take of Ron Paul…. I think “the country acts the way it does” mostly because people are afraid and it takes guts for someone to stand outside their own herd and take an opposing view….The statistics Berman used to bolster his argument are scary to say the least and the miseducation most of us go through have a good deal to do with that. ( I also believe that television is an absolute enemy of humanity - at least as it has been and is used in this country ). But I am under no illusion that “proper” education can cure us of our inclionations toward selfishness, clanishness and callousness that seem to be hard wired into humanity. Okay. I enjoy your thoughtful posts. Keep plugging..  Ed R

Elisa, I wish I had the ability to answer your heart felt message with the depth it deserves….Somebody once wrote that Communists love humanity collectively and in the abstract, bu they have no use for individuals. Over the course of an active life I found myself developing the exact opposite viewpoint.
I can sometimes have great empathy, concern and even love for individuals but very little for humans collectively. This doesn’t mean that I have no concern for people who are being tortured or slaughtered in places like Rwanda or Guantanamo Bay.
But I don’t expect such people are capable COLLECTIVELY of empathy for others outside their own herd. I won’t beat this horse to death, but let me say that I am not a total pessimist. I have grteat faith in God or perthaps in the idea that the individual human being is ultimately meant for greater things than he or she can ever hope to get in this life….I have often been struck by folks who speak of great concern for others and have little or no concern for the person standing right in front of them….. This is beginning to ramble. Don’t know how much sense it makes…It would take an essay to scratch the surface of these remarks. But I didn’t want to throw cold water on your belief that unselfishness and non violence is something to build your life around. This belief has created some truly great individuals, but collectively mankind still seems to be groping in the dark.

(Damn - ‘blase’, obviously.)

Whoops - One More Thing (TM):

Aside from generalized skepticism when it comes to psycho-babble, I’m also hesitant to ascribe to venality what can easily be explained by incompetence.  The American public (including many vigorously opposed to the kinds of misbehavior being discussed here) is so demonstrably incompetent (especially in terms of governance) that this, to me, seems the more probable explanation for at least a great deal of its blaze attitude toward the treatment of those whom it perceives as ‘others’.

Ed - thanks very much for the Berman citation:  I usually confine myself to the text portions of Truthdig and thus hadn’t looked at it (nor would I have been likely to, given its length).

I wish I could say that my comments here had anything like the depth of Berman’s discussion, but you honor me by thinking that they had at least some overlap.

I LOVE the concept of ‘negative identity’ - something with which I’ve been accosted persistently in another thread here.  People with the best of motives simply can’t appreciate (to the point where their reading comprehension goes completely out the window) a different viewpoint, regardless of how closely it may match their own, if that viewpoint does not include knee-jerk opposition to a perceived enemy.

In that vein, his humorous observation that his comments about the Civil War would be interpreted as support for the institution of slavery precisely paralleled the reactions of the left to Ron (and Rand) Paul’s very specific and Constitution-based reservations about one very specific and limited portion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  As Berman (and I) noted, such critics “just aren’t that bright - they’re not into nuance”.

Parenthetically, Berman himself is not entirely beyond such criticism.  He mentioned the infamous debate in which Ron Paul was asked whether people who choose not to ensure themselves should just be allowed to die if they become seriously ill and, rather than observing that Paul himself expressed reservations about that (my guess is that he’d favor treating them on an emergency basis and then requiring repayment to the best of their ability, but he never actually got to answer that specifically), simply assumed that Paul shared the reaction of the audience (which seemed to think that letting them die was a great idea).

I do take some issue with Berman’s conclusion that our country acts the way it does because that’s what we really want.  I still believe that a large part of the problem is the absence of the ‘enlightened’ part of ‘enlightened self-interest’, and that better education than we’ve had for the past few decades (especially in analysis and logic to provide some counterpoint to gut reactions - I wrote that shortly before hearing Berman make the same observation himself, and even longer before he cited polling data indicating a 48% drop in empathy for others among college students between 1979 and 2009) could help rectify that.

The fact that so little such enlightenment has been evident historically does not necessarily mean that people aren’t at all interested in TRYING to improve themselves in this area - at least when encouraged to rather than carefully manipulated into not doing so.  But I may be over-optimistic about this, or the degree of education required to realize it sufficiently broadly may be unattainable, or the degree to which “a harsh environments creates cruel people” may mean that such positive feedback prohibits reversing our course now.

I vividly recall during the week following 9/11/2001 trying to make it clear in on-line discussions that that attack was not without provocation on our part, and how little headway I was able to make.  At the time I thought it merely required a bit of time for cooler heads to prevail, but over a decade later recognize that something a lot more basic needs to take place.  I’m just not convinced that the sole root of the problem is fundamental to our collective psyche rather than a major portion being due to manipulation (which, though a massive problem to tackle, is likely more subject to change).

But that could just be my fairly innate aversion to accepting what sounds a bit like psycho-babble as a core cause.  Berman does make a compelling case for it, and I (again) thank you for having drawn my attention to it.

EdR: Here was a man who knew exactly what the world was like and had a clear
understanding of the species he was born into.

Rather sad Ed Romano and something I refuse to believe. Rather, I would say that the human species is gullible.  How about all the propaganda in the Armed Forces: You are killing the Afghans to defend your country, etc. That’s what creates a killer.  So, veterans come back disconnected. The inner authentic being in combat with the persona the training insists upon.

My only problem is that violence does seem to triumph. But then again, I ask myself, would I want to live in a world consisting of selfish, violent, sadistic creatures? My answer to that is, “No.” That is why I, along with Chris Hedges and many others, advocate the non-violent path.

I had just finished watching a video featuring Morris Berman when I clicked into your response. It is somewhat amazing that he hits upon almost all of the things you mention…. At the very top of this site you’ll see - on the left - a column that reads MOST READ. The Morris Berman video is the first one listed.
It is not very optimistic , but I am one who believes it is better to know what’s happening than to fumble around in the dark,
Thanks for your response.

I suspect, Ed, that BluStonez is more ashamed to be an American because the behavior s/he’s describing is being exhibited by the country that s/he, as a citizen and a voter, is at least in some ways directly responsible for (unlike the behavior of humanity in general, where the responsibility is at least somewhat less direct).

The desire to leave and thus escape some of that responsibility (and the onus of being in any way the beneficiary of such behavior, though the degree to which most of us benefit is debatable) is therefore understandable.  And there are certainly some places in the world which, though far less than perfect themselves, are distinctly better than the U.S.A. in that respect.

Remaining and fighting it only makes sense if one believes that fighting it can accomplish anything.  That belief becomes harder to sustain with every new unanswered atrocity.  If history didn’t suggest that at some point we (as other populations before us) will rise up and say “Enough is enough!” in a very substantial manner, I’d be inclined to leave too.

While it’s a somewhat subtle distinction, I don’t think that feeling responsible for one’s country in this way constitutes just another form of the abhorrent ‘American exceptionalism’ that gets trotted out as justification for our misbehavior.  Nor is it necessarily only a selfish desire to be able to feel better about ourselves.  Sometimes, responsibility is just responsibility (as Freud might have said).

I suspect, Ed, that BluStonez is more ashamed to be an American because the behavior s/he’s describing is being exhibited by the country s/he, as a citizen and a voter, is at least in some ways directly responsible for (unlike the behavior of humanity in general, where the responsibility is at least somewhat less direct).

The desire to leave and thus escape some of that responsibility (and the onus of being in any way the beneficiary of such behavior, though the degree to which most of us benefit is debatable) is therefore understandable.  And there are certainly some places in the world which, though far less than perfect themselves, are distinctly better than the U.S.A. in that respect.

Remaining and fighting it only makes sense if one believes that fighting it can accomplish anything.  That belief becomes harder to sustain with every new unanswered atrocity.  If history didn’t suggest that at some point we (as other populations before us) will rise up and say “Enough is enough!” in a very substantial manner, I’d be inclined to leave too.

IMax—-if you perceive that you’re using the term with
good reason, yes it matters….a little.

I’m new here. Looking over the postings I see that after reading the poll BluStonez is ashamed to be an American. If he’d look over the history of humanity for the past few centuries I think he’d be more ashamed to be a human being…. I think the question asked in the poll is only surprising to folks who have a high opinion of humanity. Years ago the Robber Baron, Jay Gould was told by an associate that he couldn’t do something he was planning because workers wouldn’t stand for it. Gould replied that he could ” hire one half of the working class to kill the other half”. Here was a man who knew exactly what the world was like and had a clear understanding of the species he was born into.

Anarc,

We are agreed.  Amongst the millions of Bush’s critics on the ‘War On Terror’ nearly no one today is shouting about War Crimes today.

You may recall how almost immediately after President Obama stated he would abolish water-boarding, his Presidential Spokesman released a statement saying the president still reserves that purgative.  What the President or his spokesman did not say is that a new policy would be erected.  Less capture, less detention, less trials and a ten fold increase in executions of suspects.

The very loudest in the congress, the media, and the public at large have remained largely quiet.  So much for righteous indignation regarding human-rights and the U.S. Constitution.

-

hetero,

I use the term ‘summary execution’ for a few solid reason.  One of which rests in what I wrote previously.  It is the global perception.  Perception, as we know, often becomes reality to many.  Perception matters.

bill—-most folks don’t kill anyone that they like, they tend to reserve that for folks
they don’t

but you probably know better

The semantic distinction between having the authority to kill anyone you like and having the authority to kill anyone you claim you think is a terrorist may just be too subtle for me to embrace, ana.  But it’s clearly not too subtle for the Great Unwashed to feel comfortable with.

That, I suggest, is the problem that a real debate would help solve.

As I tried to say before, I don’t think 65% of Americans actually support the the theory that the president can kill anyone he likes.

ana, the fact that you don’t think that a dictatorship can act more efficiently but tic clearly does (at least in the specific area of nipping ‘evil-doers’ in the bud before they have the chance to - perhaps - do something bad) is what having a debate is all about.  The important thing is that the kinds of people who support Obama’s activities in this area REALIZE that this is what they’re supporting rather than simply react to a very specific example of this behavior with a “Seems like the right thing to me” shrug - and having the debate would help ensure that.

And at least in terms of the cited polling results this is very much a question of whether ‘the people’ want this arrangement.  Whether the ruling class finds it convenient is a different question without a clear historical answer, at least in the short/medium term:  the Soviet Union had a pretty totalitarian government for over 80 years, and it might have survived a lot longer had it devoted somewhat less of its national resources to militarism.

You talk as if these are settled issues.  They may be for you and for me, but for the country as a whole they aren’t, and they need to be.

By heterochromatic, February 10 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

ardee-the state of war was/is with the perps of the 9/11 attacks and the American
killed by drone was a member of Al Qaeda.

not a leap at all.

Firstly, did that American have anything whatever to do with the events of 9/11? Nope! Hell, did AlQaeda as a group?

Secondly, and sad to have to tell you something you should really know, you cannot declare war on a group of criminals, only upon a nation. The use of the term “war” has been diluted and mangled to mean anything our rulers wish it to mean. Now it means .“oh boy more profits!”

When 9/11 occurred the proper and legal action would have been for all the law enforcement agencies at hand, including Interpol et al, to have treated this as what it was; a criminal action by a criminal gang.

I remember world wide outpourings of sympathy after those heinous crimes, including a candlelight procession of support in Tehran. A police action, with the support of most nations would have rather quickly succeeded where this absurd “war” has only alienated everyone and murdered countless thousands of innocents.

Hetero, you better hope that that moron in the White House doesn’t arbitrarily decide that you are a terrorist. The rule of law is gone from this nation and those like you , who should know better, are certainly responsible.

bill—I don’t think there’s any historical evidence that dictatorships are more efficient than other forms of government.  In any case the question is not whether the people want such an arrangement, but whether the ruling class does.  A degeneration of government towards tyranny is evidence that the ruling class has become incompetent and are no longer capable of looking after their own long-term interests.  There have been many other evidences of this in recent decades, and Mr. O continues the progress of Mr. B and his predecessors.  As you say, few seem to want to call this process by its ordinary name.

heterochromatic—I thought that outside of the propaganda business and those suckered by it, everyone knew that ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ referred not to personal dictatorship but the central concerns of the state.  Marx opposed it to ‘dictatorship of the bourgeoisie’.

iMax—Some people are talking about Mr. O’s war crimes, but since his predecessors were given a totally free pass there doesn’t seem to be much point in it.  Also, the Democrats infiltrated and pretty much destroyed the anti-war movement, which would be the most likely source of concern about such things.  Also, Mr. O’s Republican and right-wing opponents neutralized themselves in this area by supporting Bush and his wars and attendant crimes. 

There are a few voices crying in the wilderness, but not many. 

However, even small things can have great effects after awhile, and the continued practice of murder, terror and torture for personal and class advantage will eventually serve to literally demoralize and delegitimize the state with everyone, not just sensitive cranks like myself.  And then, if events follow the usual course of history, it will collapse or undergo radical transformation, for better or worse.

It is famously written that ‘one who saves a life, saves the world.’  Just so, those who take life destroy the world—their own.

Max——forgive me, but I was wondering if you really
meant “summary execution” cause I don’t quite see
that.

To me, summary execution is when you have captured
and/or rendered someone helpless and then without
formality kill the prisoner.

Gaddafi, in my book, was summarily executed.

Guys that are part of a hostile force and running
loose and get blown away I don’t understand to be
summarily executed.

The guy in Yemen was akin to our killing of Adm
Yamamoto, hunted down and killed.

Maybe you might throw in with the international law
crowd and go with extra-judicial killing.

bill—-everyone finished consideration of
dictatorships in freshman year and then moved on to
dismissing the dictatorship of the proletariat as
equally vacuous as the original.

then we decided that justice is NOT the interests of
the stronger.

you shoulda got an education, bill. rather than just
soaking yer head till it swelled so.

Sincerely yours,

us mo-rons.

hetero,

You make a valid argument while dealing in realities.  On the battlefield any and all perceived enemy, even if American, will be targeted and killed.  Obviously you grasp the ‘global’ nature of the battles much of the world finds itself in with Islamic Fascism. 

The problem we face is the public precedent being set today.  While it’s clear that many natural-born American citizens have been rightly targeted and killed throughout the world in the past 60-80 years, there is, today, an open acknowledgement of these realities.  So while not altogether a new issue, it has become a much larger issue - air space rights, instant and always on communications, global perceptions of jurisprudence, American’s distrust of government in the past 40 years, etc,.

Transparency, as much as we tout it as essential to ‘good governance’, also has its downsides (recognizing there is rarely government transparency in times of war).  Sometimes those downsides can be dangerous.  Nonetheless, the United States must lead in examples.  The U.S. must always go out of its way to defend an American’s rights long before dismissing them. 

With all that said, drones have been quite effective at eliminating known enemies and has significantly hindered the free movements of those who wage war in and against so many of the world’s countries.

-

Greenwald correctly points out a bit hypocrisy in this issue.  Amongst my own party six year ago these tactics would have found nearly zero support.  Not under Bush/Cheney.  Nearly no one is shouting War Crimes today.

Another example: I am opposed to water-boarding.  So too was Mr. Obama as U.S. Senator come candidate for president.  He seemed adamantly and passionately opposed, in fact.  Yet after entering office he almost immediately ended water-boarding (kinda sorta) and began summary executions.  Very few of the most critical of Bush’s ‘War On Terror’ seem inclined to be alarmed today.

“bill—it is sort of difficult to rationally discuss a proposition like ‘The president should be able to have killed anyone he wants to have killed purely on his own say-so.’  I mean, where do you start?”

I thought I made it pretty clear where you start, ana:  with the proposition that a dictatorship is preferable to the kind of democracy under laws that apply to everyone that we at least in theory enjoy now.

That’s a legitimately debatable question.  Dictatorships do have their benefits (‘making the trains run on time’ is one that’s traditionally cited), and given the results of the polling data reported here that’s a discussion which we probably ought to be having, rather than bandying about ridiculous rationalizations for our government’s (including the Supreme Court’s) shredding of the existing Constitution.

If enough people really do want a dictatorship, the Constitution provides a mechanism for creating one within the law.  Granted the mechanism is deliberately cumbersome (in order to give people the opportunity to think such fundamental changes through), but it’s there.

What bothers me is not the raising of that question (which none of us should shrink from addressing) but the clearly deliberate attempts to AVOID raising it (and thus circumvent addressing the less attractive aspects of dictatorship) by appealing to emotion and the analytical incompetence of so much of our citizenry.

ardee-the state of war was/is with the perps of the 9/11 attacks and the American
killed by drone was a member of Al Qaeda.

not a leap at all.

By heterochromatic, February 10 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

“congressional recognition that a state of war exists pretty much does remove due-
process from the equation ,” ANA.

Mr Lincoln ordered the deaths of a great many American citizens, and I don’t
believe that the constitution was seen as having been violated because he did.

I am surprised that you havent hurt yourself making this stretch of logic. A state of war with Afghanistan ( absurd as that is) in your mind somehow equates with murdering American citizens? Or, for that matter, the wholesale slaughter of woman and children in pursuit of a handful of so-called terrorists….shame on you.

congressional recognition that a state of war exists pretty much does remove due-
process from the equation , ANA.

Mr Lincoln ordered the deaths of a great many American citizens, and I don’t
believe that the constitution was seen as having been violated because he did.

Acts of Congress do not overcome the due-process clause of the Constitution.

Ana—- you start by saying that he can not and that the authorization for it is
found in an act of Congress known as AUMF

One thing this article demonstrates is the success of the Democrats and Obama in their main mission, giving “bi-partisan” consensus to the “evil” policies of the Republicans.  After running to restore “sanity” in government as soon as they took office they couldn’t embrace and expand those policies fast enough. 

Politics in this country are marketed like any other product, looking for brand loyalty.  It isn’t amazing or surprising that now that their “side” is “winning” that liberals support policies that four years ago they were screaming would destroy the planet.  Bi-partisan surely means the policy is correct beyond question. 

Next November we will have a President a Congress and a Senate of neo-cons, supply siders, Imperialists, planet killers who will continue to ignore the Constitution increase the police,corporate state, wealth inequity, wars of colonialism, and suicidal climate change, regardless of being brand (R) or (D) or label, liberal or conservative

bill—-“Wrong as usual, tic:  the war in Afghanistan is certainly unwarranted
(since its original stated objectives were attained a decade ago)”——

we did not obtain those objectives if the Taliban is still attempting to regain
control of Afghanistan…....that seems rather obvious…even a non-moron such
as yourself should find that rather evident.

the difference between conviction in a court of law and and killing in a military
conflict is fairly vast, for sure.

and Americans citizens engaged in attempted to make war upon the US aren’t
always going to get a trial if they’re at large and trying to bombard us…..they’re
not exactly criminals.

To “WR Curley”, I say “bravo”!  You hit the nail right on the head; we have long sense “traded our freedoms for a little security” and at this point we may deserve neither.

bill—it is sort of difficult to rationally discuss a proposition like ‘The president should be able to have killed anyone he wants to have killed purely on his own say-so.’  I mean, where do you start?

Wrong as usual, tic:  the war in Afghanistan is certainly unwarranted (since its original stated objectives were attained a decade ago), and the war in Iraq (which Paul similarly opposed) was unquestionably illegal as well as unwarranted.

And your persistent refusal to recognize the difference between suspicion of terrorist activity and conviction of it, plus your inclination to suggest that suspicion (or even, for that matter, conviction) of terrorist activity automatically deprives American citizens of their citizenship, is at best incompetent if not actively venal.

So legality (even when it comes to the Constitution itself) is simply a matter of convenience to you:  I get it.  Just come right out and admit it and people MIGHT be willing to try to discuss this position rationally with you rather than just trade insults back and forth (which is kind of boring even to those involved, let alone onlookers who are interested in the substance of the thread).

no, Dennis they don’t approve the killing of American citizens via drone-strikes,
they approve the killing of people who were American citizens but have become
terrorists engaged in attacking American citizens.

a slight difference.

there’s nothing illegal or unwarranted about our war in Afghanistan.

unwise and endless and mostly futile is neither of what you so ignorantly claim,
Your Moronic Hasshole.

(it’s only your absurd pretension to superior intelligence that’s annoying, billious.)

Liberals approve the killing of American citizens with drone-strikes by a 55 to 35 margin?

Sorry, those aren’t liberals. 
I’m insulted.

And which of the visible candidates for the presidency would roll back this kind of totalitarian outrage?

(I ask this not just to annoy the tic, but have to admit that’s an added benefit.)

To be sure, every prominent candidate has gross deficiencies - but some are worse than others, and rather than simply rend our garments and seek comfort in the familiarity of past behavior it might be time to step back, do our own research (rather than depend upon that spoon-fed to us both by the MSM and by others with a clear agenda - well-meaning though some of those agendas may be), and weigh the pros and cons carefully.

I place more weight on illegal and unwarranted wars and similar misbehavior abroad than on any domestic issue - i.e., until we shape up ourselves and oust those responsible for such activity I can’t care as much about conditions here at home.  Of domestic issues, though, the rapid erosion of our civil liberties ranks at the top of my list - for without civil liberty, what power do we have to affect other change?  Others may (and many obviously do) have different priorities.  The important thing is to determine the order of those priorities and match that against the expressed priorities (and records) of those running.

And if no clear choice results from the above choosing someone who will at least sufficiently upset the status quo that this will open up currently closed possibilities for ALL kinds of change (including potentially for the better) might have merit over simply continuing on the path the establishment has had us tread for the past decade.

I didn’t begin paying any attention at all to Ron Paul until a couple of months ago (I had my own ideas about how to try to start to derail the duopoly and simply hadn’t considered the possibility that supporting a candidate in one of the two major parties could help do that).  I’m still ambivalent about actively supporting him, but understand his positions well enough now to realize that he’s not some kind of kook (as both sides of the duopoly would have us believe) and that while I strongly disagree with many of his positions (though in most cases can understand them as legitimate viewpoints with which I simply don’t concur rather than as fundamentally wrong) 8 or 9 significant ones (including the one being discussed here) are considerably to the left of Obama’s.

Besides, in my opinion anyone who can shake up the status quo and make people think politically outside their normal boxes has merit for that alone.  I’m not sure how much Paul has made his committed followers think outside the box (though I believe that his own positions are considerably more ‘nuanced’ than most of his followers - and most others - understand), but he’s made me do so, and for that I’m grateful.

At any rate, something to think about if you’re significantly bothered (as I am) by the polling reported above.  As a Nader voter in 2004 and 2008 I would never have expected to be considering Paul, but as our slide into the abyss accelerates radical and unconventional solutions become more feasible to countenance (at least for me).

Me—-drones are pretty effective at blowing up people deemed to be terrorists in
places where it’s usually hard to blow up people deemed to be terrorists.

Some questions:

Are polls to be taken seriously? Polls are businesses. They don’t even qualify as mediocre research.

Wouldn’t a more important question have been whether people believe that drones are effective in combating terrorism? (The poll question implies that drones are effective.)

Assuming this poll reflects reality, do we need a poll to tell us that most people would approve of irresponsible measures even when the poll question was about terrorism “suspects” only? Just look at the warmongering candidates that folks are considering for the next election.

there’s not much fault in shooting at someone who has joined Al Qaeda, advocates
killing any American citizen at any time and in any circumstance, and acts to send
suicide bombers to perform sneak attacks upon Americans.
even if that asswipe was formerly an American citizen, his actions in levying war
against the United States make for a rather strong case in assuming that he’s
renounced his citizenship….and is fit it assume a new identity as “charred
remains”.

Most Americans also supported Reagan’s 1986 bombing of Tripoli, Libya which led to the Pan Am 103 counter-attack two years later. Most agreed with the 1991 Gulf War, which directly led to the 9/11 counter-attack (one of the three stated motives for 9/11 was putting US troops on Saudi soil to carry out Saddam’s expulsion from Kuwait). Most Americans also supported the 2003 Iraq invasion, which resulted in countless terrorist attacks; I have no doubt it will inspire more terrorism against American civilians on our own soil. Same goes for America’s drone program. Americans can feel good about themselves for a while, until our victims strike back horrifically.

Kindly click on “new polling” in the article for more information, including:
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone February 1 to 4, 2012, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults, including landline and cell phone-only respondents. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York.

Some comnments on the latest Chris Hedges column might lead one to conclude that this poll is indeed authentic.

“[I]s there even a single liberal pundit, blogger or commentator who would have defended George Bush and Dick Cheney if they (rather than Obama) had been secretly targeting American citizens for execution without due process, or slaughtering children, rescuers and funeral attendees with drones, or continuing indefinite detention even a full decade after 9/11? Please. How any of these people can even look in the mirror, behold the oozing, limitless intellectual dishonesty, and not want to smash what they see is truly mystifying to me.” - You said a mouthful, Mr. Greenwald.

-

The latest Chris Hedges piece reprinted here on TruthDig has racked up nearly 500 comments - Mostly people talking about themselves - This Washington Post poll is interesting, yes, but equally telling is how this piece, regarding Obama administration summary executions of ‘suspect’ terrorists, will likely garner less than 50-80 comments before it’s archived into oblivion.

A recent article on China - 10 comments
An article on Sudan - 10
Dispatches from Egypt - 3
The killing of Christians in Nigeria - 1

People here on TruthDig absolutely love discussing (and arguing) about themselves.

A stranger suddently comes up to you and asks you if you approve of killing terrorists….

“The Jonas Brothers are here. (Applause.) They’re out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia are huge fans. But, boys, don’t get any ideas. (Laughter.) I have two words for you — predator drones. (Laughter.) You will never see it coming. (Laughter.) You think I’m joking. (Laughter.)”

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/killin/

This just proves that no government can impose tyranny on it’s people or rob them of their
liberty, unless the citizens allow the government to do it to them.  Americans are
voluntarily handing over their fundamental freedoms in the quest for saftey from vague
threats. Can they not see that the greatest threat they face is from is the destruction of
their democracy through acquiescence to arbitrary measures such as assassination and
restriction of habeas corpus?

I am not ceertain which is the mre astonishing; the “poll” reported by the Washington Post or the two almost incoherent rants by Outraged…...

Terrorist is the magic word. Had those questions been asked at the onset of the survey, the response might not have been identical. One tends not listen as carefully toward the end of an opinion poll, wanting to “get it over with.” Another consideration, the more savvy might refuse to participate in such polls, suspecting the questions are rigged to favor a certain response and/or would be used for questionable purposes, thus making the survey flawed.

One can always hope.

while 65 percent found no fault even if those targeted were American citizens….... Jesus Christ.

Re: BluStonez

Yes. I support Obama. But then again, obviously I’m to ignorant, callous or unquestioning (like the rest of us “stupid” Americans) to understand the “true” gravity of the situation.

Btw, don’t let the screen door hit you on your way out.

Why do I bother?
87% of Democrats support Obama even though he killed the public option in the Summer of 2009 (per Tom Daschle), he reneged on his promise to repeal the Bush tax cuts, and he has put Social Security and Medicare on the bargaining table.
Now I find that the vast majority of the American people condone the execution of perceived enemies of the state.
I am ashamed to be an American. I wanna leave.

83%.... you don’t say…? Really! My goodness me what a surprise!

Apparently this is only “surprising” to those who’ve been living in (what one supposes) is their VERY OWN COMFORTABLE BUBBLE.

Yes….of course, I’m “shocked” in fact, these numbers are incredibly curious if not outrightly “shocking”. Did I get that right? Of course I’m simply stupefied to engage statistics such as this. Did I get that right… my incredulous friends?

Certainly “us” purists are “shocked”.....why, in fact outraged and certainly our feigned outrage illuminates this…....... does it not?

Seriously….!, when is the last time you’ve talked to America outside of your comfort zone. This isn’t telling of Americans, rather it is telling of those that apparently have “a small circle of friends”.

But let me say it again(from these “journalists” perspective).....oh me, oh my, have you seen the latest polls…?  And even if half right…what is happening, why I’m “shocked”, and of course I see the disconnect of these Americans…! You know what I mean….  Obviously “us” PURISTS and “holders of the torch” have been doing our job.  But I’m simply flummoxed as to how this has come about…. it certainly had nothing to do with “us”. Why in fact we’ve been nothing but “helpful” in explaining the reality of the situation.

Certainly… I wonder, just why or where did Americans get that idea….  Just for the record, OBVIOUSLY I’m not to blame.  You understand what I’m saying…. right..?  I mean, no matter how much influence or persuasion with the written word… or no matter how many times I could have written something that COULD have been persuasive…and no matter how many times (given my training and gift for words) I COULD have presented this conundrum in understandable terms…. I DIDN’T.  That’s not MY fault….why didn’t you hear all my blathering against this type of reasoning…?

MY TAKE: Yeah… sure, I get it.  And it is quite apparent just how well that approach has worked.  But hey, if you don’t believe me….ask the Republicans…why, OBVIOUSLY their approach is working wonderfully…is it not…?

My suggestion is that if you happen to fall upon hard times… like the majority of Americans are
facing…. you know….., no one’s listening to you any more….check out the Repugs… they just might have a “place” for you.  And don’t feel bad, lots of us lowly folks “who just don’t get it” will understand that your prominence and superiority simply eludes us.