Re By MG, June 19 at 12:11 pm #
“The problem began in 1979 when the American Government did not help the American backed Shah in Iran.”
————————& #8212;———————R 12;———————— —-
No, the problem began in 1953 when the United States overthrew the democratically elected government of  
Iran and installed the Shah, a corn-fed American puppet. The brutally repressive regime of the Shah and his world-famous secret police, the Savak, was then overthrown by an Islamic people’s revolution. Unfortunately, the Shiite regime which then took over was just as brutally repressive, if in different ways, as the Shah. They also torture people, deny human rights, etc. The Iranian people are screwed either way. However, it is up to them to free themselves by a revolution. We could perhaps help by a policy of constructive engagement.

But if you haven’t learned by now what “toppling the regime” militarily really means, you must be a fool. Didn’t Iraq teach you anything? It means military conquest of Iran. It means bombing Iran back into the stone age. It means killing literally millions of people. This will make Iraq look like Granada. But no matter, think U.S. imperialists, as long as the oil is still there. You have a lot of Exxon stock, is that it?

Israel’s intent is not always all that virtuous.  We should always preserve a certain amount of skepticism

“We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them. We’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlement, right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years time, neither the United Nations, nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.” -Ariel Sharon to Winston Churchill III in 1973

On June 8, 1967, as Israel was warring on neighbors, it bombed the clearly marked USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans, and strafed bombing survivors. When the Liberty radioed for air support, President Lyndon Johnson called off the relief to avoid a confrontation with Israel. Washington continues to refuse a full investigation

Chris Hedges is making excuses for Palestinian terrorists.  While I would never claim that all the actions Israel has taken were morally correct, they are on much firmer moral ground than the Palestinians.  When the Israeli’s launch an air strike and hit a coffee shop it is because they missed.  When a member of Hamas or any suicide bomber blows up a school bus it is because they hit their target.

Also, Hedges point about the casualty ratio being skewed in favor of the Israeli’s is a total non sequitur.  The ratio of American soldiers killed when compared to Japanese soldiers killed in World War II was heavily skewed in our favor, but that does not mean that the Japanese people were being oppressed by American imperialists.  Our troops in Afghanistan have probably killed many more members of the Taliban than members of the U.S. armed forces have been killed by Taliban fighters. It is a good thing that the Israeli’s are killing many more Palestinians instead of the other way around.

Also, Chris Hedges forgets that it was the Palestinians who did not accept the original UN partition and launched an attack on the Israeli’s with the support of Arab governments.  The very existence of Israel has been under threat from their hostile neighbors since it’s creation.  Hedges has decided to blame the whole situation on western imperialism instead laying a large part of the blame where it belongs.  At the Palestinian’s doorstep.

RE: Stephen Smoliar

(“We have met the enemy, and they is us.”)

and

We are unable to see the forest for the trees.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Tony Judt on “the banality of evil:”  “But if we wish to grasp the true significance of evil—what Hannah Arendt intended by calling it “banal”—then we must remember that what is truly awful about the destruction of the Jews [in the Holocaust] is not that it mattered so much but that it mattered so little.”

Uri Avnery on Obama at AIPAC:  “That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.”

In other words “nobody was shocked” because everyone has become so benumbed by political-business-as-usual that, in the grand scheme of maneuvering for electoral votes, that speech “mattered so little.”  The United States has become the new model of Arendt’s banality.  Claiming that our current President is responsible for our achieving that status is not the whole story.  The rest was told by Walt Kelly:  “We have met the enemy, and they is us.”

Tony Wincher,

Thanks so much for posting this piece from Averny. I appreciated reading it, and his points are well taken.

There is an irony here though, that I wonder if we’re missing. Are we not ALL giving Israel, AIPAC, and all ‘connected’ the same overwhelming attention (and even a measure of kow-towing) by our very reaction to Obama’s major blunder with that speech?

I mean, let’s face it, it has received OVERWHELMING attention throughout the world, and that means that we’re still giving this little tiny Israel, a whole bunch more clout than they really deserve by such an acknowledgement.

So yeah, Obama made a huge blunder, either by ignorance (at least in respect to the Jerusalem bit…I can’t imagine why he wasn’t more ‘informed’ on THAT) or by standard pandering. But, are we continuing it by all of this attention?

Just a thought.

Scottk,

Thanks for the links to all of Obama’s money sources. I could only afford $35.00. Glad he was able to collect from other’s who had more.

You mentioned the contributions of those that were $1,000 or ‘more’. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but there is a limit to contributions, although I’d want to double check the ‘rules’ to find out what that is. (and I’m not sure it matters at this point)

That *is* however, how Hillary Clinton ran into financial trouble. ALL of her contributions came from the corps and big money sources. And, they donated the max, and at the very beginning. So, she began her campaign very much ‘in the money’ so to speak. However, she didn’t plan for a campaign beyond Feb 5, (Super Tuesday) because she expected to become the nominee by then. So, she’s spent all of her big donations, and because those big donors had already donated the limit, she found herself in a jam.

I just thought I’d throw that in for proper context here. Unfortunately, (and I believe that it IS unfortunate) the US political system requires that candidates come up with a lot of money.

And now we have some candidates that will continue to the contest to November. May ‘we the people’ win this time.

Article by Uri Avnery, an important voice in the Jewish peace movement. Sorry to post the whole thing, but I can’t find a link.

Uri Avnery on Obama at AIPAC
7.6.08

          No, I Can’t!

AFTER MONTHS of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.

And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.

That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.

IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.

The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.

The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world’s capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.

The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.

WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?

The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.

(Continued below)

Avnery on Obama and AIPAC

Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich.  Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions. 

True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.

But in a presidential race?

THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates

Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.

And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!

The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.

And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.

OK he promises to safeguard Israel’s security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)

Avnery on Obama and AIPAC (cont)

But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.

NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.

On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.

Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan “Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity”. Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.

In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.

Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.

But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president. 

SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)

What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?

The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.

The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were “pilgrims”, the Zionists immigrants called themselves “olim” - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a “promised land”, believing themselves to be God’s chosen people.

Avnery on Obama and AIPAC (cont)

Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as “pioneers”, who make the wilderness bloom, a “people without land in a land without people”. Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.

True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the US. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.

HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.

Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: “Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself.”

I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.

Of one thing I am certain: Obama’s declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.

If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: “No, I can’t!”

Zeitgeist writes:

•  “..Perhaps Obama would have faired better if he had completely ignored his engagement with AIPAC, which I myself perceived him to have been corralled into by Clinton and McCain, especially the conniving trickster McClinton:

Zeitgeist, my sentiments…EXACTLY! And, I’ve said as much, more than a few times, and several dozen posts back. Now I hadn’t even gotten around to recognizing the probable ‘corralling’ that he would have succumbed to, so I’m not even giving him an ‘out’ based on that. In short, I’ve recognized this as the biggest blunder he could have made, by speaking with them at all. On the other hand, since he could probably NOT completely avoided speaking to them, (which would be no different that Bushes consistently ignoring the NAACP and other) he surely would have done far, far, far better speaking to them at a different time, and for sure with a different message.

No doubt, this was a major blunder. And it’s the only major blunder that I’ve recognized as exactly that. The rest is more hype. Thanks for the link. I hadn’t even considered the trickster.

Scott writes:

•  “Why couldn’t all this Obama support have gone to a candidate like Feingold? I will tell you why he didn’t have industries support early like Obama did which is what allowed him to build a base of 2 million donors.”

Scottk, this is an oxymoron connection, because they are separate from each other. I don’t know why Feingold didn’t get more support, so maybe you’d like to check that out.

As for Barack Obama, his donor support did NOT come from ‘industry’. It came from small time donors who didn’t really HAVE $25.00 or $35.00 to donate, but they did it anyway. They found a way. And they didn’t just do it one month, but they continued to do it month after month for 3, 4 or sometimes 5 months. Some people donated once, (maybe a whopping $100.00) and others found a way to donate more than once. But the donations have come from AMERICAN CITIZENS, and not corporations. There is also a limit on what citizens and corporations can donate.

Now, maybe you could find out what the real reasons are that Feingold didn’t get more support. Why didn’t Kucinich get more support? (He was my own first choice). And, are the reasons that Feingold didn’t get more support the same reasons why Kucinich didn’t get more support? How about the others? Why didn’t Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, and Gravel not get more support?

Stop trying to add 2+2 and convince us that it equals 7.

And scottk, did you really mean this last part, or maybe I’m not understanding this..

•  “…which my drive these young people out of politics forever, the way I sure Clinton did to a lot of people before GW Bush came a long, and saved the Democrats.”
• 
Do you really mean that GW came along and ‘SAVED the Democrats?” Surely I don’t follow you. I don’t see how GW has SAVED anybody other than his cronies in the MIC and the OIL industry, and they didn’t need “saving.” Can you explain how he ‘saved’ the dems? This is very curious.

Thanks for the reply zeitgeist. I, myself, attempted to stoke a debate amongst the posters at Obama’s website and was quickly told to go elsewhere and not dampen the excitement.

We really need to make this an issue and take Obama up on his invitation for debate and challenge him. I’ve already written to a number of journalists, but it seems that the dominant mindset, even in independent media, is one that carpet bombs McCain whilst basking in Obama’s historic candidacy. It’s the same old story: perception at the expense of political analysis.

Many Obama supporters, such as those at his website, need to see through this veil of symbolism that obscures real world implications.

I mentioned it earlier in this thread and I’ll say it again, the Huffington Post has a hell of a lot to answer for.

olddlyamerican, yes, I have read over Hedges remarks in the above article a dozen times now, as I have, not only here, but elsewhere. Please do not think for a moment that I too do not sympathize with those very same concerns. I agree, Obama’s rhetorical blessings to the gathered Zionist war party at AIPAC, did not boost his ratings in many other corners. In my opinion, to rally these folks is no different than to rally the war monger Bush and his Republican war industry.

Perhaps Obama would have faired better if he had completely ignored his engagement with AIPAC, which I myself perceived him to have been corralled into by Clinton and McCain, especially the conniving trickster McClinton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l121sDC4Q5s
I’m certain that she was completely aware of the impending psychological detriment such an engagement would have resonated throughout a large segment of concerned Obama supporters, and perhaps even now, this clutching and grasping ego of hers is continuing to covertly subvert and snatch the throne from Obama. Otherwise, if Clinton were truly interested in party unity, she’s no dummy, she would have counseled Obama against his AIPAC speech, or at least advised him to be guarded in his words, but instead led him right into it. I have posted these very same concerns on Obama’s blog site, in hopes that they will land on and resonate in the appropriate ears.

How does one campaign against such dark psychological tricks? What else better explains Obama’s, one moment, concern for the plight of the Palestinians, to now this?

Zionism is not completely an Israeli mindset. As I have stated in my other postings elsewhere, much of the Balfour Declaration rode in on the wings of delirious Christen sympathies. Today, the Israeli body politic, at least the party of war, is infected by the extremist fundamentalists such as John Hagee and Pat Robertson, whose intent it is to usher in the second coming; Christen Zionists for Israel.

Consider for a moment what the MSM spin would have been and the effect this would have provoked in the above mentioned mindset, if Obama had stood up before the corporate lens, the magicians of sound and vision, and denounced the activities of the Israeli war party who are in the clutches of this madness? He would have been slammed and slandered as another Hitler. So, dam if you do and dam if you don’t.

Personally, I believe Obama would have served a wider range of his constituency much better if he had completely ignored his AIPAC engagement. I also believe, or at least suspect, that the Clinton/McCain rats are out to sink his ship. Obama needs to fight this psychological fire with and equal and opposing fire.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Zeitgeist,

You sum up the conflict in this thread perfectly; grave concern for the Middle East and yet support for Obama after reading (and agreeing with), Chris Hedges’ analysis of Obama’s neo-con speech.

I imagine everyone who has entered a post on this thread would agree that SOFA is of the utmost urgency (even though it looks as though Maliki is pretty hardcore in rejecting the terms), but surely the bigger picture now is the implications of an Obama administration following his bellicose speech at AIPAC.

Did you not read Hedges’ article above? Obama has now made clear that his previous allusions to diplomacy were nothing more than allusions and that his worldview is contiguous with the Neo-Con Neo-Lib narrative: American hegemony. This not a message of hope and change it is a message of threat and dominance.

Obama’s stance in Iraq now differs very little to McCain’s i.e. pull out as conditions permit, listen to the generals (which I happen to agree with, but that’s a debate for another time). And now with his veiled threat to Iran don’t you think that he might just want to keep a presence in Iraq to counterbalance Iran’s influence in the region?

You are right on about SOFA and there is a blackout of coverage, and the crimes of this current administration continue but Barack Obama is not the remedy. He is not a man who extends empathy to Arabs and Iranians (or even a nuanced understanding as we so hoped at the beginning of this campaign). As we are well aware, his promise of Jerusalem for Israel undivided doesn’t just affect Palestinians, it sends an aggressive message to those who disagree with Israeli occupation (the tone of concilliation has reached new depths), and that the United States will continue to be heavily biased in its dealings in the Middle East.

Like many ‘good’ leaders before him he has an unshakeable allegiance to the US Constitution and I applaud him for that, but also like many before him those ideals do not extend beyond the fifty states. Instead, when dealing with the ‘other’ we apparently need realpolitik or a geo-political viewpoint where strategy is everything and empathy is weakness.

So what I am asking you is this simple question: how is it possible to support Obama when you are so concerned about the Middle East and he has promised to progress the traditional and disastrous US agenda in the region?

Chris Hedges, thanks! Hammer on the following:

The biggest concern now should be the media blackout concerning the Bush Oligarchs push to implement what is known as the ‘Status of Forces Agreement’ and the true nature of this agreement. If the Washington regime, through slight of hand, is successful in this, it will tie Barack’s hands in fulfilling his stated mission, to remove ALL U.S. troops from the region at all. The deadline is the end of July. If successful, the Washington regime expects the measure to boost McCain’s position in November. This is serious stuff!

Watch RealNews video concerning this issue:

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_conte nt&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1656

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_conte nt&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1693

Great work Tony & Cyrena!

It appears the two of you have got them all spitting and sputtering as they chew their fingernails to the nub.

Keep em beying at the moon!

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

cyrna,

“Obama wrote in his recent memoir that he thinks the death penalty “does little to deter crime.” But he supports capital punishment in cases “so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.”

You know the reason I communicate with you is because it’s obvious to me that you’re an astute follow of events and seem to be pretty progressive. It’s the damned blind spot with Obama that I’m puzzled by and you just can’t seem to answer without comparing Obama to Hillary or McCain. Hillary is no longer a candidate and McCain is what he is.

But the quote - and I thank you for digging this up, reflects how Obama addresses just about issue. You know we are the only Western nation with a death penalty. And yet the so-called “liberal” Dem candidate supports it. The thing is we DON’T get the right guy much of the time and there’s nothing in Obama’s statements that are anything more than appeasement. That’s the problem with Obama. But his supporters have an answer for that: that’s what he needs to do to get elected.

That’s a standard DLC move and Obama has done it from day one. The Dems lose with that approach because it’s phony. I don’t know, and neither do you, what Obama really thinks about anything. There’s a reason why neo-con columnists like David Brooks leans toward Obama over McCain.

The funny thing is, and capital punishment bears this out, Obama is Bill Clinton 2008. I’ve said that ever since he started to run. Absolutely nothing new; a total re-tread. The obvious difference is that Obama seems to be pulling in young voters (after 8 years of Bush) and he has no executive experience (is that good?). I suspect he’ll take most of his first term to figure out which levers of power to pull (has nothing to do with smarts) and he’.. rely heavily on his staff of Clinton and neo-liberal (and even some neo-con leaning) advisors to lead the way.

Domestically, this country is strapped and there is great doubt that Obama will give up on Empire which continues to massively drain this country of resources.

As far as habeous corps, rendition, torture and Gitmo I don’t see any difference between Obama and McCain. McCain is more blunt about endless occupation of Iraq and Obama is not.

I’d suggest you take those good progressive instincts and intelligence and re-direct them. Just a suggestion. Eventually, after much time and energy, Obama will cross that line (AIPAC should have done it) that even you’ll be hard pressed to explain away.

cyrena, I think another way of putting oddlyamerican’s comment about “new days” is that we shall have no idea how new the day is actually going to be until the gavel comes down on the end of the Democratic Convention.  If I had to place a bet, I would probably keep it small;  but I would bet on the same-old-same-old prevailing, regardless of now many new influences there may be.

Since you do not watch television (as you claim), you probably have not had exposure to David Simon’s examination of Baltimore politics through narrative, the narrative in this case being the fourth and fifth seasons of THE WIRE.  Simon’s background is “old school” print journalism;  and his “classroom” for that school was found in the streets of Baltimore, particularly the really ugly ones.  I was particularly impressed that he could take a plot about cops and drugs and weave into it both a mayoral election and the impact of the new administration.  The “new day” metaphor figured (overly?) heavily in the winner’s campaign.  However, once the election has been won, the “new day” metaphor quickly succumbed to the “bowl of shit” metaphor:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/01/less on-from-wire.html

In a sense the winning candidate learns that you can’t fight City Hall even if you ARE City Hall!

Ultimately, it all comes down to Marx:  We make our own history, but that does not imply that we get out of it what we put into it.  It is not a matter of “believing in change.”  All we can do is take actions that we feel are appropriate, not just for ourselves but also for the social system that sustains us.  Some of those actions may lead to change;  but it is not usually (if ever) the change we had (or THOUGHT we had) intended.  More importantly, our social system is a robust one.  It is robust enough to sustain the rhetoric of “new days,” “bowls of shit,” and even “being a uniter, not a divider” (if you remember who used THAT one!):

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/06/e-pl uribus-challenge.html

This is not the despair of expecting nothing so as not to be disappointed;  it is just Voltaire’s good old-fashioned meliorism!

Max wanted to know if I agreed with Obama’s stance on the death penalty. (I guess mine is the only opinion that’s important) Since the death penalty (and whether or not it should be abolished or upheld) doesn’t rest on the opinion of a president, (it’s determined by public consensus) I’m not real sure why this matters to only know about Obama. (we haven’t seen the need to question any other politicians about this) But for what it’s worth..here’s his stance, and I’ve included mine at the bottom.
Barack Obama and the death penalty

NCADP cannot and does not endorse candidates for elective office. We can’t because of our tax status as a 501(c)(3). However, we can engage in public education—i.e., we can tell voters where candidates stand on issues such as the death penalty.

Courtesy of today’s Washington Post, here’s where Barack Obama stands on the death penalty. In a nutshell: He’s pro-death penalty but he is also pro-let’s not execute the wrong guy:
....
Five years later, Obama waded into a complex capital-punishment debate after a number of exonerations persuaded then-Gov. George Ryan (R) to empty death row.

Obama wrote in his recent memoir that he thinks the death penalty “does little to deter crime.” But he supports capital punishment in cases “so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.”

In proposing changes, Obama met repeatedly with officials and advocates on all sides. He nudged and cajoled colleagues fearful of being branded soft on crime, as well as death-penalty opponents worried that any reform would weaken efforts to abolish capital punishment.

Obama’s signature effort was a push for mandatory taping of interrogations and confessions. It was opposed by prosecutors, police organizations and Ryan’s successor, Democrat Rod Blagojevich, who said it would impede investigators.

Working under the belief that no innocent defendant should end up on death row an no guilty one should go free, Obama helped get the bill approved by the Senate on a 58 to 0 vote. When Blagojevich reversed his position and signed it, Illinois became the first state to require taping by statute.

http://deathpenaltyusa.blogspot.com/2007/02/barack- obama-and-death-penalty.html

My answer is that I’ve always preferred to see the death penalty abolished completely. He supports it in very heinous crimes, because he feels like it provides some sort of justice for the victims. I understand this point of view from studying and working with Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, specifically were widespread torture is concerned. But, I’ve not been a victim of such, so I can’t say how I would feel. My overwhelming concern is that innocent people have been and will continue to slip through the cracks. Or that we’ll continue to see cases like that of Karla Faye Tucker, whose death sentence GW cheerfully refused to commute to life in prison.

WHATEVER my own or Obama’s opinion might be however, doesn’t really matter at the bottom line, because this is something that Americans have overwhelmingly CHOSEN to have. Americans VOTE for this.. And, Americans seem to love it. They REALLY love it in Texas. Matter of fact, the US is the only industrialized nation in the world that still practices it, and they don’t seem to wanna give it up.

Pretty disgusting, but then…somehow, I’m not even surprised. My time on these blogs since this historic election has reopened my eyes. Guess I got a little ‘lax’ there after returning to civilization from a 3rd world country. Started to forget how ugly people could be.

We’ve still got a long road ahead of us.

Well OddlyAmerican,

I think you’ve actually answered all of your own questions, and got an opportunity to get in your own double attack of me and Obama at the same time.

Got work.

Meantime, I don’t think you really want any response from me. It’s just an opportunity to jump on the attack bandwagon.

Because the bottom line is that you people ask questions, and before I can answer them, ask different ones.

You also don’t really wanna hear them, because the stuff you’re asking, you can find out for yourself. You’ve proven in this post, that you already have.

Clearly I’ve never given the impression that I’m Obama’s spokesperson.

So, I guess what you really want to do is just find whatever you can that’s wrong with him, which would make a little bit more sense if you were actually comparing him with other candidates that you were considering, but you just said McCain was out. (that’s good to hear..for you all I guess). As for the other stuff that you wanna know, it would probably make more sense to just ask him yourself.

I mean, if you really do want to know these things.

Meantime. Please accept my apologies for revealing my career status. I never intended to, and I’ve so far avoided mentioning it in the past 18 or so months of my posts.

Please forgive me, and try to forget that I even mentioned it. I’ll just pretend to be really stupid, and nobody will ever know the difference.

Happy fact finding. (or burning at the stake)

Cyrena,

I have been reading your posts on this thread and whilst your high opinion of yourself and often condascending tone (defended by claiming it is the urgency of the times - which I don’t buy, condascending is not urgency) is frequently irritating I did find your post on the Cuban embargo interesting. But apart from that you appear to dance around the core of this thread and the grave implications of an Obama administration.

You ask why we focus on Obama and his explicitly non-progressive stances (i.e capital punishment, healthcare, and in this case military saber-rattling). Then when asked to reply to these specific cases (which by the way need not require a 2000 word essay as you as apparently put you off thus far), you choose only one (which as I mentioned was informative), and then challenge others to parse other candidates’ positions.

Let me attempt to be succinct. We don’t need to compare and contrast with other candidates here. I think we are all agreed that McCain requires little consideration and Clinton is now out. Obama has openly courted progressives, and so progressives are apt to do their job and challenge this candidate that claims to speak for them (see Obama’s victory speech in Minnesota). So when Obama not only contradicts his own message of debate, concilliation and consensus in the most dramatic of fashions, but also displays a US arrogance that has been going on since the Monroe Doctrine, I think it is okay to take a second look at his other conservative positions i.e. health-care, gay marriage, his emphasis on clean coal. That is not to mention the popular idea of the glorous message that a Barack Hussein Obama presidency would send to the rest of the world. A posssibilty that Obama utterly eviscerated in his speech to AIPAC when he took the Nicholas Kristoff approach to the Middle East: the Palestinians and Iran can suck it.

So Cyrena if it feels that people are attacking you for your support for Obama then it is because you do DEFEND him, though not on issues or policy but on the movement that supports him:

“The Democratic Party for which Obama is the nominee, is that new party, and it includes the young, as well as the old, who believe in progress, and don’t wanna be left behind.

It’s a new dawn, and a new day, and if we’re gonna save our collective asses, it’s really the ONLY choice. “

Just because the Democratic Party has widened its base with the progressive young doesn’t necassarily mean the top will follow. In fact it looks like the top is going the other way.

I agree with Stephen Smoliar that we should pressure Obama and inform him of our opinions and that he just might listen but when he gives a speech that is fundamentally neo-conservative in nature we are valid to call it as such. That is not propaganda.

If you do respond to this post I would appreciate it if you spent more time arguing the points raised rather on insults, petulant asides and references to how educated and intelligent you are. I’m sure it would save you a lot of time.

Ah gee Max…

I’m disappointed. I was all prepared to answer the other question you’d asked me if a agreed on, death penalty, the bombing of Iran, and the Palestinian Holocaust. Now you’ve totally switched up on me. I’m not sure I’m even following you. So hold up for a second. Maybe I need to have a glass of wine so I can catch up with you.

OK, I’m back. Apologies that it’s white wine. (I don’t really ‘feel’ like an elitist). And, I guess your questions aren’t so difficult after all. We’ve been here before. As a background though..I’m a native Californian who came ‘of age’ during the CRM. I’ve been a democrat all of my life, which the exception of my time in TX, when I thought my options might be better as an independent. (They weren’t) Everywhere else that I lived during my 1st career, I was a democrat. Now I’m back home, and I’m the same.

I agree with you that the DLC as we know it, down through the Clintons and until now, has been little different from the repugs. When many people were somehow calling Bill Clinton the ‘1st black president’, I was calling him the best republican president we’ve ever had. I tend to be of an independent ideology, though of the liberal blend. In all honesty, I have never been as interested in voting for party as I have for person. I admit that’s become more and more difficult to do, because you’re right..they all blend together. At least that has been the case in the past 2 or 3 decades. In my opinion, things have been really jacked up for those of my own economic class, since Regan, and I’ve yet to see any reprieve. Individually, some times have been better than others, but only marginally.

You say this about the dems:

•  “They placate their progressive base, but the outcomes are all big corporate, neo-liberal trade. Those are the fundamental causes of our wars.”

I agree with the first part of your statement in terms of the DLC. Big Corp, and neo-liberal trade. I don’t get at all how you connect that to the fundamental causes of our wars. WHICH wars are you talking about? Are you talking about ALL of the wars since Regan, or just the ones of the latest bush regime?

No matter…they’ve all been about Imperialism, the neo-liberal trade, and the need to dominate the resources of the globe. So yeah. We can agree on that.

And, as far as the DLC is concerned, that still exists, except that we’ve added a new ‘branch’ to it in the past 4 or 5 years. I think it was the disaster of the current Cabal that finally shook everybody up, and we knew we needed a change. The change happened began before Barack Obama, though I’ll admit that it ‘ushered in his movement’. It began with small groups like the Out of Iraq Caucus, and then MoveOn dot org got the internet technology to work for them. And so a new movement kicked off within the Democratic Party, that looks nothing like the old.

SOME from the old organization (having always been of a progressive mentality anyway) have been able to make the change easily. I had an opportunity to hear Willie Brown speak several weeks ago, (and picked up his book as well) and he’s one sharp old guy. (don’t tell him I said he was old). In fact, he’s not. His is a very progressive mentality. And so there are in fact many of us, (like myself) that have been able to ‘get with the new program’ and make the transition. We’ve welcomed the huge (and I do mean phenomenal) new members..the youth as well as those who have been on the periphery, and mostly disenfranchised for years. It’s a 21st Century Movement, and anyone who can’t keep up, gets left behind.

The Democratic Party for which Obama is the nominee, is that new party, and it includes the young, as well as the old, who believe in progress, and don’t wanna be left behind.

It’s a new dawn, and a new day, and if we’re gonna save our collective asses, it’s really the ONLY choice.

Hope that was succinct enough.

Amon, Part 1

Thanks much for your civil tone as well. My apologies for suggesting that some or many must be scared shitless of a black man. (I don’t think I had you in mind, but unfortunately, that is the only answer that I can come to with many others.) I suspect it is simply something that we will never be completely beyond in my lifetime. To ignore what is simply foundational in this country for so long, serves no useful purpose. But, I cannot change that.

As for the beerdoctors comments or seeming obsession on Barack Obama. At this point in time, I don’t think we really have to hash over it. I don’t dwell on these kinds of things, but the reason that I don’t dwell on them, is because I try to address them as they happen. Avoiding that can lead to problems down the road.

ON THE OTHER HAND…there are times when there really is no ‘reaching’ another person, and I’ve needed to learn that. I do my best, and while I’m not ‘patting myself on the back’, I think I generally give the benefit of the doubt far longer than most of the people that I personally know. (at least they think so). However, I can generally decide quickly enough, when there is no ‘meeting of the minds’ and cannot be. I accept that, and move on. This is just from years of doing the kind of work that I’ve done. Admittedly, I have less time for the diplomacy, because we live in different times now. There really IS far more of an urgency to things, and so less time for all of us to dally. I wish it were not so, but that’s the way that it is.

So, when I come across as overbearing, it’s because of the urgency of the times…because I’ve watched for all of these years, the way so many of us have been so totally overwhelmed by the forces that have literally highjacked our society. And if that sounds dramatic, it’s because…IT IS! Sometimes I feel like I’m shouting into a vacuum telling my fellow person…look out, there is a mac truck bearing down on you! Please, Please, move, run, you’re about to be wiped out. And, they’re staring back at me calling me names, and claiming that I’m just lying to them, or trying to ‘belittle’ them. Meantime, I don’t get a damn bit of pleasure when the mac truck does indeed smash them flat! And yet, that’s what I’ve been seeing. I’m not into the ‘I told you so’ mindset. So hopefully, you understand my frustration.

Anyway, don’t be worried about going back over all of the posts. Hopefully you’ll simply trust me on it, because in all sincerity, I have no reason to make up stuff like that. I DO pay attention to all of the posts, and I CAN pick up on the nuances and the rest. But again, it’s ONLY because…that’s what I do. It’s what I’m trained to do. It’s where my career experience is.

On a different note. I’ve just viewed a couple of very informative videos. I should say first, that we simply don’t get news here at home, the way that we may have been accustomed to getting it in decades past. (and I speak to people of my own generations). This is why for the most part; we’ve remained in the dark for so very long now. NOT because we are stupid, and that’s never been my suggestion. But, just because we are accustomed, (as Americans) to getting what information we need by paying reasonable attention to things, even if it’s just the newspaper, or the evening news on TV. But, there’s been not just a TOTAL blackout of that for the past 8 years, (at least) but real information has been supplanted with fake information. And, why WOULDN’T we believe it? There is no reason NOT to believe it. Until nearly 8 years ago. That’s where I run into these reactions from people. We don’t want to believe some of this stuff, and we end up feeling foolish, because we did. It’s human nature, and we end up frequently blaming the messenger.

OK, I’m going to link you up to some interesting video that you may or may not have seen yet. Wait for part 2.

Part 2 for Amon and all
Michael Shaw and Ernest Canning posted this link on another thread. I only just had a chance to watch it, since I’ve been tied up the better part of the week with other work. SOME of this information you may already have been aware of. I was, but only because I get nearly all of my own information from either foreign media, or academic journals. Here again is the example of how much we’ve been left in the dark. Unless we have both the time and the inclination to go in search of this stuff, we aren’t going to find it. It’s like trying to ask question to find out something you don’t know, but since we don’t know, we don’t know the questions to ask. Does that make sense?

Anyway, check out Mr. Bugliosi here. He’s very familiar to us here in California, but not necessarily everywhere else.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_ renowned_attorney_vincent

After that, there’s another interview with Patrick Cockburn. The only way we’ve ever been able to find out what’s really going on in Iraq, is when our loved ones return, (alive…rather than in boxes) or when the foreign media reports it to us.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/12/iraq_correspo ndent_patrick_cockburn_on_the

OK, gotta respond to Max now.

By Max Shields, June 13 at 5:28 pm #

Tony Wicher,

Responding to you is boring because you should know better.
————————& #8212;———————R 12;———————— —-
Max,

So stop responding. You’re an obnoxious ass anyway.

Tony Wicher,

Responding to you is boring because you should know better. Obama has received much of the same money (large donations) from the same sources as Hillary Clinton. Yes, apparently he used the Howard Dean approach (very successful) in using the internet. So, what!

Look my point isn’t that Obama is worse than the Hillary or McCain.

Take Chris Dodd. Not overly progressive (tho certainly friendly to the left). But he has made couragous stands many times and he has been for ending the embargo on Cuba for decades. He’s made stands, sometimes alone when there was a moral or legal issue at hand. To a less extent so hasn’t Biden. These are not shining star progressives, mind you.

Obama has done none of this. The system is corrupt and he and Hillary and McCain is what they “produced”. These were the candidates before almost any poll was taken that were heading the pack - it started with raising hundreds of millions.

It’s clear. It shouldn’t need to be posted over and over again because some folks here keep repeating the same inane illusory myths about the glorious speeching maker.

Most progressives never went for him, but some in the Dem party lined up like good soldiers scared they’re going to get MCCAIN that they pay little attention to what the Dems have handed us.

Even the centrist DLCer par excellence - Bill Clinton - had 4 or 5 terms as a State executive behind him before he ran. Obama gets a plus for having none and pushing the same rhetoric as Bill did in 1992!

As I’ve said before, vote, for what it’s worth for whom ever you want - but the fantacies really are silly.

JBlack Here’s what you demanded:

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

~The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.~

Link to it here JBlack. There’s even a video for you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

•  Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington

•  The Guardian,
•  Thursday September 16 2004
•  Article history

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN’s founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: “Yes, if you wish.”

Link to it here JBlack:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

I’m going to recommend some books to you as well. One is the latest from my own mentor, academic/scholarly advisor/whatever you want to call it. I’m extremely fortunate to have been able to study International Law under his guidance.

Richard A. Falk is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus at Princeton and Visiting Professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

His most recent work is “The Costs of War: International Law, The UN, and World Order After Iraq.” Rutledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2008 ISBN 13:978-0-415-95509-6
Another very excellent book that is very easy reading is:

“War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict”
Michael Byers, Grove Press, 2005

Again JBlack. Please stop attacking me. I’m going to ask you that for this last time. These lectures and name calling from you are over the top, and you would have been banned from any other site for the frequency in which you’ve engaged in them, targeting me specifically, for whatever your