interview with Amy Goodman right as she was released from jail:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/01/prot ests/index.html

moineau, September 1 at 4:36 pm

Our countries have always been friends. Why, oh why did we not listen to the well-meaning advice of our good friends before we invaded Iraq? Well, we have all done stupid things, and soon, I hope, our blindness and stupidity will end. No thanks to Max Shields and the others stuck in their alienated 60’s time warp.

if anyone is yet unaware, sharif abdul khouddous and nicole salazar for “democracy now!” have been arrested and charged with felony conspiracy. amy was also arrested and manhandled but was very recently released. the female reporter was dragged by her leg on the floor of the jail and her face was bloodied.

this follows a rash of “pre-emptive” arrests by the st. paul police, aided by the fbi, and the $50 million security apparatus of the republican party and city of st. paul. they have raided the houses where these reporters are staying and confiscated everything in them. targeted especially are the folks who videotaped the police during the nyc republican convention and succeeded in getting 400 cases dismissed due to the videotaped evidence they obtained, showing the police reports to be lies. so it seems they are arresting the people who might document the police arresting people!

if you would like to assist in getting sharif and nicole out of prison (yes prison), call Chris Rider from Mayor Coleman’s office at 651-266-8535 and the Ramsey County Jail at 651-266-9350 (press extension 0).

i just got through to the jail and was hung up on for merely saying sharif’s name. i called back and demanded to speak to the supervisor and wound up leaving a voice msg on her machine. i said they only expect to get calls when they arrest our reporters whom we have been relying on for years of truthful reporting.

waz up with this world? democracy now!

Re: Cyrena

Your comment: “Theoretically, you are saying that any person attending the Law School at Santa Clara University, (one of the best in the nation I might add) should not be apply to apply for federal student loans, since it is a Catholic institution, and is taught primarily by Jesuit Priests/Lawyers. (Jesuits just happen to be legal scholars..not all of them, but it is a ‘characteristic’ of that order). That’s what I mean by the wild generalizations that you make in reference to this stuff.”

This isn’t correct.  Students can use their financial packages at any accredited school.  So it is not a wild generalization to say that we should NOT fund religious organizations.  Obama was speaking of anti-poverty programs, this I feel IS dangerous.

According to CBS News:
“Reaching out to religious voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called for expanding President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups.

Obama unveiled his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/01/politics/mai n4222238.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4222238

Did you catch that: “expanding President Bush’s program steering FEDERAL SOCIAL SERVICE DOLLARS to religious groups.”

When food and shelter are in the hands of “religious groups” there is an undermining of the church and state premise of our constitution.  This is dangerous.  And the similarities, especially when we see our government is currently being undermined, questionable at best.  This is the SAME M.O. those criminal elements have used before, as aforementioned.

Your comment: “Maybe we don’t NEED them Outraged. And then again, I’m personally damned sure glad that we have them. I’ve been through some pretty hard times this past decade, and the state had ZERO help to offer.”

> We don’t need them.  Now, why funnel funds into these private entities when we can readily fund and expand needed services through channels which already exist.  Religious organizations should fund themselves.  They have the money, it is how they choose to ALLOCATE their funds, but that is their choice.  I don’t say they “should” do it one way or another. Also, when religious organizations offer services to the disenfranchised, I think it a kind and caring thing to do.  I just don’t think THE STATE should fund them.

Remember, fund one religion, and then you will have to fund them all.  Radical right included.  It would be against the law to discriminate.

Your comment: “True, none of these organizations that have provided assistance to me or to any of the hundreds of others have been funded by the State, so obviously, they are getting the funds from private entities, and NOT the tax payers. I contribute a great deal of TIME myself, since I don’t have any money.”

> This protects THEM as well as THE STATE.

i still see this discussion regarding obama dwelling almost solely on this government’s past sins. mon dieu, isn’t it time to look forward, resurrect some decency for the american people, work for peace? this recounting of the government’s past sins does not move us in a new direction. why bother to get drawn into the argument that america has failed, that our leaders have failed? i mean, that’s obvious. the question is what are you going to do about it now?

i believe that on august 28th, obama presented a comprehensive vision of where america can go from here. he mentioned israel, oh my god! as an antizionist and a jew, i did not hear words against the palestinians. i heard that the world is hungering for peace. obama is going to have to work to regain the trust of the arab world. given his past trips abroad, i believe he will be able to achieve that trust.

so i’m putting my money on the future, not the tormented world as we’ve known it. like others here, i think we’ve seen our best hope for peace in obama; kucinich thinks so too. perhaps we won’t get everything we want, but i believe that obama drew a line against corporate lawlessness and against the neo-con ideology. i’m not sure what more one could want as a new beginning. so we’ll have our work cut out for us, that is nothing new. but so will obama. allons-y! let’s get started now.

Outraged,

I get your point, and the history of the US funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan isn’t new. We funded bin Laden, Mr. Wahhbism himself, back in the day. I see about zero connection between that and allowing private social organizations to apply for funding.

You write here.

• “Consider what it means to FUND religious based groups who offer food and shelter again.  We don’t need to utilize faith based groups in order to distribute food and shelter to America’s poor and disenfranchised.  We have all structures in place currently which ALREADY do this, and could accomplish it more easily if more funds were directed to them.  We do not need to fund PRIVATE groups to accomplish this.”

Maybe we don’t NEED them Outraged. And then again, I’m personally damned sure glad that we have them. I’ve been through some pretty hard times this past decade, and the state had ZERO help to offer. That remains the case today, as more and more and more people become disenfranchised, and are relegated to the streets. True, none of these organizations that have provided assistance to me or to any of the hundreds of others have been funded by the State, so obviously, they are getting the funds from private entities, and NOT the tax payers. I contribute a great deal of TIME myself, since I don’t have any money.

Meantime, while you might not be an hysterical person, it’s still seems like the wrong OCD knit to pick. There are literally hundreds of thousands of hospitals and other such providers of very basic human services that have religious affiliations, dependent on where they might be located, among other things. For instance, you’d be hard pressed to find a hospital, hospice, or similar institution ANYWHERE in Southern Louisiana, that does not have a religious affiliation, because that’s just the way it is. It’s the culture and tradition of the area. What you are suggesting is that none of those institutions should be able to apply for any sort of state funding, for any purposes, including the training of future medical practitioners. Theoretically, you are saying that any person attending the Law School at Santa Clara University, (one of the best in the nation I might add) should not be apply to apply for federal student loans, since it is a Catholic institution, and is taught primarily by Jesuit Priests/Lawyers. (Jesuits just happen to be legal scholars..not all of them, but it is a ‘characteristic’ of that order). That’s what I mean by the wild generalizations that you make in reference to this stuff. Now you and Scalia, and Ron Paul would be in perfect agreement on this, but I would not. I think there’s a way to maintain the separation of Church and State less radically, and history has proven that to be the case.

Quite frankly, I’m adamantly OPPOSED to all of the privatization that has developed over the past few decades, because it is exactly that, which has created this huge difference between the haves and the have nots.

Meantime, based on a text message request from Senator Obama, I have just sent $5 dollars to the Red Cross as part of my very small contribution (that’s what the message requested..$5.00) to the relief efforts in the Gulf Coast region. It would be better if the STATE could do that, but as usual, and has been for the past few decades, they don’t.

Fortunately, the Red Cross doesn’t have any religious affiliation. If anyone employed by that organization happens to be of some religious belief, we’ll just hope they don’t tell anybody about it. Heaven forbid there should be any sort of mixing going on there.

My post, By Outraged, September 1 at 1:49 pm is directed to Cyrena.  I forgot notate that.

I forgot. Your comment: “As for the plan to allow social service groups and other very critical organizations to apply for federal funding, even if they happen to be associated with a religious organization, your hysteria is over the top there as well.”

I am not a “hysterical” type person, actually.  Anyway, let’s look at our government’s track record here.  Take for instance this:

“Pakistan’s ISI was used as a “go-between”. CIA covert support to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be “successful”, Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the “jihad”, which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union.

In December 1984, the Sharia Law (Islamic jurisprudence) was established in Pakistan following a rigged referendum launched by President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Barely a few months later, in March 1985, President Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 166 (NSDD 166), which authorized “stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen” as well a support to religious indoctrination.

The imposition of The Sharia in Pakistan and the promotion of “radical Islam” was a deliberate US policy serving American geopolitical interests in South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East.  Many present-day “Islamic fundamentalist organizations” in the Middle East and Central Asia, were directly or indirectly the product of US covert support and financing, often channeled through foundations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Missions from the Wahhabi secto of conservative Islam in Saudi Arabia were put in charge of running the CIA sponsored madrassas in Northern Pakistan. .

Under NSDD 166, a series of covert CIA-ISI operations was launched.

The US supplied weapons to the Islamic brigades through the ISI. CIA and ISI officials would meet at ISI headquarters in Rawalpindi to coordinate US support to the Mujahideen. Under NSDD 166, the procurement of US weapons to the Islamic insurgents increased from 10,000 tons of arms and ammunition in 1983 to 65,000 tons annually by 1987.  “In addition to arms, training, extensive military equipment including military satellite maps and state-of-the-art communications equipment” (University Wire, 7 May 2002).”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& aid=7746

This article illuminates the fact that OUR GOVERNMENT has funneled money into Islamic Fundamentalist groups.  One of which, Wahhabism, is extremely radical.  These groups gain their “followers” and “converts” by offering them food and shelter.  We know this.  I realize this is NOT everyone connected to government nor ALL of our public servants.  However, we do have “factions” in our government which endorse these tactics and have supported their goals.  The thing is, criminals tend to use the same MO’s over and over again, and this “funding of religious based” groups is questionable.

Consider what it means to FUND religious based groups who offer food and shelter again.  We don’t need to utilize faith based groups in order to distribute food and shelter to America’s poor and disenfranchised.  We have all structures in place currently which ALREADY do this, and could accomplish it more easily if more funds were directed to them.  We do not need to fund PRIVATE groups to accomplish this.

Aside from that, IT IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION’S PROTECTION regarding separation of church and state.  This law protects religion AND state interests.

Speaking to any real progressives out there, the way I see it, this is our golden opportunity. Finally, a president who is on our side. The president is not God. His powers are constitutionally limited and limited by all sorts of political and economic circumstances. The president can only do so much, but he will work with us to accomplish our objectives. The rest is up to us.

By troublesum, August 29 at 6:51 pm #

“Obama is a blank slate - he seems determined to remain such - and people are simply projecting their hopes onto him.  Is it possible that intellegent adults still believe that speeches mean anything?”
----------------------------------------------------
troublesum,

You don’t understand what Obama said in his speech. “This election is not about me - it’s about you”. Meaning us, the American people. It doesn’t mean he’s a blank slate; it means that he gets his power from us, the people, and will do what we the people want him to do. He will be able to bring the troops home from Middle East, to provide universal health care, and all the rest of the things he promises in the speech if and only if we the people want it enough to make it happen. He cannot do such a thing as break the grip of the military-industrial complex on the country without massive popular support. The first thing we have to do is get him elected, but this is only the first step. Progressive organizations of all sorts that want peace and social change must support him and seek his support. The more active the people are in their support, the more he will be able to do.

Re: Cyrena

Your comment: “And, you are WRONG. He did NOT – let me repeat – he DID *NOT* vote for telecom immunity. In fact, he specifically voted AGAINST that provision of the compromise FISA bill, along with a handful of others. It DIDN’T PASS EITHER!! Do your homework.”

> Obama voted against the provision, BUT FOR the legislation, which in turn was dubbed “a compromise”.  It was a CAPITULATION, not a compromise.  He should have voted no, ON BOTH.  As should have the rest of those members of congress who “compromised”.

In addition, your comments:

“You’re beating a dead horse here, and you won’t let this go, (because of being ideologically driven and recently, driven by some sort of hysteria) because YOU have these PERSONAL issues with Barack Obama, because you disagree with his positions, - as YOU perceive them, on Israel, and your obsession with anything religious, again – as YOU perceive it.”

AND, “So, get over yourself about the FISA thing Outraged.”

AND, “Meantime, in all of your hysteria, you have failed to note that while it is obviously a travesty that ANY member of Congress passed this legislation,”

AND, “Collect yourself Outraged,”

AND, “You can holler you argument from you ideological island as loudly as you please,”

BUT this one takes the cake, “You seem to perceive Barack Obama as God.”

LOL....  Just stating the facts.  Attempting to “kill the messenger” doesn’t help your position.

Outraged,

You write (of Obama)

• “Voted FOR telecom immunity.  This legislation allowed offenders a “get out of jail free” card and allowed continued spying, using language so generic that almost anyone could be included, if not everyone.  A direct violation of our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY.”

And, you are WRONG. He did NOT – let me repeat – he DID *NOT* vote for telecom immunity. In fact, he specifically voted AGAINST that provision of the compromise FISA bill, along with a handful of others. It DIDN’T PASS EITHER!! Do your homework.

I’m not having this conversation with you again on the FISA compromise bill. You’re beating a dead horse here, and you won’t let this go, (because of being ideologically driven and recently, driven by some sort of hysteria) because YOU have these PERSONAL issues with Barack Obama, because you disagree with his positions, - as YOU perceive them, on Israel, and your obsession with anything religious, again – as YOU perceive it.

So, get over yourself about the FISA thing Outraged. You claim that Obama had an opportunity to ACT, and I’d like to know just exactly what the hell it is that you thought he should do. Hold the other 500 or so members of Congress at gunpoint until the voted no on that bill?

Here’s the deal Outraged. He said he didn’t like the legislation. It was not what he wanted. He wrote a correction/provision to that legislation, that would specifically NOT – let me repeat this for you – would NOT give the telecoms retroactive immunity. There was a vote on this, in the Senate. I don’t remember the numbers, but you can find this. Less than a dozen Senators supported Obama on that portion of it.

Meantime, in all of your hysteria, you have failed to note that while it is obviously a travesty that ANY member of Congress passed this legislation, (IOW, as much as you would like to make this ‘all about Obama” it’s NOT) which for now at least, prohibits any citizen from moving on any CIVIL suits against these telecoms, it does not…Let me repeat this for you, it does NOT prevent CRIMINAL charges/indictments from being filed against any one of these corporate entities.

Collect yourself Outraged, and take some time to review the reality of that legislation, and match it up with the real politick of parliamentary procedure and the way bills are passed in the system that is the US Congress. Check how the votes went down. How did YOUR Senators vote on that? How did YOUR House rep. vote on that?

As for the plan to allow social service groups and other very critical organizations to apply for federal funding, even if they happen to be associated with a religious organization, your hysteria is over the top there as well. If an organization, (hospital or other social service provider) can prove that they do provide a needed service to a community, and that they are NOT in violation of discrimination within their organization, there is no reason why they should not be able to apply for federal funding, specifically when it includes the training of medical and other health care providers that we so desperately need.

2 of 2

So I’m not arguing with you about that again either. You can holler you argument from you ideological island as loudly as you please, but it doesn’t change the facts on the ground, or in the day to day lives of Americans.

Ideologically motivated positions have a tendency to be very radical, whether it’s to the right or to the left. My personal experiences have proven to me that RADICAL and EXTEME positions never accomplish anything than a destruction of the balance.

Now if your position is that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE were betrayed by the FISA legislation, (and I’m pretty much in agreement with that), then THE AMERICAN PEOPLE need to find out why THEIR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES voted in a manner that would do that. And if they don’t like the fact that their representatives allowed for this, then THE AMERICAN PEOPLE need to deal with their representatives.

You seem to perceive Barack Obama as God. Last I checked, he was still a Jr. Senator from Illinois, and now on a trajectory to become the next POTUS. But, he isn’t yet. Even if he WAS already the President, the best he could do would be to VETO that legislation if it were presented to him. And if THE AMERICAN PEOPLE would like to undo that piece of legislation, they should get to work right now, so that they have something better for him to sign when he DOES become president.

And if Ralph Nader wants to run for the House or the Senate from ANY STATE, I’ll send him a $5.00 donation to the effort.

Re: Cyrena

Your comment: “Let me repeat this for about the 8th or 9th time Outraged. Ralph Nader is a smart man, and a superb scholar.”

> The “8TH OR 9TH” time?  Really… I certainly haven’t seen your posts in this regard.  I did see ONE, but 8 or 9...?  Is it that you are attempting to make me APPEAR “ideologically driven” with this misstatement?  In order to supposedly enhance your false accusation that “I” am “ideological”.

In reference to that, your continued stance that Obama has upheld the constitution is questionable at best, given the information available.

1. Voted FOR telecom immunity.  This legislation allowed offenders a “get out of jail free” card and allowed continued spying, using language so generic that almost anyone could be included, if not everyone.  A direct violation of our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

2. Obama is endorsing FUNDING faith-based groups.  Another direct violation of the CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Your comment: “In fact, it would appear that people being people, choose to be very selective in what they use to determine the OVERALL posture of any given politician or political figure.”

> While I can agree that Obama has made some “overall” POSTURES concerning the constitution, when given the opportunity to ACT on them, he caved.  The FISA vote was paramount here, since he had THE OVERWHELMING SUPPORT of the American People and a huge outpouring of this support was realized, via letters, emails, phone calls and the open debate he sponsored on his web site.  Yet, he STILL voted against the wishes of the American People.

Your comment: “I’ve actually taken the time to study his positions on the things that matter most to me as an American citizen, and I’m particularly protective of the Constitution, even in all of its flaws. Obama comes through in that regard each and every time.”

> He doesn’t “come through in that regard each and every time”.  This is false, and there is PROOF of that.  Simply because Obama claims to support the constitution, does not make it so.  He talks the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk.  Ignoring the facts and supporting someone who has talks a good story but has not shown support for the people he claims to support IS IDEOLOGICAL.  Obama has NOT stood for the rule of law, he stood for the corps. and let criminals go free, spying on American Citizens is a felony crime.  With “three strikes and your out laws” these criminals would have been in prison for life.  This is how serious these crimes are, in addition Obama voted to allow them to CONTINUE these acts.

By troublesum, August 29 at 6:51 pm #

“Obama is a blank slate - he seems determined to remain such - and people are simply projecting their hopes onto him.  Is it possible that intellegent adults still believe that speeches mean anything?”

Obama is FIRT and FORMOST a PERFORMER. As long as he’s by himself, on a stage with a crowd, he pumps himself up and performs like hell. He’s pretty good at it. But it is ALL about the performance.

When in debates or in small groups he stammers and shrivels, equivocates and mumbles. The performer RISES to the occasion of the performance. After he is thoroughly and completely depleted. His job is done. On to the next performance.

He has “mastered” this part of being a politician. It’s a gift, limited to the arena, but a very public gift. In the end it has little to do with much of anything - except, troublesum, you are absolutely right, far too many adults, like the overused food sweetners we’ve grown accustom to in our food, still buy this one trick pony stunt.

the quote, btw, is jefferson airplane, an era from which you appear to belong, max. you are not living in the present at all, you live in a teenage wilderness. you and nader belong to the past, an uncompromising close-mindedness which could never get anything done in this wide-ranging country, half of which is extremely conservative. you’ve been reading me for a while on truthdig, you know i (like cyrena) have concerns about many of obama’s statements. we do, however, find in him a man who hopefully (yes, hopefully) offers this country an shred of decency and progressive vision, and who can and does reach over to work with others who are not like-minded. you and nader will NEVER compromise and that is why you will never win. xoxoxo (my usual close for which i owe no one an apology) you are so filled with hate and despair, you wind up appealing to bleary-eyed, angst-filled teenagers whose naivity is only equaled by their hubris.

screw you, max. if you think you can get me to shut with this you, are mistaken. xoxoxox

I see no reason for me to engage in any further discussion of this article, except to point out a couple of things I have not seen discussed as yet.
In Al Gore’s speech at the Dem’s convention, he stated, “After they abandoned the search for the terrorists who attacked us and redeployed the troops to invade a nation that did not attack us, it’s time for a change.”
Somehow, this part of Mr. Gore’s speech was never discussed by anyone, as far as I know. If a media outlook did discuss this, I’d love to know what they said. Anybody?
This line from Mr. Gore’s speech clearly shows the U.S. was in violation of Principle VI of the Nuremberg Tribunal and this makes war criminals out of all those. 1. Who planned, perpared and initiated the waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; Participation in a common plan or consciracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
2. War Croimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, il-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prinsoners of war, of persons on the seas’ killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cites, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
I’ll skip to Princilple VII to make my point.
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.
Complicity in a war crime would include the congressioanl funding of a continued crime, which is why the speaker of the house took impeachment of this administration off the table. Since to impeach Bush/Cheney and the rest of that criminal organization, would also mean the democrats would fall under the same investigation, as those that voted to fund this illegal war and those that continue to vote for it’s funding, would also be guilty of war crimes under the above mentioned principle, so that’s not going to happen.
So here is the rub. NcCain and Obama have continued to vote to fund an illegal war and that makes them both, WAR CRIMINALS! Therefore, no matter who is elected is a war criminal according to international law that our country signed onto after Nuemberg was completed.
We have a choice of which criminal we would like in the White House and with their expanded powers, who knows where we might go from here.
I know this has to stick in the craw of supporters of either candidate, but I didn’t write the Nuemberg Principles, but I do accept that this is the law of the land and those that violate it should be brought to justice.
It’s not going to happen though, since American exceptualism and complete lack of morallity concerning American actions, simply do not apply anymore, especially to the politicians we like. We now turn a blind eye to barbarism, murder, torture, etc., as long as it’s our guy that does it.
If one believes in the rule of law, I don’t see how they can vote for either candidate, but then rationzation is something we do quite well and will continue to do. Otherwise, no one would vote and then we would have to take care of ourselves. Would that be so bad? Communities coming together to solve common problems, without the interference of a government. Imagine that! Self rule. You might even learn your neighbors names.

By moineau, September 1 at 5:23 am #

Incredibly well said. The depth and breadth of your anlysis is only matched by the XOXO you provide...how sweet and terribly “cogent”!!!

“cyrena your diatribes are always amusing if incredibly time consuming.”

and time well spent in my opinion! ty, cyrena. while you lay out so well intelligent and cogent arguments, i’m afraid you waste your valuable time with these “want a revolution. got to revolution!” guys.

however, there are probably other people who are reading and lurking who may not be as closedminded as those we find here. i read both sides. i’ve learned a lot as result. but i lean more toward your arguments as they seem to me to be more mature and tempered with live experience. xoxox ~lt

cyrena your diatribes are always amusing if incredibly time consuming.

I’ve been reading many of Outrages posts and quite frankly I can’t think of one that doesn’t reflect my thinking on the issue of the system and what it produces for candidates and why.

So, I wouldn’t find it a bit “ironic” that he should see in my posts, common ground.

The arguments the Dem Progressives give for Obama are essentially the same they’ve given for every Dem Presidential candidate. Clinton did the same in 1992. Superb speech, contrasted just enough with GHW Bush and the Dems all went gaga.

Look at Clinton’s policies and how they set us up for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. But the history is clear and easy for anyone to get a hold of. I don’t think you need a reference footnote for every post.

Foreign policy IS domestic policy. You can’t split the baby in half. Both McCain and Obama may give a slight variation - but their foreign policy, at bottom, is motivated by the same forces and ideology - American Exceptionalism. It is a belief that has given license to endless war, conflict and intervention. Corporations fueled it before the Depression and they came back with a furry after WWII.

Obama is a product of this ideology as he has made his way through the political process.

y Outraged, August 31 at 9:45 pm #
Re: Cyrena
Well, as it is...sometimes wording is everything.  And in politics, a slippery slope indeed.  I do not wish to engage you as to throw verbal mud-slings at each other, but I can...if you insist.  (That’s not a “bring it on”, just a fact) I prefer to deal with people concerning ISSUES, personal attacks do nothing to address ISSUES.  It divides instead of solves, it creates hatred instead of understanding.
In addition, it is hard line, a neocon tactic, stalinish, nazi-ish, or whatever term you prefer.
~~~~~~~~~

Help me out here Outraged. My interpretation of this portion of your post leads me to believe that you have decided that I’ve attacked you personally on something other than issues. If you’re ‘bringing this on’, might you direct me (all of us actually) to such a posting that I’ve made, where you might have had reason to come feel that I’ve attacked you on something PERSONAL, that has nothing to do with ISSUES?

And while we’re at it, would you be willing to provide some basis for your now constant refrain that Obama plans MORE WARS? I’m pretty open minded. Not easily put off of by ANY ‘legitimate’ argument. But when anybody throws out such inflammatory rhetoric, it really wouldn’t hurt to point to a set of remarks that Obama has made, or a series of actions that he’s taken, say in his Congressional presence in the Senate, or things that he has said in the course of this exceedingly long campaign.

Now, I’m speaking here, ABOUT ISSUES!!!!! Not YOU!. Because, the ISSUES, are not ABOUT YOU!! Wanna help me out here Outraged. Because reading this from you is starting to make me just a tad bit OUTRAGED myself.

I don’t take kindly to these types of accusations:

• “In addition, it is hard line, a neocon tactic, stalinish, nazi-ish, or whatever term you prefer.”

So, what the hell is your problem exactly? You’ve done a pit bull number here on me, on Tony, and it would seem pretty much anybody else that supports Obama, but you’ve yet to address any real ISSUES.

Get a grip or take a pill, or whatever you think it might take. But you’ve picked the wrong person to lash your tongue at, and if you’re into ‘defending’ somebody, speak for yourself. Speaking for Max Shields doesn’t assist your own argument.

tony, it wasn’t me who said that. it was max. i was refuting him.

By Tony Wicher, August 31 at 5:08 pm #

By moineau, August 31 at 1:10 pm #

“motherearthnews, you can expect that Tom Wicher has an inside track to the Obama campaign and will never fail to post 20, 30 times a day (a long with cyrenda) to ensure that all injuries to Obama are promptly tamped down.”
-----------------------------------------------------

Part 1 of 2

I agree with this 100% Outraged.

“…Never say, never. Think twice.”

I do my very best to remember to ‘never say never’. I nearly always think twice as well. (usually far more times than that).

I told you before, that I am very familiar with Ralph Nader. Seems a little bit difficult for anyone over the age of 40, who is even 20% politically conscious, to have NOT heard of Ralph Nader.

Let me repeat this for about the 8th or 9th time Outraged. Ralph Nader is a smart man, and a superb scholar. He has brought much to the average American when the average American would otherwise have been gobbled up by the monster. (which still happened anyway, but not because he didn’t do a whole lot of good).

He is also totally inflexible on all of his positions, which doesn’t work in real life. Ideologues have their place, but not in the White House.

I don’t believe that I’ve gauged the American public any more or less correctly than you have. We all have opinions, based on how we interpret and/or process information, which are informed by our individual experiences and exposure to a variety of life’s circumstances. I don’t know what yours are, but I know what mine are.

I find it highly ironic for you to come along in defense of Max Shields, demanding that *I* have no basis for what I post here. I’ve yet to ever come across any post from Max where he provides any basis for anything he says, which is identical to folktruther, (leading me to believe they were either the same, or ideological Siamese twins). Folktruther claims not. So, no matter. Whatever. We’ll leave it to the intelligence level of the readers to figure that out.

The ‘crabs in the barrel’ analogy is one that’s been around a long time – within my own particular family tradition. You might almost think of it as part of a bible in certain cultures. I didn’t use it to reference “The American Public”, or even you. Same with the story of the donkey who used the dirt that was consistently being dumped on its back, to take some steps up. Some people are like that as well. They find ways to turn negatives into positives. Others don’t.

I guess it is what it is. Speaking of which, I’ve had 2 full years now, of paying the closest attention to Barack Obama. He’s been vetted far more than any other politician in the history of US politics, to the extent that I am aware. That’s an example of using the dirt heaved on the back to ones advantage. More than that however, (the dirt that is) there is a substantial amount ON THE RECORD, from which to judge Barack Obama’s positions, and those are things I pay attention to. It would appear that not everyone does. In fact, it would appear that people being people, choose to be very selective in what they use to determine the OVERALL posture of any given politician or political figure. That’s unfortunate.

In that vein, you’ve chosen to zero in on one speech that he made, that I admittedly found fault with myself. After that, it was all over for you. I’m not so easily distracted, nor am I ever motivated by hate. Anger maybe. But not hate. Consequently, I’ve actually taken the time to study his positions on the things that matter most to me as an American citizen, and I’m particularly protective of the Constitution, even in all of its flaws. Obama comes through in that regard each and every time. And no, I’m not going to post all of those remarks, because they’re too easy to locate. You can google Obama and torture, Obama and the MCA, Obama on habeas corpus, Obama on unions, Obama on Veterans care, Obama on just about anything you want to know his position on. And there, you will find it in his own words. I’ve done that, and I’m quite satisfied.

2 of 2

And, nope. I’m not gonna duel with you either. I’m sorry that you’ve lost a sense of neutrality, and seemed to replace it with pure emotionalism, but that’s been the tone of your posts of late. Ideology unrestrained by any sense of reality generally leads to that slippery slope you referenced.

The ‘crabs in the barrel’ analogy is one that’s been around a long time – within my own particular family tradition. (so call it a passed-down oral tradition) You might almost think of it as part of a bible in certain cultures. I didn’t use it to reference “The American Public”, or even you. Same with the story of the donkey who used the dirt that was consistently being dumped on its back, to take some steps up. Some people are like that as well. They find ways to turn negatives into positives. Others don’t.

We seem (at least this is my sense) to still be in agreement on a few of the fundamentals though Outraged. We seem to share a concern for the common good, and the well being of our fellow citizens. For me, that includes the rest of the world as well, since I’m a global citizen. But, even if it’s just restricted to our shared concerned for Americans in general, that’s at least one thing we can agree on.

Forgive me if I don’t provide a ‘basis’ for that. Like I said, it’s just a sense, and it’s not something I’m prepared to argue before the High Court.

Re: Tony Wicher

Your comment: “What “inside track”? In February 2007 I watched Obama’s campaign kickoff speech in Sprinfield. I immediately decided he was my man.”

> Sure.. I understand..."you IMMEDIATELY DECIDED HE WAS MY MAN"… why would ANYONE have a problem with that?  I’m quite certain that there are those who upon hearing Palin..."IMMEDIATELY DECIDED SHE WAS THEIR GIRL"… what have I missed here?

Re: Tony Wicher

Your comment: “My bad. But still, not a lot of money. I don’t think Obama is going to sell out for $300,000.”

Sorry...I meant to put this in my last post but I forgot.  So… My question is: how much money would it require for Obama to “sell out”?  You claim to be “in the know”, so...how much?

He DID capitulate concerning FISA, and what dollar value was that...?  I’m confident I could “dig it up” so to speak, but possibly you know.  How much was that?

Re: Tony Wicher

Your comment: “Just watch Obama’s policy on Afghanistan. As soon as he takes office,”

I, for one am curious.... How SOON after he takes office does..."just as soon as he takes office” mean?

Re: Max Sheilds

Your comment: “You see Obama is just bothered by the failure of Iraq, not the imperial aggression of the US foreign policy. He wants to “bring us back” to a time when the US could do this with total impunity, and bring in NATO (a stooge of the US) rather than do it the way George W. did it.

Endless war. Our foreign policy trumps domestic. We don’t vote for these policies and then when we say NO MORE, the Dems/Obama just soft-peddle it.”

> Well put.  And most especially I’d like to emphasize, OUR FOREIGN POLICY TRUMPS DOMESTIC.  In addition, I aver, “PROVE US WRONG....”!

Just watch Obama’s policy on Afghanistan. As soon as he takes office, he will halt all bombing. Why? Because he knows it is accomplishing nothing but turning the Afghan people against us and driving them into the hands of the Taliban. Also, on 60 Minutes today Hamid Karzai spoke directly to the American people and demanded that it stop. Obama will do this. He will continue the fight against the Taliban and narcoterrorism, all right, but his primary strategy will be to win over the people of Afghanistan.

Oh, yes, I would also note that most of the money (213,000) came from individuals who work for oil companies. Guess what, Democrats work for oil companies too. That leaves only the 50 to 100 thousand that were “bundled”. So maybe 66,000 wasn’t far off at that.

Re: Cyrena

Well, as it is...sometimes wording is everything.  And in politics, a slippery slope indeed.  I do not wish to engage you as to throw verbal mud-slings at each other, but I can...if you insist.  (That’s not a “bring it on”, just a fact) I prefer to deal with people concerning ISSUES, personal attacks do nothing to address ISSUES.  It divides instead of solves, it creates hatred instead of understanding.
In addition, it is hard line, a neocon tactic, stalinish, nazi-ish, or whatever term you prefer.

Anyway.  In regards to you post to Max Shields, you take his comment, which was:

““I’ve learned that loyal party members are a dangerous and close minded bunch.”

And in return you say: “That’s why you lump all politicians from both parties into the same batch, determined to do your best to convince people of that, even when their own experiences and exposures provide far better insight.

> My premise, is Max has done nothing of the kind.  He said, “LOYAL PARTY MEMBERS”, which is very different from your accusation of “LUMP ALL POLITICIANS FROM BOTH PARTIES...yadda, yadda.  In addition, you claim others to have “FAR BETTER INSIGHT”.  To this I can only say, where’s the PROOF of your assumption?  What is it that allows you the position of EVEN determining such a premise?  You HAVE NO BASIS.

As per you comment: “It’s the ‘you can’t do that’ or the ‘*they* won’t let you’ mantra. It’s the way to keep people down. It’s the way of the ‘establishment’ to diminish all hope that things are not somehow ‘preordained’. So in other words Max, you’re no different than the so called ‘establishment’ that you so claim to abhor.”

Maybe you gauge the American People wrongly… How is it that standing up for THE PEOPLE is “the way to keep people down”?  Qualify that.

From several past posts of Max Shields, I do not feel that this is his/her position.  Yet, in the vain attempt to detract from the issue and instead attack the PERSON, you claim it.  Qualify that.

In keeping with your analogies of the “dirt donkey” or the “crabs in the barrel”.  I challenge you this.  Could it be that you are the frog in the cool water who as it is heated doesn’t realize that very shortly he will be COOKED.

You can “play” “syndromes” all you like.  But the old adage is “the PROOF is in the pudding”.

Never say, never. Think twice.

Investigate Nader/Gonzales BEFORE casting your vote.

BD,

Sorry, I don’t know where I got the 66,000 figure. This is what the fact check link says:

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

Two of Obama’s bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.
---------------------------------------------------
My bad. But still, not a lot of money. I don’t think Obama is going to sell out for $300,000.

Re yours truly, August 31 at 2:31 pm #

Seems to be that most (or some) contributors to this thread would agree that we’re getting ever closer to the abyss and that to pull back we need a president who’s going to work with Congress and with us to dismantle Empire-USA plus turning things around here at home.  Now we know that John McCain will stay the course (or worse) in Iraq as well as everywhere else.  Yes, Ralph Nader &/or Cynthia McKinney would move us in a different direction, but neither of these nominees has a chance of winning.  Which leaves us with Barack Obama, But considering his steady righward drift, can we trust him to take on the military-industrial complex, financial institutions, etc. etc., rather than cave to their demands?  Maybe not but he repeatedly says that change has to be brought from the outside to Washington D.C. and not vice versa.  Words only?  Perhaps but why not find out for sure by testing him.  For starters we might pressure him to call for an investigation into the Bush administrations role in the sneak (Pearl Harbor-like) attack upon South Ossetia by the U.S. armed and trained troops of the Republic of Georgia.  Why challenge him on this?  To avert a nuclear war, that’s why.
----------------------------------------------------
I am all in favor of such investigations. Perhaps we need to restore the independent special prosecutor law to pursue them.

By Tony Wicher, August 31 at 5:08 pm #

The difference between McCain and Obama, in terms of war and corporatism is less than between Nader and either of the establishment candidates.

I don’t question your loyalty. You’ve invested in a candidate that I find tied to big corporate interests; and who’s backbone is not defined by standing up to these interests in substantive ways, other than baked-over speechifying.

If that’s raining on some people’s “hope” than I can only say your “hope” is very shallow.

Bottom line, some of us have been radicalized by what the Democrats will never be - much different than the Republicans. We’ve seen the 2006 Dems and Obama vote time and again to subsidize this war.

We hear Obama say US aggression (invading a nation when it has not threatened the US is aggression) is ok. Iraq may have been wrong, but the foreign policy which gave us regular bombings of Somalia, Iraq and the Balkins is ok. Perhaps Granada was ok, or Panama, was ok, or Korea was ok, or the Philipines was ok, or arming the Contras and the death squads in Central America was ok, or Vietnam, Cambodia and Loas were ok, or the 800 bases throughout the world are ok.

You see Obama is just bothered by the failure of Iraq, not the imperial aggression of the US foreign policy. He wants to “bring us back” to a time when the US could do this with total impunity, and bring in NATO (a stooge of the US) rather than do it the way George W. did it.

Endless war. Our foreign policy trumps domestic. We don’t vote for these policies and then when we say NO MORE, the Dems/Obama just soft-peddle it.

If you think you can pressure this guy to be what he is clearly not - a real change agent - and stand up to the Corporate Military Industrial Complex - you’re smoking something that will continue to be illegal if Obama is elected.

Wake up. Demand the end to American Imperialism and Corporate paid for government. Create a real movement, not the phony TV show that makes you think we can just sip coffee and watch Obama speeches/interviews on game shows like 60 minutes and that’s all we need to do.

Tony, from what I gather you are a neoliberal who thinks our foreign policies have been generally ok. George Bush is just a f*ck up who can’t pick the right country to invade. And so, Obama fits the bill.

On that we are in total disagreement. I suspect, your tag team - cyrena would not be in agreement with you, but as they say my enemies enemy is my ally.

Nighty nite.

Re: yourstruly

Your comment: “Yes, Ralph Nader &/or Cynthia McKinney would move us in a different direction, but neither of these nominees has a chance of winning.  Which leaves us with Barack Obama, But considering his steady righward drift, can we trust him to take on the military-industrial complex, financial institutions, etc. etc., rather than cave to their demands?”

> Obama has ALREADY caved to their demands.  Obama’s “signature” vote regarding FISA is proof of that.  Aside from OVERWHELMING PUBLIC SUPPORT against telecom immunity, Obama voted FOR immunity for the telecoms.  It appeared to be a vote meant to send a message, and the message has been received, loud and clear.  Obama is NOT ON THE SIDE OF THE PEOPLE.  I’m beginning to see why Cyrena called Obama “an enigma”.

Think about it.  In all seriousness.  Would big business interests even allow the voice of the people at an extravaganza the size of the pageantry that was the “Democratic National Convention”?

What was the message...?  We have to “stand up” for this or that country...and how will we do that....by sanctions, war and warriors!  That WAS the message.  Not to worry....we’re going to be “diplomatic” about it all.

Doesn’t sound “diplomatic” to me....does it to you..?  Put it this way, I’m GOING TO DO THIS THING, whether you agree or not.  But, you needn’t worry....I’m going to be “diplomatic” about the fact that I’m issuing my ORDERS to you.  Now tell me, does this make you a happy camper...?

By jackpine savage, August 31 at 5:04 pm #

I’m certainly with you on the difficulty of breaking the grip of the MIC. It’s a Herculean task, and whether Obama is equal to it remains to be seen.

I think the Democratic Party has been making progress since 2004 when Howard Dean became party chairman. I backed Howard for that nomination. I identified with his characterization of his supporters as “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” I was very disappointed with Kerry. But as Party chariman he changed the strategy of the Democratic party to a 50-state strategy and brought in many young progressive Democrats. I see Obama as representing this same wing of the Democratic Party, as opposed to the centrist, Clinon-DLC wing. This deep split was played out in the nomination struggle with Hillary, and the Democratic wing won by a hair. Now if the Democrats win big in November, Dean’s strategy will be vindicated and we will see the most progressive Democratic party coalition since Roosevelt, I dare to hope.

well ronald reagan laid it out: you’ve seen 1 tree you’ve seen them all; cut them all down & build; and another: Corps shouldn’t have to pay taxes; America politicians were bought & paid for by Big Business years ago: CHANGE! yes: back in the states “rebuilding and renewing America” forums; they have declared that the laws protecting Oregon’s water have “expired” this year; and are busy forcing thru all kinds of new ones from Fed; St; County; City; also on THEY own the land & will determine what will be done; but keep talking politics & pro choice blah blah blah; YOU are not even RECOGNIZED by the US Gov UNLESS you are a Corp; THEN you have rights; (as told by lawyer); claiming land of law: yet they are lawless; and have been for years; think of usury laws: think of Corp laws; think of banned toxins being used and “no longer need to label”; think your health coverage STOPS the moment you get ill; gosh, aren’t you glad YOU live in a “democracy?” it is a dictatorship following long laid out goals & plans: going global to bring other nations under this ungodly enslavement plan; got ignorant American’s to for years: they STILL haven’t ‘figured out it is no longer “citizen” run; all power to the politicians; who can never be prosectuted for any wrongs!

The 60 minutes interview with Obama and Biden starts at 7PM. I’ll be back afterwards.

By thebeerdoctor, August 31 at 4:30 am #

re: Tony Wicher

“It’s totally ridiculous to write Obama off as a puppet of Big Oil. He is their worst nightmare.”

That is a joke, is it not?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spi ll.html
---------------------------------------------------
According to Fact Check he has received $66,000.  Out of several hundred million in total contributions, this seems like chump change to me. Hell, in that case I’ve contributed almost 2% as much as the entire oil industry! I feel empowered! Only 50 more people like me, and the influence of oil money on Obama has been countered!

By moineau, August 31 at 1:10 pm #

“motherearthnews, you can expect that Tom Wicher has an inside track to the Obama campaign and will never fail to post 20, 30 times a day (a long with cyrenda) to ensure that all injuries to Obama are promptly tamped down.”
-----------------------------------------------------
What “inside track”? In February 2007 I watched Obama’s campaign kickoff speech in Sprinfield. I immediately decided he was my man. I have been blogging for him ever since. I have also contributed about $1000 to his campaign so far. I have done this solely because I believe he is the last best hope of this country, not because I have expected any favors, nor have I been offered any. In fact, a few months ago I was kicked off the Obama for America site for my anti-Zionist posts, which angered enough of his Zionist supporters to have the site administrator ban my posts. I have gone right on contributing and blogging on Truthdig and elsewhere with undiminished enthusiasm.

My mission here on Truthdig is to set straight political idiots who are saying there is no difference between McCain and Obama. Ralph Nader? If he really wanted to help, he would support Obama and get a job in his adminstration as a consumer advocate. He used to be good at that.

Tony,

My point was not to snuff out hope that things will get better in my post about the MIC.  Hell, i hope for it all the time.  Unfortunately, a single election is not going to break the grasp of that institution’s slimy tentacles.  A slew of elections might; and perhaps this election will be the beginning of an American Awakening.

But there is a fundamental stumbling block in that the MIC has purposely spread into every state and as many districts as it can.  Which means it would take a massive change in the kind of politicians we have - across the board - to reign it in.  Furthermore, our economy is so integrated into the MIC that it will be hard to extricate one from the other.

Bill Clinton had the best opportunity...if he had played his cards right.  With no major enemy to scare the American people, he might have shifted money from defense to space.  That’s the only way i see the grip of the MIC being broken, because the companies involved are generally involved in both.  It wouldn’t save us any money in the long run, but at least we might get something cool and usable out of the deal.

• “I’ve learned that loyal party members are a dangerous and close minded bunch.”

Well Max, you may be correct on this. In fact, I could agree with you here. The really major problem you have though, is that you can’t discern the difference between a person acting and thinking independently of a ‘party’ and what they believe to be best, REGARDLESS of the ‘party’. That’s why you lump all politicians from both parties into the same batch, determined to do your best to convince people of that, even when their own experiences and exposures provide far better insight.

Meantime, moineau has said it better than I could…

“…By moineau, August 31 at 1:10 pm #
• “and we can be just as assured that you will be there with your closed mind to shut off the way of hope for anyone who dares have any. way to go, max. go nader.”

She’s right on the mark of course. This is all we’ve ever heard from you and those of your ilk on this thread for months. It’s not new or original though, because so many of us have been hearing, (and ignoring) this same thing for most of our lives. It’s the ‘you can’t do that’ or the ‘*they* won’t let you’ mantra. It’s the way to keep people down. It’s the way of the ‘establishment’ to diminish all hope that things are not somehow ‘preordained’. So in other words Max, you’re no different than the so called ‘establishment’ that you so claim to abhor.
The elders, (at least among people of color) had a term for this back in the day. They called in the ‘crabs in the barrel’ syndrome, and applied it…at least at the time, to mostly people of color…all crabs stuck at the bottom of the barrel, no unlike the title of an excellent book by Derrick Bell, “Faces at the Bottom of the Well”.

But in the ‘crabs in the barrel” syndrome, it’s a bunch of disenfranchised people of color, who are determined to maintain the misery among them. So, if any one of the crabs starts to climb out of the barrel, to maybe get a leg up, and out of the trap, the others quickly tug that crab back down. Never mind that if just that one crab can climb out, they might then be able to reach a hand or several down to the others, to help them out as well. Nope, nobody thinks of or considers that. Better to just keep that crab down there with all of the rest of them, so as to continue to be at the mercy of those who have put them there, and kept the lid on in the first place.
And then there’s the donkey who fell in the well, and was just gonna be too much trouble for the ‘owner’ to dig him out, because the ‘owner’ didn’t need the well anymore anyway, and had already planned to pave it over, to get some other more profitable use from it. So, the plan was just to leave the donkey there. Why bother to try to get him out?

And so they just started throwing dirt down in the well, which would both fill in the hole, and presumably bury the donkey, and kill a few birds with one stone. So, they proceeded to toss in the dirt, which landed on the donkey’s back. The donkey shook it off, and…TOOK A STEP UP. They kept throwing the dirt in the well, and the donkey kept shaking it off of its back, and taking yet…ANOTHER STEP UP.
I guess you know how the story ends. After several shovels of dirt, and several shakes of the dirt and even more ‘steps up’..