Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 20, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


U.N. Population Growth Data Is Bad News For Climate




A Chronicle of Echoes


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Morning Again in America

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 4, 2008
Obama
AP photo / Morry Gash

President-elect Barack Obama smiles as he gives his acceptance speech at Grant Park in Chicago on Tuesday night.

By Robert Scheer

It’s time to gush! Later for the analysis of all the hard choices faced by our next president, Barack Obama, but for now, let’s just thrill, unabashedly, to the sound of those words. Heck, both he and we deserve a honeymoon, at least for a few paragraphs of this column.

It is “Morning Again in America,” to reclaim and revise the slogan from the 1984 campaign of President Ronald Reagan, only this time the promise of an American renewal is in the hands of a moderate post-Cold War leader who embraces, rather than denies, the diversity and complexity of the modern world. It is difficult to imagine Obama ever asserting the arrogant jingoism that has come to mark Republican stewardship of this nation in the eyes of the world.

How refreshing for Americans to have elected a leader who was among the first to reject the imperial hubris that led this nation to invade Iraq over the objection of most of our allies. A leader who had the courage in the midst of a hotly contested primary election campaign to refuse to play the inveterate hawk in order to qualify as commander in chief, and instead had the audacity to advocate efforts at dialogue even with those we despise. The dead hand of Joe Lieberman has been lifted from the party that he betrayed. It is hoped it is also the end of the road for the neoconservatives who had rallied around John McCain as their last best hope for establishing a Pax Americana.

On the all-important domestic front, with our economy crumbling, it is reassuring that the man whom what’s-her-name from Alaska derided as a “community organizer” does indeed have that background. It is not a guarantee that he will be mindful of those suffering most in this economic downturn as he turns to deal with the banking mess, but it is a start.

The Reagan Revolution of rampant deregulation of the economy in the interest of big business is over. Not because Obama has anything to do with the “socialist” label that the Republicans attempted to stick on him, but rather because a decisive role for the federal government is at the heart of the Bush bailout and the vastly expanded military economy a President Obama will inherit.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Big government is now officially a partial owner of big banks, and although we might bemoan that state of affairs, our collective credit card has already been swiped. The pressing issue is: What do we taxpayers get in return for bailing out Wall Street? Will the goal be to make the financial swindlers whole at the expense of ordinary homeowners? Or will it be the reverse of what the Bush administration has been doing? What is not in doubt, after the banking meltdown, is that the state will play a decisive role in the economy; what must be decided is: Whose interests will it serve?

If Obama turns to the Wall Street Democrats like Robert Rubin, the Clinton-era treasury secretary who led the crusade for deregulation, then he will betray his own fervently expressed concern for the fate of ordinary folks. The change we need is a divorce from the financial moguls who have dominated both parties. That’s what progressive politics is all about.

We have a chance to move in that direction, thanks to the election of Obama. Not because the man himself is the second coming—he, like all politicians, will have to be watched—but because of the movement he created around his candidacy, which I believe will hold him accountable.

The word of his victory came as I was making a brave effort to try to teach my large class at the University of Southern California, and from the cheering of students throughout our building as Obama reached the Electoral College delegate number needed to become president, you would have thought USC was just picked No. 1 in the BCS poll. Make no mistake about it, this is a victory of these students’ generation—a generation that is no longer mired in the divisiveness and arrogance that had come to dominate the lives of their elders.

Politics will never be the same. The fat cats and back-office politicos are out, and grass roots—youthful and Internet-connected—will dominate in the future, as they did on Tuesday. President-elect Obama knows that, and, at least on this night, I fully expect him to be true to those who took him on this journey.

It is a night also to remember the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the man who did so much to make that journey possible, along with the other heroes of the civil rights movement like John Lewis and Jesse Jackson, who did so much to keep hope alive.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: The Red Is Fading in a Virginia Bellwether

Next item: A New Era of Hope



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By garth, October 17, 2009 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment

Simon Johnson of MIT’s Sloane School of Management said on the Bill Moyers’ Show that when Obama went to Wall Street to lay down the law, the 12 CEOs of the major banks didn’t even bother to show up.  Johnson reflected that the reason was probably that they didn’t respect Obama.

Report this

By KDelphi, October 17, 2009 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment

softwaredevlpmt uk—If I lived in the uk, I might be very happy with Obama—if youd like to adopt our social safety net policies, maybe the conservatives will do it for you. Torrey-land. Similar to Obamaland

Report this

By garth, October 17, 2009 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

For those who expected Superman, it must be quite a let down to get Jimmy Olsen.  It’s tough to realize that Obama is all talk, and, as the saying goes, if you can’t walk the walk, don’t talk the talk.
See William Black on Democracy NOW, Oct 15th.
As Norman Solomon said, “If you don’t want to be disillusioned, don’t hold illusions in the first place.”

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 16, 2008 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment

Oh Paracelsus, that is an old one.  As my mom would say, you show your age.  I’ll just bump and grind on over to the shopping center.  wink wink (I really hate those emoticons)  Ready, aim, fire…..  Catch you all later.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 16, 2008 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

I own Brazil and enjoy it frequently, I must be crazy too!  Yes, you are a heartless @#($&*%!  But funny.  Thank you for the laughs.


Well, thank you Shenonymous. You remind me of the girl next door, but then again I live next door to a strip club.
Eh, just shoot me. wink

Report this

By cann4ing, November 16, 2008 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment

The issue of co-responsibility, Paracelsus, comes from a recognition that there are benefits that you derive from living in a society and a mutuality of obligation to others that flows with those benefits.  I am sure that at some point in your life, you have benefited from either a “public”-funded resources, such as a public education, and you certainly benefit from public works projects—roads, water, police, fire, etc.

Co-responsibility entails a recognition of the commons; that humans have mutual bonds and mutual obligations.  It is why we live in societies—be they the more primitive, like that of the 19th Century Lakota, or the more advanced (what Tao derides as “civilized.”).  It is the loss of recognition of that mutuality of obligation that has led to our current demise—where the rights of a tiny class of billionaires to get richer still has been advanced over the needs of the many.

Here, in America, this obsession with individuality and refusal to accept co-responsibility explains why the value of health insurance industry profits which account for 31% of U.S. health care costs (as compared to 1% to 2% administrative cost in single payer countries), most of which find their way into the coffers of billionaire CEOs receives a greater value than the very lives of our citizens, 20,000 of whom die each year only because they lack the funds to purchase health insurance.  How sick is that?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 16, 2008 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment

P:  It does.  I own Brazil and enjoy it frequently, I must be crazy too!  Yes, you are a heartless @#($&*%!  But funny.  Thank you for the laughs.

Going shopping to my favorite store MalWart.  Damn it’s the only game in the area. Talk about Brazil! Isn’t that a state of mind too?

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 16, 2008 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

@ Shenonymous
@ IHR

Maybe I’m a heartless bastard, but this scene always cracks me up.


http://video.google.comvideoplay?docid=-7870751859520351405&hl=en

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 16, 2008 at 9:39 am Link to this comment

And as the number of tree lovers grow, people haters are growing more.
From the Urban dictionary, both definitions combined: A tree lover is:
A person who loves nature. Who would do a crazy thing just to save nature.  A “hippie”
“That person over there is a tree lover.”
“wha.”
“She tied herself to the tree, yo!”
Or him over there, he tied himself up to a tree in front of a bulldozer.
“you joken me”
“na”

Some think the Environmentalists and Greens and totalitarians can be communists.  And tyrannical corporations authoritarian fascist pigs.  Now I don’t think the GOP wants to prevent sex.  They seem to imbibe in unethical sex quite a lot!  So do Democrats and other third, and fourth party types.  It’s not restricted to political types.  Celibacy seems to be a Catholic construct, expressed in several immoral ways, not including homosexuality since that is not immoral to me, a hetero.  But pedophilia is included, and patronistic oppression of their female support group (the nuns) and other females, it’s all related.

Some think anarchy is the best way to live.  Even if the anarchist wants to smoke around children, nothing and no one should stop them.

And some think both ends of the candle are mad.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 16, 2008 at 8:03 am Link to this comment

The desire to control other peoples’ behavior so you don’t lose money is nothing new.  Many corporations, especially law firms, severely restrict the personal behavior of many of their key principle executives.

We knew one guy, a senior partner at his law firm, who was forbidden by his contract from riding a motorcycle, bungee-jumping, parachuting, even skiing!  He wasn’t allowed to do ANYTHING in his personal time that was “risky”, even if perfectly legal.

Where corporations lead, we can expect government to follow, whether it’s the GOP trying to prevent abortions and sex, or Dems trying to prevent smoking etc.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 16, 2008 at 3:43 am Link to this comment

Now listen folks, for just a bit of early Sunday morning fun, and to break any tension that might be building up, it is possible that the new Morning Again in America has nothing to do with politics or the fact that Barack Obama’s programs promise a new day!  I would submit that the reason is because of the the competition to be the sixth sense.  So here is a small treatise on a subject in a much more less serious vein (now wait a minute, can I really say much more less all in one breath?):

Picking up some information while casually surfing the net when bored, I came across the following at various places.  It never hurts to learn something new.  So for your pleasure, or not…

Some people may be aware that a scene they are looking at has changed without being able to identify what that change is. This could be a newly discovered mode of conscious visual perception, according to a psychologist who discovered it. He has dubbed the phenomenon “mindsight”.

Mindsight may also be at work when someone goes into a room and senses something is different but cannot put their finger on what. “It could well be an alerting system,” he says. There is no reason the effect shouldn’t operate with other senses too, he says. Knowing someone is behind you may be the auditory equivalent. 

Mindsight is not simply a precursor to normal visual perception, it is argued, because there seems to be no correlation between how long it takes someone to feel the change, and the time taken to identify what it is. The two sometimes happened almost simultaneously, while at other times the subjects did not report seeing any difference until seconds after they were aware of it.

Also buzzing about for the coveted spot of the sixth sense is the hypothesis about the ability to anticipate and sense change, and the capacity to respond quickly and coherently.  This is called scenario thinking.  Also described as combined astonishing powers of memory and analysis with a strong intuitive power.  Seems like those who have combined knowledges, knowledges of many areas such as history, science, art, law, etc., develop advanced intuition and are able to imagine scenarios that truly challenge the mindsets of decision making. 

Then there is the challenger in the form of preliminary research on the various aspects described as a pheromone system. Seems like humans, like most animals, may exude a copious cloud of odorless chemicals called pheromones that send meaningful signals to other humans. Research is now going on that is suggests there is a cryptic sensory system that exists without conscious awareness yet may influence fundamental human behaviors involving sexual reproduction and the ability to discriminate between individuals.  We engage unawares in a sniffing exercise.  The top experts in the field of olfaction are skeptical but say they will keep an open mind (or nose as it were).

Finally is the study that the brain can sense the calories in food, independent of the taste mechanism, researchers seem to have found in studies with mice. Their finding that the brain’s reward system is switched on by this “sixth sense” machinery could have implications for understanding the causes of obesity.  Ooohhhh chocolate.

That is related to the newly discovered taste beyond the ordinary four of salt, sweet, bitter, and sour, called umami or what is called a ‘savory’ sensation.  Also called the yummy sense. When sensing the umami taste you smack your lips, drool, and savor the flavor.  Yummy.  Named by a Japanese chemist, Kikunae Ikeda who discovered the secret in glutamic acid that results in the breakdown of organic matter.  Ikeda was laughed at.  It seems, however, he laughs last, scientists have discovered humans do have taste bud receptors for L-glutamate and when something is soooo yummy in a non-sweet, sour, bitter, or salty way, it’s UMAMI!  Chocolate again!  Even if you are not interested, I am not fat!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 16, 2008 at 2:22 am Link to this comment

Paracelsus:  If I am responsible for my own life then I am an adult, who answers for himself. 

A noble mentality, but who are you answering to?  As an atheist, I firmly believe in self-responsibility, and I go to great lengths to exercise that belief, but as a citizen of a group, and the world, I also have a responsibility to support the well-being of those groups.  It is a degree of responsibility that is the question and what we all debate.  I think KDelphi hits on it a couple of ways, with his boundary of freedom and those nonexistent choices one is born with.  These are ancient recognitions.  I think at bottom you are a very concerned individual and compassionate, it seeps in now and then whether you want it to or not, but you have reaction to the massa/slave arrangement that has described the violations to man’s personal sovereignty.  Many feel that sharp rasp of the chains.  It is the degree my friend, if I may call us that, of irateness that separate many within that set and solutions to reestablish assignments.  Who are the massas needs to be the target.  That position does not only describe particular tyrants that come in many varieties, but it describes social mentalities that become fascistic and totalitarian groups, sometimes the tyranny emanates from the socialistic aggregation.  That situation must be resisted as well. 

While I am of the more socialist bent, which is, I admit, odd for an atheist, who is supposed to be completely self-involved, I am not. I am a hybrid who sees injustice in the world, injustice dealt to others, and to myself but I see myself as part of a group.  Let Dawkins describe it as the selfish gene that finds survival within the community, whatever.  Primitive, or genetic as it might be, I think it foolish to think one can survive alone, call it the hermit syndrome as it were.  Independence is a high moral quality, it is noble.  But dependence in the right measure is also noble.

I think this answers your sentiment, If I am co-responsible then I am part of a larger group that is answerable for my actions, therefore I have to check in with my co-responsibles in order to make an individual action.  I have to ask what makes you think that the group (of which you are part and inherently have equal voice) when formed does not decide democratically what actions are answerable to the group and which actions remain autonomous?  No one outside the larger group determines what the members may or may not do.  There are many prohibitions yet you still think at this moment you have some modicum of self-governance.  It is an ersatz freedom that doesn’t rid you from thinking you live to a degree more liberated than you actually do.  Recognizing this, I understand the frustration you must feel and feel the absolute need to oppose, and I stand with you on that.  The struggle happens at both ends, however.  There is the end that contains those who want to preserve what they have and the end that has those who have less than needed for a decent life.  Isn’t that all that anyone deserves, a decent life?  Of course there are those on both ends who take advantage when and where they can.  But they have to be identified precisely. so as not to damage anyone on either end, and disassemble that section of society.  It is contained in that edict doctors must make as an oath, do no harm.

In my view, this is all worthy of discussion.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 15, 2008 at 11:38 pm Link to this comment

I suppose when I think of co-responsibility, I fear it will be as much a vice as the wanton liberty-taking. Somehow exploiting resources may be become an unsurmountable environmental issue for a small developer or businessman, but no matter for a wealthy plutocrat. The piece of land a small prospector can’t turn to mine production because he is greedy and polluting is an asset to the community if a large conglomerate takes hold of it. There is a certain hypocrisy to forbidding the efforts of small aspiring concerns, while giving carte blanche to an established money power.

As to inane speculation, when government destroys protective tariffs for the real economy at home, and allows a monopoly bank to abuse the credit of the country then you will have rampant speculation. On top of that banks are abusing moral hazard with federally funded insurance. The old system of banking may have had its problems with bank runs and panics, but the new system is no improvement. At least in the old system a cache of gold coins could be kept out side a bank for 50 years, and it would still buy the same basket of goods. You wouldn’t be any richer from dividends or interest, but you weren’t worse off as you would have been with Fed. Reserve bank notes.

I suppose you have a point when you speak of users of socialized health-care needing to obey orders not to smoke or do other unhealthy things. Those are the strings attached to accepting payment from government for your health-care. You then have to have faith in government to give you health-care that is not corrupted in some way by private interests or budget cutting or national security concerns. And I suppose if government was very serious about making sure you didn’t smoke, they could in some way monitor your activities. After all you have a co-responsibility to prove good faith. You don’t have to sign on to government health care with its contract of “rights and responsibilities”. You still have your right to privacy if you refuse government provided health-care. It is the same with education money from the government. You don’t have to sign with selective service, but you cannot accept government funding for education. It’s all part of being co-responsible.

Report this

By cyrena, November 15, 2008 at 11:33 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous..

“..cyrena - The concern for family and community is written in the Qur’an and I cannot believe there is any change in their attitude…”

~~~

Well, I admit that the entire billion of them haven’t decided to order birth control literature in bulk from whomever distributes the varying array of birth control products and advice on avoiding unwanted pregnancies.

HOWEVER…the change is happening, even if it’s very, very, very, slow. Just depends on the location I suppose, but I learned of this very active movement in many places (specifically the Middle East, because that’s what I was studying at the time) during a year of a fairly intense inquiry on Feminism within Islam, and it’s become far more advanced than we might realize. I think that only because our attention has been diverted by other stuff.

Anyway, I just said all of that to say that within and among the already educated population, (including the women obviously) this is has become more ‘considered’.

Doesn’t mean the paternal attitude has changed, but it might be surprising to view some of their recent decisions on this. Wish I had some references for you, but you know I’m separated from just about ALL of that stuff now. So, I’m just passing some of this along from memory.

Nikkie Keddie is still a great source, as well as some of the on-line magazines/journals from Middle Eastern sources.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 15, 2008 at 10:46 pm Link to this comment

Paracelsus—Yes, freedom, but your freedom ends where my nose begins, as they say.

If your actions have an adverse effect on me or the rest of society, I have a right to question them.There are varying degrees of “harm” , and, if a product/action/behavior has some positive aspect as well, that would be taken into consideratiopn.

But , please tell me the positive effects—for anyone—of keeping , say, marijuana illegal, and tobaco legal? Alcohol “legal”, but, in some states, anyway, “not on Sundays”? Certain corporate behaviors are merely called “free” to justify their existence.

If somone’s tobacco use, alcohol use and trans fats eating drives up health care costs, everyone pays.That is where, I believe , the concept of the “common good” comes in.

YOu can invest in anything you like, but, if it collapses the entire market, with innane speculation who is responsible? Who pays the people who were unknowingly harmed, that someone else decided to “take a risk” for?

I believe in freedom, but the term is used to justify alot of behaviors in US society that only profit a few. For instance, many people are absolutely convinced that we must continually “fight for freedom”, because it is said, that, “freedom isnt free”...well, what the hell does that mean? Many say that “freedom? is “god given”—then why do we have to “fight” for it?

Finally, it is true that everyone “chooses”, but everyone chooses from a different set and number of options. Not all options are open to everyone in society. The “meritocracy” is a myth. No one “chooses” to be born unintelligent or ugly,nor born into a family living in poverty—thus the myth of “all men are created equal”

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 15, 2008 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment

Immature rubbish!  We are talking about co-responsibility.  No one wants to grab hold of your gonads, but the question is one of co-responsibility—a question that is obviously alien to your concepts of property rights uber alles.

What is this co-responsibility? If I am responsible for my own life then I am an adult, who answers for himself. If I am co-responsible then I am part of a larger group that is answerable for my actions, therefore I have to check in with my co-responsibles in order to make an individual action. (That doesn’t sound like an adult to me.) I understand that zoning is that sort of committee of co-responsibility. How far do you think co-responsibility should extend? Would I have to live my life according to some consensus most of the time? Part of the time? Do I have to ask, “Mother may I?” to smoke a cigarette or buy gold mining shares? Perhaps my career choices are a matter of co-responsibility? 

I think co-responsibility is one of Orwellian terms like “change agent”.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 15, 2008 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

By Shenonymous, November 15 at 2:53 pm #

I have no argument about education and birth control.  Except it there should be more emphasis on male self-control instead of cultures mainly blaming females for pregnancies…
_______________________________

I couldn’t agree more.  I think it should begin with both parents educating young men, as well as young women, that they share equal responsibility.  Of course, in too many cultures, religion paints sex as a taboo subject with a corresponding adverse impact on population growth.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 15, 2008 at 6:30 pm Link to this comment

By Paracelsus, November 15 at 11:22 am #

In essence our gonads are not our own personal property, but are organs owned by the state…
__________________________

Immature rubbish!  We are talking about co-responsibility.  No one wants to grab hold of your gonads, but the question is one of co-responsibility—a question that is obviously alien to your concepts of property rights uber alles.

With increased population comes increased consumption.  With increased consumption comes increased pressure on ecological systems, endangering multiple species and eventually endangering all life on the planet.

Grow up!

Report this

By KDelphi, November 15, 2008 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

I said I was going to “keep an eye on it”—I did. Especially to cann4ing, I stand corrected. Others too. I dont know if Obama wil buy it, but , here is the statement (meeting) just put out by PDA (Prog. Dems of Am) on single payer heatlh care.

I hope it works! Just wanted to be fair!

I am very glad to see it!

http://pdamerica.org/articles/alliances/2008-11-15-13-11-21-alliances.php

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 15, 2008 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment

ITW:  The Chinese are noted for their gelid, extremely callous and pragmatic attitude towards human beings.  There should not be any surprise.  I don’t see the world sending any criticisms to China for their horrendous practices.  As I said, nature would take care of what the world needs in terms of gender distribution if left alone.  Mankinds arrogance and greed changes the balance of nature.

cyrena - The concern for family and community is written in the Qur’an and I cannot believe there is any change in their attitude.  Their inherent imperialism is the most alarming aspect of their religion.  I am not sure what the demographics of their overpopulation is nor their attitude towards birth control.  I haven’t seen much evidence they ever had huge families and thus contributed to a world overpopulation.  I uneducated opinon is that is most likely because the general population have been kept at a low economic level and the harsh reality of their geographically scarce subsistance life style while the ruling class live in luxury. 

I have no argument about education and birth control.  Except it there should be more emphasis on male self-control instead of cultures mainly blaming females for pregnancies, and constant discussion within cultures about the effects of what large families do to their world, which is everybody’s world.  I think I am a dreamer on that one.  I don’t think it will take SOME education.  I think it will take A LOT education.  Ghettos are not just here in America.  Those poor people in Africa are starving and oppressed by political Islamists, are still having many many babies, the mortality rate is unbelievable.  There are pograms in many parts of the world, try India for one place, and Eastern Europe.  A more candid view of the situations in the world is really demanded.  Of course it has to do with people who don’t have basic care needed for survival.  What else does it have to do with?

Report this

By KDelphi, November 15, 2008 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

Hi cyrena…it was Elvis Presley (lol). Called “In the Ghetto” , I think.

“On a cold and gray Chicago mornin’, another little baby chld was born, in the ghetto, and his mama cried
Cause if there’s one thing that she dont need its another hungry mouth to feed, in the ghetto..”

Pretty poignant for Presley, eh?

Dont let me interrupt, I have no opinion on this stuff, except to say I agree with you about the infant mortality rates, and would liek to know if Bush vetoing SCHIP coudl be considered infanticide.

Just thinking.

Report this

By cyrena, November 15, 2008 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

Sheynon…

“...It is a primitive cultural attitude which are just as hard to eradicate as it is religious attitudes….  A massive education and legal effort needs to be done where frivolous abortions and infanticide is subject to the same ramifications as it is for murder.”

~~~

The first part is certainly true, but there have been some successful challenges at eradicating such attitudes, in part by USING the religious foundation of the culture. That has been the case in many of the Muslim (including Arab) societies of late. In other words, they are becoming more pragmatically aware of the spiritual/religious obligations that require parents to provide for their families, and the practicality says they can’t provide for them when they have too many of them. This is actually noted in the Qur’an, and in multiple other Islamic texts, though I wouldn’t attempt to cite where. (somebody can though, I’m sure).

Meantime, at least part of the real education (from a general standpoint that can cross all cultures and traditions) is simply a better education on birth control and the prevention of unwanted pregnancies to begin with. Overpopulation is a problem, and only morons don’t get that.

But on the second part, (legal ramifications of infanticide and frivolous abortion)I don’t know. I don’t know that infanticide and frivolous abortion are even in the same league, since we have to deal with semantics here. But, the topic is certainly within my own academic scope. What to do with people who discard their infants and newborns? I’m not quite ready to suggest that they should be subject to the same legal status as murderers.

Quite honestly, I don’t know how much more ‘prevalent’ (proportionately speaking) this is than it was say 4 or 5 decades ago, but I DO know that some education and available resources would prevent these pregnancies from occurring to begin with.

Does anybody remember that old song, (I THINK Orbison did it) about “Another child born in the ghetto, and his mama crying?”(that’s just part of the lyrics). Well, THAT is still occurring all over the world, and right here at home. And, we can’t take care of at least 18% of these babies, and neither can their parents. Infant mortality, (even without the infanticide rates and other such horrors) are already as high here as they are in many 3rd world countries, and it has nothing to do with frivolous abortions or infanticide. It has to do with people don’t have basic care that humans need to survive.

And so it is..

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 15, 2008 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

Sorry She,

I pretty much thought you meant “funny” as “peculiar” not “funny” as “Ha-Ha”.

Still, I don’t think it’s peculiar at all, but, for the reasons I stated, a totally expected effect due to cold, ill-thought out policies by the Chinese government.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 15, 2008 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment

It is not that simple either Paracelsus:  It is purely a personal decision whether a family can afford to have one child or 4 children. I suppose if you want to frame it in terms of global warming then you could force taxation on families who reproduce too many CO2 emitters. I have my doubts on global warming.

Personal decisions are often dictated by religious beliefs and those beliefs give leave to have a dozen children.  I recall living in a suburban Huntington Beach 20 years ago and a fairly well-off family had 10 children.  They were Catholic.  Now sure they could afford that many children, but can an overpopulated world?  A social convention, viz., democratically debated, where it is encouraged rather than a matter of legal law, that the fewer children the better, would be a civilized way to have common self-control, and rather than a religion constantly encouraging more church members born so that they may keep filling their coffers and reason for existence.  I do not advocate any gonadal control (we can call it the GC effect), nor any penal control (a new use for the acronym PC), except self-control.  Surely men can develop some mental sense about that themselves?  Which has never happened heretofore. Now that would be the best population control and could even last for generations thus saving the world!  What an idea!  Shenonymo!  The amount of CO2 emitters is a zany concern.  Anyway, the trees would love more CO2.

cann4ing, yes you are right about China’s attitude toward female births and it has been a poignant human rights problem.  It is a primitive cultural attitude which are just as hard to eradicate as it is religious attitudes.  A massive education and legal effort needs to be done where frivolous abortions and infanticide is subject to the same ramifications as it is for murder.  While I do believe women own their own bodies, I do not advocate frivolous and wanton abortions either, meaning when it is without a doubt the result of consensual sex and the pregnancy has gone past viability as determined by a licensed Ob/Gyn then abortion is not an ethical or moral thing to do, with one qualification and that being if the life of the mother is at stake then under most circumstances I believe abortion is not wrong.  There will be a question in the case of irreparable comatose pregnant women, and so forth.  Yes I would put the burden of decision on the opinion of a licensed Ob/Gyn because people have many wily ways to convince an unscrupulous medical person to do many immoral medical things.  While not absolutely true, Ob/Gyns are less likely to risk their reputation and career in ending a not-frivolous pregnancy.  Further, it is not without suspicion that there will still exist illegal abortions and there will still be infanticide and there will still be criminal law to try to stem it.

ITW, using the word ‘funny’ can be interpreted several ways, it is, I admit, an ambiguous word.  I meant it in the sense ‘peculiar.’  It isn’t funny, as in ha ha!, it is meant that very thing you noted as the result of an unintended consequence.  My tongue-in-cheek remark about that practice being adopted world-wide is noted as such by my last biting sentence.  I know quite a few non-moronic men and I know they have created male progeny who also are non-moronic.  So relax.  But nevertheless you bring up some very important points about gender control and the history of that practice or encouragement.  Over time, nature will prevail if left alone!  But the greed of men almost always prevails!  Make that always prevails

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 15, 2008 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, November 15 at 8:48 am #

Thank you cann4ing re the info about China’s one child policy.  Funny thing is that their plan has produced more boys being born than girls and by 2020 they expect the ratio to soar to 40-50 million more marriageable males than females!  Wow.  Hey guys of the world worried about there being more females than males, zip it up!  Hey, personally I like those Chinese odds.  The current pool of interesting guys in my age group is very small, well that depends on the definition of ‘interesting,’ of course.  It is possible to have a huge population of moron males.  Some precocious ladies I know would say that already exists.
***************************************

She, I don’t find it funny or odd. I find it sickening.  Couples allowed only one child are aborting females so they can have a son.  So the excess of males is totally expected.  This has been going on for 30 years so the shortage of marriageable age women has been around for several years. 

Given that, in the we-wish-it-existed-free-market, girls could then command a sizable dowry from families with only a boy to get him a wife.  The richest would prevail.  This, of course, would then make having girls more desirable and bring the ratio back to balance.  On the blackboard, in the theoretical world of economics.

What has happened in China instead is that a business has cropped up KIDNAPPING girls to force them to be wives to the sons.  Sometimes the boy’s family does the kidnapping, sometimes gangsters.  So, yet again, women are seen as nothing but commodities, breeding and housekeeping machines for the “princes”—the only son.  The girls’ lives are meaningless, their wants and feelings and families NOTHING next to getting the son a woman.

Once again the “Law of unintended consequences” has done more harm than good.

Overpopulation is self-limiting, and, to the shock if many nations, MORE people means more economic power.  Before the War, Hitler declared Germany needed “Lebensraum” for her 60 million people.  After the water, West Germany, half the size, had 60 million and PROSPERED like Hitler’s Germany never did.  India, with 1.1 or 1.3 billion people is more prosperous than when it had 750 million.

How is this possible? Because the productivity of more people, if marshalled, far exceeds their consumption.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 15, 2008 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

What a cop out!  Your comment ignores the issue of overpopulation in the same manner the Bush regime ignored global warming. The fact is that the ability of the earth to sustain human life is not infinite.

I am not advocating forced abortions or forced pregnancies. It is purely a personal decision whether a family can afford to have one child or 4 children. I suppose if you want to frame it in terms of global warming then you could force taxation on families who reproduce too many CO2 emitters. I have my doubts on global warming. 


Whether we in the U.S. must emulate China, eventually looking to limits on the number of children a family can have, is an open question for democratic debate.

In essence our gonads are not our own personal property, but are organs owned by the state, and we must go to the state to have license to reproduce. It is like an automobile. We have given up our manufacturers issuance of origin to the state, so that we are a leaseholder of the car to the state, who must abide by contractual obligations for insurance and ad valorem taxes. That is an interesting argument. What you propose is the very kernel of what it means to be a slave.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 15, 2008 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment

By Shenonymous, November 15 at 8:48 am #

Thank you cann4ing re the info about China’s one child policy.  Funny thing is that their plan has produced more boys being born than girls and by 2020 they expect the ratio to soar to 40-50 million more marriageable males than females!
___________________________

If only it were that simple.  Chinese culture is such that parents want only boys, and, per our guide, there have been a good number of abandoned baby girls who do not survive, because the girl would be the only child that family would be permitted to have.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 15, 2008 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment

By Paracelsus, November 15 at 9:31 am #

I would leave sexual up reproduction as a matter of personal choice to the individual, not achieve it through stealth poisoning of the populace.

__________________________________

What a cop out!  Your comment ignores the issue of overpopulation in the same manner the Bush regime ignored global warming. The fact is that the ability of the earth to sustain human life is not infinite.

While we can differ on numbers, Tao, for example, taking the position that only that sustainability can be found in the life style of the 19th Century Lakota peoples, where I believe that vastly greater numbers can be sustained by the development of green technologies, I suspect neither of us maintains the delusion that Mother Earth, as he calls it, can sustain an infinite number of human beings.

Once one comes to grips with finite sustainability, one has to accept co-responsibility which entails more than individual reproductive choice.  But this, by no means, means an authoritarian approach of “poisoning the populace.”  It does suggest that the idiocy of “abstinence only” education advanced by the likes of Sarah Palin must be abandoned, and right fast.  Whether we in the U.S. must emulate China, eventually looking to limits on the number of children a family can have, is an open question for democratic debate.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 15, 2008 at 10:51 am Link to this comment

Oh I don’t know Paracelsus, I live too far away from a public library and besides I use all my extra pennies (of which there are few) on books, good music, and films since I also live too far way from any culture to get really involved.  There isn’t even a decent or indecent bookstore ‘round here.  Ergo, Amazon shopping.  I have books in every room of my wonderful old house including the kitchens and bathrooms and both art studios, and have built over a hundred and thirty feet of shelving.  The literary world will survive on just me alone I sometimes think.  I haven’t been inside a university for over three years, but I am still able to access the library and online downloading services as well as get in the mail interlibrary photocopies of certain hard to get journal articles or even books if I choose.  But I choose not to get the books because it is a PIA to have to send them back.  So my personal library grows and grows exponentially.  Amazon is an amazing way to buy used books, dvds and cds.  And if clever enough to read all the offerings can get new or next to new copies of all such paraphernalia very cheaply.  The S&H;is cheap enough too considering the price of gas and distance needed to find stores.

I won’t keep defending BR as he is all right by my bones.  And Huxley is always fascinating to review now and then.  However too many others beckon, as Socrates would say, too many other beloveds.

If I could figure out how to copy my old cassettes and VHSs to my computer I’d make you a pirated copy of the Sadie Thompson movie and send it to you.  I’m in the middle of being able to do that but I am not the greatest wizard with this equipment and software.  It is arcane Old Greek to me!

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 15, 2008 at 10:49 am Link to this comment

Errata

It would be hard to tell that she was at the event horizon of her dementia from watching her act.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 15, 2008 at 10:38 am Link to this comment

We don’t have to be really old to remember Rita.  I love Rita Hayworth, the most beautiful broad ever in show business.  Too sad she succumbed to Alzheimers.  Saw a few of her old movies, even have her Sadie Thompson.  Uh, before you get out your hammer and nails, make that ‘Miss’ Sadie Thompson.  Such a good movie about mind control or attempted religious brain washing that didn’t work!  Horray for Sadie!

I have too see that. I am a big fan of old movies. She was very young when did come down with it. Carol Burnett was very kind to invite her onto her variety show. They patiently nursed the lines to Rita in one sketch. It would be hard to tell that she was at even horizon of her dementia from watching her act.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 15, 2008 at 10:31 am Link to this comment

@ Shenonymous

First of all dear heart, you do not answer the question of what YOU would do about overpopulation.

I would leave sexual up reproduction as a matter of personal choice to the individual, not achieve it through stealth poisoning of the populace.

As to the humanity of BR in regard to scientific society, that issue is perfectly murky as BR has deniability, and a faux objective and discursive style. If you back Dr. Pianca in a corner on the monstrosity of exterminating the human race, he will reply that the prospects are pessimistic as humanity is too corrupt to manfully deal with the problem. (This is paraphrase as the adjective manfully was my idea. wink ) So there is a certain evasiveness. But don’t worry, for as Rahm Emmanuel once said, “You are all part of the circle of love.”

Can I pin BR down as an inhuman philosopher? Not exactly, but his enthusiasm for the eugenic and dysgenic prospects for a better world frighten me. He seems like the cinematic serial killer who lets out a chilling cryptic remark or goes over into manic discourse when provoked by a small insult. Then he composes himself by saying, “All this is theoretical of course.” Chilling.

As to the tenacity of my mind, I think I have extracted some unique material to the internet from my own copies of BR’s two books on the sociology of science. I wish I could update my library with Aldous Huxley’s ravings as they make good end pieces to BR’s mad fantasies. But in due time… I assume you have benefit of a university library, and it seems you are taking full advantage. I only have recourse to my public library, and I often have to make interlibrary loans to get what I want. And then there is Amazon. I fear I will have to build a south wing to my apartment to contain so many books. My landlord would not like that.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 15, 2008 at 9:48 am Link to this comment

Thank you cann4ing re the info about China’s one child policy.  Funny thing is that their plan has produced more boys being born than girls and by 2020 they expect the ratio to soar to 40-50 million more marriageable males than females!  Wow.  Hey guys of the world worried about there being more females than males, zip it up!  Hey, personally I like those Chinese odds.  The current pool of interesting guys in my age group is very small, well that depends on the definition of ‘interesting,’ of course.  It is possible to have a huge population of moron males.  Some precocious ladies I know would say that already exists.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 15, 2008 at 9:39 am Link to this comment

Paracelsus, Paracelsus, Paracelsus! If you click your heels three times you will be back in Kansas!  First of all dear heart, you do not answer the question of what YOU would do about overpopulation.  But no matter, that is your usual ruse when you have no creative answer of your own.  Then, not having to got to a library, since I own both BNW and BNWR, what Huxley said is really unimportant though prescient as it was, since much water has flowed through the Ganges, as it usually does unless the floods are happening, and there have been many many more important crystal ballers and people exterminating shamans before and since Huxley. Try Thomas Malthus’s 1798, theory of overpopulation and for more recent, Werner Fernos, 2004 “Investing in Women:  Poverty Alleviation”  and his book “Gaining People, Losing Ground.”  There are others if you care to look but in-depth research seems out of your reach.  You don’t need ruby slippers, you need a tenaciously inquiring mind. 

With regard to my beloved Bertrand, yeahwell, he was one of the most brilliant minds ever to grace this planet.  What have you written that has had even an eighth the impact on the world?  If you read carefully, and I suspect you read for only what you want to see (a chronic human affliction, I myself am not vaccinated against it) you would see that he “describes” what science is egregiously capable of, and he does not ever recommend any of it.  S’il vous plaît show where he says “Do this!”

Report this

By cann4ing, November 15, 2008 at 9:18 am Link to this comment

By Paracelsus, November 15 at 2:01 am #

Question is:  What would you do about overpopulation?

________________________

Future?  China already has in place a strict policy limiting couples to one child, except in rural areas where they permit up to three.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 15, 2008 at 3:01 am Link to this comment

Question is:  What would you do about overpopulation?

Instead of cherry picking certain paragraphs out of context, it is suggested the far nobler thing to do is to read both of Russell’s two books mentioned.  For that matter, read all of his books.  Then a better perspective of what Russell thought would possibly be grasped.

I was able to check out Brave New World from the library, I found the idea of fetuses in barrels getting different levels of care so as to produce beings with purposeful lives frightening. I don’t think humanity should ape the reproductive cycle of termites or bees. I have reproduced another extract that I found nightmarish from BR.


I think, therefore, that there is hardly any limit to the departures from traditional sentiment which science may introduce into the question of reproduction. If the simultaneous regulation of quantity and quality is taken seriously in the future, we may expect that in each generation some 25 per cent. of women and some 5 per cent. of men will be selected to be the parents of the next generation, while the remainder of the population will be sterilized, which will in no way interfere with their sexual pleasures, but will merely render these pleasures destitute of social importance. The women who are selected for breeding will have to have eight or nine children each, but will not be expected to perform any other work except the suckling of children for a suitable number of months.

Right there in the extract is a proposal to sterilize 75% of the women and 95% of the men. In effect most of humanity will forever be martindales or be like the terminator seed in human form. The traditional human family is gone! Humanity will be reduced to breeder stock under this paradigm. Genius, creativity, and individualism is bred out of pedestrian humanity. If you read BNW, you would know that humans would be determined to be alphas, betas, gammas, deltas, and epsilons from the very start. The new technologies show every indication of putting this sort of society into operation. The day of wild human being with passion and survival instincts will be gone under such a future. That is what this global financial collapse is about: reengineering the species as a slave species for the global elite.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 15, 2008 at 2:10 am Link to this comment

It is curious what is your problem Paracelsus?  Are you taking issue with Bertrand Russell and Aldous Huxley or population control?  If it is those older gents, so what if they did have some population control in mind?  Though the way you characterize them shows some odd bias.  There have been all kinds of literature on the subject.  On the other forum on illiteracy, Smoliar mentions a much more graphically sinister sci-fi story by D. M. Kornbluth, The Marching Morons that is about population control.  Question is:  What would you do about overpopulation? 

Instead of cherry picking certain paragraphs out of context, it is suggested the far nobler thing to do is to read both of Russell’s two books mentioned.  For that matter, read all of his books.  Then a better perspective of what Russell thought would possibly be grasped. 

Do the same with Huxley.  BNW and BNWR are prescient and still are worthy reads even after 40 years.

We don’t have to be really old to remember Rita.  I love Rita Hayworth, the most beautiful broad ever in show business.  Too sad she succumbed to Alzheimers.  Saw a few of her old movies, even have her Sadie Thompson.  Uh, before you get out your hammer and nails, make that ‘Miss’ Sadie Thompson.  Such a good movie about mind control or attempted religious brain washing that didn’t work!  Horray for Sadie!

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 14, 2008 at 11:08 pm Link to this comment

On Injections, Drugs and Chemicals

Page 259 The Scientific Outlook

“... Perhaps by means of injections and drugs and chemicals the population could be induced to bear whatever its scientific masters may decide to be for its good.”

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 14, 2008 at 10:53 pm Link to this comment

@ FENWICK

What I had read from The Impact of Science on Society was a proposition that some global government would have the authority to meter foods to various nations of the earth as a way to discipline population growth. This idea was proposed by BR on Page 111,


“..
The population of the world is increasing, and its capacity for food production is diminishing. Such a state of affairs obviously cannot continue very long without producing a cataclysm.

To deal with this problem it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. Ifthis is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilences, and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world’s food to the various nations in proportion to teir population at the time of the establishment of the authority.”

As to Obama, I think he came at the perfect time to implement momentous change. We are about to enter a tremendous depression, a terrible crisis, which would be be an opportunity to implement change that people in normal times would find repellent.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 14, 2008 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment

Yes, c4, I have to apologize for the BR and AH business, I was reacting to our dear friend P.  But I guess, their views on overpopulation could be stretched to be relevant to this forum.  The information on gender ratios was also a tease but I think I resisted all the research I’ve done on the subject because of the very reason you noted.

“Put the blame on me baby,
Put the blame on me, boy
Put the blame on me, baby,
Put the blame on me”

Anybody remember Rita Hayworth?

As to the use of eugenics in a scientific society, I think BR’s The Scientific Outlook is the most explicit of two books he wrote on scientific society. I give you an excerpt from page 253 of Scientific Outlook,

“I think, therefore, that there is hardly any limit to the departures from traditional sentiment which science may introduce into the question of reproduction. If the simultaneous regulation of quantity and quality is taken seriously in the future, we may expect that in each generation some 25 per cent. of women and some 5 per cent. of men will be selected to be the parents of the next generation, while the remainder of the population will be sterilized, which will in no way interfere with their sexual pleasures, but will merely render these pleasures destitute of social importance. The women who are selected for breeding will have to have eight or nine children each, but will not be expected to perform any other work except the suckling of children for a suitable number of months.”

Report this

By KDelphi, November 14, 2008 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment

Mustve messed up—I am still getting replies to this.

Try again.

What a mutual admiration society…isnt it fun to just agree on everything?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 14, 2008 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment

Sorry for the double post, I tried to make an edit and just wasn’t fast enough.  Dang.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 14, 2008 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment

Yes, c4, I have to apologize for the BR and AH business, I was reacting to our dear friend P.  But I guess, their views on overpopulation could be stretched to be relevant to this forum.  The information on gender ratios was also a tease but I think I resisted all the research I’ve done on the subject because of the very reason you noted.  It is easy to be seduced onto another path and we have the best seducers on the net right here.  I don’t know if that is a compliment or not.  I am hoping it is not.

Shenonymo!  (Fenwick gave me that name and it has a sort of superheroine ring to it that I’m needing right now, I’ve been banned from teaching in my provincial town because I dared to say I voted for Obama. Forgive me while I use different means to lick my wounds).  I am optimistic that Obama will prove to be an amazing president.  There are facets to his diamond that don’t sit too well with me, but I’m willing to give him that spacetime to show his intelligence.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 14, 2008 at 4:22 pm Link to this comment

Yes, c4, I have to apologize for the BR and AH business, I was reacting to our dear friend P.  But I guess, their views on overpopulation could be stretched to be relevant to this forum.  The information on gender ratios was also a tease but I think I resisted all the research I’ve done on the subject because of the very reason you noted.  It is easy to be seduced onto another path and we have the best seducers on the net right here.  I don’t know if that is a compliment or not.  I am hoping it is not.

Shenonymo!  (Fenwick gave me that name and it has a sort of superheroine ring to it that I’m needing right now, I’ve been banned from teaching in my provincial town because I dared to say I voted for Obama. Forgive me while I use different means to lick my wounds).

Report this

By cann4ing, November 14, 2008 at 3:39 pm Link to this comment

Earlier, S, you complained that the discussion on the JFK assassination was off-topic, so now you’ve moved on to Huxley and Russell?  I’m not complaining; simply observing how these threads are subject to topic-drift.

I spent the first two weeks of October in China; came away with an appreciation for the combined impact of overpopulation and excess consumption. 

People were misled by the clear skies over Beijing during the Olympics.  The Chinese government shut down the coal-burning power plants three weeks in advance of the events.  As I was flying in, Beijing was one big, thick gray cloud.  “Fog,” I asked the steward.  “Uh-uh, smog.”  The kind of smog you feel in your lungs within minutes.  Its even worse in Xian, a “town” of some 42 million people.

Coal is the primary power source in northern and central China.  As I traveled up river from Chongking, all I saw was one coal barge after another. 

Those pictures you used to see of Chinese everywhere on bikes.  Forget it, everyone who can afford one drives a car—every make you can imagine, GM & Ford, but as our guide boasted, all manufactured in China.  Beijing & Xian were one huge traffic jam.  (And there’s nothing “Communist” about China—they’re more aggressively capitalist than the U.S.—something I previously did not believe possible.)

The only clean air was in Shanghai which is being powered by the still under construction Three Gorges Dam and where all cars are powered by natural gas.  But the Dam is already having an adverse impact up river, with rising waters eliminating farm lands. 

Hopefully, an Obama administration can lead by example with the development of green technologies—wind, solar, geothermal, wave—and places like China will follow suit.  If not, the hopes of heading off an ecological disaster are doomed to failure.

Report this

By Maani, November 14, 2008 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment

ITW:

Re “life imitating art” vis-a-vis books/films, thre is a 1975 (keep that year in mind) film called “Wrong is Right” that starred Sean Connery as a news anchor who becomes the unwitting conduit for an Arab terrorist group that has been causing havoc in NYC - including a suicide bombing in Times Square.  (Remember - 1975).  The premise of the film is that they have obtained a “suitcase nuke” and have hidden it somewhere in Manhattan.  Guess where it is?

Attached to the aerial on the WTC, which had just been completed.  (1975).

Spooky, huh?

Also, re Skull & Bones, although they are not an NWO group per se, they function as a “pool” for future members of NWO groups.

Re TC, my source is actually IN the TC.  (The only NWO group in which I have a direct source.)

Peace.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 14, 2008 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment

Reading Russell’s views on overpopulation he does not advocate any particular practice of eugenics or other forms except to discuss the disribution of food based on population if a world food crisis should appear.  In The Impact of Science on Society, he does describe clearly what are the terrible effects that could be expected if overpopulation went unchecked and what are some of the ways societies could or would exert control

Huxley in Brave New World, describes what kind of a world it could be if controls were not even considered. According to the UN, if the entirety of Earth were to have the same level of consumption as the average American or Western European, it would require three planet Earths to support the human population.  Huxley constructed a tiered caste system which uncannily resembles today’s rich to poor classes.  Huxley counted on time to develop solutions and had no idea the dystopian society would develop so rapidly.  On the other hand, he describes in Brave New World Revisited three eras:  A world of too much order, one where too little existed; and the one that struck a “happy” medium.  He had hoped an algorithm could be produced that would describe the better way to control population.  I didn’t read what that algorithm would be.  In May of 1998, Herbert Stein thought Huxley didn’t get it right, thought that while Huxley’s brilliant mind was right in the growth of population he was wrong in about the economic crisis he predicted.  But we can see that today, Stein was wrong and Huxley was right.  The entire world is on the brink of a deep depression.  Furthermore Stein was wrong again about Huxley’s fear that a manipulation of human minds by modern media would occur.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 14, 2008 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

Thank you, P.  Here is a website to make you laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI6TZPRz0pk
then the next one is also super
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkqqMPPg2VI&feature=related

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 14, 2008 at 10:59 am Link to this comment

Brave New World -AH, and the Scientific Outlook -BR, and the Impact of Science -BR.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 14, 2008 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

Oh, FENWICK, I checked out that brasschecktv.com.  How miserable must the world get?  Killing Kids for Christ?  What could be more loathesome than repugnant?  I cannot find adjectives strong enough to express my disgust. 
Thus sayeth Shenonymo!  Hey, I could give Neitzsche a run for his money!  Godlets are Dead!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 14, 2008 at 10:52 am Link to this comment

Shenonymo!  I love it, thanx Fenwick, that is something I can use!  You are a crafty debble. 

Russell and Huxley, two of my favorite guys!  Care to give me those citations, Paracelsus?

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 14, 2008 at 10:47 am Link to this comment

Bertrand Russell and Aldous Huxley openly speculated on reducing the population through injections, water additives, and so on.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 14, 2008 at 10:38 am Link to this comment

Way…ell, is Watt stealing Watts thunder?  Seems to be a bullshit artist of the first order.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 14, 2008 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

@ Shenonymous

It is Watt, not Watts, Gracie.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 14, 2008 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

Is one person’s reality the same as another’s?  Isn’t that a primal question?  Alan Watts died November 16, 1973.  What do you suppose his reality is now?

Report this

By KDelphi, November 14, 2008 at 10:07 am Link to this comment

Hellleww! (As the Queen would say!)

I am just closing this thread out, for my emailboxes sake. To take a bathroom break…

Cheerio!

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 14, 2008 at 9:24 am Link to this comment

Are Human Males Being Scientifically Sterilized by An Eugenic Agenda?


http://cuttingthrough.jenkness.com/CTTM/Alan_Watt_CTTM_LIVEonRBN_194_First_the_Men_Nov132008.mp3

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 14, 2008 at 8:45 am Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind, November 12 at 7:57 pm #

I’ve been hearing about the dastardly Tri-Lateral Commission for 30 years.
——————————————————————-
Yeah, me too. Only I never used to hear it from the Left. In the old days it was the John Birch society, who also objected to the international Communist conspiracy to pollute our precious bodily fluids by fluoridating the water.

Hurray for “one world government”, is what I say. To me that’s the same thing as saying hurray for international law. It’s what humanity needs and it’s where we’re going.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 14, 2008 at 5:30 am Link to this comment

Paracelsus, November 13 at 8:40 pm #

There’s this eccentric professor from University of Texas, who thinks mass extermination of human beings would be a good idea. Dr. Pianca, also know as the lizard man, thinks that the human race has over run the planet.

********************************************

That idea’s been done already, in fiction.  Tom Clancy’s “Rainbow Six” has that as the main plot element.

He had the attack on the WTC and the US in two different books.

In “Sum of All Fears” terrorists set off a nuclear bomb at the Superbowl. It’s supposed to be a thermo-nuclear device but that fails and only the fission portion goes off.  The killers try to convince the US that Iran was their backer, when it wasn’t….

In “Debt of Honor” the book ends with an angry suicidal Japanese pilot crashing his 747 into the Capitol Building as the President is speaking to a joint session of Congress.

Both were written well before 9/11.  “Sum” was written before the 1993 WTC bombing as well.

Clancy’s better at these ideas…and he just uses them as fictional villains.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 13, 2008 at 10:49 pm Link to this comment

We may have a die off from infertility alone. I suppose the ole eugenicists never really die off, they are just called themselves transhumanists.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/are-boy-disappearing.php


Are Boys Disappearing Because of Gender Bender Chemicals?
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 09.22.08
Food & Health
      Buzz up!   

baby boy ultrasound image
Creative Commons

“Something is happening to today’s boys and men: Fewer are being born compared with girls, they’re having more trouble in school, virility and fertility are down and testicular cancer rates are up. Now, scientists say these ‘fragile males’ may be more vulnerable than females to pollutants, affecting their development as early as the womb.”

Martin Mittelstaedt of the Globe and Mail writes about how “Researchers tracking childhood behavioural disorders, sperm counts, testicular cancer and even the shrinking size of male gonads are convinced that something is amiss. The University of Pittsburgh’s Devra Davis, in a study issued last year, found that the U.S. and Japan combined had a staggering tally of 262,000 “missing boys” from 1970 to about 2000 because of a decline in the sex ratio at birth. Although it could be a statistical anomaly, she says the figure is “very worrisome.”

Some think it might be due to endocrine disruptors in the environment. He lists “science’s top five worries over the fate of the human male.”

babies.jpg
Not as many boys as there used to be….

1. Lost boys

Studies on births from the U.S., Japan, and Canada have found a drop in the percentage of boys born compared with girls. The reason isn’t known.

2. Declining harvest

Men in farm country can be half as prolific when it comes to making sperm as their city counterparts, raising the possibility that pesticides undermine male fertility.

3. Downsizing

It’s disputed by chemical companies, but some researchers say they have found an everyday plastic compound - phthalates - that feminizes baby boys, causing penises and other reproductive organs to be smaller.

4. Hormones not so raging

If you’re a middle-aged man, you’re likely to be less virile than your father because you make less testosterone. In recent decades, the decline has averaged about 1 per cent a year. If it continues over another generation or two, the consequences could be dire.

5. Equipment failure

Rates of testicular cancer, hypospadias and other genital abnormalities have soared over recent decades, rising by more than 50 per cent each.

Mittelstaedt then lists the four chemicals that are causing the biggest concern:
-Bisphenol A
-Phthalates
-Polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDE)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)

I suppose with male infertility becoming widespread, an area of scarcity has been created where the government and the market can intervene to mold the evolution of the race. Very creepy.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 13, 2008 at 9:40 pm Link to this comment

You know, of course you don’t, but I was thinking, what is wrong with One World Order?  It would sure solve a lot of problems.  Maybe a whole slew more of us would be exterminated and the Earth would take itself back.  Now that is a cheery thought.

You mean like this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

There’s this eccentric professor from University of Texas, who thinks mass extermination of human beings would be a good idea. Dr. Pianca, also know as the lizard man, thinks that the human race has over run the planet.

In early March 2006 the Texas Academy of Science (TAS) honored University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka as its 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist during its 109th Annual Meeting at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. In a March 3, 2006 lecture at this 109th Annual Meeting, Pianka suggested that the human population is likely to crash, and that a mutant strain of Ebola (which has up to a 90% mortality rate) is a possible culprit[1]. In response to Pianka’s speech, Forrest Mims states that Pianka had “endorsed the elimination of 90 percent of the human population” through a disease such as an airborne strain of the Ebola virus.[2] This report was reported in Alex Jones’ prisonplanet.com. [3] and also widely propagated through blogs including William Dembski’s “Uncommon Descent” and “Telic Thoughts” (another pro-intelligent design blog which has since recanted its original report[4]), Drudge Report and the Discovery Institute[5]—the hub of the intelligent design movement and at which both Mims and Dembski sit as fellows.[6] Dembski has also said that he has reported Pianka to the United States Department of Homeland Security.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mims-Pianka_controversy

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 13, 2008 at 9:24 pm Link to this comment

Skull and Bones isn’t that the secret society at Harvard that both GWB and John Kerry belong to?  That mentality is the scariest of all.  The Illuminati, laugh laugh more insanity.  Oh boy. 

You know, of course you don’t, but I was thinking, what is wrong with One World Order?  It would sure solve a lot of problems.  Maybe a whole slew more of us would be exterminated and the Earth would take itself back.  Now that is a cheery thought.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 13, 2008 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment

Maani, November 13 at 1:49 pm #

Tony:

The fact that you could ask who Mitch Mitchell was shows you are either very young or very unhip.  LOL.

Mitchell was Jimi Hendrix’ drummer for most of his career.  He was a legend and an influence in rock music.

Peace.

************************************

DING! DING! DING! DING! 

We have a winner.  Mitchell was one of the three in the Jimmy Hendrix Experience that made
“Are You Experienced?”
“Axis: Bold as Love”
“Electric Ladyland”

Noel Redding, the bass player, died a few years ago.
Hendrix, of course, died in 1970.

I noticed in your whole thing about TC, you didn’t quote one source….So they write white papers. Big deal.

The Carlyle Group is a pretty sleazy corporation—no question about that. 

But that has nothing to do with the mythical Illuminati, oops, the Trilateral Commission.

What about Skull and Bones?

Sheesh…..

Report this

By Maani, November 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment

Tony:

The fact that you could ask who Mitch Mitchell was shows you are either very young or very unhip.  LOL.

Mitchell was Jimi Hendrix’ drummer for most of his career.  He was a legend and an influence in rock music.

Peace.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 13, 2008 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment

Inherit the Wind writes:

•  “I can just imagine him slapping his forehead today and saying “WHAT was I thinking?????” ….I’ll keeping watching the NY Times for word of it. “

This made me laugh out loud. wink

Who’s Mitch Mitchell?

Report this

By KDelphi, November 13, 2008 at 12:23 pm Link to this comment

IRW—It is hardly a “small group of neo-Marxists” who are not completely happy with some of PE Obama’s agenda, so far. It is people who supported him (like PDA, many on here, etc.) that kept telling people to “hold his feet to the fire” and “make him do what is right-like they did FDR”.

I agree that he will probably not listen. So why even bother to confront any of the Dems policies, here or anywhere else?
Maybe you are correct in implying that the Dems are just rigid idealogues that have made a neo-liberal pact with the Right and confronting them is useless…Hmmm..

Report this

By Maani, November 13, 2008 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

Primer on The New World Order (Part I)

Many of us have heard the phrase “new world order,” generally used in an ominous sense to refer to some sort of “cabal” that either controls or seeks to control “the world,” and in particular its political, economic and cultural (especially media) agenda and policies.  Numerous “conspiracy theories” have arisen regarding this “new world order,” some of which are almost certainly the work of crackpots, but some of which sound frighteningly plausible.

Ultimately, no one really knows if such a cabal exists, but there is unquestionable evidence that points to a reasonable possibility that it does, in some form.  After fairly considerable research – including reading numerous books, visiting dozens of web sites purporting to explain the “new world order,” and visiting the official web sites of the organizations supposedly involved in the “new world order” (hereafter, NWO) - this writer offers the following as the most reasonable, supportable and “sane” explanation for its existence, and how it really works.

The NWO is not a small group of sinister men who meet clandestinely in a smoky room, twirling their moustaches, and discussing in nefarious tones how to control the world: that is, the “James Bond villain” scenario is extremely unlikely, for two reasons.

First, it would be more than difficult for these “cabalists” – who would have to be world leaders, “captains of industry” and other high-level persons - to engage in such meetings without someone finding out at some point. And if the NWO wants to remain “off the radar,” they would need to control all info about themselves.  Second, and more important, there are simply too many people involved in world affairs for such a “top down” structure to work; even world leaders and “captains of industry” work with others in the creation and implementation of policy, especially major political and economic policy.

However, it is also clear that neither could an NWO structure exist from the bottom up, since (i) those at the bottom do not create policy, much less implement it, and (ii) this would involve way too large and unwieldy a cabal for the NWO to be efficient, much less successful (to say nothing of staying “off the radar”).

This leaves us with something in the middle (though certainly closer to the top than the bottom). Which is, in the opinion of this writer, exactly how the NWO works, and why it is able to maintain a surprisingly low profile.

First, it is important to keep in mind the NWO’s goal: “control” – either direct or indirect - over (and maintenance of) the world’s political, economic and cultural agenda and policies.  Second, although there is certainly a heaping helping of self-interest and greed involved, it is both possible and probable that some, even many, of those involved in the NWO may very well believe that they are “doing the right thing” vis-à-vis the general populace; i.e., that they are trying to do “the greatest good for the greatest number” (while maintaining or increasing their own political/economic holdings).

That said, there are six, possibly seven, groups that together comprise the lion’s share of the persons who comprise the NWO.  In chronological order of their founding, they are: the Skull & Bones Society (1832), the Royal Institute of International Affairs (1920), the Council on Foreign Relations (1921), the Bilderberg Group (1954), the Club of Rome (1965), the Trilateral Commission (1973), and the Carlyle Group (1987).

The Process

There are two processes by which the NWO works to control the political, economic and cultural agendas of the world.  One is through seemingly innocent “white papers”; the other is a highly aggressive form of lobbying on a global scale.

(See Part II)

Report this

By Maani, November 13, 2008 at 12:16 pm Link to this comment

Primer on The New World Order (Part II)

“White Papers”

The RIIA, CFR, BG, COR and TC are all comprised of high-level economic, financial, banking, business and media executives who do two things.  First, they have annual conclaves to discuss global political, social and economic issues.  Then, as an outgrowth of this, they work on “white papers” on those issues.

Because of the “access” that members of these groups have to people in positions of decision-making and -influencing power in various governments (including presidents, kings, premiers, and others), these groups are able to disseminate their “white papers” to the highest levels of government.  And since those in power know that the “white papers” provided by these groups are likely to be favorable to creating or maintaining conditions that allow them to keep or increase their power, money and other interests, these “white papers” very often become the “policy” of those governments.  This occurs when the government receiving such a “white paper” quietly incorporates it into its own policies, as if it was generated internally.  Since the RIIA et al do not care about credit or prestige (and, indeed, wish to remain “under the radar”) this is mutually beneficial to both those creating the “white papers” and the governments that make them into “policy.”

[In the U.S., some think tanks – primarily those of conservative bent – also provide such “white papers” to high-level officials in the government, some with decision-making or -influencing power.  Again, since these “white papers” are likely to be favorable to the interests of those currently in power, they are often “subsumed” into the policies of the U.S. government, re-appearing as “new” or modified policies.]

Obviously, not every government accepts every “white paper” generated by these groups. Some are certainly rejected, and some are probably heavily modified. However, this is the basic process by which five of the “Big Six” work with those in power to get and/or maintain control of the political, economic and cultural agendas of most of the major governments of the world.

“Access Lobbying”

The Carlyle Group is unique among the “Big Six.” It is without question the most effective “access lobbyist” in the world.  Even a short list of the ways in which they have affected policy in the U.S. and elsewhere would fill a sizable book.  (And there is an excellent one: “The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of The Carlyle Group,” by Dan Briody.)  A combination venture capital and investment firm, power broker, and lobbyist, The Carlyle Group rides the razor’s edge of the quasi-legal and quasi-ethical.  By doing so, they have become the pre-eminent “Big Six” group affecting U.S. policy, as well as the policies of other governments.

The list of active directors of The Carlyle Group reads like a who’s who of former heads of state, military and government officials, and big businessmen.  Among them are: former President George H.W. Bush, former British PM John Major, former U.S. Sec’y of Defense and CIA “spook” Frank Carlucci, former U.S. Sec’y of State James Baker III, former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, former FCC Chairman William Kennard, former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti, former U.S. Budget Director Richard Darman, and former IBM Chair Louis B. Gerstner.  Colin Powell is a past advisor to Carlyle, and Donald Rumsfeld is Carlyle founder Frank Carlucci’s best friend since college.  In addition, President George W. Bush sat on the Board of Caterair, a Carlyle-owned company, for some time.

With these power brokers and others, The Carlyle Group uses its “access” to secure military, aerospace and telecommunications contracts with the U.S., and to lobby both nationally and internationall for policies that will be favorable to its investments and businesses.

Report this

By Maani, November 13, 2008 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

ITW:

You say, “I’ve been hearing about the dastardly Trilateral Commission for 30 years…And I’ve been trying to find out…just what the TC has done that’s so dastardly…I’ve never seen or heard of the TC actually, verifiably doing anything.  Maybe they have, but it sure hasn’t been much of a splash.”

And that is the point: the TC (and other NWO groups) doesn’t do things to “make a splash.”  They work behind the scenes, as quietly as they can.  That is why they are shrouded in secrecy (and/or obfuscation about their goals.)

This is why you hear almost nothing about the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Council of Rome, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Carlyle Group (except during the bin Laden fiasco and when they make a major investment or purchase) and other NWO-related groups.  [N.B. The CFR has tacked considerably to the center-left in the past decade, though they still have their NWO agenda.]

There are two main proceses by which the NWO works to control the political, economic and cultural agendas of the world.  The first is through “white papers,” the second is through what I call “access lobbying.”  As someone who has studied the NWO in- depth for well over a decade, I will provide a short exgesis on these in an upcoming post.

Peace.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 13, 2008 at 5:12 am Link to this comment

Folktruther, November 12 at 9:04 pm #

Cann4ing, if you agree that there should be pressure on Obama from the left, they time to attack him is NOW.  Before he makes any more appointments that lock in policy decisions.  If he appoints Summers, a neolib as Treasurer, or Harmon, the leader of the Zionist thought control bill to lead the intelligence agencies, as has been rumored, it strengthens those anti-progressive policies.
****************************************

Yeah. President-Elect Obama is going to change his plans drastically because a few neo-Marxists like Folktruther are bitching about what he’s doing on Truthdig.  He’ll be super-receptive to be called a tool of the neo-cons, no different than Bush, and in the pocket of the Zionists, etc.  I can just imagine him slapping his forehead today and saying “WHAT was I thinking?????”

I’ll keeping watching the NY Times for word of it.

Think it’ll bump Mitch Mitchell’s death off the page?

Report this

By KDelphi, November 12, 2008 at 10:31 pm Link to this comment

cann4ing—I have, I have, I have.

YOu know, to some people, who have lost almost all of their entire family of origin’s money on illnes and accidents, it is not a thing we want to “go towards incrementally”. It also represents an attitude of many in the US that out govt and country is somehow “exceptional” , and not necessarily in a good way—but the masses take it to be.

Some cannot wait. 20,000 a year die. I just dont see how people can act like that doesnt matter. It is alot more USAns than die overseas.
You dont like Obama’s FISA Vote. You dont like his health care plan. What exactly was it that attracted you to his candidacy,if not just looks and personality?

I am sure you know what the rest of the civilized world does about the things I listed—you dont respond to them, other than health care, because , for the most part, you agree. Or you just go along.

Is it my choice? Well, not really. As long as “progressives” keep taking what they are handed—the rest of us wil have to do so. Ever had a family member die without heatlh care? Ever had a friend commit suicide because they couldnt afford pain meds? Need to see a specialist that might get you back to work but cant afford it? Ever have family member have to go into life savings for chemo while paying $12,500 a year for a private plan? And not make enough to take a tax rebate? And stil spend $80,000 this year on cancer treatment?(Well, not “spend” it—bil it to credit)

And you want people to accept another market base plan? Because, in Denver , that was the way PDA was talking.I did not hear Baucus bring up Conyers HR 676—Obama never does either.How would you “get him to do it”?

Why is GM going bankrupt, in part? Private health care and pensions.What is the number one cause of bankruptcies? Following up on that, the main cause for equity loans and credit card debt (that you cannot file bankruptcy on now—Biden bill)—medical bills.

Thes problems are so interrelated, I dont see how we can solve any of them without addressing peoples’ basic need to survive. I just think that it is selfish, bosgus and stupid.

This is not NEW to me. I have been waiting 20- years since I lived in Europe for WorkStudy.It is just getting ridiculous..

PDA contains many Obama delegates. Why couldnt they have talked to Obama before about it?

What exactly is PDA doing to address the market based plan that Baucus proposed today and Obama has proposed all along? He is aware of HR 676—he just doesnt support it. He said it woudl “cost too many jobs”. Because on their web site, I just has an article concerning whether Obama shoudl be replaced by another Af Am , since he was the only black senator.

I do check—especially when I see a Congress person address it on tv—I never see a press release, I never see any criticism or agreement.Am I not getting on the correct site? Because what is it you woudl like us to “do” with PDA to help create “change”?

What are THEY doing?

Report this

By cann4ing, November 12, 2008 at 10:10 pm Link to this comment

If you remove the word “attack” and replace it with “pressure,” Folktruther, I would be in full agreement with your last post.  Democracy does not end with the casting and counting of votes but requires ongoing efforts by citizen-activists.

Report this

By Folktruther, November 12, 2008 at 10:04 pm Link to this comment

Cann4ing, if you agree that there should be pressure on Obama from the left, they time to attack him is NOW.  Before he makes any more appointments that lock in policy decisions.  If he appoints Summers, a neolib as Treasurer, or Harmon, the leader of the Zionist thought control bill to lead the intelligence agencies, as has been rumored, it strengthens those anti-progressive policies.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 12, 2008 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi—when did I every try to prevent you from speaking your mind.  Do you have any concept of what a two-way conversation is?  If I don’t agree with you, if I suggest that too many people are engaging in rank speculation, that amounts to what?  Censorship?

Sounds to me like you have a real problem with anyone who would challenge the efficacy of a point you make.

As to health care, we’ve gone over that before.  I don’t like the Obama plan.  I agree the only meaningful solution is single payer, and I believe that it is far more productive for progressives to join the PDA and press for passage of HR 676.  You can also go to the Obama web site and make that suggestion directly.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 12, 2008 at 8:57 pm Link to this comment

I’ve been hearing about the dastardly Tri-Lateral Commission for 30 years. The guy who told me about them was a fellow carpenter, Marxist/leftist (probably posts here) and like to take naps in empty apartments when he was being paid to work.  Like so many, rich and poor, he wanted something he felt he was “entitled to” but hadn’t earned.

And I’ve been trying to find out since then just what the TC has done that’s so dastardly.  Sure, there are lots of tin-foil-hat websites glorious whipping up, like egg whites in a copper bowl, their paranoid fantasis.  But I’ve never seen or heard of the TC actually, verifiably doing anything.  Maybe they have, but it sure hasn’t been much of a splash.

Cann4ting—it’s funny how people disagree violently on some things and agree almost completely on others—like your view on Obama, defending against the unrealistic attacks, like calling him fascist.

Fascism and Marxism (as exercised in the 20th cent) are far closer than either admits—and they HATE each other with all the enmity of Sunni vs Shia, or Roman Catholic vs Eastern Catholic. Let’s not forget little details like: Mussolini was a Socialist before he became a Fascist.  He had no problem with the Socialist principle of confiscating private companies for state ownership.  Neither, for that matter, did Hitler.  It’s true Hitler joined the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (he didn’t found it), but there were two wings, the NATIONAL socialists, and the national SOCIALISTS.  The first murdered the second, literally.  But let’s not forget that the left wing of the Nazi Party saw themselves as the national SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS’ PARTY.

The behaviors of the fascists on the Right and the Communists on the Left were pretty much the same.  Kill any and all opponents, starting with those closest to you. Create a “Cult of Personality” whether it was “Il Duce” or “Comrade Stalin, The Greatest Genius in History” (Yeah, they really called him that) or “Der Fuhrer” or “Chairman Mao”.
Confiscate private property including industries in the name of the state.  Murder millions and millions.

And both did it believing in their deepest hearts it was for the good of “The People”.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 12, 2008 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment

cann4ing—I guess I am just too dumb to know what that means.

Who is the “gentleman”?

I am just NOT going to fish back through all these posts and try to find out who you were responding to. Why dont you just tell me.

I do not trust Obama because I do not know where the hell he stands, dont tell me to go to his website—it has already changed from yesterday.. He is too centrist. He and his team mention Reagan all the time. This article does! His health care plan is lousy and Baucus announced a even lamer verison of it today. I dont want to go through al of this again. FISA. Wall St. GM.Yet we cannot afford single payer health care. Bullshit.

HIs opinion on the DC gun ban. His “answer” to black young guys in the audience as to their sign “What about the Af Am community?”.His campaign’s lack of response to the media’s extreme sexism. The “chants”. The giant stadium appearances. I do not think that that is egaliatarian and I dont like it.I think that with the state the economy is in, the money spent on the campaign (both) (and both conventions)is obscene.His lack of a firm stand on gay rights.His enduring “faith” in faith based initiatives, which are unconstitutional. No Child’s Behind Left. His campaign’s inclusion of an Af Am Christian Leadership Council, until he dissed Rev. Wright. Their fleeing from socialism and socilsist democracy. His implying, in the priamry that he “voted agaisnt the Iraq war” or that he wouldve voted against it,, and telling the Chicago Tribune that didnt know how he wouldve voted. (I know you will say he didnt do that—but it is impossible, unless I look on YouTube, to find, as you cannot pin him down)HIs support of the death penalty, even for rapists, (true—for kids, but I dont support the death penalty).The ever evolving support for the war in Iraq. The “hunt for Osmaa bin LadeN’ and the continuation of the “war on terror”.

We are just not gona agree on this. Why dont we just wait. And why dont you just let people talk.

FISA was authoritarian.

Most authroitarian are his supporters. They dog anyone who disagrees. It wil not work in the long run.

Maybe, after he has changed his stance on some of these issues about 3 or 4 times, I will decide how to feel about what he has decided.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 12, 2008 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, you read more into a post than you should.

Actually, it was not you but Parcelsus who wrote:

“Words are clumsy shorthand, but the gist is that Obama shows an authoritarian trend.”

It is a statement with which I wholeheartedly disagree.  There is nothing about Obama that should be considered as trending toward authoritarian—that is unless the word “authoritarian” is loosely applied to anyone who seeks to be in a position of authority, which would render the word “authoritarian” meaningless.

I’m reminded of a line from “The Last Emperor.”

“A gentleman does not always say what he means, but he should always mean what he says.”

Report this

By KDelphi, November 12, 2008 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment

cann4ing—There is already blowback from Obama’s supporters’ tendencies to disallow disagreement.

I dont really agree that Obama himself is “authoritarian”—I think that that remains to be seenm. If you read my post, I rather said that I think the office of the presidency is entirely too authoritarian in the US. If I did not make it plain before, I am now.I DO NOT KNOW HIM.

Did you really think that someone could run a campaign based mainly on pageantry and not make people suspect? There was not a straight, simp-listic answer in the pack.

It is always odd to me when people seem more impressed with a particular person than a philosophy—I have never really felt that way.

I dont think youre sorry I interpreted things differently. I think you think anyone who disagres with you speaks “rot”. If you are trying to say that suppoerters of Obvam have NOT tried to silence critics—noboby but an Obama supporter will believe you.

And who really thinks that the Democratic Paty is “progressive”??

Keep going after would be supporters—you should get enough crap from neo-cons to keep you busy soon. And they make a terrific excuse to do almost nothing. The Wall St bailut is another good excuse.

Hell, Max Baucus already did it today—so did Chris Matthewsl,(“Oh, they dont have the super-majority,,”) What nonsense!

Report this

By cann4ing, November 12, 2008 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi—I have no problem with critical question of Pres. Obama or anyone else.  I have a problem with those who make ridiculous statements, such as “Obama has authoritarian tendencies” when there is an inadequate evidence base for making such a charge.  I don’t think that leveling such a ridiculous charge is beneficial to the progressive cause or to bringing an end to the U.S. corporate global project.  And I a sorry if you interpret my disagreement with the ridiculous charge that Obama is authoritarian as a personal attack against you—treating you as “the enemy” or some such rot.

I do think it critical that the same people who elected Obama and other Dems keep pressure on both to effectuate meaningful change.  That is the essence of the democratic process—one Obama himself has called for.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 12, 2008 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

cann4ing—You know that GITMO is only a small part of US Imperialism.

I said I was going to wait to see. In the meantime , according to Jefferson, we have a right (no, an obligation) to criticize and question.

There are few places where you can still log in and do that. I will keep doing it.

Being treated as the “enemy” doesnt usually win hearts and minds. The entire “Obama” that has been built up aroudn him to defend him, needs to dismantle itself and let him work.

And allow citizens to do their part.

Report this

By Maani, November 12, 2008 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment

Fenwick:

Thanks for the clarification. Re the Rockefeller quote, everyone might find the following quotes equally interesting:

“Some even believe we (Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - One World, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” - David Rockefeller

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” -Thomas Jefferson

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.” -Sir Josiah Stamp

“We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the FED. They are not government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers…There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this Nation is run by the International Bankers.” -Louis McFadden

“Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are US government institutions. They are not… they are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the US for the benefit of themselves and their foreign and domestic swindlers, and rich and predatory money lenders. The sack of the United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will.” -Louis McFadden

“(The Great Depression resulting from the Stock Market crash) was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence….The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as rulers of us all.” -Louis McFadden

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant menw who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.” -Woodrow Wilson

Report this

By cann4ing, November 12, 2008 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment

The Obama administration will launch a review of the classified files of the approximately 250 detainees at Guantanamo Bay immediately after taking office, as part of an intensive effort to close the U.S. prison in Cuba, according to people who advised the campaign on detainee issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/11/AR2008111102865.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Sound authoritarian?

Report this

By KDelphi, November 12, 2008 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

FEN and She—I have my virus scan set very high, as I have had to reinstall before. So, when my browser doesnt want to open? I stop. Mine “complained” at the first page.

Didnt see much

Report this

By KDelphi, November 12, 2008 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

cann4ing—I am trying and would love to be proven wrong. I truly would. I voted for the guy!

Do you think that Summers would represent egalitarianism? How about Gates and militaerism? Emanuel and a change in our policies towards Israel and Palestine?

I just dont buy the “pragmatism” stuff. YOu can agree or disagree with Obamo on military and natl secutity—but, he is pretty hawkish—not compared to NMcCain, perhaps.

They can take all the Dems and GOP out of DC and string them up for al I care.Both parties are the scourge of our country.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 12, 2008 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi—Obama did indeed vote the wrong way on FISA.  He did so for the same reason a large number of Dems did so.  He wanted to eliminate the daylight between Dems and Repubs on national security issues during this electoral cycle.  (Not the most courageous stand but certainly a pragmatic one that helped to facilitate a Dem landslide).

Will he hold fast to that now that he is in power.  I seriously doubt it?  Obama made statements during the campaign about a desire to repeal the Military Commissions Act.  There is already talk inside the transition team to moving away from domestic spying, and according to Seymour Hersh, there are a whole lot of people inside the NSA etc who are just waiting until Jan 20 before they start talking about how abusive the corporate security state trampling of civil liberties has actually been.

What troubles me is the level of pessimism where people only see an extension of the past before the man has taken his first act as President.

Time to take a deep breath and see what comes.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 12, 2008 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

Ya hafta beware of da chicken soup, FENWICK!  It isn’t always good for colds.  Yeah, I thought those guys at TC were smooth too.  Good description.  Just looks too good.  Surely there are other counter groups out there gunning for them.  I mean it is a perfect male swagger opportunity.  Do we get to watch the movie or are we going to be wickdoms?

Report this

By KDelphi, November 12, 2008 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment

cann4ing—I do not agree with Para in total, but I think the view of Jefferson as an egalitarian is open to debate—I think you would agree.

Perhaps Obama does not display it anymore than any other candidate we have had recently. But his supporters rabid leaping to his defense would seem to bely that.It remains to be seen—-why not let it? You cannot “prove” whether one thinks Obama exhibits totalitarian tendencies..

On Jefferson

The premise that “all men are created equal” is very debatable, as is whether all should be treated eqully. The second does not necessarily seem to follow the first. Obama has displayed a very “up by your bootstraps” ,mentality, especiaily when confronted by policies for the “Af Am commiunity”.

Obama also “opened up his website ” for the FISA ruling—I debated it there. It did not seem to influence his vote much. I am willing to withold judgement to a certain degree—but if his supporters keep squealching debate,you will do him harm, and, I believe , already have.

Saying “no” to every possible criticism does not endear one.

Why not let him prove it himself? I really doubt whether the country is going to base it’s opinion on one or two voices here.

Perhaps it is the role of the president that has people riled—if Obama wanted to relieve these fears, he should have voted differently on FISA and the Wall St bailout—which gave unprecedented power to the executive and treasury.
If he is “going to fix it”—let him. I will watch and see.

Report this

By Leisure Suit Larry, November 12, 2008 at 11:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Harding got caught boffing a maid in a closet in the White House.

Actually Harding would be called a “Pedophile” today, as the girl with whom he had anal sex was seventeen, but at the time this was the least of Harding’s problems… for more Scroogle “Teapot Dome”

Report this

By Maani, November 12, 2008 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

Fenwick:

I don’t know where you are getting your info, but you are wrong.  Obama does NOT sit on the TC (though ZB, Rice and Volcker all do), nor is he a member of the BG.  (I do not even think he has ever attended an annual conclave.)

He IS on the CFR, as is Michelle.  But then, so is Angelina Jolie.  LOL.

Peace.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 12, 2008 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

Paracelsus—I would agree that Obama presents a somewhat authoritarian streak,but, I would also submit that he presented nothing except on the occasion of taking—by that I mean that it was cheerfully offered to him by the population. After 8 yrs of hell, people want a savior. But they refuse to look in the mirror and see taht “we have seen the enemy and he is us”

I do not believe in mandatory millitary service, but, if we are going to keep up these wars of aggression, perhaps it woudl be a way to get people to be more concerned about it. If there was a draft now (with NO exception for “other priorities”—except for conscientious objectors—I dont mean objection to low pay, etc.)there would be more people in the streets against the war than showing up for Obama rallies. Or any other politician’s rally.

Even PE Obama stated that the people would have to “make him do the right thing”. I am not sure that this is correct or right—butthere it is.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 12, 2008 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

Paracelsus - When most people think Marx they think Mao or Stalin. As to fascism vs. Marxism, I think it is more the fear of a dictatorship that is paramount to such as Broun. Words are clumsy shorthand, but the gist is that Obama shows an authoritarian trend. 

Naw, I don’t think so anymore.  We are getting to be pretty ejumacated and making distinctions between Marxist governments and Marxist economics.  Marx has been quite in the news these days out of the world’s economists who are trying to figure out how to save the asses of the wealthy and the depression that is supposedly on its merry way.  Social Democracy is the only way to go for a huge nation such as the United States.  It takes the power and money away from the few who exploited the less privileged.  It is the anti-baronial system so much needed here.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 12, 2008 at 10:23 am Link to this comment

By Paracelsus, November 12 at 9:01 am #

Obama shows an authoritarian trend.

_______________________________

What utter nonsense!  Obama, throughout the campaign, and now during the transition has displayed an egalitarian ethos remarkably similar to that of Thomas Jefferson.  He has stressed a restoration of the roles of Congress & the Courts established by the constitution and, as a constitutional scholar, is committed to dismantling the “Unitary Executive”—all of which belie your “authoritarian trend” nonsense.

His transition team (John Podesta) has already made an announcement that has been unheard of during the past eight years—“If someone has lobbied during the past 12 months, they are prohibited from working on the fields of policy on which they lobbied and will have to cease all lobbying activities during their work on the transition.”  (NY Times, 11/12/08).  Podesta added:  “I’ve heard the complaint which is we’re leaving all this expertise on the side, because we’re leaving all the people who know everything out in the cold.  And so be it.  This is a commitment that the American public expects, and it’s one that we intend to enforce during the transition.”

Obama’s effort to open up government via his web site makes him the anti-Cheney, whose devotion to authoritarian rule and secrecy is legendary. 

The effort to conflate a remark about the training of a civil defense force into an intent to become the next Hitler or Stalin is so absurd as to scarcely warrant a repost.  Your pessimism is so blinding you can’t see the forest for the trees.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 12, 2008 at 10:17 am Link to this comment

So the TC is a mother group that is extra-national, meaning not of one nation but a world-wide group, that attempts to function as an overarching authority on perceiving the best ways to nurture cooperation among the worlds nations.  Seems like a benign and altruistic endeavor. Shall we investigate where this goes since looks like a lot of ‘important’ people in the world belong to this group.  I suppose you all can help with this?  I just remember some pot-heavy lidded folks in the late-70s going on and on about this group as devised by da debble.  The following I picked up from the TC website:
Two strong convictions guide our thinking for the 2006-2009 triennium. First, the Trilateral Commission remains as important as ever in helping our countries fulfill their shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system and, second, its framework needs to be widened to reflect broader changes in the world.

Reaction ranges from accusations of sheepism to a one world regime.  And sustains attacks form right-wing extremists and left-wing extremists. 
Selecting the Home button at
http://www.bilderberg.org/trilat.htm
takes you to another bilderberg site showing a lunatic-fringy fanatic bible-banging religious nut.  Okay.  weird stuff going on, f’sure, f’sure says this former Valley Girl.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 12, 2008 at 10:09 am Link to this comment

The Obama clip was much too short but the quick gist of it was a public trained quasi-military force.  I don’t know if I agree with that.  I’d say no on the face of it.  But if at all, if there is any real reason for it, and I tend to think not, it ought to be elective and not mandatory.  It certainly would be a group under the auspices of Homeland Security?  I would not elect to be trained this way.  It is a dialogue however that needs discussion instead of flagrant reaction.

I think the Obama clip was long enough for anyone to get the general idea. I ‘m glad to see your measured opposition to a public trained quasi-military force. I would call it violent resistance as opposed to flagrant reaction. There aren’t any such things as principled political parties, so I don’t worry about pleasing a salon of stylish liberals, who know better than the unwashed.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 12, 2008 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

Marxism vs.. Fascism—they are, in theory, polar opposites. How the theories are implemented is another matter. Socisliam is NOT Fascism (or natl socialism) in ANY WAY , and I resent their being lumped together.(socialism or Marxism—which are similar)

When most people think Marx they think Mao or Stalin. As to fascism vs. Marxism, I think it is more the fear of a dictatorship that is paramount to such as Broun. Words are clumsy shorthand, but the gist is that Obama shows an authoritarian trend.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 12, 2008 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

@ FENWICK

Do you have an URL for BlueEagle on Meltdown 101?

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 12, 2008 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

@ Shenonymous


http://www.trilateral.org

They still meet and they still pump out publications.

Report this

By KDelphi, November 12, 2008 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

Just a little “disclosure” here: (which is so sorely lacking these days).

It is true that certain lobbyists are banned, but that does not in any way, ban big corporations, as with any other administration. That is what this oligarchy is run on, and that will not change. It seems that most people do not want it to.

The Fairness Doctrine worked well for many years. It would not have to apply to the internet, but, I feel that there should be some research into sites that take taxpayer money (or enjoy tax exempt status) that choose to censor , for both Left and Right and in between.. Equal time on the airwaves (which belong to us—“finders keepers” is for children)works well for most civilized cvountries on earth. The US is not “exceptional” on that front—but the press has done a good job of making people think so.t works very well to convince people that nothing can change, except in very small increments, to avoid “CHAOS!!”

Marxism vs.. Fascism—they are, in theory, polar opposites. How the theories are implemented is another matter. Socisliam is NOT Fascism (or natl socialism) in ANY WAY , and I resent their being lumped together.(socialism or Marxism—which are similar)

http://farleftwatch.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/who-are-the-real-fascists/

Trotsky’s critique of fascism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm


But, you do not have to be a fan of Trotsky to believe this.
http://www.greatestjeneration.com/archives/001582.php

Mishael Powell is of Chicago School and call himself a “Libertarian”—but no laissez faire economist can be LIberatareian,, because they only believe in rights for themselvse and believe taht they knowhat is best for the lower clssses, who are apparently really dumb to think tha they need housing food and heatlh care.

If Alex Jones were not so closely associated with Ron Paul, I might give his words more credence.

I did see the before and after “paintings” of the change.gov website,. It is very distrurbing, I read it on Talking Points. They are awaiting a reply from The Obama Team

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 12, 2008 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

Unbelievable that the TC is still kicking.  Someone really needs an abortion.

I couldn’t stop laughing.  It needs to be put into an Internet Computer Game.  Aw come on FENWICK, you could design one.  You’d make millions of dollars.  Just remember where you got the idea!

Report this

Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook