Clash:

I hope I didn’t leave the wrong impression: I am not a proponent of nuclear power, even if it HAS gotten a tad safer overall.  And you bring up an excellent point about the energy it takes (and thus the damage created) to build the damn things in the first place.

You say, “The future is always hidden we and can only hope not to repeat the same mistakes over and over.”

Excellently put.  Bravo.

Peace.

Maani:

The purpose of raising the subject was only to open eyes and mind’s to the real possibility of having to go back into battle with those that may see the nuclear dragon as the solution to the energy crisis that confronts this planet and all the inhabitants. While somewhat safe in operation the fact is that the pollution directly attributed to building these machines far out weighs their usefulness that has not changed. The use of their waste by products as simple weapons has irrevocably destroyed Iraq (depleted uranium used with wanton disregard to the consequence). I can only thank you for being part of the first battle but the war seems to never end. So while the ruling class makes their plans to save us, we that remember need to be ever vigilant to their out right greed and stupidity. The future is always hidden we and can only hope not to repeat the same mistakes over and over.

Clash:

Nuclear POWER IS somewhat safer than it was, in as much as the siting of plants, the building of plants and the actual generation of power goes.  However, power plants still emit low levels of radiation - and, of course, there is the question of what to do with spent fuel rods, which are radioactive for thousands of years.  [N.B. I knew Dr. Caldicott, and marched with her and others in the heady days of the anti-nuke movement.]

Folktruther:

My spirituo-religious journey is a bit lengthy to get into here (and this is probably not the appropriate thread…LOL).  Suffice to say that it was both interesting and satisfying.

Peace.

Sometimes, I just sit here in amazement while pondering the things that my fellow human beings find to fill their days and minds with. While it is quite obvious that most can see the future, I must say that they have a very narrow view of the present (see the new boss the same as the old boss comes to mind). While the people have spoken on their choices for social change they have all but forgotten the insidious doctrine that prevails in the body politic, shock. While some believe this doctrine is only used in some other country an not here against us, I think it can be shown to be happening right in front of us, gas prices rising to 4.00$ per gal then 1.79$ in just a few months, the robbery of the people to fill the coffers of the banking institutions, bailouts for the fascist corporate financial institutions all done in an EMERGENCY, with very little opposition from the congress, all scripted most likely. Plans to build antiquated infrastructure for the bailed out auto industry so they can continue to build antique modes of transportation seems to be just more of the same bullshit with a different name. We are paying for hope and change and any one who thought that because we voted for Berry we could just go back to watching the world go by without participating just doesn’t have a clue. Yes you may find that these comments gore the ox of the millions that may loose their jobs, but since the future is not in my crystal ball yet who knows. It is pretty obvious that even the leading financial experts can’t see even one day into the future or won’t read that part of the script to us

I would ask what happened to future thinking, why does Berry think nuclear power is any less dangerous than it was when Dr. Helen Caldicott, lead the actions against the nuclear industry so long ago, Berry needs to read her new book Nuclear Power is Not the Answer. Why are we not hearing what the plan will be for overcoming the energy crisis? Why is all the funding going to the major players? Why tax credits for those who by antique autos and not for solar panels for the public? Why are schools being closed to thousands of children across this country? You see we need to be asking these questions and a1000 more, asking them every day to anyone who will listen including, senators, congresspersons, and the almighty Berry himself. The point is that everyone must stay informed everyday to all issues great and small if you truly believe that the human species should survive on this planet. This is not complicated it only is being made to seem this way by those who are in control, and have the most power and material things to loose. We the People need to stay engaged with our politician’s everyday and feed back to them the crap we perceive, and shove it down their throats. 

It is ludicrous for those who suggest that a violent revolution in this country would even succeed as long as enough people believe they have enough to eat, a warm place to sleep, some kind of mind numbing job to support it all and the fear that it will all be taken from them (part of the doctrine of control). Anyway as one who has seen revolution close up those who support this type of action I ask again what are YOU willing to give up, your home your children your life. When bullets fly people really die and if its death and destruction you are looking for the state department can give you ideas on some great vacation spots, and don’t forget the North American Command has been mobilized for just this sort of fun. Oh well I’m missing Oprah.

You are right, Maani, that the Religious loonies lost power in the 2008 elections.  My first sentence was a typo and stated ‘election’ rather than ‘elections’. 

You are Jewish and a minister?  Did you want to say how that came about?

Anarcissie- the quote is from Kevin Phillips recent book BAD MONEY.  There is no going back to Taft for the Gops; it has mutated into a religous conservative party like the European ones. 

These are END TIMES politically for the US power system, symbolically portrayed in religious guise for the religious loonies.  It is true they feel betrayed, but they mostly lack the critical ability to think reasonably.  Their delusive religious ideology will keep them fastened to the Gops like the delusive political ideollogy of liberals will keep them fastened to the Dems.

Anarcissie:

You are correct.  If this election proved anything about the “religious right” it is that they can no longer be counted on by the G.O.P. as a monolithic base group.  They are increasingly fractionlized - and they have no one but themselves to blame.

Peace.

As the the fortunes and the mood of the Religious Right, I can only go by what I read, not being a frequenter of Fundamentalist megachurches.  What I read is that the younger people—not just the rank and file, but the younger leadership—are pretty strongly turned off their churches’ foray into mainstream politics.  They were told G. W. Bush was a man of God and now many of them seem to realize that they were cynically exploited.  I hope and pray the rest will follow Sarah Palin off some convenient political cliff.  It would be nice to have the Republican Party regain its sanity and settle down to its one-time role of being the fusty old conservative fiscal-prudence guys.  The Tafts must be rotating in their graves at a speed which would make them an interesting source of new energy.

Folkliar:

“The religious right…increased their numbers and political clout in the election. Kevin Phillips estimated that at least 40% of GOP support came from the loonies.”

?????  Where on earth did you get THIS from?  In fact, the religious right LOST elective power during this election since (i) more young Christians (including evangelicals) were newly registered than older Christians, and (ii) among those young Christians (18-25 and 26-44), Obama “stole” 7 percent from these ranks.  And the number of “older” Christians (44+) voted in numbers equal to OR LESS THAN those who voted in 2000 and 2004.  So even if THEIR vote went largely (but not monolithically) for McCain, there is NO WAY you can state with any veracity that they “increased their political clout” in the 2008 election.

“The LEFT BEHIND series sold, as of a few years ago, SIXTY MILLION COPIES.”

And this means…what?  I have read the books, and I am not a member of the religious right, nor do I support it (despite being a minister).  And I know PLENTY of people who have read the books and have little or no love for the religious right.  All you do is show your hopelessly generalized biases when you make comments like this, as if they actually MEAN something.

“The religious organs were given government money to feed and prosletize the poor.  Religious leaders were given government posts as well as the usual rich handouts.”

Please give even a single example (though, given your comment, you owe more) of a religious leader who was given a government post in the Obama administration.

You know, the longer you post here, the deeper your foot goes into your mouth.

Peace.

The Religious Right got 4 things they wanted:
Scalia
Thomas
Alito
Roberts

And Kennedy keeps letting himself be courted and wooed by them.

One more and the Religious Right doesn’t NEED anything else…and, currently, Kennedy is giving them most of what they want.

Expect Scalia to be on the court 10-20 years more
Thomas: Same
Alito: 25-35 years
Roberts: 30-40 years.

But, if he keeps showing his bias (hunting with Cheney before ruling on a case involving Cheney), Scalia will be impeachable.  And Thomas ruled on the Bush/Gore case while his wife was vetting cab appts for Bush!

Hell, Abe Fortas got forced off the court for far, far less than Scalia or Thomas.

The religious right, Anarcissie, increased their numbers and political clout in the election. Kevin Phillips estimated that at least 40% of Gop support came from the loonies. The LEFT BEHIND series sold, as of a few years ago, SIXTY MILLION COPIES. The religious organs were given government money to feed and prosletize the poor.  Religious leaders were given government posts as well as the usual rich handouts.

Of course the general believer got zilch, as was the case of general person in both the Dem and Gop parties.  Many supported Huckabee, who was a populist who advocated the Fair Tax that would eliminate income tax for the rich, and increase their own cost of living by half.

The leaders of the movement got a lot, the general loony was validated in his looniness, the power structure neutralized the poor where it didn’t recruit them, and the Dem leaders went to church and prayer breakfasts, catering to the dingbats.

The dingbat brigades pulled the American truth consensus to the right and legitimated power delusions that were incompatible with the simple truth about power.

They got a lot, temporarily in any event historically.  You want to be careful of your scepticism, Anarcissie, it may weigh you down during the Rapture.

Folktruther (to ITW): ’...  You are right in principle about the need for a historical ideological struggle like the one conducted by the religous loonies.  But they conducted it successfully where they were strongest, in rural areas.  Progressive ideology must focus on the cities and urban areas.  Lacking the money that the ruling class provides the right wing. ...’

I don’t think the Religious Right has been all that successful in practical terms.  I don’t think they got anything they wanted, unless possibly the vulgarization of the already settled ruling-class habit of imperial war, which had hitherto been justified with rather high-flown liberal-elite rhetoric.

The vote ‘landslide’ for Ovama was 52%, Inherit.  I didn’t much care who won, but I hoped a greater proportion of the population voted.

When you say you love Democracy I assume you mean American democracy, not Hamas democracy or Venzuelan democracy.  Why not, it fosters Zionism and isn’t anti-Semetic enough to raise your taxes.

You are right in principle about the need for a historical ideological struggle like the one conducted by the religous loonies.  But they conducted it successfully where they were strongest, in rural areas.  Progressive ideology must focus on the cities and urban areas.  Lacking the money that the ruling class provides the right wing.

I would gues based initially in the schools, since the American power struture has largely destroyed the unions.

ITW:

The quote about democracy came from Winston Churchill.

Peace.

Folktruther:
You ignorant lout!  It took you two whole days to come up with….“I dunno….”???????
(lol!)
(BTW, You really need to recognize sarcasm even when it’s written.)

You make my point for me—you hate American Democracy but have NO alternative for it.  Wasn’t it Lincoln who said it was the worst possible system of government—except for all the others?

Actually, YOUR complaint is that the electorate didn’t vote the way YOU wanted it to, so, rather than recognize that you just have to suck it up and live with it, instead you whine and complain and make all kinds of excuses why it wasn’t a “real” election. I don’t need to list the excuses, you’ve done it plenty of times.

I’ve said this before: If you want a model of how to attain power in the US when you are an outsider, study the tactics that the religious right, a la Falwell and Robertson, used to insinuate themselves into our government.  I’m not saying follow their policy positions—I presume you are perceptive enough to know I detest them—but learn from their tactics.

They contested every school board and town hall election from Bumf**k, Idaho to Sodomy, South Carolina.  They fought every little battle they could and then they fought to change (I think we agree “destroy”) the schools and town ordinances.  They built up organizations in small states, where 150,000 votes elects a governor or senator (look at the Alaska vote totals).  They never gave up. They b****ed about the “liberal media” and supported Fixed Noise Nemesis. They had a long-range plan and kept at it.  Only now has if finally completely imploded on them—30 years after Fartwell brought out the “Moral Majority”—but that’s due to its colossal failures.

But look how they attained power and influence.  If you want that for your Marxist views, you’ll need to do the same thing.

See, I LOVE democracy.  I think, when someone REALLY has a dominant majority, like Obama, it’s nearly impossible to “fix” it.  But in 2000 and 2004 it was possible, because it was close (and Gore didn’t realize how dirty Bush was, and Kerry was, well, our own version of McCain—inept).

You already know I want to do away with the Electoral College, so you know I’m not defending that.

But if you and your fellow REALLY want radical change, rather than whining about it, see how it’s been done, from both the Left AND the Right.

Marx expected the rich to get richer and the poor poorer through a number of crisises until the vast majority of people, increasing their solidarity over historical time, simply plucked the economy away from the increasingly isolated ruling class.

Marx didn’t specify how socialism would be institutionalized because he didn’t know how.  Marx’s theory is a critique of capitalism.

The major defect as a critque of power is the lack of racism or more generally ethnism used by the ruling class to unite with the people across class boundaries.  You could argue that orginally it was a White Man’s progressive theory.

I haven’t read all of Marx, but it’s my impression from what I have read that he expected capitalism to collapse, not be defeated by a competing power.  That large institutions and systems can collapse because of their internal conflicts and contradictions can be observed in our own times; ironically, the biggest poster child is the Soviet Union, although any of the European empires which disappeared after World War 2 could also be taken as examples.  But capitalism itself has managed to transform itself during periods of crisis and so survive.  We are now observing a lot of the capitalist structure of the world economy fold up, and thus far its masters don’t seem to know how to fix it other than by reapplying the old fixes again and again even though their virtue has been clearly depleted.  Nor, I am told, does Marx supply any concrete plan for the replacement of capitalism; “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie replaced by dictatorship of the proletariat” hardly qualifies as a plan, or even a plan to make a plan.

So, Inherit! You come crawling to me, your brilliant critical friend, for the simple truth about What Should Be Done!

How the hell should I know?  I don’t know anything about practical politics.  Marx didn’t say how socialism should be imposed, he just argued how capitalism could be defeated.  Your conception of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is the usual American mainstream drivel.  But your question is a good one; if I knew the answer I wouldn’t be searching for it here.

But I think the US is a good place to initiate social forms.  I just don’t know what those social forms will be.  Look how the Chinese power system evolved over a half century.  It’s the kind of thing that you just can’t tell before hand; it has to be worked out at the time.

So here’s how it seems to be shaping up so far:

State: Clinton (unless she declines)
Treasury: Geithner
Commerce: Richardson (just announced as probable)
HHS: Daschle
Defense: Gates (? - at least for the time being)
DHS: Napolitano
AG: Holder
OMB: Orszag
CoS: Emanuel

Folktruther, November 21 at 1:51 pm #

Actually, Greek Democracy was far more democratic for the people who voted, which Engels estimated as only 1 out 18 of the population.  But obscuring the vote proportions and other power figures is a characteristic of liberal Democracy; the power system cound’t function without obscurity and deceit.
*****************************************

Uh-huh.  And Marx and Engels couldn’t come up with anything better…so they came up with that atrocity “Dictatorship of The Proletariat”.  Of course, before the first generation of “Dictators” was gone (Lenin’s team) they were already now the new elite…and it was just a different variant of feudalism until Gorbachev.

So, my brilliant critical friend, who knows better than you about what we should do?  So…what should we do?  How do you and I and Maani and Outraged all get to have a voice, a real voice in how we rule ourselves?

Don’t forget: Athenian Democracy devolved into tyranny as well, as did Roman Democracy.  And always by some guy who thought HE knew best how to run things.

The vote proportions that are relevant for democracy are the number of votes as a proportion of the total population.  In American presidential elections this has been below 40% or less, and in off years, much less.  Far less than other liberal power systems, since the function of how the registration and voting system works discriminates historically against the poorer members of the population, and against racial minorities. 

But the US has always been a Democracy by definition in American ideology, no matter how many people were enslaved, disinfranchized, imprisoned, or impovrished historically.  Or how corrupt the candidates were who were supported by their financiers.

Actually, Greek Democracy was far more democratic for the people who voted, which Engels estimated as only 1 out 18 of the population.  But obscuring the vote proportions and other power figures is a characteristic of liberal Democracy; the power system cound’t function without obscurity and deceit.

ITW:

Glad to see we are in agreement about something…LOL.  Yes, 210 million “eligible” voters, so those ~35 million who are eligible but have not registered (even as Inds) are most to be castigated.  As for the 25% of registered voters who did not vote, shame on them as well!

I also agree with you completely re the Constitution.  Yet that does not change the “power” of the DOI as a component of the Americans political thought process.  And my guess is that the founders probably felt that the Bill of Rights provided the “force of law” necessary to carry out the DOI’s intent: i.e., freedom of speech, assembly, press, and vote.  I was not suggesting that the DOI suggests forceable or violent overthrow (though it does not expressly prohibit that).  Only that it gives people something to THINK about vis-a-vis how their government is acting (or not).

Peace.

Maani, November 21 at 8:26 am #

As for Kucinich, it is BECAUSE a SoS is the MOST obligated to enforce the president’s agenda that Kucinich is not only the absolutely WRONG choice (since he and Obama agree on almost nothing), but would not accept the position if offered.
***************************************

Maani: I said “eligible”, not registered. I stand by that—and you agree: 210,000,000 are eligible.

The DOI is a WONDERFUL document, and when it was issued it could only be defined as either having the force of law or being treason, that decision being decided by whether or not the Revolution/Rebellion succeeded (Law) or failed (treason)....

Still, it currently has no force of law.  HOWEVER, the Constitution of the United States DOES have the force of law, and we need, as citizens to demand that it be enforced.

As for the rest of your post…Thanks for saying it because it means I don’t have to.

Before the election I had come to the conclusion that Obama was a socialist. I feared he was a stealth candidate who might tip us towards an authoritarian leftist government with the help of a fawning mainstream media.

Reading the posts here, when I see that the authoritarian types from the Far Left arent happy about Obama’s election, I take heart. Maybe I was wrong.

And then i see some of you taking up a spirited defense of our freedom. Freedom is everything to me. Those of you who did this… I like you quite a bit more now. If we ever argue about something else, remind me of what you did here and I will reconsider whatever we are arguing about.

This has been a rare thread. After reading it i am less worried about the American Left. Usually I get more worried.

“And for the umpteenth time, just because many of Obama’s choices are ex-Clintonites does not mean that (i) they have not learned from past mistakes, and (ii) they are any less obligated to enforce the PRESIDENT’S agenda and NOT their own.”

  Hey you are right. I think we should maintain all those inside the beltway players in the hopes that one of these days they will get it right and don’t make me laugh about who they serve.
 
  You know I wouldn’t care if such naivete was limited to only the suckers buying the spin, but the stupidity that people repeatedly demonstrate pulls us all down. Ignorance is truly bliss until it comes time to pay the piper.
  The one thing I can say about Clinton is she polarizes—she is divisive and so much for unity, eh? Divided we fail—just where they want us, sucker.

ITW:

Don’t know where you got your numbers, but they’re wrong.  There are 210 million people of voting age - not registered voters.  There are approximately 175 million registered voters, and ~130 million of them voted.  This represents about 75% - a fairly high number given modern presidential elections.

Second, the DOI does not NEED “force of law”; it is an IDEA, it represents a PRINCIPLE - thus it has the force of something much greater than law.  As “V” says when Creedy asks why V isn’t dead after being shot with dozens of bullets, “Behind this mask is an idea - and ideas are bullterproof.”

Aznemesis:

Brava!

RdV:

Like so many people, you proceed from false premise: Obama NEVER represented the “progressive” movement.  Nor did he claim to.  In fact, with few exceptions, his positions on most issues, both domestic and foreign, were virtually identical to Hillary’s for most of the primary race.  And for the umpteenth time, just because many of Obama’s choices are ex-Clintonites does not mean that (i) they have not learned from past mistakes, and (ii) they are any less obligated to enforce the PRESIDENT’S agenda and NOT their own.

As for Hillary, she was hardly one of the “loudest hawks” on Iraq.  Even her vote in favor of the Iraq War Resolution was difficult for her, as she made clear in her speech to the Senate (have you ever even read it?).  And WHATEVER she did in the past, her position during the campaign was, from the very beginning, to end the war.  In fact, it was SHE who came up with both the “13-month” timeline for withdrawal and the removal of “two brigades per month” - both of which Obama stole from her later in the campaign.  So get your facts straight.

As for Kucinich, it is BECAUSE a SoS is the MOST obligated to enforce the president’s agenda that Kucinich is not only the absolutely WRONG choice (since he and Obama agree on almost nothing), but would not accept the position if offered.

Peace.

Outraged:
‘LOL….From my perspective, you’ve proved my point.  While I understand that in a historical sense these terms have validity.  But in modern politics, they don’t….. other than to fractionalize the American People, and thereby marginalize their best interests, which was my original point.’

The point of analytical terms is to “fractionize” something—to break it down into its components and see how the components relate to one another (or not).  That is a way of discovering what one’s interests are and how to advance them.

Americans in general don’t seem to care for political analysis very much, though, so it can’t be doing much to fragment them.  Actually, I would say American politics is astonishingly coherent and cooperative given the divergency of interests and opinions it encompasses.  All too coherent, I think—look at the recent grand Bailout swindle.

To all those who say that he can only chose experience from within the pool of Clintonistas:

Obama Throws No Bones to Progressive Base
By Matthew Rothschild, November 19, 2008
When is Obama going to appoint someone who reflects the progressive base that brought him to the White House?

He won the crucial Iowa caucuses on the strength of his anti-Iraq War stance, and many progressive peace and justice activists worked hard for him against John McCain.

So why in the world is he choosing Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State when she was one of the loudest hawks on Iraq and threatened to obliterate 75 million Iranians?

And it’s not just Hillary.

Obama’s OMB pick, Peter Orzag, is a Clintonite disciple of Robert Rubin.

Obama’s AG pick, Eric Holder, is a Clintonite who represented Chiquita Bananas.

And Larry Summers’s name is still being bandied about for Treasury, even though Summers, while Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, forced the deregulation of our financial markets and imposed disaster capitalism on Russia.

Worse still, heading Obama’s transition team on intelligence matters are two former deputies to George Tenet, of all people. (See Amy Goodman’s great story about this on Democracy Now!)

Look, there are a lot of talented progressives who could be in an Obama cabinet.

Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize-winner in economics and a critic of corporate globalization. He should be Treasury Secretary.

Senator Russ Feingold is a champion of civil liberties. He should be Attorney General.

Robert Greenstein is head of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He would make a much better OMB director.

Arlene Holt Baker, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, would be a tremendous Secretary of Labor.

And if Obama really wanted change, if he really wanted to honor progressives who backed him early on and then did the grunt work against McCain, he’d nominate Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of State.

That sure would indicate a welcome departure from empire as usual.

But at this point, progressives are getting absolutely nothing from Obama.

It is not merely the electoral system that is corrupt, oppressive and obsolete, it is the American ideology that justifies and legitimates the electoral system.  An essential part of elections is the mass media and money.  But political science has tended to analyze the electoral isolated from the ruling class that controls the mass media and money, and the nominations for who gets effectively mandated as a candidate. Without money or media, for example, Sheehan got only 17% of the vote against Pelosi in a liberal San Francisco district.

The only way the US can possibly be conceived as a Democracy is by restricting theory and attention to electoral process itself as seprated from the money economy and the truth process.  With the historical centralization of the mass media into a few networks, and the enormous increase in class inequality, the US has become increasingly undemocratic in actual fact while the visible electoral institutions have not changed.

In the same way that Rome became an Empire and the Emperor a military dictator while keeping the Senate and other offices intact, devoid of their previous power.  The underlying centralization of ruling class power has made real democracy a travesty, from its previous historical position of being a semi-fraud.

The Bushite political counterrevolution took place as a consequence of these historical tendencies, which still exist.  The previous bourgeois American pseudo-democarcy is dead.  The historical function of Obiden is consolidate the Bushite counterrevolution, institutionalizing a postmodern police state.

This institutionalizes military imperialism, especially Zionism, and neoliberalism, the predatory capitalism unrestrained by governemental or legal restrictions. Or by elections.

The question then is how to combat the military imperialism and neoliberalism, both of which are advocated by Zionists like Inherit, with the usual Fox News obfuscation.  One necessity, I contend, is a development of an ideology that includes a useful theory of power that focuses on the underlying power resources of money, truth and violence. 

Such a theory will subvert the power delusions that the Educated classes impose on the population to legitimate their power.  Such as those advocated by Inherit.  All power structures delude the people they rule, conceptually and emotionally derange our consciousness, distract us from our crucial power interests with learned and popular trivia, and ideologically repress the simple holistic truth about people and power.

When power systems decay historically, as the US power system, and more generally Western power systems are doing, this delusion becomes more frantic and obsessive, and censorship increases.  Slezoids in the media attack any idea which threatens power, in order to intimidate the population, as Inherit and the imperialist Democrats do, following the Gops.

Under these conditions, how can a left opposition arise in the US to resist imperialism and neoliberalism, both fostered by Zionism. This is the central political question that must be solved while Obiden carries out locked in Bushite policies in the coming period.

I usually like Pfaff and find him informed and reasonable. This one, not so much. The Secretary of State doesn’t decide policy, the president does. She’ll be expected to do whatever it takes to communicate that effectively.

What was he expected to do, get a bunch of rookies who would take 2 years to learn the ropes. He’s made clear what policy directions he’s going into and he won a clear mandate, so he can do what he wants…basically. Getting Hillary in there is a great idea. She’s an indefatigable worker, and she loves attention and desperately wants a ‘legacy’ job; she has it, and she’s going to bust her butt to do well.

Let’s take that Israeli/Palestinian situation. Expect Obama to lean on Israel way more than Bush, and to push hard for conciliation all around and much less hard-ball with Hamas, etc. Her job will be to go out there and establish good working relations with everybody and try to move the yardage markers up the field in the right direction. Expect her to work hard at it and have WAAAAAY more success than that simpleton Condiliesalot. And she’s got Bill who has great relationships with everybody in the world, and that can only help. The main job of the Sec of State is to find a way to bring people on-side once the president decides on policy. She’s a great choice.

Leaving her hanging in the breeze as junior Senator would have been a tragic waste of ability and experience… and a source of problems from her and Bill and their supporters.

Great move. Just watch.

Re: ITW

Your comment: “So, if 10 or 20 Truthdiggers howl “But it’s not with MY consent!!!!” then this is clearly the case where the majority rules.  When it comes to selecting a system of government, the majority rules.

So there is no violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which spoke SO eloquently to the problem of governance without the consent of the governed.  We HAVE consented to be governed as we have chosen.”

No…no…no, you are taking this all wrong.  Especially with this “But it’s not with MY consent!!!!” rhetoric.  That’s NOT the point.  To claim that that ALL CANDIDATES had a fair shake is BS and you know it.  Therefore to claim that THIS is what the MAJORITY wanted is also garbage.

WE HAD THE CHOICES OF ONLY THOSE OFFERED TO US BY THE POWER INTERESTS.

Therefore your claim, “We HAVE consented to be governed as we have chosen, is false.  What we had is a choice between “who they wanted” and “who they wanted” via propaganda extraordinaire.

Re: Anarcissie

Your comment: “In the case of modern politics, though, things can get pretty mixed.  For example, preference for freedom and equality should put interest in the right to keep and bear arms on the Left, not the Right.  The old Soviet Communist Party should have been considered rightist; it was highly authoritarian.  Welfare is ambiguous: it gives the poor more strategic space in their struggles with the rich, but subjects them to an almost equally authoritarian government bureaucracy.  Likewise, Single Payer medical insurance does not appear to propose much more than moving one’s account from one impervious bureaucracy to another.  War is the essence of rightist politics, but in the United States in most of the 20th century it was the relatively leftist liberals who were most likely to get involved in wars.  I can understand impatience with this apparent mish-mash of conflicting impulses.  Nevertheless, I think the concepts and terms can be useful.

LOL….From my perspective, you’ve proved my point.  While I understand that in a historical sense these terms have validity.  But in modern politics, they don’t….. other than to fractionalize the American People, and thereby marginalize their best interests, which was my original point.

Maani, November 20 at 8:53 pm #

For those who have forgotten…
*********************************************

I, for one, have forgotten nothing. Over 130 million Americans cast their vote on Nov 4th, out of about 210 million eligible—and their NOT voting was their choice, too.

The 210,000,000 voters in this nation spoke very eloquently on that day: They continued that very consent of the governed and chose new leaders.

So, if 10 or 20 Truthdiggers howl “But it’s not with MY consent!!!!” then this is clearly the case where the majority rules.  When it comes to selecting a system of government, the majority rules.

So there is no violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which spoke SO eloquently to the problem of governance without the consent of the governed.  We HAVE consented to be governed as we have chosen.

(Oh, and BTW, Maaani: The Declaration of Independence has NO force of Law.  None. Nada. Gornischt. Rien. Zippo.—LEST YOU FORGET! )

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

For those who have forgotten…

Folktruther, November 20 at 6:55 pm #

I wish the American people had your need and courage to express themselves, Inherit, we would be living in a different world.  It just shows that they serve also who sit and rant.  Of course you do it so those anti-Semites in office won’t raise your taxes, but if everyone did it, a differnet truth consensus would form.  And that is what we nned to unite the people against power.
*********************************************

Wriggle and squirm, waffle and obfuscate, you can’t get out of the hole you are in, so like the fanatical fool you are, you keep digging yourself in deeper.

Re-read my words and remember: The American Revolution was PRECISELY because the Americans did not have a say in their government.  They were Englishmen who could not vote for their Parliament, yet were subjected to taxation without a say.  That DOES fit in my model, you reductionist! (That means ignoring inconvenient facts).

Do I think the Electoral College is obsolete? Sure! Who doesn’t but a few atavists? In today’s NY Times there was a suggestion to get around the fact that the smallest states will not vote for the obvious fairness of a popular vote: The larger state could independently enact legislation that THEIR electoral votes MUST go the winner of the national popular vote.

But I think you mean that the hoi-poloi cannot be trusted to vote for their leaders—that’s what you mean by “broken”.  You’ve insisted on it numerous times.  But you don’t want to commit to the only way to do that: Force, violent revolution and coup-d’etat.  So you opt for vague and airy “somehow…..”  There is no “somehow”!  Either people can choose their leaders or they cannot.

Why are you SO afraid of that?  Because they picked Nixon twice, Reagan twice and the Gingrich Revolution in 1994, then RE-elected Bush in 2004?

Sorry, but if you want to live in a FREE society, that’s the risk you have to take.  Because as soon as you take that away, the benevolent rulers become the robbing, raping, murdering thugs.

Yeah, I know a lot of gossip about past Presidents. So? It’s all for fun, but not REAL history.  I also am familiar with the true meat of it as well.  You have shown yourself to be nothing but a dogmatic follower of Marxist pseudo-scholars who taint everything they do with unprovable pre-assumptions.

A rule of thumb that has proved surprisingly consistent for the past 25-30 years: If a candidate is indifferent toward America’s poor—not only the “working poor”, who were very popular in this last campaign, but the homeless and destitute as well—they will prove to be conservative on most issues. Obama presented no plans for the poor beyond the usual trickle-down theories…grow the economy, there will be more jobs, etc. All we have to do is first help our unfortunate wealthy—the financial industry, the auto industry, etc.  As they once again prosper, they will create a mass of “family supporting jobs” (but don’t mention that these jobs will be in Pakistan, India, Korea, anywhere but in the US).

We aren’t going to see a progressive president because campaigns are financed by the wealthy/corporations. The only way one can become a viable candidate is to “court” the wealthy, and base agendas on the interests of the rich. Demand campaign finance reform? Check your US history books, folks.  People have been demanding such reforms for decades.

As long as Americans won’t organize and DEMAND a decision-making role in this country, we’ll have to settle for whatever crumbs fall our way.

I confess I have a soft spot for you, Inherit, you’re such a dodo and you’re so sincere!  Your assertion that revolutions only occor when living conditions are intolerable and people have to revolt or die is pure, vintage Windyism.  Some things you know more about than I do, such as the gossip about past presidents, part of your conception of history, but not, Inherit,  about revolutions.

Let me give you an example of a revolution where conditions were NOT intolerable and the people were not dying.  The American revolution.  The American revolution was conducted essentially for business reasons.  It was what we now call a national liberation revolution.  There have been many others.

As Anarcissie said, I was not calling for violent revolution, but asserting that the American electoral system is largely corrupt,ineffective and obsolete. Other means, such as demonstrations, unions, cooperatives, and other political actions must be found to mobilize the population effectively. 

I think that Gore Vidal’s suggestion that the Constitution be modified under article five might deserve a shot, if only to exhaust all political possibilities.  Anarcissie’s idea of forming coops is another avenue that has not been generally tried.

I wish the American people had your need and courage to express themselves, Inherit, we would be living in a different world.  It just shows that they serve also who sit and rant.  Of course you do it so those anti-Semites in office won’t raise your taxes, but if everyone did it, a differnet truth consensus would form.  And that is what we nned to unite the people against power.

I meant to write a bill that guarantees healhcare for all!

Of course we’ll see significant changes with an Obama administration. When we watch Obama sign a bill surrounded by Tom Dashle, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, it will not matter that they’ve been around awhile. Leadership is key. “Washington insider” is a political campaign term. After the election, experience counts. A cabinet member is led by his/her president. Look at the damage the Bush administration has done - often cabinet members were powerless to effect policy. Obama has as much power to help heal this country. Of course, we matter too. Hold our representatives accountable. Organize. Be part of the change.

Anarcissie, November 20 at 3:15 pm #

No, he isn’t.  Not in the passage you quoted, anyway.
***************************************************

So..then he’s calling for a coup d’etat?

Because you just ran out of choices. If the people cannot be ALLOWED to vote (which is the only logical inference) then the government can only be changed by a violent revolution or a coup d’etat—both of which are non-legal means of change.

And, unless people CANNOT legitimately vote for their leaders, a forced change by coup or revolution is illegal and an evil thing.

Pinochet decided, like you and Folk, that the will of the people in Chile wasn’t valid.  So he engineered a violent coup—which was terrible for Chile.

I can and will argue that overturning the government of a people who can vote to change their leaders (as we have done) can NEVER be a good thing, and can and will always result in violence.

SO, I stand by my contention that by claiming that HE knows the “will of the people” better than the voters that Folk IS advocating a non-legal change of government—and that MUST be violent and cannot be otherwise.  We’ve seen Bush ineffectually try to overturn the clear will of the people—and, it HAS proven disastrous.  Do you think because Folk thinks his cause is right he’ll do any better?

I know he won’t.

I don’t argue that Bush isn’t a fascist.  He is.  He has tried to undermine the will of the people.  But on Nov 4th we came roaring back, loudly, and now he’s cowed and will (I hope) go quietly and try to maintain some dignity while he goes.

And you know damn well Folk is advocating mob violence—he cites it as being a “good thing” in China.

I see no reason to change my interpretation that Folk is advocating violent revolution.  Or my judgment that that would be as bad as the fascist revolution Bush failed to bring about.

Inherit The Wind:
‘OK, now you are calling for violent revolution….’

No, he isn’t.  Not in the passage you quoted, anyway.

Folktruther, November 20 at 1:32 pm #

The American electoral system is biased toward the richer population, corrupt and obsolete.  And power conditions are such that it can’t be changed by elections.  We have to develop new tactics and strategies for the population, and fundamenatally broaden our human values.  This is an historical undertaking, in which elections play a minor role.
*********************************************

OK, now you are calling for violent revolution because you don’t think people have the right to choose for themselves…“conditions are such that it can’t be changed by elections.”

Please site every society that abandoned Democracy via violent revolution and ended up with something better.  Name just one!

Every SUCCESSFUL violent revolution (and even many unsuccessful ones) was against a true tyranny that through violent intimidation shut the people up.  Furthermore, those revolutions INEVITABLY were against living conditions that were intolerable and caused the citizenry to die.

Even the American industrial union movement happened because the combination of intolerable conditions and violent intimidation forced workers to stick together to survive.  Survive as in not die. Survive as in preventing their families from dying.

But we still have a voice, and that voice was overwhelming on November 4th.

YOU didn’t like the result—but a couple of hundred million did—and still do. 

I guess they aren’t listening to Folk’s declaration that they all hate Obama.  Asserting something’s true doesn’t make it true.  You have to prove it, Folk, and you can’t, no matter how much you quote of Marx and Marxist thinkers.  The fact remains, AS I HAVE DEMONSTRATED, that today, November 20th, Americans are HAPPIER with Obama than they were yesterday, November 19.  And yesterday they were happier with him than they were on November 18th.

herbalremedy, November 20 at 1:53 pm #

Furthermore, your statement about lichen - any lichen - is factually incorrect, and you should refrain from submitting clearly fraudulent statements.  Lichens are not plants, but symbiotic organisms comprised of a fungus and an alga.  There’s nothing disgusting or primitive about them, but this is a more apt description of humans who label anything in the natural world as such, as if humans were such pristine organisms!  Lichens do not render rocks “smell [sic] and slimy” but they are well-known as indicators of good air quality, and I’d guess that Lichen, as well as myself and other readers, can detect a distinctly noxious composition to the quality that passes for whatever wind you’ve inherited.  Inherit the wind, indeed, you’re more likely blowing smoke up your own ass!
************************************************

Let me guess: You are perfectly comfortable with all of the BS Lichen put out and find my challenging it to be a threat to your little pre-defined world you share with him and Folktruther. So all the CRAP Lichen spewed at me, accusing me (without evidence) of being a Fox News dittohead you have no problem with, right?

As for being discredited: The fact that you make NO condemnation of Lichen’s flat-out obvious falsehoods, but only my admittingly CUTTING response, shows you to be nothing but another biased me-too-er.  I am not insulted by your words.  They are unpleasant yes, but I have a thick skin.  But since you have instantly, with a 0-60 speed a Corvette would envy, discredited your own reasoning ability, I give it no stock.

Quite frankly, in this context, I don’t give a rat’s posterior that a lichen is a fungus and an alga combined. You might as well argue that a skunk doesn’t stink. Who Cares?  Save it for the Animal World channel.

Inherit the Wind

Your comment ”  “Lichen”—a rather disgusting, primitive plant that renders rocks smell and slimy” really decimates any shred of your credibility, although many of your other comments have already reduced that to about zilch. 

To start, this statement is an ad hominen and personal attack.  Who would want even want to read any more comments from someone who resorts to such completely desperate tactics?  Perhaps Rupert Murdoch needs a new columnist.

Furthermore, your statement about lichen - any lichen - is factually incorrect, and you should refrain from submitting clearly fraudulent statements.  Lichens are not plants, but symbiotic organisms comprised of a fungus and an alga.  There’s nothing disgusting or primitive about them, but this is a more apt description of humans who label anything in the natural world as such, as if humans were such pristine organisms!  Lichens do not render rocks “smell [sic]  and slimy” but they are well-known as indicators of good air quality, and I’d guess that Lichen, as well as myself and other readers, can detect a distinctly noxious composition to the quality that passes for whatever wind you’ve inherited.  Inherit the wind, indeed, you’re more likely blowing smoke up your own ass!

I’m relatively new to reading truthdig and the comments posted here, and have generally done so for amusement.  I can’t address all the faulty reasoning I’ve seen here, but the attacks on those who question Obama’s intentions strike me as excellent examples of blind nationalism.  The charges of racism are unsubsta