Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 19, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Obama’s Fatal Addiction

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

Posted on Mar 30, 2011
AP / J. Scott Applewhite

President Barack Obama applauds GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt before speaking to workers at GE’s plant in Schenectady, N.Y., on Jan. 21.

By Robert Scheer

If it had been revealed that Jeffrey Immelt once hired an undocumented nanny, or defaulted on his mortgage, he would be forced to resign as head of President Barack Obama’s “Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.” But the fact that General Electric, where Immelt is CEO, didn’t pay taxes on its $14.5 billion profit last year—and indeed is asking for a $3.2 billion tax rebate—has not produced a word of criticism from the president, who in January praised Immelt as a business leader who “understands what it takes for America to compete in the global economy.”

What it takes, evidently, is shifting profit and jobs abroad: As of last year only 134,000 of GE’s total workforce of 304,000 was based in the U.S. and, according to The New York Times, for the past three years 82 percent of the company’s profit was sheltered abroad. Thanks to changes in the tax law engineered when another avowedly pro-business Democrat, Bill Clinton, was president, U.S. multinational financial companies can avoid taxes on their international scams. And financial scams are what GE excelled in for decades, when GE Capital, its financial unit, which specialized in credit card, consumer loan and housing mortgage debt, accounted for most of GE’s profits.

That’s right, GE, along with General Motors with its toxic GMAC financial unit, came to look more like an investment bank than a traditional industrial manufacturing giant that once propelled this economy and ultimately it ran into the same sort of difficulties as the Wall Street hustlers. As The New York Times’ David Kocieniewski, who broke the GE profit story, put it: “Because its lending division, GE Capital, has provided more than half of the company’s profit in some recent years, many Wall Street analysts view G.E. not as a manufacturer but as an unregulated lender that also makes dishwashers and M.R.I. machines.”

Maximizing corporate profits at the taxpayer’s expense is what top CEOs are good at, and after all it was Immelt who presided over GE when it got so heavily into the subprime mortgage business that it needed a government bailout to avoid bankruptcy. This was before Obama made him a trusted adviser.

Back at the end of 2008, Bloomberg reported that the U.S. government had agreed to insure an additional $139 billion in GE Capital’s debt holdings, the second such intervention within a month, adding, “The company’s exposure to the deepest financial crisis since the 1930s has cut its market value by more than half this year.” A Washington Post exposé titled “How a Loophole Benefits GE in Bank Rescue” documented the power of Immelt’s lobbying operation in Washington. GE was not initially deemed eligible for the debt guarantee program offered to failing banks, “but regulators soon loosened the eligibility requirements, in part because of behind-the scenes appeals from GE.” And it worked. As the Post reported, “The government’s actions have been `powerful and helpful’ to the company, GE chief executive Jeffrey Immelt acknowledged.” For the next two years, GE would still report enormous profits without paying taxes, adding insult to the injury that financial shenanigans had inflicted on ordinary taxpayers who bailed the company out.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
On Feb. 6, 2009, Immelt sent a contrite annual letter to GE shareholders, admitting, “Our Company’s reputation was tarnished because we weren’t the ‘safe and reliable’ growth company that is our aspiration.” While conceding his own culpability in GE’s downturn, Immelt predicted a rosy future: “I accept responsibility for this. But, I think the environment presents an opportunity of a lifetime.”

Not, obviously, for the 50 million Americans who have either lost their homes or are deeply underwater in a housing market that is still in steep decline thanks to the lending practices of companies like GE Capital. Nope, the good times are in the offing only for corporations that know how to make the U.S. government a partner in their scams. As Immelt stated blatantly: “The global economy, and capitalism, will be `reset’ in several important ways. The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.”

That’s the essential blueprint for Obama’s restructuring of the economy, as the president put it in selecting Immelt to replace Paul Volcker as head of his outside team of economic advisers. Volcker had become increasingly critical of the corporate high rollers. Obama, although noting the suffering of ordinary Americans, clearly believes that such populism is now beside the point. As the president put it in announcing Immelt’s appointment on Jan. 20, 2011: “The past two years was about moving our economy back from the brink. Our job now is putting our economy into overdrive.”

But overdrive, with CEOs like Immelt shifting the gears, is what brought us so close to the brink. Once again Obama seems fatally addicted to the notion that the heavy hitters who got us into this mess are the very folks to be trusted to get us out of it. What he seems incapable of grasping is that while they are personally very good at avoiding the precipice, the rest of us are hardly passengers in their limos.

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: Filling in the Blanks

Next item: Obama, Meet Obama



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.

MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 20, 2011 at 4:44 am Link to this comment

DieDaily, April 20 at 6:47 am,

What is it that you perceive the Left and Liberals
to be???

Is the Left or Liberal-Wing of the American
Aristocracy the Left and are they Liberals???

Is the Left or Liberal-Wing of the American Middle
Class the Left and are they Liberals???

Is the Left or Liberal-Wing of the American
Populace, the 70% Majority Common Population
of the United States, the Left and are they
Liberals?

If a dictator represents himself or herself as a
Liberal and a Leftist, does that make the dictator
a Leftist and a Liberal???

Or, in all of these questions, does the actions of
the individuals in question that are in service to
the greater good of the greater and lesser
community define what the Left and Liberals are,
and likewise define what the Right and
Conservatives are?

The Left and Liberals are representative of and in
service to the greater good of the greater and
lesser community of individuals that make up
society as a whole.

The Right and conservatives are representative
of and in service to the greater good of private
interests and selective benefit that make up a
portion of society at or near the top of the
societal pyramid.

“The Conservative” by Ralph Waldo Emerson
gives a good account of the Left/Right dichotomy
that stretches all the way back to Greek antiquity.

http://www.emersoncentral.com/conservative.htm

You will note from “The Conservative”, if you read
it, that there is a tension between creation and
conservation, the dichotomy of the Left and the
Right.  Creation is for the benefit of all and
conservation is for the benefit of the few.

In looking for the Left, would you argue over
those who represent a false sense of advantage
for their own greedy benefit to find the Left? —
or, would you seek works that define service to
the greater good of the community as a whole to
find and define the Left and Liberals?

The following is the 1st two paragraphs of “The
Conservative” by Ralph Waldo Emerson:

“The two parties which divide the state, the
party of Conservatism and that of Innovation,
are very old, and have disputed the possession
of the world ever since it was made. This quarrel
is the subject of civil history. The conservative
party established the reverend hierarchies and
monarchies of the most ancient world. The battle
of patrician and plebeian, of parent state and
colony, of old usage and accommodation to new
facts, of the rich and the poor, reappears in all
countries and times. The war rages not only in
battle-fields, in national councils, and
ecclesiastical synods, but agitates every man’s
bosom with opposing advantages every hour. On
rolls the old world meantime, and now one, now
the other gets the day, and still the fight renews
itself as if for the first time, under new names
and hot personalities.

Such an irreconcilable antagonism, of course,
must have a correspondent depth of seat in the
human constitution. It is the opposition of Past
and Future, of Memory and Hope, of the
Understanding and the Reason. It is the primal
antagonism, the appearance in trifles of the two
poles of nature.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson

Report this
DieDaily's avatar

By DieDaily, April 20, 2011 at 2:47 am Link to this comment

@Mack: You state: “Until Bush came along I was doin’
allright.  Nothing but rainbows in my sky.” That’s a
statement about you, and a very valid one. In actual
fact, though, Reagan and Clinton laid the bulk of the
foundation that was later to finally cause you your
present angst. The degree to which the agenda was
further advanced by Bush and Obama was relatively
paltry. That these latter two administration comprise
the time period during which you woke up remains a
good (if not great) thing, notwithstanding. I still
commend you, heartily.

@MarthaA. I’m nearly saddened that you don’t see that
I am WITH you. Absolutely, I agree with EVERY point
you make regarding the absolute necessity of opposing
1939 Fascism. I so agree! Were I to have been a Jew
in those days (or any gentile!) the need to resist
and distrust in Statism was paramount…the only
remedy. So, yes, you have managed to beautifully
capture exactly 50% of what I am objecting to. But
then there is mysterious blindness about the other
50%, this arguing from within the shadows of the box.
Stalin (“Left Wing”...ha ha ha, so what, right vs.
left is, after all an unimportant and meaningless
basis for differentiation—this is my thesis) then
went on to kill a vastly larger number of people!
Does this “shift the tables” and should I now state
“oh my goodness the Left is indeed more evil than the
Right…for their kill-count is demonstrably larger”.
Let’s add Mao. He killed, among his own people, a
larger number yet. Shall I now state that the Left is
demonstrably more evil? Let’s look at Polpot, a
“leftist” (as though there were actually any such
thing, except in your mind!!!!) who killed a far,
far, far larger per-capital segment of his own
population that EVER Europe or even the Stalinist
USSR could have dreamt of. Would I leverage these
indisputable facts to argue in favour of the Right
Wing? Heavens no!!!!! God no!!!!! Hell no!!! That’s
the minor difference between us. We are both good,
life-embracing human beings, so capable of love and
empathy that we care enough to try to be heard
pursuant, hopefully, to co-creating change. But while
I renounce the killing machine in both forms, you
argue for the validity of one of the two cynically
contrived forms, whereas I renounce not only both
forms but the artificiality of the very debate itself
about which of these forms is “better”. You can’t
catch me up by entangling me in some futile argument
about which form of destruction is the better. I hope
to catch you up in a actual, natural, real debate
about something that (absent conditioning) is self-
evident. Am I free, or am I owned? How on earth can
you have missed this? Ask yourself! Do I care which
type of owner I have? Left vs. Right? Is it not more inherently useful to speculate about whether I ought
or ought not be owned? Ask yourself, how did you miss
this? How did you miss my entire point. How is it
that you persist in Left vs. Right when I’m merely
make a meta-argument…and argument about whether
“the box” that you argue from within, is anything
other than a control mechanism? Do I think you are
stupid? No!!!!!!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 20, 2011 at 12:10 am Link to this comment

DieDaily, April 17 at 10:19 pm,

Your post was, if nothing else, glaringly superficial and supportive
of the status quo with regard to Right-Wing dialectic.

If it was 1939 and you were a German Jew, how do you suppose
your analysis of Right-Wing dialectic would have applied to your
well being, with regard to Adolph Hitler’s use of dialectic to accuse,
condemn, denounce, and kill you? ———And, how do you suppose
that the use of Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST
Republican
dialect to accuse, condemn, denounce and put the
Left and Liberals in the cross hairs affect the Left and Liberals here
in the United States at the present time?

I suppose, to YOU, that the 30 Million people that died in World
War II as a result of the application of unchallenged Right-Wing
dialect is a tiny little insignificant line, and that, to YOU,
cooperation of the so called Left and Liberals with Right-Wing
dialectic that can ultimately lead to another holocaust is a tiny little
line also.

YOUR tiny little line was not so tiny during 1939 to 1945 in World
War II, YOUR tiny little line will not be so tiny here in the United
States if Right-Wing dialectic is cooperated with by ignorant and
unaware people, such as YOU posting glaringly superficial and
supportive propaganda in support of unchallenged Right-Wing
dialectic being insignificant as a threat.

Hitler would have loved YOUR attitude toward his Right-Wing
dialectic.  I am certain that Conservative Right-Wing
Republican EXTREMISTS
love YOUR attitude toward
Right-Wing dialectic.  And, those trying to present a false sense of
advantage to others in order to benefit from Right-Wing dialectic
love YOUR attitude toward Right-Wing dialectic.

My guess is that YOU will be one of the first to fall in the new
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
“Night of the Long Knives”

and new http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERcrystal.htm
“Chrystal Night” when Right-Wing dialectic
starts to take its toll, if it is left unchallenged by dialectic of the Left
and Liberals.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnight.htm

You appear to be a Thyssen:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERthyssen.htm

IMHO, Dialectic of the Right MUST not continue to go unchallenged
by the Left.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 19, 2011 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

Die Daily, I see the two parties as a staged Kabuki song and dance routine! As Lincoln said, sic;  both parties are like two drunks fighting in the street,....so when the fight is over the only difference is each is wearing each others coat!

It may be, in the cesspool of politics, the most polished turds float to the top?

I will lean towards the Democrats, only because the Republicans seem the bad cops for now!

Checking in with my local Democratic party, I found the political types in charge most disgusting, for me it was like being the towel boy in a locker room full of jocks, I did not exist. After all…... Hope and Change is really happening, just not the change I had hoped for!

Report this
DieDaily's avatar

By DieDaily, April 19, 2011 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

@Mack: you state “They are in a full court press.” He
he he, and verily they are. But, then, we all need to
die a little bit…even daily if it can be managed.

Report this
DieDaily's avatar

By DieDaily, April 19, 2011 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

@Shenonymous: well, then sweet dreams. Far be it from
me to suggest that you might have at least addressed,
let alone refuted, a single statement I made.

Listen, here is an simple but profound analogy of my
world view, in the form of a huge piece of graph
paper:

At the top is “freedom, willingness, voluntarism” and
at the bottom we can write “slavery, unwillingness,
compulsion”. This is the REAL axis of every possible,
meaningful polarity. We’ll write DEMS on the left and
REPS on the right, to symbolize that meaningless
exercise.

Now, look closely. Fairly near the bottom of the page
(the lower “slavery, unwillingness, compulsion”
region) there is this small little line, more or less
centered on the page. It’s about as wide as you would
have it, but personally I would say it’s only as wide
as your pinky finger, not that it matters, as I hope
you will see.

On the left of this little, bottom-feeding scrawl is
written “Dems” and on the right of it is written the
equally non-energetic word “Reps”. Now, back off and
look at the whole page. Isn’t that vertical axis
TOTALLY FUCKING OVERWHELMINGLY IMPORTANT? And isn’t
the one that you’ve constrained yourself to a mere
distraction? [yes]

You dodge my every point. Please muster some courage
and come out and confront me. Re-read my very
detailed and clear message and wo/man-up.

1. You say you are not “disaffected with conventional
politics”. Explain, if you would, how this is not
daft.

2. If state that your entire perceptual purview (as
regards politics) consists of the following inane,
childish, narrowed-down, eeensy-beensy world view:
make laws pro this, make laws anti this, legislate
pro that, legislate anti that. I make the point that
it’s a Hulk vs. Rock distraction, which it clearly
is. I state that REAL ACTUAL PEOPLE do not constrain
themselves to this puerile and contrived little
encampment. We are living, breathing, energetic,
free, vital, empowered, and a bit pissed off. So we
dare to state the obvious: the debate itself is a
fraud. We do not see the point of fighting about
WHICH WAY to legislate. We see the point of fighting
about WHETHER OR NOT to legislate.

My points were clear as day. You can whine and
whimper all you like without addressing them openly
and with courage. Such is your right. That is the
nature of freedom and I embrace it.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 19, 2011 at 8:28 am Link to this comment

Just because YOU say it DieDaily doesn’t make anything true.  I
believe you are predisposed to certain beliefs and no argument
can dissuade you.  As a predisposed liberal because I believe in
egalitarianism, I have my own beliefs and if you don’t like them
then too bad.  You have not presented any argument that has
convinced me that there is no difference between the two parties. 
I believe there is a huge difference.  But political negotiation takes
its labyrinthine turns.  It depends on who has not only the votes in
general elections but who has the Congressional votes.  I would not
change our constitutional democracy to any other system.  It is as I
said, fashionable for ultra-left-wingers or anarcho/libertarians to try to
convince otherwise.  Eventually the real desires of the people will win
out in this “democracy.”  And I believe with the advent of common
communications it will be sooner than later.

Report this
DieDaily's avatar

By DieDaily, April 19, 2011 at 8:07 am Link to this comment

@shenonymous: It’s with great mirth that I observe
that you are not “disaffected with conventional
politics”. So you feel we have a functional system?
Truly amusing! Unsurprisingly, you misquote “no
differences” when the fact of the matter is that
these differences “are tiny”, which I clearly stated.

Things that are similar: Vast world-leading
borrowings, vast world-leading war spending,
elaborate control, extensive interference with
private life, massive world-leading incarceration
rates, massive world-trailing educational benchmarks.
These are a mere smattering of indisputable and
incontrovertible commonalities of the “two parties”
taken at random and off the cuff.

How different are that? Ha ha, well, let’s see:

Abortion: “We should pass laws legalizing abortion.”
vs. “We should pass laws criminalizing abortion.”;
Gay marriage: “We should pass laws legalizing gay
marriage.” vs. “We should pass laws criminalizing gay
marriage.”; Unions: “We should pass laws legalizing
strikes.” vs. “We should pass laws criminalizing
strikes.”; Pot: “We should pass laws legalizing pot.”
vs. “We should pass laws criminalizing pot.”; Sex in
the non-missionary position: “We should pass laws
legalizing N-MP sex.” vs. “We should pass laws
criminalizing N-MP sex.”

Do you get the “we should pass laws” part? Do I even
need to say more? Well, likely, the most obvious
truths are the most inscrutable to the “brave and
free” (Libs and Reps exactly alike) so I imagine I do
need to say more:

We need no such laws! Absolutely no such role for
government! Duh, duh, duh, and double duh. The
actual, real debate WOULD HAVE BEEN not WHICH way to
legislate, it’s WHETHER to legislate! This real and
useful compass (freedom vs. non-freedom) is, of
course, fully obscured beneath your child-like belief
that Reps and Dems are arguing along “opposite”
lines. It’s just not even remotely plausible, let
alone true!

And thus swings the golden watch: left… right…
left… right… That’s right, now, keep your eye on
it. Rep… Dem… Rep… Dem… And now I’m going to
count down from 3 (lib… con… lib… con…)
Relax. 3 - 2 - 1. Sweet dreams kids.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 17, 2011 at 8:11 pm Link to this comment

It is a fiction of which some convince themselves that there is no
difference between Democrats and Republicans.  I see it as a failure
to recognize the reality of the majority and a failure to see the opposite
concerns of Democrats and Republicans.  Conflation of the two major
parties is a perennial pastime of those disaffected with conventional
politics that are not as libertarian or anarchic as they would like.

Report this
DieDaily's avatar

By DieDaily, April 17, 2011 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA, you said:

“the dialectic of the Right is more successful
because, as with Hitler, the Left accepts the
dialectical frame of the Right and argues within the
Right-Wing dialectical frame, when the Left should
argue its own dialectic and support its own
dialectical frame”

Yes, true, although it’s unclear to me why you would
think that the Left couches things in terms of the
Right’s language, and not just as often the reverse.
At bottom, it’s certainly true that they closely
share a common dialectic, but then isn’t this
observation a baby-step in the right direction?

It’s clear to a rapidly growing body of skeptical
people that this dialectic which they do in fact
clearly share (one way or the other) is a largely
meaningless bit of stagecraft. “Rep vs. Dem” language
is a “Hulk Hogan vs. The Rock” dichotomy. I don’t see
the point of lamenting that the Rockists’ dialectical
frame is over fraught with Hoganisms or vice versa.
Such statements, while certainly true, are not very
broad or liberating; they are rather like arguments
about which side of the containment cell has more
comfortable concrete, or about which soap opera is
more true to real life.

The two key realizations of the strange linguistic
commonalities of Lib vs. Con (of the Hulk-Hoganisms
of The-Rockists) is first that it’s a show, staged
and managed. And second, as academics have proven
repeatedly (Noam Chomsky, for example, by modifying
all loaded language to neutral language and then
polling the classic questions) the idealogical
differences between the two groups (which can only be
called “the two fan bases”) are tiny. These tiny
differences are swamped by the commonalities.

If the field of political, social and economic
thought and action were to be symbolized as a sheet
of graph paper, and some lower quadrant of this sheet
was dubbed, say, Authoritarian, or, if you will,
Centralized, there would exist a tiny little
horizontal line over in a fairly remote corner of it.
On the left of that tiny line would be Dem/Lib and on
the right Rep/Con. Your arguments are completely
valid for the framework of that line.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 17, 2011 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 17 at 12:56 pm & Shenonymous, April 17 at 12:51 pm,

Hitler’s Right-Wing dialectic triumphed over Left-Wing dialectic of
those supporting the Weimar Republic; the same War of Dialectic is
going on between the Right and the Left at the present time in the
United States, and has been going on since the time of Nixon and the
Conservative Revolution, just as with Hitler, the dialectic of the Right
is more successful because, as with Hitler, the Left accepts the
dialectical frame of the Right and argues within the Right-Wing
dialectical frame, when the Left should argue its own dialectic and
support its own dialectical frame.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 17, 2011 at 8:56 am Link to this comment

Yes, MarthaA, I’ve read iMein Kampf.  Hitler was looking to
justify his demonizing the Jews so that he would have a focal point
for his more insidious plan,  “Thus I began to make myself familiar
with the ?founders of this doctrine, in order to study the ?foundations
of the movement.”
He was incredibly clever and theatrical in selling
his form of despotism.  His delivery shrewdly included a slight
mystery, as he put it, ”the Jewish question”. Using words like
‘veil,’ ‘real aim,’ ‘slumbers,’ ‘concealed’ are emotionally charged that
creates a picture not only in the hearers’ minds, but his own as well. 
The words are simple, therefore, easily spoken among the already
disaffected throng and so the collective develops the same mind. 
Then he reaches to the heavens (oh hosanna!) and talks about “spiritual
upheaval;”  very religious, ingenious, which gets to the heart of the hoi
polloi at once! being deathly afraid of the hereafter and the spiritual. 
So he uses religion as a tool for tyranny. So cunning was he to use
words like “inscrutable Destiny.”  Again his bastardization of the
mystery of religion.  His allusion to the Jewish history as a chosen
people, using that idea in quite the wrong way.  For the Jews had been
persecuted when God on High promised them a new land, a new world
to be precise, where they could live as human beings instead of the
hunted and victimized.  Then slickly he switched to logic.  Logic the
basis for all rational thinking that puts premises in the right order to
justify conclusions.  Logic does not promise truth, it only yields order.
Hitler brilliantly linked the Jews with Marxism and in excoriating
Marxism he built a drama about these people who had centuries of
precarious existence wanted only as a populace to have a life. They had
not themselves commenced a war against anyone since very ancient
times.  The early Jews had been towered by the great Sumerian,
Akkadian, Babylonian empires, the Jews with their acumen, their
canniness especially in money matters, could be said to have exerted
the greatest influence on western society, as well as the entire western
intellectual tradition.  After being enslaved by the Egyptian pharaohs,
who needed slaves to build their huge pyramids and other “projects” as
servants, the tribal Jews were persuaded by Moses to worship Yahweh, a
one God who, according to Moses, gave the Jews laws to live by, and
after wandering for forty years, dribbled into the Palestinian region. 
Did you know Abraham’s family was Sumerian? 

What frightened Hitler so much was the religion of the Jews gave the
individual value, which can easily be seen in the OT that emphasizes the
values of human experience.  No heroes, no pantheon of gods and
goddesses, but strong, and weak, humans.  Hitler replaced God with
himself and justified it by destroying the one thing that would have
interrupted his plan, the Jews.

Ironically, Hitler takes aim at Marxism as a force that would like God
make the Jews again “the chosen people.”  There was no end to his
cleverness to exploit whatever he could find to bolster his own thirst for
power: a people having a long history of being oppressed, easy target,
Marxism that leveled the noble class, and God.  Well in my mind if God
had been so powerful He would have struck Hitler dead before the
destruction he wrought onto the world. 

There does seem to be a similarity of tactics and strategy of the
Republicans’ effort to ascend to power of this country.  But hardly
attaining the influence Hitler had over the German people.  Most likely
because in comparison Germany was much smaller and more ethnically
pure, meaning immigration had not diluted the German population as it
has the United States that is founded on immigrants from various
points around the world.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 17, 2011 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

I did say I would get back to this forum.  I had a couple of
diversionary other forums about topics I find interesting that were
distracting, but I’ve returned to perhaps puts some closure on this
one. 

While I did clarify the meaning(s) of lingua franca to the nth degree,
MarthaA, I did not exactly overlook or cover up the meaning of what
you were saying.  It was a definitional pause, using your own verbal
device, to illuminate that it is more efficient to effect change by using
the common language of a people (its lingua franca), so in reality, it is
you who attempt to minimize what my intention was.  But that is
something I am used to MarthaA.  Even so, I always enjoy the repartee
in which we often get involved.

Report this
DieDaily's avatar

By DieDaily, April 17, 2011 at 1:09 am Link to this comment

What Martha A is saying is that “Lingua Franca”
simply denoted that French was the most widely spoken
language in the region in question at the time.
Nothing more, nothing less. It’s like the term
“Catholic”. It originally meant something like “an
idea that is so commonly held, scarcely anyone would
object”, such as “the sky is blue and cows go moo.”

Of course the term has now been co-opted and mangled
into denotative meaninglessness, connotative
sectarianism, and there’s no real sense in the word
anymore.

Never-the-less, even though we know that French has
become an obscure, if not dying, language we can
confidently employ the phrase “Lingua Franca” to mean
“common language”. To a degree we even can and should
confidently employ the term “Catholic” to mean what
it originally did: “something that nearly everyone
believes”. We can say “mankind” and mean humanity.

Sure, language drifts, but only the pseudo-autistic
pop-culture-mulch-puppy will object. And only then
because “he” has not the slightest notion of what
went on in the past—how these words were formed.

“Epicurean” is a great example. So are: Republican,
Democrat, Left, Right, Conservative, Liberal. These
words used to have meanings and we can understand
them in light of these original meanings, or we can
be lazy and stupid…that works too! Those who
subscribe to the “modern, updated” meanings are
Orwell’s children. God bless their autistic little
souls. God forbid that they should delve into the
past and thus almost fully comprehend the present.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 17, 2011 at 12:54 am Link to this comment

johncp, April 17 at 2:28 am,

The worst thing the American populace can do is vote either Obama
back in or a Republican in—neither have any concern about the well
being of the American populace.  I’m just sorry Obama is going to be
in office another year and a half.

Report this

By johncp, April 16, 2011 at 10:28 pm Link to this comment

Mr. Scheer, I notice that you mentioned Bill Clinton as another of those “pro-business-presidents.”  This isn’t surprising, since you take every opportunity to call attention to president Clinton, when the news is unflattering.  But can you tell me which of the presidents in the past 50 years, has not been a pro-business president?  Obama is easily the worst of the bunch, since he presented himself to the voter as someone who’ll bring “change” to America, the biggest lie of all.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 13, 2011 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment

Sorry MarthaA, I have been busy “doing my taxes,” a real live
procrastinator!  You may laugh.  So will I.  I have not been able
to actually read your comments after my last one.  I will attend
to them tomorrow evening.  Bonsoir

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 13, 2011 at 7:26 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 12 at 10:08 pm,

To help in understanding of the importance of
dialectic, the following is an excerpt from ‘Mein
Kampf’ by Adolph Hitler—it must be noted that
this is Adolph Hitler’s Right Wing frame of dialectic
that was used to condemn the Jewish people
and all of the rest of the 30 million people that
had views contrary to Hitler’s dialectical frame:

Hitler’s Right-Wing Frame of Dialectic:
*****************************
Page 1 of 2

“It seemed as though their increased
understanding of the destructive effects of
Social Democratic theories and their
results only reinforced their determination. 

The more I argued with them, the better I came
to know their dialectic.  First they
counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and
then, when there was no other way out, they
themselves simply played stupid.  If all this didn’t
help, they pretended not to understand, or, if
challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry,
quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them,
they immediately related to entirely different
matters, and then, if again attacked, gave
ground and pretended not to know exactly what
you were talking about.  Whenever you tried to
attack one of these apostles, your hand closed
on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured
through your fingers, but in the next moment
collected again.  But if you really struck one of
these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by
the audience, he couldn’t help but agree, and if
you believed that this had taken you at least one
step forward, your amazement was great the
next day.  The Jew had not the slightest
recollection of the day before, he rattled off his
same old nonsense as though nothing at all had
happened, and, if indignantly challenged,
affected amazement; he couldn’t remember a
thing, except that he had proved the correctness
of his assertions the previous day.

Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.  I didn’t
know what to be more amazed at: the agility of
their tongues or their virtuosity at lying. 
Gradually I began to hate them.

All this had but one good side: that in proportion
as the real leaders or at least the disseminators
of Social Democracy came within my
vision, my love for my people inevitably grew. 
For who, in view of the diabolical craftiness of
these seducers, could damn the luckless victims?
How hard it was, even for me, to get the better
of this race of dialectical liars! And how
futile was such success in dealing with people
who twist the truth in your mouth, who without
so much as a blush disavow the word they have
just spoken, and in the very next minute take
credit for it after all.

Inspired by the experience of daily life, I now
began to track down the sources of the Marxist
doctrine.  Its effects had become clear to me in
individual cases; each day its success was
apparent to my attentive eyes, and, with some
exercise of my imagination, I was able to picture
the consequences.  The only remaining question
was whether the result of their action in its
ultimate form had existed in the mind’s eye of the
creators, or whether they themselves were the
victims of an error. I felt that both were possible.

In the one case it was the duty of every thinking
man to force himself to the forefront of the
ill-starred movement, thus perhaps averting
catastrophe; in the other, however, the original
founders of this plague of the nations must have
been veritable devils; for only in the brain of a
monster——not that of a man——could the plan
of an organization assume form and meaning,
whose activity must ultimately result in the
collapse of human civilization and the consequent
devastation of the world.  In this case the only
remaining hope was struggle, struggle with all
the weapons which the human spirit, reason,
and will can devise, regardless on which side of
the scale Fate should lay its blessing.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 13, 2011 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 12 at 10:08 pm,

Hitler’s Right-Wing Frame of Dialectic:
*********************************
Page 2 of 2

Thus I began to make myself familiar with the
founders of this doctrine, in order to study the
foundations of the movement.  If I reached my
goal more quickly than at first I had perhaps
ventured to believe, it was thanks to my newly
acquired, though at that time not very profound,
knowledge of the Jewish question.  This alone
enabled me to draw a practical comparison
between the reality and the theoretical flim-flam
of the founding fathers of Social
Democracy
, since it taught me to
understand the language of the Jewish people,
who speak in order to conceal or at least to
veil their thoughts; their real aim is not therefore
to be found in the lines themselves, but slumbers
well concealed between them.

For me this was the time of the greatest spiritual
upheaval I had ever had to go through.  I had
ceased to be a weak-kneed cosmopolitan and
become an anti-Semite.  Just once more—and
this was the last time—fearful, oppressive
thought came to me in profound anguish.  When
over long periods of human history I scrutinized
the activity of the Jewish people, suddenly there
rose up in me the fearful question whether
inscrutable Destiny, perhaps for reasons
unknown to us poor mortals, did not with eternal
and immutable resolve, desire the final victory of
this little nation.  Was it possible that the earth
had been promised as a reward to this people
which lives only for this earth?

Have we an objective right to struggle
for our self-preservation, or is this justified only
subjectively within ourselves?

As I delved more deeply into the teachings of
Marxism and thus in tranquil clarity submitted the
deeds of the Jewish people to contemplation,
Fate itself gave me its answer.

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the
aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the
eternal privilege of power and strength by the
mass of numbers and their dead weight.  Thus it
denies the value of personality in man, contests
the significance of nationality and race, and
thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of
its existence and its culture.  As a foundation of
the universe, this doctrine would bring about the
end of any order intellectually conceivable to
man.  And as, in this greatest of all recognizable
organisms, the result of an application of such a
law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be
destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.

If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is
victorious over the other peoples of the world,
his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity
and this planet will, as it did thousands of years
ago, move through the ether devoid of men.

Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the
infringement of her commands.  Hence today I
believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending
myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work
of the Lord.
”—Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler,
Copyright 1943, Houghton Mifflin Co.,and 1925-27,
Verlag Frz. Eher Nachf, G.M.B.H.

****

Hitler is setting the frame of his dialectic by
condemnation of the Jews dialectic. 

Doesn’t Hitler’s Right-Wing dialectec seem
similar and familiar with the Conservative
Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republican dialectic
that has been used from the time of Nixon
to the present to accuse, condemn, denounce,
and put the Left and Liberals in the crosshairs
for implementation of the final solution?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 13, 2011 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 12 at 10:08 pm,

Although you focused in like a lazer beam on the etymology of
lingua franca as indicated in my post, you completely overlooked
and covered up the meaning of my post, and that is that
common language, what you call lingua franca, is a means to
implement a causal “objective of dialectic”
and that language
that does not serve as a means to an end of dialectic, or that
serves as a means to an end of dialectic, that serves as a weapon
against your best interest is not a frame that is of best interest to
pander to; this is the why, the causal relationship, for my
emphasis on political dialectic
.

Political dialectic of the Left is the logical proof of the
political agenda
of the political Left.

Political dialectic of the Right is the logical proof of the
political agenda
of the political Right.

It is not logical for the Left to argue political benefit and best
interest of the Left using the frame of the political dialectic
of the Right
, because dialectic is a logical loop
that is causal in nature and arguing a “causal
loop” that does not support the thesis of your argument is not
beneficial to the best interest and outcome of your argument.

You say that you teach critical thinking, and what I am saying is
critical thinking is outside of the box of the Culture of
Critical Discourse that we have discussed in the past.

I would like for you to think outside of the box
where I will have someone to talk to that doesn’t
need to have so much explained because of a
lack of understanding, while at the same time
you
want to overlook the forest of understanding and
concentrate
solely upon a single tree of lingua franca.

If you got your feelings hurt, I apologize for that, but there is more
space for logical discourse in political dialectic than there is for
emotions that lead the logically challenged to support the
argument of opposing political dialectic by arguing within the frame
of opposing political dialectic while never becoming aware that
their own argument is false to the frame of their own
political dialectic.

Do you think that it will serve the aims of your political agenda to
use the proof of opposing political dialectic to prove your own
argument? —— Or, do you think that it would better serve your
own political agenda to use the proof of your own political dialectic
to prove your own argument??

Success in any argument on logic lies in the latter, rather than
the former argument; this is why the Right has been so successful
since the time of Nixon and why the Left has been so dismal and
pathetic.

My natural inclination is to believe that no one is ignorant and
unaware enough to willingly use someone elses dialectical
frame
that is contrary to their own frame of dialectic
, and
that when it is done, that it is done with disingenuous intent and
purpose to lead others to accept false conclusions and a false
sense of advantage.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 12, 2011 at 11:22 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 12 at 10:08 pm,

Your post was about lingua franca, my post was
concerning the use of dialectic and you
ignored dialectic completely in favor of lingua franca,
that you seem to have covered up in the litter box
of lingua franca.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 12, 2011 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment

Okay MarthaA.  A bit overdone, I agree, but it seems to be the kind of
dialogue with which you only feel comfortable.  It is kind of silly but
then reciprocal silliness is the way of the Dao.  For lingua franca I here
shall do a “MarthaA.” Here is the etymology of the word lingua franca
from:
Online Etymology Dictionary
lingua franca
  1670s, from Italian, lit. “Frankish tongue.” Originally a form of
communication used in the Levant, a stripped-down Italian peppered
with Spanish, French, Greek, Arabic, and Turkish words. The name is
probably from the Arabic custom, dating back to the Crusades, of
calling all Europeans Franks.

and then:  12 of 26 Definitions at OneLook Dictionary Search in two
parts.  It is obvious which one I have been using.

Part 1.
1. Dictionary.com
lingua franca?
?/?fræ?k?/ Show Spelled[frang-kuh] Show IPA
–noun, plural lingua francas, lin·guae fran·cae
?/?l??gwi ?frænsi/ show+spelled”>Show Spelled[ling-gwee fran-see]
Show IPA.
  1. any language that is widely used as a means of
communication among speakers of other languages.

  2. ( initial capital letter ) the Italian-Provençal jargon (with
elements of spanish, french, Greek, arabic, and Turkish) formerly widely
used in eastern Mediterranean ports.

2. American Hertiage Dictionary of th English Language
lingua franca
NOUN:  pl. lingua fran·cas (-kz)  also linguae fran·cae (frngk, frns)
  1. A medium of communication between peoples of different
languages.

  2. A mixture of Italian with Provençal, French, Spanish, Arabic, Greek,
and Turkish, formerly spoken on the eastern Mediterranean coast.
ETYMOLOGY:
Italian : lingua, language + franca, Frankish (that is, European)

3. Macmillan Dictionary
A language that people use to communicate when they have different
first languages
German is a useful lingua franca for tourists in the Czech Republic.

4. Merriam-Webster
Definition of LINGUA FRANCA
  1 often capitalized : a common language consisting of Italian
mixed with French, Spanish, Greek, and Arabic that was formerly
spoken in Mediterranean ports
  2   any of various languages used as common or commercial
tongues among peoples of diverse speech

  3   something resembling a common language <movies are the
lingua franca of the twentieth century
— Gore Vidal

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 12, 2011 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

Part 2.
Lingua Franca continued.
5. WordNet
lingua franca
? noun:  a common language used by speakers of different
languages
(“Koine is a dialect of ancient Greek that was the
lingua franca of the empire of Alexander the Great and was widely
spoken throughout the eastern Mediterranean area in Roman times”

6. wordnik
lingua franca
    –noun
  1. a common language used by people of diverse backgrounds to
communicate with one another, often a basic form of speech with
simplified grammar

7 GNU Webster’s 1913
    –noun
    1. The commercial language of the Levant,—a mixture of the
languages of the people of the region and of foreign traders.
    2. Any hybrid or other language used over a wide area as a
common or commercial tongue among peoples of different speech.

8. Cambridge Dictionaries Online
Definition:  a language which is used for communication between
groups of people who speak different languages but which is not used
between members of the same group.

9. Encarta 
lin·gua fran·ca [ lìng gw? frángk? ] (plural lin·gua fran·cas or lin·guae
fran·cae [ lìng gwee frángkee ])
noun
Definition:
  1. language used for convenience: a language or mixture of
languages used for communication by people who speak different first
languages.

  2. traders’ language in Mediterranean: the mixed language used
chiefly by merchants throughout Mediterranean ports until the 18th
century, consisting mainly of Italian with features of French, Spanish,
Greek, Arabic, and Turkish
[Late 17th century. < Italian, “Frankish tongue”]

10.  Wordsmyth
lingua franca
noun  
lingua francas, linguae francae
definition 1:  a hybrid language made up of elements of Italian, Spanish,
French, Greek, Arabic, and Turkish, spoken in certain Mediterranean
port areas.
definition 2:  any hybrid language used as a medium of
communication between people who speak different languages.

related words or synonym:  dialect

11.  infoplease
lin’gua fran’ca
Pronunciation: (frang’ku), [key]
—pl. lingua francas, lin•guae fran•cae   Pronunciation: (ling’gw?
fran’s?).
1. any language that is widely used as a means of communication
among speakers of other languages.

2. (cap.) the Italian-Provençal jargon (with elements of Spanish, French,
Greek, Arabic, and Turkish) formerly widely used in eastern
Mediterranean ports.

12.  Then of course there is the usual Wikipedia entry:
Lingua Franca or lingua franca can mean:
  * A lingua franca is a language used for communication between
speakers of different languages

  * Mediterranean Lingua Franca, also known as Sabir, such a language
used around the Mediterranean from the 11th to 19th century
  * Lingua Franca (magazine), a periodical

There are about 14 more definitions on the OneLook site but I think
you get the idea.  While it could apply to the commercial trade jargon, it
is absurd to interpolate or interpret anything I’ve said to be applicable
to commercial language of trade when the exact context of what I’ve
said is apparent.  It is amazing you are being rather focused on only
trivial aspects.  It looks as if you are stuck in an odd rut.  I had thought
better of you low these many years.  Choose whatever meaning you
want I really don’t give a damn.  I see you are indeed blue in the face.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 12, 2011 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment

Mack, April 12 at 8:07 pm,

Maybe you’re right—hope not.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 12, 2011 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 12 at 11:52 am and Shenonymous, April 12 at 11:52 am,

Lingua Franca the Language of Commerce (cont.)
Page 1 of 3

“When I say “have to” speak the common
language, I mean I feel it is the best way to get
through to the minds I want to.  As I already
said, I think assimilation is the best way to
infiltrate and subvert the opposition and that
means to use the lingua franca.

Shenonymous, April 12 at 6:57 am

I have done some research on lingua
franca
and I find that it means any
jargon or pidgin used as a commercial or
trade language
, as pidgin English.

Pidgin English is a jargin composed of English
and elements of local non-English dialects, used
as the language of commerce.

You apparently are saying that it is necessary for
you to use a language of commerce for
political purpose.  Are you using
language for commercial benefit or
political purpose?  The language
for<b>political leadership and bearing
is
different from language used for
commercial benefit.

It is my understanding that you are representing
yourself as leading with bearing in pursuit of
political purpose
, rather than commercial
benefit
.  If your purpose is commercial
benefit
, rather than political
purpose
, I understand your use of the
lingua franca, but if your purpose is
political purpose, rather than commercial
benefit
, your use of the lingua franca
is inconsistent with achieving your political aims.

To change from one political reality to another
political reality requires a language of
leadership and bearing that expresses political
reality
, rather than “go along to get along”
cooperation of the commercial language of
trade
.

The Japanese exercised the language of
leadership and bearing in moving from fuedalism
into the Modern Era that prevented the cultural
rape and pillage of their society, that was
intended by colonial purpose to divert the benefit
of Japan’s people’s efforts and resources into the
Ruling Classes and Cultures of the countries that
sought to colonize Japan, destroy their culture,
colonize their nation into class and cultural
distinction of colonialism, and culturally rule over
Japan for the colonial benefit of the colonizing
few over the benefit of the many of the Japanese
in the same way that invaders have done to
majority populations over the ages; i.e., the
Helots, the native people of the Americas, the
native people of Palestine, and a new twist to an
old story that started with the Roman Empire,
the population of a nation; that, in our time, is
the American Populace, the 70% majority
common population of the United States
.

When those who are colonized assimilate and
accept the lingua franca of those who
colonize them, those being colonized have
accepted dominion and domination of the ones
who would rule over them.  Are you saying that
you have accepted dominion and domination of
the American Aristocracy and the American Middle
Class over the American Populace, and that you
accept the language that the American
Aristocracy and the American Middle Class use in
pursuit of that political dominion, domination, and
colonization, as the lingua franca of
political discourse???? 
(cont. page 2)

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 12, 2011 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 12 at 11:52 am and Shenonymous, April 12 at 11:52 am,

Lingua Franca the Language of Commerce (cont.)
Page 2 of 3

If so, what you are saying is nonsense,
because what you are saying is that you and all
others have to use the language of the
oppressor to address and define grievance
caused by the oppressor, and the oppressor
NEVER sees reason for the subjects of
oppression to be aggrieved.

The language of politics is dialectic,
political dialectic, NOT the language of
commerce
, the lingua franca; being a
teacher of critical thinking, I would think that you
would be aware of that.

Shenononymous said:  Again, I
prefer to work from the inside out.  Lingua franca
is the language that is widely used.  Republicans
redefine meanings of our language and use it as
propaganda.  But the Democrats, Independents
and third partiers also use language as
propaganda.
—Shenonymous, April 12
at 11:52 am

You defined lingua franca as “the
language that is widely used”
, in your April
12, 11:52 am post as stated above.  If you feel
that lingua franca in the context that you
have defined it is what you must do, it would
seem a more legitimate use of lingua
franca
, as you have defined it, to use
lingua franca in service to political dialectic
of the Left, rather than in service to political
dialect of the Right, as you seem prone to do.

Following is a short history of how lingua
franca
has been used throughout history
without political benefit to the Palestinian
Phoenicians:

The eastern Mediterranean seaports. 
If we look at the map of the eastern sea coast of
the Mediterranean, we shall see that in early
times it was occupied by two small countries. 
The north section of the coast was settled by the
Phoenicians, while just to the south lived the
Hebrews.  The fertile part of Phoenicia was near
the coast and the people who lived there learned
to work on the sea.  The best part of Palestine,
as the Hebrew country was called, lay some
miles inland, while great marshes were next to
the coast.

The Phoenician sailors and traders spread
civilization.
  The Phoenicians became great
sailors and built two important harbor cities
known as Tyre and Sidon.  They had long ships
with many oars and sent their fleets far and wide
over the Mediterranean.  Later they were to build
the famous city of Carthage in northern Africa.

The bold Phoenician captains braved the waters
of the Atlantic and brought back cargoes of tin
from the islands of Britain.  They traded the tin to
the Egyptians and the Babylonians, who mixed it
with copper to make bronze.

The Phoenician ports of Tyre and Sidon were the
centers to which long caravans came from across
the Arabian and Syrian deserts.

The goods from the Far East—spices, ivory,
precious jewels, gold, fine cloth, and rugs—were
bartered in Tyre and Sidon, and then the
Phoenician traders carried them to the seaports
of all the Mediterranean countries.

These Phoenician traders were keen and
ambitious.  They learned many things in the
course of their travels.  They imitated the skilled
workmanship they saw in the various countries
they visited and often improved upon it.  They
became especially skilled as jewelers, weavers,
and dyers.

They discovered that a certain shell-fish,
somewhat like our clam, could be used to obtain
a purple dye.  It took such a great number of the
shell fish and so much labor to extract the dye in
quantities (cont. on page 3)

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 12, 2011 at 3:30 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 12 at 11:52 am and Shenonymous, April 12 at 11:52 am,

Lingua Franca the Language of Commerce:
Page 3 of 3

Short History (cont.)

that the color became greatly desired and was
very costly.  Only kings and nobles could afford it,
so that it came to be known as the “royal
purple.”  The Phoenicians also learned how to
sail by the north star and were able to chart
many routes across the sea.

The Phoenician alphabet.  It was these
sailor people that really developed the first good
alphabet.  They brought it to Greece, and thus it
has come down to us.

You will recall that the first writing was the
drawing of pictures.  The Egyptians had signs for
syllables and words.  Probably the Phoenicians
first used the Egyptian alphabet.  Finding it too
awkward, they reduced it to some twenty
symbols which stood for sounds rather than for
pictures or signs of things.

This discovery of letters for sounds was a truly
great gift to civilization.  It is so much easier to
learn the letters than it would be to learn a
separate sign for every word that we use.

As a result of the spread of the alphabet, the
Phoenician traders were able to sell to other
Mediterranean peoples many cargoes of Egyptian
papyrus, a paper made from the pith of the
papyrus plant.  The Greeks called this Egyptian
paper “biblos,” and from this Greek word has
come our English word “Bible.”

As we leave the Phoenicians we should
remember that of all the early peoples they were
the carriers of learning to the Greeks, who gave
it to the Romans, who gave it to us.” —‘Old
Europe and Our Nation’ by Eugene C. Barker,
Frederic Duncalf, and Francis Leonard Bacon,
Copyright 1932, 1938, Row, Peterson and Co.,
Evanston, IL.

<b>End of Small History Lesson—We’re
talking culture here and culture is cyclical in
nature.

The language of lingua franca will aid in
the dissemination and understanding of the
language of idealistic standards of dialectic, but
lingua franca merely used as language
without purpose of dialectic serves no political
purpose, other than commerce and social
interaction
.

When lingua franca is being used for
political purpose as a weapon by way of political
dialectic, it is necessary to use lingua
franca
by way of political dialectic as a
weapon, both offensively and defensively in
response, rather than to accept lingua
franca
used in political dialectic as a weapon
against you, ignore that lingua franca has
been weaponized and used as a weapon against
you, and use lingua franca only for
commerce and social purposes, rather
than use lingua franca in the dialectical
manner of weaponization that is being used
against you; this scenario is the recent history of
lingua franca and dialectic from the time
of Nixon to the present.  The Right has
weaponized lingua franca into dialectic
and the Left has cooperated with the Right by
accepting the dialectically weaponized frame of
the Right, and you advocate that the Left
continue to do so.  I strongly disagree.

I am not interested in spreading civilization with
lingua franca like the Phonecians, I am
interested in using lingua franca with
political dialectic to obtain benefit from civilization
for my class and culture, the 70% majority
American Populace.  Call me narrow minded if you
will, but I do not see lingua franca
standing alone providing political benefit to the
70% Majority Common Population of the United
States.

For your perusal, Hegelian dialectic is the
framework of the Right-Wing for guiding thoughts
and actions of the Left into conflicts that lead the
Left to predetermined solutions. If we do not
understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes
our perceptions of the world, then we do not
know how we are helping to implement the
vision for the future.
http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 12, 2011 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

Your brow-beating style and name-calling is juvenile.  It puts
your minimal mind on display, LtlBlueDot, and your feeble attempt
to prevent a comment from me has nothing to do with not
disappointing you.  This is as much interest as it elicits:  Zilch

By mistake I posted this on the Hedges article.  It was relevant there
but intended here.  Such is life.

The kind of anarchy Hedges is advocating is not what I can get involved
in.  I read the article and Mark E. Smith’s comment on the other forum
and yours, MarthaA, that follows it as well.  Hedges has been
advocating not paying taxes, and not voting for years.  I don’t believe
liberalism is dead as Hedges also for years has been moaning.

Passive resistance is a fine action.  It is definitely a way to express one’s
views and voicelessness is a strategy.  But I have responded for years
that it is pissing in the wind unless, as you noted accurately, without
the numbers it is a useless waste of energy.

Again, I prefer to work from the inside out.  Lingua franca is the
language that is widely used.  Republicans redefine meanings of our
language and use it as propaganda.  But the Democrats, Independents
and third partiers also use language as propaganda.

The Republicans use language that seems to catch the attention of the
70% majority as you call them. Their propaganda has effect.  The
spineless Democrats mumble their language and bows to the coercive
language of the Republicans.

Nor passive resistance, or non-violent resistance except on the scale of
Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and actually most recently in Egypt must
have huge support or at least a good percentage of the country that is
besieged by tyrants.  That was their secret weapon, numbers of
sympathizers.  There have been many nonviolent resistances throughout
history.  But successes were attributable to the general and highly
passionate emotion of the people in huge numbers.  Egypt almost did
not work, but with the usurpation of the government by the military
junta, it is possible the people will have to resort to a Libyan militant
resistance.  A rebellion in the United States has no traction at least
there are too little signs there is.  Nor is violence an answer.

I would not subject my family and friends to a savage armed
confrontation.  Would you?  M’thinks Hedges has been infected by what
he sees happening in the Middle East.  And those people cannot be said
to have succeeded and not without a lot of bloodshed.  Is that what you
are advocating too?

Collecting empirical information, in 2008 an published in depth
analysis, “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent
Conflict”, in International Security, showed a completely detailed
analysis of the rate of success of civil resistance campaigns, as
compared to rebellions or revolutions.  From their study of over 300
cases of both types of campaign, from 1900 to 2006, they concluded
that “nonviolent resistance methods are likely to be more successful
than violent methods in achieving strategic objectives.”  However, their
article noted specifically that “resistance campaigns that compel loyalty
shifts among security forces and civilian bureaucrats are likely to
succeed.  Without those domains one of actual power the other with
only potential residual power among the members, any movement is
likely to not succeed and loss of ground can be expected.

I am afraid that is what is happening in Libya and it looks like that
condition is emerging in Egypt. Hedges April 15 plan is going to be
very telling.

Report this

By Litl Bludot, April 12, 2011 at 5:21 am Link to this comment

MarthaA

Thank you for your posts.  They are honest and refreshing.  If I could take your
advice regarding shenom, and I would.  I hope that you are using shenom as a
tableau in which to express your thoughts, rather than an honest intellectual
give and take.  There is not an honest intellect within her posts.

Posters who have no moral bearing, no regard for history or facts, who
deliberately defend the indefensible with sophistry while posing as moral,
empathetic humanitarians with an honest intellect do a tremendous amount of
damage.  They offer solutions that are surrenders to the fascist, corporate, elite
that are ruining all that is good in life.

You could read Hedges.  I think Scheer would now, in hindsight, after being
taken in by frenemy Obama (shenoms totem) concur with the above.  Nader, of
course, saw the con right away, and was crucified for it.

Your voice indicates that you have the outrage, now you need to be able to see
who are the fake democrats posing as Democrats.  The Republicans are openly
fascist, at this point.  The word has a definition, and it applies to them, without
a doubt.  As I explained in my previous posts, there are those who hide their
fascist sympathies by blurring the definition. 

Shenom, your cue.  Leefeller, jump in.  You two never disappoint.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 12, 2011 at 5:01 am Link to this comment

Here is a post on another Truthdig thread, ‘This
is What Resistance Looks Like’ that seems like is
should work on this thread as well:

By Mark E. Smith, April 12 at 7:27 am Link to this
comment

Chris Hedges is correct in saying that, “The
phrase consent of the governed has been turned
into a cruel joke,” and also in observing that,
“There is no way to vote against the interests of
Goldman Sachs.” Only his conclusion that, “Civil
disobedience is the only tool we have left,” is
wrong.

Civil disobedience is not effective. It results only
in the repression of those taking part. Our
tyrannical government has stated clearly many
times that it does not allow public opinion to
influence policy decisions.

There is an effective way to bring about change,
one I’ve been advocating for many years, and
I’m glad to see that RedwoodGuy and DieDaily,
among others, understand it. Of course the
numerous political party operatives are horrified,
but boycotting elections and refusing to vote is
the only effective way we have to bring about
change. Yes, our government can remain in
power without the consent of the governed, but
it could not claim legitimacy or claim to be a
democratic form of government.

What demonstrators are protesting are their
own votes to empower the government that is
harming them. Stop empowering that
government and it loses the authority you grant
it to use violence to govern you. It may still use
violence, but without your consent it is
illegitimate violence and the world will recognize
that.

When you join a union, no matter how
progressive that union, you are recognizing and
authorizing capitalist bosses to exploit you, and
asking only that they be somewhat less
exploitive.

When you vote, no matter how progressive the
party or candidates you vote for, you are
recognizing and authorizing the system that
holds the election to govern you, and asking only
that it be somewhat less brutal and destructive.

The United States is ruled by a military junta (the
Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff) against which
neither the President nor Congress have any
power. This military junta, like the President and
Congress, is wholly dependent upon funding
from the wealthy elites on whose behalf it exists.
Of course our government gives everything they
want to the wealthy elites, the corporations, and
the military, because that’s who they exist to
serve, not we the people.

The corporations are going to spend billions of
dollars on the 2012 election. The Supreme Court
says they can spend as much money as they
wish. If you’ve seen the documentary film, “The
Corporation,” you know that corporations have a
fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize
profits. If those donations didn’t maximize profits,
their shareholders could and would sue them
and would replace them with more compliant
Boards of Directors.

We the people don’t have billions of dollars with
which to wage an equal and opposite media
campaign to urge people not to vote. So once
again, most people will get caught up in the
election frenzy, focus on individual candidates
rather than the repressive system behind them,
and choose what they hope might be the lesser
evil, but, as always, will turn out to be the same
old evil with a new face.

We know that we can’t hold elected federal
officials accountable while they’re in office and
can only wait until the next election to try to
replace them. We also know that the Supreme
Court ruled that there is no Constitutional
requirement that the popular vote be counted.
To vote in elections where your vote need not be
counted, for candidates you can’t hold
accountable, is sheer idiocy. And to then allow
yourself to be arrested for protesting the results
of your vote is even worse. If you don’t like what
government is doing to you, stop delegating to
them the power to do it. Don’t vote.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 12, 2011 at 4:38 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 12 at 6:57 am,

I did not call you a Fascist, here is what I said:

“I wonder if you know that you are representing fascism, do you?”

I did not thank Litl Bludot for that definition source to try
to make you look bad, I appreciate another source definition of
Fascism, as our country is in the throes of Fascism.

Shenonymous, I do agree with much of what you say, though I
strongly disagree.

“As I already said, I think assimilation is the best way to
infiltrate and subvert the opposition and that means to use the
lingua franca.”
— Shenonymous, April 12 at 6:57 am

Sorry, I do not know the meaning of lingua franca.

If you were to infiltrate the Conservative Democrat war theater
against Progressives/Liberals and learn which ones had to be
voted out in the Primaries, you would still be back to the same
thing, trying to bring awareness to the majority population against
a flood of conservative media, and needing to get them mad
enough that their brains will jump the conservative rote track and
decode, so they will be able to think about a new solution other
than the propagandistic Conservative Republican or Conservative
Democrat solution of destruction of the common majority.

Among a bunch of conservatives,  the instant you utter anything
liberal or progressive, you will be black balled forever out of their
Conservative Movement, unless you get that conservative
double-speak down.

I was at one time on a Liberal Forum and they espoused Liberal
views, but when I kept peppering the Conservative Republican
Right-Wing Republicans as the EXTREMISTS they are, the forum
ended up being run by Conservative Right-Wingers and closed the
forum down because they thought too much information was
getting out to the public. It is my opinion to get as much
information out to the public as I can while I can.

We have learned to disagree without being disagreeable, so
perhaps Shenonymous and Litl Bludot can learn
to disagree without being disagreeable also. Been there, done that,
it’s better to be diplomatic.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 12, 2011 at 2:57 am Link to this comment

MarthaA, April 12 at 5:35 am
Mack, April 11 at 10:39 pm,
You can call them Tea Partiers if you want to, but they are ALL ?
REPUBLICANS.  There is no institutionalized legitimate Tea Party,
?only REPUBLICANS, using as many psuedo-factions as they can to ?
deceive the American populace into voting Republican against their
?own best interest.  Voting Republican is always against the ?majority
population’s best interest, because no matter what they ?say, they will
always vote the best interest of their class and ?culture, the Elite
Corporate Capitalist Class and Culture, the ?Ownership Society, which
is not the majority population of the ?United States, who lost their
homes by the thousands.

I believe that is nearly exactly what I’ve been saying for many posts on
this forum!  Here and on other forums!  So glad you agree with me
MarthaA.

As for your post to me at April 12 at 3:01 am, I disagree and I’ve said
why enough times.  So we will simply have to agree to disagree, as the
saying goes.  My liberal views and actions speak for themselves.  When I
say “have to” speak the common language, I mean I feel it is the best
way to get through to the minds I want to.  As I already said, I think
assimilation is the best way to infiltrate and subvert the opposition and
that means to use the lingua franca.  If you want to doggedly continue
to call me fascist with your esoteric definiton, that is your prerogative. 
It is only antagonizing name-calling.  All of my posts on TD in the four
years I’ve been a commenter shows that I am not.

You can say it is time for the 70% majority common population to
realize they are a class and culture until you are blue in the face, and
until you find a way to make them do that, all you have is a blue face.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 12, 2011 at 2:54 am Link to this comment

Litl Bludot, April 11 at 7:24 am,

Thanks for another source definition of Fascism.

Jingoistic Fascism, though caring nothing about
religion, pretends to protect religion and country,
but has no allegiance to either—Fascism = Jingoism.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 12, 2011 at 1:35 am Link to this comment

Mack, April 11 at 10:39 pm,

You can call them Tea Partiers if you want to, but they are ALL
REPUBLICANS.  There is no institutionalized legitimate Tea Party,
only REPUBLICANS, using as many psuedo-factions as they can to
deceive the American populace into voting Republican against their
own best interest.  Voting Republican is always against the
majority population’s best interest, because no matter what they
say, they will always vote the best interest of their class and
culture, the Elite Corporate Capitalist Class and Culture, the
Ownership Society, which is not the majority population of the
United States, who lost their homes by the thousands.

Because there are only two (2) political parties, all Democrats are
suppose to represent the majority population, and once did
represent the majority population fairly well, and a few still try, but
after the 1980 Conservative Revolution, 20% of the common
population, the academic New Class Democrats, [the Neo-cons,
Neo-Liberals, all the Neos—Neo meaning New] formed the elite of
the common population and separated out of the common
population to represent themselves as the Middle Class without
any actual and beneficial representation for the remaining 70%
majority common population other than as foster children who
would have to sit at a different table and be seen, but not heard. 
All the New Democrats ARE the DLC, which includes the 3rd Way
and the Progressive Policy Institute and whatever else they may
call themselves as they are inventive in finding ways to push their
conservative agenda deceptively—the Conservative Right has a
web of deception, purporting to be progressives and liberals, but
push a Conservative Right Agenda.  It’s a deceptive mess, and you
can only know for certain which ones they are by their consistent actions and
votes. Some votes are deceptive as they will vote progressive
when they have more than enough votes to pass their
conservative agenda.  The DLC is the problem and always has
been the problem in the Democratic Party since it was formed in
1980.
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Democratic_Leadership_Council

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 11, 2011 at 11:01 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 7 at 11:41 am,

“Your terms are esoteric to your own unique lexicon
and do not fit what is discussed in the media or in politics.
Since I have to find ways to work within that milieu I have
to use the vocabulary as it is used by the media
and political factions.”
—Shenonymous,
April 7 at 11:41 am

What’s in the corporate media and in corporate
political factions is “false framing” representing a
false sense of advantage to the
populace, and if YOU use a false frame of a “false
sense of advantage” to dialog contrary to that
false frame and false sense
of advantage, YOU will enable the false frame
and false sense of
advantage,
and you will thereby discredit your own dialog.

The conservative “frame of dialog” that enables a “false sense of
advantage” for the American Populace is what the Democratic
Party does, and this is what is unacceptable about the Democratic
Party.  This is why they are so timid and cooperative with rhetoric
that is contrary to the best interest of the American Populace.

“Since I have to find ways to work within that milieu
I have to use the vocabulary as it is used by the media
and political factions.”
—Shenonymous, April 7 at 11:41
am

No, you do not have to use the frames of the conservative
media and the conservative right-wing republicans or the
cooperating conservative Democrats.
  It is always the claim of
the conservative right and those who cooperate with the
conservative right that you have to use the conservative frame
that is being used against you to defend against the conservative
frame that is being used against you.  If you try to defend against
the conservative frame using the conservative frame, your defense
will always be in support of the conservative frame, if the
conservative frame is used as a defense against itself, which is
what has been happening and started with the Conservative
Revolution that has stretched from Nixon to the present. 

When talking to conservatives and those cooperating with
conservatives, YOU have to deliberately follow YOUR OWN FRAME
that is in support of YOUR OWN RHETORIC and YOUR OWN
POLITICAL AGENDA,  if you expect to be successful in any degree
with regard to your own political agenda.

“From all the people I come in contact with or observe in any
other way I observe they do not usually think about what class
they belong to.”
—Shenonymous, April 7 at 11:41 am

True, the average person, has no awareness of their class and
culture, largely due to the work of a Political Science Professor
in the “Making of Citizens”, now all the populace know is what they have been told from cradle to grave, because like the Native
Americans it has been taken away from them in true Charles
Edward Merriam fashion, so that they think of themselves as only
individuals without class and culture, and as individuals it is
impossible for an individual to represent his/her self against the
two classes and cultures of the Democratic Party and the
Republican Party, which is why   It is time for the 70% majority
common population to realize they are a class and culture, as
diversified as they are, they are the common population class and
culture and “ARE” the 70% majority population of the United
States, way more than 51% which is controlling interest, therefore
awareness needs to be fostered in the controlling interest majority
population of the United States until they learn who they are. 

Where I got the question of whether or not you knew you was
representing fascism, was because of the above, going along with
the conservative frame of a false sense of advantage because you
think you have to.  How could you think such a thing?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 11, 2011 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

Your gall LtlBlueDot is that you speak like an idiot and don’t know it. 
But then most bores who speak like idiots don’t. Your feeble resort to
name-calling is a tactic of the ineffectual otherwise.  Your whining and
moaning to others about those who have rattled your cage instead of
being able to face them intelligently and candidly is an indication of an
unprincipled thought process.  It shows you most likely were the result
of inbreeding.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 11, 2011 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

Blue Dot and Martha call Shester a Fascist, I find this myopic approach to name calling instead of addressing what Shenaamous has posted as the typical obfuscation to what many moronic posters do here.  My confusion may only be in the facts,...... and you Blue Dot have never offered any!

Again, Blue Dot what do you specifically find wrong or not correct in Shes comments other than you do not like what she posts or how she posts, She hurt your little feelers?

If I posted a quote from Palin and posed her quotes as great revivifications,...... most people would call me on it here. Blue Dots posting from a mediocre self proclaimed fascist on fascism needed some qualifying, I am suspecting Martha A and Blue Dot may be one and the same?

Obam is not not a fascist in the sense the Republicans and strong arm tea baggers are Fascist, again I remind you of Britts fourteen points of fascism, even a closed mind should find some insight into the definition of what Fascism really is, especially as promoted by the Tea Bag/Republicans.

You know if a political chosen person has a distinct which 51 percent Republicans and 49 percent others, the Republicans and Tea Bags will shove their agenda down the rest of everyone else’s throats, now fascists would do the same, but do not need 49 percent of the vote.  What is happening is Republicans do not represent anything but their own benefactors, not even representing the people who voted for them and definitely not the people who did not instead attacking them! 

Obama is not a Bully, he is not a Fascist, I challenge you Blue Dot to define Obama as a fascist in any sense of the word and true meaning of the word Fascist!

Report this

By Litl Bludot, April 11, 2011 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment

Mack,
fascists have people who speak for them, not directly, but by negating the idea
that fascists exist or that the word has a definition.  These are their
sympathizers who will proudly march in step once the fascists have taken
power. 

You have posters here that fit the bill, shenom for one.  Leefeller seems a bit
bewildered and may not acutally hear the tune he will be marching too.  Which
is not an excuse.  All those who voted for Obama and defend him are helping
the corporate fascists take over.

It’s a simple good cop, bad cop game.  Then once there is no possible
resistance, the gloves will come completely off, no more pretending to be a
rational, humane Democrat, the hypocrites (frenemies) will show their true
colors.

The secret prisons the US has in Afghanistan and other places, where people
disappear and are tortured, then killed, will be common here.  We already have
the highest per capita prison population in the world, more than China. 
Already people are afraid, terrorized into numbing acceptance. Rationalizing
the acceptence of the liars, torturers, war criminals as leaders.

Those who can, like shenom, spread confusion and disinformation, trying to
pose as intellects capable of informing honestly.  They are collaborators in the
ongoing destruction of civilized societies, and the biosphere by the corporate
fascists.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 11, 2011 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

Blue Dot,

Are you A tea Bagger? Taking quotes from a fascist play book seems becoming to both Republicans and Tea Baggers!

Ignorance has its place and it seems so does Blue Dot!

She wrote the following, what does Blue Dot find in disagreement or not correct?

“As Griffiths makes clear, the threat of fascism comes today not from
splinter groups of Hitler obsessionists but from stylish smart-suited
and Teabag politicians like Newt Gingrich, newly inducted, and Paul
Ryan.  But, and much care has to be taken to thwart it, fascism is re-
discovering its ‘left-wing’.  The danger is that an anti-fascist movement
that is too far behind and lacks sophistication of the ideologies of its
enemies, that they don’t become blinded by the bile of their own
hubris.”

It seems he concept of not knowing something and learning something new is then showing appreciation of the fact is kissing ass according to Blue Dot, it seems the problem is not only the Republicans and Tea Bags, but also Blue Dots apparent ego!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 11, 2011 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

You are such a bitter bore Ltl Bludot and while Gentile did write
extensively about fascism, you are stale and wrong about its
etymology and originating history. Still stinging over some frank
remark I made about you?  5 Yups for that one!  LOL

Gentile was a pro-Fascist cabinet member in Mussolini’s coalition
government who was the major theorist of Italian fascism, which
already had a definition, just as I have noted. Gentile provided fascism
its “justificatory rationale as a developmental dictatorship” as A. Gregor,
Gentile biographer said, politically because the Fascists had not taken
control over the Italian parliament.  You might invest in it if you have
the extra five or so bucks.  Do read your history, if you can read
critically, that is.  For a few more texts, try Payne’s A history of
fascism
or Eugen Weber’s, Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of
Revolution in the 20th Century.
  Gentile was a misanthropic
philosopher who constructed his own philosophy he called Actual
Idealism, he described himself as the philosopher of Fascism. 

Do take a high dive in a large bucket of shit.

Report this

By Litl Bludot, April 11, 2011 at 3:24 am Link to this comment

The original definition of fascism by the Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile is as
follows: Fascism, a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the
extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership,
together with belligerent nationalism.

shallow sophist shenom, give us another murky fetid verbal swamp that leefeller can
joyfully bath in. 

then kiss obama’s ass again, verbally of course.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 10, 2011 at 9:52 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 11 at 12:43 am,

“It is usually either or when it comes to politics.”
Shenonymous

And, emotional either/or is propaganda.

One must learn not to pretend they have a false sense of advantage,
—which isn’t to say that you are.

Corporations are what caused the debt of the United States, it is
most certainly assured that corporations will not be interested in
actually helping the 70% Majority Population not become their
slaves, because slavery helps their bottom line, hence all the out
sourcing Trade Agreements and Obama just signed another one into
effect a few days ago.

Although, because GE does take money from the Federal
Government, the government will have some control over GE,  it is
possible that the Government will be able to use that power to
control GE’s interests for constructive purpose, only time will tell.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 10, 2011 at 8:43 pm Link to this comment

It is usually either or when it comes to politics.  I agree that
corporations may be used for “constructive purposes.”  And that
there will not be a groundswell or mass uprising to change the
government.  That did not happen when Bush was in office when
the worst ravaging of this country ever took place.  Progressives
were as ineffective, and wheel spinning, as they ever were.  And
whether or not Obama is considered a lackey of the Republican
aka Teabagger, Conservative, Right-Wing agenda by the ultra left,
he is perceived by a great many people, to have the best interests
of the middle class and poor at heart whether or not he succeeds. 
Much to progressives’ dismay, he is not a lackey of the left that is
for sure. 

I too have concerns with GE the corporation and all the other
corporations who would benefit permanently under the Teabagger
Paul Ryan-controlled Republican Party and the plan to decimate the
middle and poor class social programs and to increase tax cuts for
corporations and the rich.  Even so, I do not have the concerns about
Immelt as you do.  I believe his job as jobs developer will keep him
busy.  Others at GE will run the corporate show. 

As I said, the only way to effect real change is to start at the grass
roots as a nationwide movement.  And start it now.  There is never
ever a better moment than now.  Tomorrow is too late.  We see it is
possible to make a wave of protest that gets the attention of the media
and listened to from the Wisconsin affair.  They are effecting recall!  So
it is as I said, possible.  But it will take forcefully articulate and
charismatic liberals like Ratigan or Schultz or captivating progressives
like Cenk Uygur, to make that start to happen.  As a disciple of Eric
Hoffer, short of something like that, all efforts, particularly and
including third party creation, will die on the vine. 

The continuous raillery between us MarthaA is really getting you and me
nowhere.  Therefore, I will desist henceforth.  Have to go and do my
taxes!  Have as good a life as you can.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 10, 2011 at 7:54 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 10 at 6:05 pm,

The program is NOT to go along to get along with
backlash politics as a substitute for political
representation of the 70% majority common
population of the United States, the American
Populace, and to incrementally increase
awareness in the American Populace that they
are not represented politically in the making and
enforcing of legislated law and order until their
awareness reaches critical mass and the
American Populace en masse rise up and force
their own political representation in the making
and enforcing of legislated law and order that is
representative of the class and cultural interests
of the American Populace.

If the American Populace do not become aware
and make changes themselves, all the United
States has to look forward to each election, no
matter which party is elected, is President
Cathcart and Vice President Minderbinder and a
Congressional Syndicate on the order of M & M
Enterprises.

The Republicans have everything and they are
always standing up for more—the Democratic
Party represents an agenda of going along to
get along and trying to maintain what you have,
rather than standing up for principles of the
making and enforcing of legislated law and order
that is in the best interest of the American
Populace.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 10, 2011 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 10 at 7:42 am,

Catch 22 Government
Page 1 of 2

Arguing that differing people in differing time
periods for differing purposes have used the
same club to get their way does not in any way
legitimize the use of the club.

Whenever you’re looking at corporations and
their use, you must consider fire -  fire can be
used for constructive purpose or destructive
purpose.  Corporations are a tool that can be
used in combination with religion to oppress as in
Fascism for private purpose, and a corporation
can be used with social capital for purposes of
community.

The choice to be made is the same choice as with
fire, and that is to use corporations for
constructive purpose for the benefit of the
community without destructive intent, or to use
corporations for destructive purpose against the
benefit of the community without constructive
benefit to the community for the benefit of
private purpose at the expense of the community.

As far as I know, corporations in today’s world
are fueled by private capital and operating for
private purpose in disengenuous pursuit of God’s
Will, and an academic denial that Fascism can be
or has been used in other ways will in no way
negate the negative use of Fascism by American
Corporations in today’s world against the best
communal interests of the American people.

As with a corporation, a syndicate can be used
for constructive purpose without destructive
intent or a syndicate can be used for destructive
purpose without constructive intent.  It all gets
down to how the club is used, if the club is used
to hit others over the head for personal benefit
or if the club is is it used in productive purpose
for the benefit of the community. 

When a club is used as a mortar in a pestle to
grind grain to make bread for a community it is a
constructive use of the club in service to the
community, but when the same club is used to
exercise control over the same community by
hitting people in one way or another to enforce
order of the few over the benefit of the many,
the same club is being used for destructive
purpose without constructive benefit and
oppresses the community. 

My concern with GE is that a mega-corporation
for profit that controls many clubs, and even
takes subsidies from the U.S. Government to
maximize their profit, will not use those clubs for
the benefit of someone else other than themself,
which would go totally against the corporate
profit margin.  Giving the most huge corporation
on the face of the planet control over the United
States government, does not appear to me to be
in the best interest of the American Populace,
because, as I have previously stated, the person
who controls the club does what is in their best
interest, not someone else; and corporations
have done an excellent job of squandering the
wealth of the United States away from any
benefit to the American Populace, and I have no
expectations of the GE Corporation doing
anything different.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 10, 2011 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 10 at 7:42 am,

Catch 22 Government
Page 2 of 2

I do expect to see plenty of Catch 22’s in the
American Populace’s future, similar to Joseph
Heller’s scenario with Milo Mindbinder, the
fictional war profiteer that used the concept of a
syndicate very effectively, but very
inappropriately.

Milo Minderbinder is the mess officer at the U.S.
Army Air Corps base who becomes obsessed
with expanding mess operations and trading
goods for the profits of the syndicate, in
which he and everyone else “has a share”. Milo
is a satire of the modern businessman, and is
representative of capitalism, as he has no
allegiance to any country, person or principle
unless it pays him.

Minderbinder’s attributes are his complete
immorality without self-awareness, and his
circular logicality in running his Syndicate
Enterprise that becomes known as “M & M
Enterprises”, with the two M’s standing for his
initials and the “&” added to dispel any idea that
the enterprise is a one-man operation. [Similar to
the Democratic Party/Republican Party Duopoly
in the United States.]

Minderbinder travels across the world, especially
around the Mediterranean, trying to buy and sell
goods at a profit, primarily through black
market channels. Everyone has a “share”, a fact
which Minderbinder uses to defend his actions,
stating that what is good for the company is
good for all. For example, he secretly replaces
the CO2 cartridges in the emergency life vests
with certificates for shares in M & M, on the
assumption that the future person who may
need that vest will be instantly compensated for
its absence.

Minderbinder contracts missions for the Germans,
fighting on both sides in the battle at Orvieto,
and bombing his own squadron at Pianosa. At
one point Minderbinder orders his fleet of aircraft
to attack the American base where he lives,
killing many American officers and enlisted men.
He finally gets court-martialed for treason.
However, as M&M Enterprises proves to be
incredibly profitable, he hires an
expensive lawyer who is able to convince the
court that it was capitalism which made America
great, and is absolved only by disclosing to the
congressional committee investigating what the
enormous profit he made by dealing
with the Germans was.

Minderbinder’s business is incredibly
profitable
, with the single exception of his
decision to buy all Egyptian cotton in existence,
which he cannot unload afterwards (except to
other entrepreneurs, who sell the cotton back to
him, then in order to dispose of the cotton for a
profit, he coats it with chocolate and serves it in
the mess hall as food, but later is given the idea
of selling the cotton to the government, since
“the business of government is ‘business’.” 
  Minderbinder’s syndicate becomes an
international syndicate, making Minderbinder the
Mayor of Palermo, Assistant Governor-General of
Malta, Shah of Oran, Caliph of Baghdad, Mayor of
Cairo, and the god of corn, rain, and rice in
various pagan African countries and when
Minderbinder goes to one of his cities, an
impromptu holiday with parades is declared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Minderbinder

The same as with Milo Minderbinder it all gets
down to how a tool is used.  GE takes
humongous welfare subsidies from the U.S.
Government, without being in need of welfare,
while a woman with children isn’t allowed welfare
at all.  Perhaps this “me first” attitude will
continue being GE’s “Catch 22” mantra in “Catch
22” fashion, it is definitely the mantra of the New
Class, and McJobs for the American Populace will
most likely be considered good enough for the
likes of them.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 10, 2011 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

Frankly MarthaA, I do not have a solution except to work at the local
level to elect liberal politicians who will correct those completely off
course Congressmen/women that are now in office.  There is not
going to be any change to the major two party system for a long
time, until enough forces are marshaled for a new party to appeal
to enough people that can provide competition to the Democrats and
Republicans. That is the reality. And since there are some Democrats
who are liberal and who do stand up with strong backbones, they are
who I will work to defeat the Republicans.  The general public needs
to be reminded that it is the Republicans who would reduce them to
groveling for a decent life.  You of course, are free, just as I am, to do
what you think is best. Unlike you, I certainly have not denigrated you
even once for your confrontationally different views from mine!

Some of politicians need to be recalled for wanting to decimate the
entitlements and other vital social programs such as Affordable Health
Care, fair prices for food, affordable housing, affordable education,
Pre-K through two years of college, and saving the Environment at least
the air and water quality.  Replacing wayward politicians will take care
of the short term and the long term, since some of these politicians
who are intent on seizing our country for their Republican aka TeaParty,
Conservative, Right-Wing itinerary and have been elected for a two year
term. Challenges ought to be launched soon so that they know they are
being stalked!  Then movements need to be organized to require
campaign reform, tax reform, and strengthening our entitlement
programs.  What exactly is your program for change both short range
and long?  Please speak as plainly as I have.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 10, 2011 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 9 at 8:04 pm,

When it comes to fiscal irresponsibility, Republicans take the cake,
but always with the assistance and cooperation of the Middle
Class “Catch 22 New Democrats”, who in my humble opinion have
already made the Middle Class obsolete.

Shenonymous said:  “I appreciate your trying to convince
me MarthaA.  However, I am solidly entrenched in my “informed”
observations. There is no changing my mind that the Republicans
are the enemy of the people and need to be thoroughly trounced. 
That does not mean that I think Democrats ought to be fiscally
irresponsible. ” —Shenonymous, April 9 at 8:04 pm

With regard to you being solidly entrenched in your informed
observations about the Middle Class and the unions, how exactly
do you propose that the American Middle Class, as a 20% minority
population can continue to exist and thrive at the expense of the
70% majority population of the American Populace, when the New
World Order and the World Economy is diverting
the Manufacturing Base of the United States to
China, India, and other
areas of the world external to the United States; ———And,
how on earth do you expect the Unions in the United States to
have control over the Manufacturing Base of the United States
that has been, is being, and will continue to be outsourced and off
shored to China, India, and other countries external to the U.S.
Economy?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 10, 2011 at 6:17 am Link to this comment

Great post She; I had suspected the Fascist’s mantra could possibly come from the left as well as from the right,...... even so,  for the present the fanatic Tea Bag/Republicans seem possessed to bully their way using the fascist play book?

Why do I have a vision of the statue of Liberty holding a club instead of a light?

It seems, Compassion is not on the table or anywhere with this elephant in the room holding a tea bag!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 10, 2011 at 3:42 am Link to this comment

Your analysis of fascism was somewhat of a tour de force MarthaA.
But the historic propaedeutic was a bit short.

Fascism is a descendent of Sorelianism.  This ism refers to the
principles and thinking of the French revolutionary syndicalist
Georges Sorel that referred to the anti-individualist, anti-liberal,
anti-materialist, anti-positivist, anti-rationalist, spiritualist
syndicalism that Sorel advocated.  It was once considered a revision
of Marxism, but Sorel renounced socialism in favor of a more fascistic
ideology claiming that Marxism had decomposed.  I see it closer to
anarchism.

Sorelianism opposed liberal democracy. I am a Liberal Democrat, and
hardly fascistic except in your own eccentric thought.

Furthermore, Sorelianism is also syndicalistic.  Syndicalism is an
economic system intended to replace capitalism and state socialism that
used federations of collectivized trade unions or industrial unions. 
Syndicalism is a form of economic corporatism that advocates the
political demands of groups and individuals to produce change,
commonly called personal-interest aggregation, or groups that seek the
support of or make demands to the government by combining policy
programs of multiple non-competitive categorized units to negotiate
and manage an economy.

This sounds exactly like a carbon copy to what corporations do today
under the protection of the Republican Party.  Again, this does not
describe my perspective even if I did say Immelt was highly qualified to
find ways to create jobs.  He is a minor player in the government hired
expressly to produce jobs, exactly what this country needs to help
Americans.  Your own purist perspective is authoritarian in flavor.

In political talk, the term “fascist” is often marks authoritarian
tendencies, but is often used as a derogatory label by disciples of left-
wing and right-wing politics merely to denigrate those with opposing
viewpoints.  I love Richard Griffiths, “An Intelligent Person’s Guide to
Fascism” and recommend it for all to read as he challenges all modern
ideas of the history and influence of fascism.  It is obvious that to view
fascism as a Right-wing tendency is to be carelessly naive.  Fascism is
not simply descriptive of the far-Right of the Republican Party though
there are plenty of the fascist-minded there.  Nor is the Left-wing form
of fascism simply an artificial position to distract and beguile the
working classes.  It must not be forgotten that historically fascism was
as much a leftist movement as a rightist one, there can be no denying
that.

As Griffiths makes clear, the threat of fascism comes today not from
splinter groups of Hitler obsessionists but from stylish smart-suited
and Teabag politicians like Newt Gingrich, newly inducted, and Paul
Ryan.  But, and much care has to be taken to thwart it, fascism is re-
discovering its ‘left-wing’.  The danger is that an anti-fascist movement
that is too far behind and lacks sophistication of the ideologies of its
enemies, that they don’t become blinded by the bile of their own
hubris.

A critic of history, George Orwell wrote that the word ‘Fascism’ is
virtually meaningless.  Writing in the mid 1940s, he said that any
English person would equate the word bully with a fascist.

Fascism was given its birth as a synthesis of the politically right and
syndicalist elements on the left.  Fascism accommodates the
conservative, aka Republican, attitude of fiscal anarchy and the
Republican fear of uncertainty which they dramatize to the extreme in
their propaganda.  Like you, shall I parse all the various forms of
conservatism?  The kind of nationalism embraced by fascism sustains
an anti-democratic component and is completely antithetical to my
perspective.  So MarthaA you misrepresent my views with the greatest
of error.  So be it.  But it shows disgraceful self-serving interpretation
on your part.

Report this

By Litl Bludot, April 9, 2011 at 11:54 pm Link to this comment

It’s a simple question, whether citizens are capable of electing representatives that
will not be a stealth agent of the capitalist parasites who are draining the very last
economic, social and environmental asset from humanity.

Icelanders are going to vote no today.  Portugal had a caretaker government that
sold them out to the banksters.  Greece, the same. Ireland the same.  The US,
here, the same.

The obvious fascism of the Republicans makes the disaster capitalism of the
Democrats seem safe.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 9, 2011 at 11:40 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 9 at 2:12 am, Shenonymous, April 9 at 4:23 pm, Shenonymous, April 9 at 6:41 am,
         
Fascism - Page 1 of 2

Any person that is comfortable with corporate
power leading the government is a fascist
sympathizer in no uncertain terms and you know
them by their fruits.  GE is a world wide mega
corporation and Jeffrey R. Immelt, CEO of GE
assigned to and controlling U.S. government
without quitting his job as CEO of GE is FASCISM,
pure and simple. 

“Fascism should more properly be called
corporatism because it is the merger of state and
corporate power.”—Benito Mussolini  

Fascism is corporate governance.  When
I was young, the definition of fascism was more
blunt, it was unnecessary to look in 3-4 different
reference books to find that fascism was defined
as a corporate state with a religious
face
, but now it does, which I will quote
here as follows:

FASCISM, is a form of government
which centers all power in a single party
headed by an absolute dictator. Benito Mussolini
, who ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943.  Extreme
nationalism often becomes race fanaticism, racial
and religious bigotry.—World Book Encyclopedia,
Copyright 1962, Field Enterprises Educational
Corp., Chicago 54, IL USA

FASCISM:  Italy.  Despite propaganda
for the ideal of the Corporate State, few
domestic reforms were attempted.  An entente
with Hungary and Austria (Mar. 1934), a pact
with Germany and Japan (Nov. 1937), and
intervention by 50,000-75,000 troops in Spain
(1936-39) sealed Italy’s identification with the
Fascist bloc (anti-Semitic laws after Mar. 1938).
Ethiopia was conquered (1935-36), and Albania
annexed (Jan. 1939) in conscious imitation of
Ancient Rome. —The World Almanac and Book of
Facts 2000, Copyright 1999 by Primedia
Reference Inc., Library of Congress Catalog Card
No. 4-3781, Int’l Standard Serial No. 0084-1382.

FASCISM, is a form of
government
which centers all power in a
single party headed by an absolute dictator.
Benito Mussolini , who ruled Italy from 1922 to
1943.  Extreme nationalism often becomes
race fanaticism, racial and religious bigotry.

—World Book Encyclopedia, Copyright 1962, Field
Enterprises Educational Corp., Chicago 54, IL
USA
           
[In the United States there is a single
“duopoly party hydra”.]

FASCISM:  The system of one party
government, developed by the Fascisti in Italy,
which exercised a centralized autocratic control
over the activities of all individuals, especially
through the economic agency of State
Corporations.
—New Illustrated Websters
Dictionary, Copyright 1992, by J. G. Ferguson
Publishing Co., Chicago, IL

FASCISM:  “The New York Times in 1944
asked Vice President Henry Wallace to answer
the questions:  What is a fascist?  How many
fascists have we?  How dangerous are they? 
The Vice President’s answers were published on
April 9, 1944, as the war against the Axis powers
and Japan was drawing to a close.  He wrote:

“The really dangerous American fascist ... is the
man who wants to do in the United States in an
American way what Hitler did in Germany in a
Prussian way.  The American fascist would
prefer not to use violence.  His method is to
poison the channels of public information.  With a
fascist the problem is never how best to present
the truth to the public but how best to use the
news to deceive the public into giving the fascist
and his group more money or more power.”

“They claim to be superpatriots, but they
would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the
Constitution.  They demand free enterprise but
are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested
interest.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 9, 2011 at 11:25 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 9 at 2:12 am, Shenonymous, April 9 at 4:23 pm, Shenonymous, April 9 at 6:41 am,
         
Fascism - Page 2 of 2

Their final objective toward which all their
deceit is directed is to capture political power so
that, using thepower of the state and
the power of the marketsimultaneously,
they may keep the common man in
eternal subjugation.”
— ‘American Fascists’,
The Christian Right and the War on America by
Chris Hedges, Free Press, Copyright 2006, NY, NY
10020, within Pages 198 to 199, emphasis
added.

American Fascism:  No swastikas in an American fascism, but
Stars and Stripes (or Stars and Bars) and Christian crosses.  No
fascist salute, but mass recitations of the Pledge of allegiance.

These symbols contain no whiff of fascism in themselves, of course,
but an American fascism would transform them into obligatory
litmus tests for detecting the internal enemy”—Robert O. Paxton,
‘Anatomy of Fascism’ as recorded on Page 18 of “American Fascism”
by Chris Hedges, Free Press, Copyright 2006, NY, NY 10020

FACE of FASCISM:  “The radical Christian Right calls for
exclusion, cruelty and intolerance in the name of God.  Its members
do not commit evil for evil’s sake.  They commit evil to make a
better world.  To attain this better world, they believe, some must
suffer and be silenced, at at the end of time all those who oppose
them will be destroyed.  The worst suffering in human history has
been carried out by those who preach such grand, utopian visions,
those who seek to implant by force their narrow, particular version of
goodness.  This is true for all doctrines of personal salvation, from
Christianity to ethnic nationalism to communism to rascism. 
Dreams of a universal good create hells of persecution, suffering and
slaughter.  No human being could ever be virtuous enough to attain
such dreams, and the Earth has swallowed millions of hapless
victims in the vain pursuit of a new heaven and a new Earth. 
Ironically, it is idealism that leads radical fundamentalists to strip
human beings of their dignity and their sanctity and turn them into
abstractions”—‘American Fascism’ by Chris Hedges, Free Press,
Copyright 2006, NY, NY 10020, page 205.

**********
What I said about all corporations being socialist is correct.

Corporations ARE socialist in FORM and FUNCTION.  Corporate
form and function
is set up according to socialist
tenets
, even though a corporation is set up to produce private
capital, that private capital could not be produced without the
FORM and FUNCTION tenets of socialism; and this attribute
of corporations that benefits private capitalism would be beneficial
to produce social capital, just as easily as it does private
capital, only with social capital all of the population would
receive benefit, where with private capital, only a few of the
population at the top of the pyramid receive benefit.

You are correct in saying that, “there is no difference between the
TeaParty and the Republicans.” which is NOT “aka”—“aka” is
“known as”, and “known as” is NOT the same as “is”—we’re talking
here about the definition of “is”; “is” doesn’t mean “the same as”.

Republican factions should never be talked about separately as if
Republicans aren’t responsible, so that all the blame will go to
either the GOP or the Tea Party in the public’s eyes, Republicans are
one with all their factions, they just want you to buy their theater
and think they aren’t, as Republicans take controlling and deceiving
the population for Republican profit much more seriously than
Democrats, except the New Class, who also choose to control the
population for New Class profit. This ruse happens all the time, so
forgive me if you were not representing the Tea Party and the
Republicans individually, it definitely did appear so.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 9, 2011 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment

I read your last two posts Martha.  Sadly for Mr. Gupta’s assessment,
the middle class already exists. There is no “creating” it. 

” in ?the last two election cycles, organized labor ?poured more than
half-a-billion dollars into the ?Democratic Party with disastrous
results.”
I actually disagree.  Without that investment it would have
been even more disastrous.  The Republicans would have won handily
and we would not be having a battle these days we would be living
under de facto totalitarian fascism.

Unions are still alive and well.  Those who had gone to sleep in
the last decade or two have been jolted awake.  Members are a lot
more savvy than they were in union heyday and electronic media will
help them keep the union managers on their toes and work for the
good of the membership, not feathering their own nest egg.

As reported by the Windsor Star, 3/29/11. The Windsor Star’s
unionized workers have voted overwhelmingly in favor of strike
authorization Sunday should negotiations with management fail.
Members of CAW Local 240, CEP 557 G and CWA-Guild Local 30553
voted 96% in favour of a strike mandate, said joint council union chair
Jim Angus, adding that the main issues are job security, post-
retirement benefits and the “half-pay letter.”

Also printed in Communications Workers of America’s The Newspaper
Guild’s article Wisconsin’s anti-union campaign brings new allies to
labor.  Mark Gruenberg, 3/25/11 writes that Wisconsin’s anti-collective
bargaining law, the opening blast in the GOP-big business nationwide
campaign to strip workers of their rights, state by state, has pushed a
top international human rights group and two U.S. human rights groups
into the U.S. workers’ rights fight – on the workers’ side.

The review of “Unionize Everybody!” by Michael I. Niman, ArtVoice
3/17/11 is a testament of the new energy being invested in unions
and unionizing.  the people need articulate spokespersons on their
behalf whilst they tend to earning a living and then living their lives.
http://mediastudy.com/articles/av3-17-11.html

We all know why unions came to see their own failure and that is
because the objective was more money and power for labor bosses,
not greater rights for workers. The reasoning is ABC:  The unions
cannot fairly support the right of workers to organize without
supporting the right of those same workers to oust the bosses of the
unions. Unfortunately, a kind of union monarchy developed with the
power invested that self-sustained its practices of self-service. Isn’t
that the usual way of greedy men?  This is changing and unions shall
now be servants of its members instead of the reverse.

Steve Early wrote a negative critique on the leadership of the SEIU, a
critique not from the right “but from a fellow traveler on the left and the
book is The Civil Wars in U.S. Labor.” This much needed critique is
what will help identify the specific problems of this particular union that
can then be remedied and used as a paradigm make all unions more
responsible to fight for their members.

I appreciate your trying to convince me MarthaA.  However, I am solidly
entrenched in my “informed” observations. There is no changing my
mind that the Republicans are the enemy of the people and need to be
thoroughly trounced.  That does not mean that I think Democrats ought
to be fiscally irresponsible.  Surely they need to be as we have seen how
unbridled spending can undo this country.  But that also does not mean
that social programs are the ones that need to be given a severe
financial haircut. There are plenty of pork programs that politicians
have continuously fatted up that need cut out.  And the military is not
exempt.  Its spending is outrageous particularly on items like non-
functional billion dollar aircraft and $10,000 toilets.  Time for
politicians to take a thump on the head (pun intended).

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 9, 2011 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

This is not my answer to your post, but I would
like you to peruse this AlterNet post by Arun
Gupta, ‘The American Dream as We Know it
Is Obsolete’— “Why progressives need to think
beyond the mantra of creating a “middle class
America.”” Page 1 of 2:

The following are some excerpts:

“The changed landscape – politically,
economically, socially, ecologically – should be
enough evidence that we can’t recreate a
moment from 80 years in the past. If it’s for a
growing middle class, we’ve been there, done
that and failed miserably. What do we say to the
more than 2 billion Chinese and Indians who
want a middle-class lifestyle? In a time of
runaway global warming, fighting for the middle
class is like fighting for global ecocide.”

“Starting with the New Deal, the prevailing
political order was corporatist – government
brought together major bodies such as labor and
business to help them strike mutually beneficial
agreements. After World War II, as long as the
Bretton Woods financial order prevailed (which
put some limits on the flow of finance capital),
U.S. corporations were tied to the domestic
market and other nation states could not
compete with American business, organized labor
had the power to extract concessions from
corporations.”

“What changed since then is industrial and
merchant capitalists (and foremost financial
capital) have largely escaped geography. Sure
they need factories, roads, electricity, docks,
airports, warehouses and perhaps stores, but
their ability to jump from one low-cost region to
another means American unions, in their current
form, have little leverage over capital.”

“The free-market ideology is a cover for the
Republican and corporate goal of destroying
unions so as to destroy the infrastructure of
dissent. That is, they want to eliminate organized
labor’s ability to organize any sort of resistance
or alternative. Yet labor leaders seem unable to
grasp the implications of this.”

http://www.alternet.org/story/150555/the_american_dream_as_we_know_it_is_obsolete?page=entire

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 9, 2011 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

AlterNet post by Arun Gupta, ‘The American Dream as We Know it
Is Obsolete’— “Why progressives need to think beyond the
mantra of creating a “middle class America.”” Page 2 of 2:

“Indeed, the whole war is based on a simple,
brutal principle:
capital wants to put the entire cost of social
reproduction back on
to workers. You should be entirely responsible
for housing, food,
healthcare, retirement, education, and don’t
expect anything from the rest of society. It’s the
ownership society, a matter of personal
responsibility and if you end up homeless,
jobless, penniless, sick, it’s because you were
lazy, immoral and failed to take advantage of the
opportunities afforded you. And while the plight
of the poor may tug at our heartstrings, to
redistribute the rightful earnings of disciplined
hard-working Americans is to encourage sloth
and sin (this is strikingly similar to Thomas
Malthus’ argument against giving aid to the
poor).”

“This is symptomatic of labor’s deeper malaise in
which it can’t see beyond the market, the middle
class and electoral politics. By some estimates, in
the last two election cycles, organized labor
poured more than half-a-billion dollars into the
Democratic Party with disastrous results.”

“What if organized labor had poured one or two
hundred million dollars into organizing the
unemployed? This could have created a mass
popular force on the left, but its politics might
have been more radical than middle-class
conformism. That’s because we have entered the
jobless future. The market cannot provide for the
25-30 million Americans who are unemployed or
underemployed. The high level of unemployment
is not an effect of the crisis, but a goal because it
allows capital to force down wages and slash
any and all benefits.”

“And that has been the goal for decades. Alan
Budd, an economic advisor to Margaret Thatcher,
once explained that “in Marxist terms” higher
unemployment was “an extremely desirable way
of reducing the strength of the working classes …
which re-created a reserve army of labor and has
allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever
since.””

“This crisis of capitalism requires a radically
different solution than labor serving as an
abused underling to capital. For labor leaders,
perhaps the real stumbling block to organizing
the unemployed is they don’t pay dues, which
provides the leaders with their salaries and
power.”

“After decades of being battered, it’s tempting to
say our options are limited by historical forces.
Except the electrifying revolutions and uprisings
in the Middle East, North Africa, Wisconsin and
elsewhere shows that we have historical agency.
That means making carefully thought-out political
choices, and a good place to start is by rejecting
the middle-class opiate of consumption for the
human ideal of liberation.”

http://www.alternet.org/story/150555/the_american_dream_as_we_know_it_is_obsolete?page=entire

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 9, 2011 at 12:23 pm Link to this comment

Teabaggers aka Republicans appear fascist and are fascist is due
to the coercion with which they try to force their views onto the
American people thinking their view is the only view possible. 
Their views are without a doubt wrong.  This country needs more
socializing its collective capital and less protecting the wealthy. 
Because of the forced inequality by the corporate and possessors
of most of the resources, redistribution is necessarily an unpleasant
requirement.  Mussolini would be most comfortable having tea with
them.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 9, 2011 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

DieDaily, is this your quote or another posters?

“The notion that “Fascism is ‘Right Wing’” is a
shallow and useless idea, basically a canard.”

From what I can suppose, Republican/Tea Bags are right wing and apparently consecutive and appear Fascist, so where is the canard? I will stick by my guns and fascism those cross hairs on the right wings Fascist tendencies and apparent fascist proclivities.

What is interesting, fascists are very much like practicing card carrying bigots and racists; aside from the possibility of actually being both; Fascists will mostly deny what they really are! I wonder if Hitler or Mussolini considered and accepted themselves as a Fascists? Wonder what McCarthy considered himself?

Tea Baggers seem very Fascist to me!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 9, 2011 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

I know my logo (avatar) needs an enema, I am developing a new one.

A couple of points from Steve Almond;

“Kurt Vonnegut believed the human race was doomed if we failed to engage with acts of imagination, because we would then become incapable of imagining the suffering of others.”

Almond goes onto discuss moral imagination. Looking at the Republicans and side kick Tea Baggers, they have absolutely no moral imagination, and their cloned talking points show an absence of imagination of any-kind. Back when I watched television, I noticed the Republicans not only looked ablike, they all said the same scripted crap, now the Tea Baggers have joined them like their is a big difference? Republicans seem expert in not imagining others suffering and a proclivity towrds a compassion-less disregard of caring!

Steve Almond provided the following quote on the topic of my logo and a definition of Fascism;

“The historian Robert Paxton, who studied Europe during World War II, defined fascism as” “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy, but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

I do not know about you, the parallels happening seem as Fascism and are very apparent to me? When Tea Baggers say “Shut her down” they would make others suffer! What one sees happening with the Republican governators smacks of fascism to me.  Come on, the Tea Bags are shrilling for the traditional elites and this is what ALEC is hired to promote, while attacking Unions and labeling them as too empowering, and finally using the age old tired Robber Barron sales pitch,...... socialism.

Britts 14 points of Fascism may need to be posted and could be helpful if tabooed on both sides of Martha A’s foreheads!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 9, 2011 at 2:41 am Link to this comment

Fascist indeed!  A friend sent this very important article from
AlerNet, dated March 31, 2011: “What Is ALEC? Dragging the
Secretive Conservative Organization Out of the Shadows” - This
shadowy organization that has played an extraordinary role in
shaping pro-corporate legislation in a number of states can be
seen at http://www.alternet.org/news/150463?page=entire

Whatever you do, do not forget this acronym: ALEC - the American
Legislative Exchange Council as exhibited at
http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home 

Join ALEC if you want to destroy democracy.  Join ALEC if you are
an oligarchist.  Join ALEC if you are a fascist.

I realize it is possible that an antifascist movement, could resemble
fascism in their zeal to resist. Paradoxically, the essence of antifascist
mystification is that liberal democrats can appear to have the overtones
of the nature of fascism while they show their apparent radicalism in
denouncing fascism.  But while resistance cannot be left up to fanatical
reaction, it is not required to name such a reaction as fascism in order
to fight against it.

“Fascism” is a popular buzz word used by far leftists that more often
confirms their own radicalism.  However, the way they use the term
demonstrates a muddling of theoretical capitulation to the Corporate
State and a surrender to Capital.

But the real spirit of antifascism lies in its struggle against fascism
while supporting democracy; in other words, it is a struggling not for
the destruction of capitalism, but to force capitalism to renounce its
totalitarian form.  Plying socializing features to capitalism is to make it
applicable to both the individual and the society.

In its fascist incarnation, the Republican Party’s force emanates from the
oligarichic impulse.  The corporate oligarchy to be exact, which is a
form of power where such power effectively rests with a small, elite
group of individuals. As witnessed in the Congressional battle over the
US budget, and as seen throughout history, oligarchies have mainly
been tyrannical, relying on public servitude to exist.  That is exactly
what the Republicans want to do to the American population, put them
in servitude.

Briefly, Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, a
united, collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence
and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.  Michelle Bachmann is
a perfect example of this mindset.  Notice how every Republican
politican expresses the same descriptive words when giving opinions
about any policy regardless of whether it is their own agenda or in
criticism of the Democrat’s.  It is a scripted litany.  Fascists believe that
a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the
will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the
nation strong. Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to
the state. Violence and war are actions that Fascists believe create
national reconstruction and invests spirit and vitality. It whips up
emotional support from mentally malleable citizens.  Fascists are
committed nationalist militants who working with a certain amount of
anxiety with traditional elites all the while abandoning democratic
liberties with an objective of “internal cleansing” or territorial
expansion.

Report this
DieDaily's avatar

By DieDaily, April 9, 2011 at 1:24 am Link to this comment

The notion that “Fascism is ‘Right Wing’” is a
shallow and useless idea, basically a canard.

I think most people are a little confused about “what
is Fascicm?”. I’m all for bandying the term about
when it’s appropriate, but it’s great to know what it
really means. And “right wing” is about one of the
more limp, superfluous and fantasy-based attributes. The succinct scholarly discussion of “What is
Fascism?” deserves a look; the link is below.

Fascism is not exactly “corporatist” and “right-wing”
nor “racist”, but it does have some fundamental properties that are always in evidence and these make
up a less dumb-ass definition, as well as providing
us with an actual, valid gauge of how “fascistic” we
currently are or are not.

http://www.anesi.com/Fascism-
TheUltimateDefinition.htm

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 8, 2011 at 11:52 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA:
Calling Shenonymous “fascist” is even less sane than calling Obama’s health care plan “socialism”.  Calling the Teabaggers fascist is appropriate.  Calling spineless weak-willed Democratic congresscritters and senators fascist, isn’t. Calling them TOOLS of the fascists clearly is, until they grow spines, but, as we see tonight, that ain’t gonna happen.

In Israel, ultra-orthodox right-wingers call anyone who challenges their Taliban-like objectives “nazis”.  It doesn’t make them nazis.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 8, 2011 at 10:12 pm Link to this comment

“The supposed timid Democrats go along with everything the
Republicans want to do, even to the protection of whatever the
Republicans want to protect prior to the shut down, so that the
only people really being hurt are the public, the majority population. 
This shutdown, though perpetrated by Republicans, is an agreed
shutdown between both Democrats and Republicans—Tea Party is
Republican, blaming the Tea Party as if the Republicans are innocent
is disingenuous.”
  MarthaA, you are dishonestly characterizing my
view. I am not blaming the TeaParty as if the Republicans are innocent
and you are disingenuous for trying to say so.  I am saying there is no
difference between the TeaParty and the Republicans. That is what aka
means, if you didn’t know: “also known as.”  It is the Republicans
regardless of whatever name they want to be known as:  TeaPartiers,
conservatives, right-wing, it does not matter because the Party on
ballots is the Republican Party and that is what voters see. They don’t
vote for Conservatives, or Right-Wingers, or Tea Partiers, they vote for
Republicans and that is the absolute bottom line.  Their numerous
names don’t mean a thing, these euphemisms are just a way to
describe the various ideological beliefs they harbor. So if anyone wants
to change America they will work to defeat Republicans regardless of
what name they are called.  Change America! Get rid of Republicans! 

You also stretch meanings for your own esoteric purpose.  If you want
to use the word socialist to describe all corporations that is your
prerogative but it is not how I define it and not many others do either. 
Forcing an idiosyncratic credo onto business entities I think clouds the
issue.  There must be distinctions not mental mush.  I find more more
social virtue in socialism.  I am completely against anarchism which is
the opposite of socialism.  Anarchy equals no government, no control.  I
think that is suicide for a large and mixed population such as the
United States.  Socialism equals government intervention.  Limited
socialism, more and more socialized capitalism is the best way to go in
terms of economics.  It can work, and there is evidence that it can. 
Talk with ThomasG about it.  It was his gift to Truthdig.  But in terms of
the kind of government that would work best for this population, it is
liberalism.  Which does not demand complete government control such
as does pure socialism since democracy overrides and all people have
an equal vote.  Now we just don’t have to go over the different forms of
democracy again. 

You say you are not concerned with Republicans.  I see that as a
surreptitious support for the Republicans. 

So here is where I stand:  Delinquent Democrats are replaceable and
ought to be replaced. But there is a contingent of Democrats that do
support liberal ideals, vote for liberal ideals, and fight for liberal ideals. 
There are none in the Republican Party.
*Get rid of Republicans, and give America back to the people.
*Socialized Capitalism as an economic system
*Democratic Liberalism for the best form of government by the people
of a democracy.

Now if you want to appropriate and remodel what I say no one can stop
you but you would be on the cusp of prevarication.  And of course you
may vote for whomever you choose for whatever reasons you have.  I
have my reasons to vote Democratic. 

Quite frankly I think the old comparison of using Vichy politicians and
Hitler as a paradigm is overworked.  And we need to get on with reality. 
Get rid of Republicans.  The only way to do that is to vote pro-choice
Democratic to replace the Democrats who do not stand up to the
dropkicking Republicans and to get rid of the Republicans.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 8, 2011 at 2:47 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 7 at 11:43 pm,

The supposed timid Democrats go along with everything the
Republicans want to do, even to the protection of whatever the
Republicans want to protect prior to the shut down, so that the
only people really being hurt are the public, the majority
population.  This shutdown, though perpetrated by Republicans, is
an agreed shutdown between both Democrats and Republicans—
Tea Party is Republican, blaming the Tea Party as if the
Republicans are innocent is disingenuous.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=705&bih=393&q=Timid+Democrats&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=g-v1&aql;=&oq;=

http://www.alternet.org/story/150528/government_shutdown:_blame_gop_heartlessness_and_democratic_cowardice?page=entire

What is the difference, in your opinion, between the Middle Class,
the Working Class, and the Poor Class? — What is in common
with all three supposed classes?  Does not all 3 supposed classes
have"having to work” in common? What is the point of having so
many classes of working folk?  Could it be to divide?

BTW, I am in the supposed Middle Class, whoopee.  The supposed
middle class gets to do all the paying and the wealthy think of us
as peasants.  You have heard about the CEO’s Dead Peasant
Insurance Policies, haven’t you? This was not a joke.  Here is an
article on Truthdig where Robert Scheer is aware of our status as
peasants, it’s “Peasants Need Pitchforks:”  http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/72-72/5535-the-peasants-need-pitchforks  The wealthy in the
United States are parasites feeding on a tree with contempt for
the tree, which is the common folk.

Working together is socialist and whether you or anyone else
realized it, all corporations are socialist because they work
together against the majority population for their own profit, which
is their nature, and why fascism is so dangerous to the majority
population having freedom and justice for all, because citizens
become only tools for profit, and, with the exception of Sears,
tools are unquestionably thrown away when they break. 

Do you know what happened to the Vichy politicians that went
along to get along with Hitler’s Right-Wing administration? —they
suffered relatively the same fate as Mussolini and his wife, and it
was not because they were delivering freedom and justice—the
Right-Wing unchecked never delivers freedom and justice.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWvichy.htm

Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson have the skills to represent the
majority as far as jobs are concerned, but no liberal that has a
heart for the majority is allowed to prosper his/her opinion in the
conservative Congress with all the supposed timid Democrats that
have no intention of representing the majority as anything other
than whining young children, because it would take away from
their New Class feifdom.  It may take you longer to see this than I
expected.

I will definitely remain a Democrat, but henceforth, I will vote for
whoever is on the ticket other than a Republican or a Democrat,
because it doesn’t help the majority voting for the Democrats
when they are so timid they follow the Republicans.  The
Democrats think war for profit is their ideal and sooner or later war
will have been instigated in all the countries, then what, start all
over.

It is not the Republicans I am concerned about as much as it is the
Republican Lites in the Democratic Party that go along to get along
—these are the Vichy type Democrats of the New Class.  And are
there any currents moving against the Vichy type Democrats, I
think not.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 7, 2011 at 7:43 pm Link to this comment

I disagree with you MarthaA.  I do not see the world as you do, nor
America.  As I said, my only agenda is to defeat Republicans aka the
Tea Party who have taken over the Republican Party.  You may judge
that I am representing fascism, and I certainly resent you’ve said
that but I understand your agenda that makes you say it.  I have no
illusions that corporations would represent the middle class (and I
would expand that to include the working class) in the least.  They
represent their stockholders and board of directors and only them. 
There are other currents at work other than third-partiers, occurring
within the Democratic Party, that I believe is the only entity that has
the power to defeat the Republicans aka Tea Partiers. 

I do not know that all corporations are socialist by nature.  State
corporations are but all corporations are not state corporations. 
However, the corporatocracy through government direct handouts,
corporate bailouts, allowing eminent domain laws to go violated, sloppy
licensing laws, relaxing antitrust regulations and environmental edicts
have dispensed much harm on our American economy.  But I think
while you and other leftists at least recognize its symptoms, the
fundamental problem cursing the economy is perpetrated directly by
the Republican Party aka Tea Party actions and agenda since they are
the ones who vote legislation.  The current argument in Congress as we
breathe about the budget is the paradigm case in point.  Regardless of
your arguments, the Congress that is there now is what will determine
our present and our future.  No third-party is organized enough to
make a dent in that reality.

Conservatives and most libertarians frequently reject many social
cankers such as poverty, economic imbalance, and such, that they
claim is fabricated by the left-liberal imagination, when in fact the
Republicans have dealt the hand of death to the cause of liberty and
equity for the majority of the citizens, they ignore very real and serious
problems such as a women’s right to their own bodies, a citizen’s right
to decent affordable health care, affordable food, and quality education,
and affordable housing.  Republican conservatives and libertarians are
tied umbilically to the corporate world. And they morbidly feed each
other on the blood and flesh of the middle class and working
Americans, while killing the poor as much as they can. While some
Democrats are also in the clutches of the corporate world, I would not
say that all of them are but in fact they see and hold to the Democratic
liberal ideals which include intense government regulation of
corporations that goes to safeguard the middle class. 

I am not equating Immelt with GE the corporation and I am not pitting
GE against the Koch Brothers.  Immelt is hired to create jobs.  The
distinction must be kept vivid.  It is a travesty that GE, Boeing, MicroSoft
evade or pay no taxes!  It is a travesty that any major huge profit
generating corporation pays no taxes.  It is scandalous.  Tax dodgers in
the corporate realm are ranked as found on the news article at
http://tinyurl.com/6gk82mo

On GE, see article
http://tinyurl.com/6l6racg

To have jobs created this country needs the skills of those who know
how and has a track record to create them.  Do you know of such a
person? I asked you that before, with no answer. At the same time, we
must twist the arms of and replace inattentive Congressmen to go after
GE and the rest. 

If there is to be any thwarting of their decimating the American people
agenda, it is imperative that the Republicans aka Tea Partiers be
stopped.  Anything else spells doom and misery for the middle and
working class.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 7, 2011 at 10:44 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 7 at 11:41 am,

I wonder if you know that you are representing fascism, do you? 
It appears you have bought the propaganda and are allowing
yourself to imagine that corporations will represent the majority
population?  GE is a Right-Wing corporation appearing to defend
the Left and it makes great propaganda, but religiosity of
Right-Wing corporations will not represent the majority population;
unless you think being represented as children, who are seen and
not heard is representation.

Corporations are socialists by nature, hence all the merging that
was of NO BENEFIT to the majority population.  How could you
really think the propaganda of pitting GE against the Koch
Brothers will bring representation to the majority population, all
corporations are concerned about is the profit margin. 

The 20% minority corporate New Class are fascists Vichy type
Democrats that represent their own class and culture, not the
majority population, and if you think you are one of them, I am
sorry to hear that.

What you are saying is that the only way possible to deal with the
political situation in the United States with regard to exclusion of
the majority population as a class and culture, the American
Populace; in favor of the American Aristocracy and the American
New Class of neofascists that took over the Middle Class, is to
work within the frame of the American Aristocracy and the
American New Class that originated and perpetuates the frame in
service to their own best interests; to go along to get along.

How do you think your perspective would have worked with
regard to change of the class and cultural perspective of Adolph
Hitler, the Nazi Party, and German Nationalism? 

Change does not happen by going along to get along; change did
not occur with regard to Adolph Hitler, the Nazi Party, and German
Nationalism by going along to get along; and change that is
representative of the best interest of the American Populace in the
making and enforcing of legislated law and order will not happen
by going along to get along.

It is morally bankrupt to take a personal perspective of advantage
against inclusive societal perspective of best interest, use
propaganda to spread a false sense of advantage that is contrary
to inclusive societal best interest, and make the claim that one
cannot get anything done in any other way than going along to
get along in perpetuation of a false sense of advantage that is
contrary to inclusive societal best interest.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 7, 2011 at 7:41 am Link to this comment

MarthaA I consider myself middle class and I do not use credit to
appear wealthy.  I am to the left of the center of the political
spectrum.  Your terms are esoteric to your own unique lexicon
and do not fit what is discussed in the media or in politics. 
Since I have to find ways to work within that milieu I have to use
the vocabulary as it is used by the media and political factions.
Your fine distinctions are all right for private conversations but it
does no good to work in the arena where changes are desired.  I
am a firm believer in assimilation to effect change, working from
the inside out, not the outside in as you propose.  I understand
your language but I find it fruitless toward helping make desired
changes. 

I am not saying you are wrong.  Your insights are most likely
descriptively correct, but I will continue to use the language that I feel
will help me converse with the factions I need to in order to have any
effect toward the changes I desire.  I am not interested in obfuscating
the conversation as I believe keeping it simple (KISS) is the best way to
cut through the crap and pretentiousness.

From all the people I come in contact with or observe in any other way
I observe they do not usually think about what class they belong to. 
Unless they are really poor and then they don’t think about it at all. 
But when those who are not poor and do not have wealth think about
it they do consider themselves as “middle class” whether it is a truism
or not.  It is the common language term.  It is an easy term to use as
it covers a lot of sins as you point out. 

It is going to be very difficult if you think 70% of the population can
be made to realize they are in any particular segment of the population
able to effect change for you are talking universals and people are
individuals who in particular do not think of themselves as part of a
70% of the population they think of themselves as middle class.  To
get a huge mixed population to change quickly needs a glamorous or
thought-catchy dream-come-true propaganda.  That is exactly how the
Republicans use the common language.  Ronald Reagan was masterful
at it as was the Newt several years ago.  They used the language of fear
which is the most basic of emotion humans react to.  We all should take
a lesson from psychology.

When you say the Common Population will first have to start
recognizing themselves as the class and culture of the common
population, it is a thing that is hoped or wished for but in fact is
illusory or impossible to achieve, a chimera. This “will first have to
start recognizing” is not a kind of thing that can happen in a
short period of time.  It is an educational problem which will take
generations.  Much too slow even if permanent.  There are other ways
to effect change and that is to use the lingua franca that is used in the
population needing to change.

The Common Population as you call them are not homogeneous as you
might think.  We are not all of the same fabric, and within that
population are a broad range of perspectives so one size does not fit
all.  You may be right as are the others who want to create a third party
to force the two major parties to their knees to work for the people
(which will never happen with the Republicans but might with
Democrats as they are beginning to come alive but will fall into their old
habits if allowed to.  But it is beginning to work as we see it in
Wisconsin.).  I wish you well and good speed.  And if I see you have any
real traction with the middle class or that 70% of the population who
are the ones who can vote to change the status quo and who will vote
for your perspective, I will certainly switch trains.  But I am interested,
personally, in defeating the Republicans and I have no other mantra.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 7, 2011 at 2:08 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 6 at 3:43 am,

The Left Wing Middle Class are Beau Brummel’s type that use
credit to appear wealthy, and the Right-Wing wealthy have
allowed many people of the common population to consider
themselves Middle Class, like the frog in the water, now the
Right-Wing’s wealthy are heating the water and the once Middle
Class are going to have to learn who they are and jump out of the
water and declare for representation of their class and culture,
because they really have been deserted.

The 20% upper crust of the Middle Class is the only Middle Class
there is now, which is the Academic Professional Class, the Corporate
New Class, that divided out of the rest of the
population, and they represent themselves and double talk the
common average people, because the majority of the people are
no longer in the Middle Class that they represent—the Corporate
New Class is now all the Middle Class there is, and the New Class
Corporate Democrats represent the Common Population relatively
the same way the Republican Corporate Elite represent the
Common Population—double talk without representation, and the
sooner the majority population learn this, the better off they will
be, because then they will be seeking political representation,
instead of thinking they have some kind of representation.

Believe it or not, there are 70% of the population left out of the
Corporate New Class and they are the Common Population and
need to organize as a class and culture for political representation,
because the whole class and culture has been dumped and needs
representation in the Congresses of the United States in the
making and enforcing of legislated law and order.

It is a hard pill to swallow, but it must be swallowed, because this
is what has happened, which is why few, if any, beneficial laws are
left that represents the 70% majority common population of
average folks.

The Common Population are going to have to realize they are not
the Middle Class because when they don’t, they divide their whole
class and culture, and it is impossible for them to get any real
representation any other way, other than by recognizing their
class and culture and demanding in every which way they can
representation for their class and culture equal with the
Democratic Party and the Republican Party, as both are separated
from the Common Population. 

The Common Population will 1st have to start recognizing
themselves as the class and culture of the common population
before they will be able to get recognition for representation of
their 70% majority population class and culture, and as long as
they do not come together and recognize that they are a united
70% majority common population, the class and culture will be
divided and there will be no possibility of equal power for the
people, because divided, there is no power for the people.

We the Common Population as a class and culture must have more
than two equal political parties, we need to have many political
parties and be able to form new equal political parties when
needed, that are all equal with the Democratic Party and the
Republican Party, so that the Right Wing will be unable to control
them all, if we contend for only one political party, the Right will
take it over; the average person has to have a means of having
political representation in the making and enforcing of legislated
law and order, and now they do not.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 6, 2011 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment

I enjoy the liberty of having the opportunity to live by Redwood guys credo, shortened if I may, to say;..... Do what you do best, forget about the rest!

Report this
RedwoodGuy's avatar

By RedwoodGuy, April 6, 2011 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

@MarthaA
“It is a misconception to think that corporations owe
any allegiance to the community or the country—
corporations have allegiance only to profit, nothing
more. “

If I may strengthen that comment, profit making is their MANDATORY legal obligation, according to the Supreme Court. So, “allegiance” to anything is out of the question. It is worse than foolhardy and naive to expect corporations to hold “human interests” such as human well being.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 5, 2011 at 11:43 pm Link to this comment

There is an old saying that you fight fire with fire.  Immelt is one
of the big corporate honchos.  He is, however, on the side of the
Democrats.  The Koch Brothers now have so many Republican
politicians on their dole who are sitting on powerful Congressional
committees that will benefit their corporations that the American
people haven’t a rat’s ass chance in hell of getting a fair deal. 

What the f is a fair deal anyway?  What kind of world ought it to be
when the very rich and powerful completely destroys the middle class
of a country allegedly known for its slobbering love of freedom and
justice?  Oh yeah, as the chorus sings.  So in that sense, the
Republicans are on the side of the Kochs. They funded the starting
Tea Party meetings and paid many of those who showed up to the very
first Tea Party congregations to carry their agenda.  The Cenk Uygur
Show on MSNBC this afternoon was incredibly revealing.  And every
progressive needs to find a way to view it if they didn’t watch it when it
was aired.  I cannot find it available yet as it is too soon for the website
to put up.  But an article April 2 at
https://kaystreet.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/david-koch-evidence-of-
direct-tea-party-link/  (copy/paste the entire address to your browser)
discusses the very close incestuous relationship of Koch to the Tea
Party. This stuff needs to be advertised broad and wide and deep.  The
people ought to be warned that the knives are after them. 

By the looks of the Republicans who are about the shut the government
down because they want to skin the middle class alive and have their
special human flesh skinning knives out and sharpened to get their 100
billion pounds of flesh, I can only say to those who belong to the
middle class, you cannot escape, get ready to bleed.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 5, 2011 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

Mack, April 5 at 2:33 pm,

It is a misconception to think that corporations owe
any allegiance to the community or the country—
corporations have allegiance only to profit, nothing
more.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 5, 2011 at 2:16 pm Link to this comment

Mack; FYI

Knowing when one is getting screwed is one thing, and it is kind of nice to know the how, while most people know the obvious why!

A little more on GE!

http://www.propublica.org/article/5-ways-ge-plays-the-tax-game

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 5, 2011 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment

Mack;

Huffpost, I did not read the article, so the article title may have been their usual Huff informational deception?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 5, 2011 at 11:23 am Link to this comment

Evidently GE is making sure some counter flack is being put out in webland, in response to the no tax flap! I guess 1000 tax evasion employees should be able to come up with something looking like running interference?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 5, 2011 at 5:56 am Link to this comment

Your insight, MarthaA, could be expanded at least 10 more
paragraphs!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 5, 2011 at 1:36 am Link to this comment

Mack, April 4 at 6:00 pm,

The problem for the majority population in the United States
is NOT GE and other mega corporations’ work force, the problem is
their leaders, their multi million dollar CEO’s and the fact that
corporations are now considered as individual people, when
corporations consist of lots of people with their own paid attorneys.
There is no way an individual person of the common population can
stand against a mega corporation, and it is ridiculous that the law
would make corporations equal with individual people because there
is NO EQUALITY for the individual human being whatsoever.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 4, 2011 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

The only way these opportunist ass holes would push for solar or wind energy, would be if they could charge for sunlight and collect wind fees as the power companies!

If everyone had or could make their own energy, the powers that be, would get the GOP and Tea Baggers to tout it as socialism!

You know maybe the grid should go the way of the newspapers and the horse and buggy. I do not understand the logic of letting people profit from the natural resources of our land, of course I know the why!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 4, 2011 at 10:31 am Link to this comment

I’ve never heard anyone say re: Nuclear energy:

“Let’s de-commission the oldest reactors, take them off-line, and replace them with the newer, safer, passive fail-safe designs.”

It’s never a question of replacing the catastrophes-waiting-to-happen, it’s always a question of building MORE reactors.

Isn’t it obvious that there should be a pilot project, or series of projects, REPLACING reactors like TMI and Indian Point with the new designs and see if, indeed, they are safer?  And do it FIRST, rather than just build them willy-nilly?

Natural gas has lots of pluses, like we have more of it domestically than we can imagine, so it’s not under foreign control and transport costs are minimal.  Furthermore it burns cleaner than petroleum products. BUT, it’s still a hydro-carbon and CO2 producer, and extraction is far, FAR messier and riskier than its adherents and T.Boone Pickens are willing to acknowledge.  There are towns in Pa that are fighting the drillers because of the contamination of the drinking water.  At best, NG is a short-term solution.

In Europe, wind turbines are everywhere.  We need to utilize wind and solar wherever we can.  There’s no reason skyscrapers cannot have vertical wind turbines in cities, and have solar panels for the sun-facing walls.  There’s even an experiment in making a road-bed out of glass that would contain solar cells.  Glass road beds are actually not new.  Croton Dam, in New York, has panels you can drive on (when they still allowed cars on the dam) that had thick glass like bottle bottoms set in steel that allows natural light into the chambers below—and that’s from the late 19th century!

But it has been fought bitterly by the Re-thugs since the day Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 and had the solar panels removed from the White House.

Why? Because to the GOP, helping Big Oil is more important than the security of the nation.

Report this

By Litl Bludot, April 3, 2011 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment

General Electric’s CEO, Jeffrey R. Immelt,  re Scheer’s piece, now in contrasting
commander and chief power pimp, frenemy Obama’s kissing Immelt’s ass for
campaign funds from him and his fellow corporate fascists, vs his letting
Elizabeth Warren get crucified by the numerous power pimps in Congress in
open letter to Obama at Common Dreams.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/02

Excerpts:
“On one hand, you promptly appointed Mr. Immelt to be the chairman of the
President’s Council on Jobs and Competitive, while letting him keep his full time
lucrative position as CEO of General Electric (The Corporate State Expands). At
the announcement, you said that Mr. Immelt “understands what it takes for
America to compete in the global economy.”

Did you mean that he understands how to avoid all federal income taxes for his
company’s $14.2 billion in profits last year, while corralling a $3.2 billion
benefit? Or did you mean that he understands how to get a federal bailout for
GE Capital and its reckless exposure to risky debt? Or could you have meant
that GE knows how to block unionization of its far flung workers here and
abroad? Perhaps Mr. Immelt can share with you GE’s historical experience with
lucrative campaign contributions, price-fixing, pollution and those nuclear
reactors that are giving people fits in Japan and worrying millions of Americans
here living or working near similar reactors.”

“Compare, if you will, the record of Elizabeth Warren and her acutely informed
knowledge about delivering justice to those innocents harmed by injustice in
the financial services industry. A stand-up Law Professor at your alma mater,
author of highly regarded articles and books connecting knowledge to action,
the probing Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) and now in the
Treasury Department working intensively to get the CFRB underway by the
statutory deadline this July with competent, people-oriented staff.”

There may be some here that just cannot bring themselves to accept the facts
from a person they stabbed in the back when he offered to help them, but there
are others, it seems, that now can admit how wrong they were and start being
informed, responsible and honest citizens capable of voting for the best
candidate no matter what the corporate media tells them.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 3, 2011 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

How come I never herd [sic] about these wind turbines before
and why isn’t Obama advertising them?
  My naïve answer: 
because the golf balls make too much noise?  Would we then
have to revise the noise abatement laws?  I don’t think, Leefeller,
Elizabeth Warren wants to be president. She is too smart to get into
that quagmire.  The Republicans would skin her alive just as Obama
is being skinned alive here and elsewhere. They have already tried to
pull out her fingernails.  Did you know there are special human flesh
skinning knives made by Kershaw, Dexter Russell, Forschner,
Victorinox,and Browning?  Kershaw makes a terrific skinning knife with
a 2-3/8” stonewash bade, comes with black G10 handles and sells for
about $31.95.  Let’s see, an ordinary kitchen trash can plastic bag
would hold one human skin.  You skinners might get a box of them.

The discussion on this forum seems to have descended into
prepubescence.  Lots of immature name-calling machismo being
flung around.  Group therapy?  Maybe.

Report this

By Alan MacDonald, April 3, 2011 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment

Obama’s Fatal Addiction to EMPIRE.

Lately, and because of Libya and the prospect of a coming explosion of a vastly broadening war from N. Africa, through the entire Middle East, and on to the very boarders of India and China, there has been a lot of talk in the corporatist “Vichy” media about, “What is the Obama Doctrine?”

Here’s the definitive answer:

The Obama Doctrine = lies of omission about global Empire. (period)

Obama himself is the faux-emperor/president of the hidden global Empire.

Obama is lying through his teeth (via lies of omission) that any such thing as a disguised global Empire even exists.

Everybody, including the American people could easily understand precisely what is going on in the war in Libya and this entire “Gap” region, this “Crescent of Instability”, and this 5000 mile swath “from Mauritania to Pakistan” that CIA-connected “journalist” Bob Woodward cynically hinted at last week on “Meet the Press”, if only the real truth of the war plans behind Thomas Barnett’s Naval War College 2004 book, “The Pentagon’s New Map” were to be disclosed by any of this global Empire’s political hacks or media pawns, some of whom—- at least at the NYT——know exactly what that hidden information would reveal if anyone had the courage, independence, and concern for the American people and our fading democracy that they so pompously claim to have.

Alan MacDonald
Liberty & democracy over violent empire—People’s party 2012

Report this

By Sad for the rest, April 3, 2011 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If you re-read Obama’s semi-autographic ‘Dreams of my father’, you will recognize him as he is today - an insecure person who is determined never to follow his father’s fateful footsteps into oblivion. His Kenyan father challenged Kenyatta and was squashed: ergo Obama will always play ball with the perceived powers-that-be in Washington and Wall Street. It explains all his inexplicable appointments.

It works out well for him. His Nobel Peace Prize is nothing but a million dollar bribe, and he will be re-elected, but where does that leave the rest of us?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, April 3, 2011 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

By truedigger3, April 2 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

Re: By JDmysticDJ, April 2 at 4:46 pm

“I am glad you are starting, finally,  to see the light!

I have read “litl Bludot’s post”, I cannot see how he tried to “punk you” and get more “pimp power” at your expense! Could it be that you are too sensitive and in need to cool down a little bit??!!”

O.K.! O.K.! I’ll try and chill, needless too say I’m kind of in a bi-polar whacked out type of deal. I guess I should see if I can get some meds to keep me more centered. I’m like lookin’ for the light, but I can’t see it unless I close my eyes, real, real tight for a while.

What a fool I’ve been, I don’t have the pimp power to go all Power Pimp on someone. In my dreams I can see myself as a good little German from a tiny little street in a tiny little town in pre-World War II Germany, wildly cheering, and passionately saluting Mein Fuhrer as he passes by in all his glory, but when I wake up, I can’t see any light anywhere, it’s weird!

After I become more focused, I can see that Obama is a War Criminal and a National Security people torturing, freak, but I’m very conflicted, because I’m seeing freaks everywhere. I feel like I’m lost in Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” Video, but I’m out of step with the dancers, and they’re getting ready to eat my brain.

After some time, and un-muddled contemplation (No meds,) I think I’ve got it straight now, Obama is a Power Pimp freaking zombie, but he’s not as bad as the other freaking zombies that want to chow down on our brains. Obama’s a good zombie, if there is such a thing, sort of like Michael Jackson, or the hero in a zombie novel…you dig?

Now, I know you think I’m crazy, but hey, take one good look at Nader before you tell me I’m nuts. I’ve been trying so hard to be rational, but what’s the point? Comes the revolution, it will be pitchforks, torches, silver bullets, and stakes through the heart - all around. The zombies and creepies will be walking around with their arms outstretched and their eyes rolled back, chanting “Muslims, Muslims,” “Bomb Iran,” Illegal Aliens,”“free-markets,” “Drill Baby Drill,” “Nuclear Power,” “no unions,”“no taxes,” “no government,” “Obama’s a socialist,” ooooh aaaah,” “brains, brains,”  boogah, boogah, boogah” and so on… Then we’ll clean em’ all out, they won’t no what hit em,’ and then, and only then, will we be able get rid of Power Pimp Zombie Obama…You dig?

I know that people think I’m crazy, but someday, after they become enlightened, and they can see the light through a glass darkly, they’ll realize that I am their best frenemy.

Upon review, I can see that some clarification is necessary. Here’s the deal. Obama is addicted to brains, but not just any brains, he’s addicted to abby normal brains, and this could prove to be fatal. Until we can get Obama to go cold turkey on the abby normal brains, we’re pretty much screwed.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 3, 2011 at 11:30 am Link to this comment

It is easy to discredit someone by their association, such as this Jeffrey Immelt guy and his GE connections, my paranoia may be on par with most peoples,.... but probably exceeds most peoples!  Only difference is I don’t like to predict how I may be screwed by someone before hand, I prefer to wait at least until I can uncomfortably and accurately assign what did happen. That’s why I may vote Republican next time, I know I am going to get screwed, I just don’t know how!

Last week I received in the mail an advertisement booklet for a new wind turbine, which said…. this Pickens guy needs to watch out.  According to the booklet this new designed wind turbine is made from old golf balls and it mounts on top of your house and like the propellers on my beanie it can provide household energy or you could sell energy back to this Pickens guy? 

From what I gather, if I mounted a whole bunch of these old golf ball wind turbines on the roof of my house, I could be rich like Pickens and if everyone had one of these wind turbines on their roofs, the grid would be useful in reverse, meaning we would all be in the energy business. Is this some of the change Obama was talking about?  How come I never herd about these wind turbines before and why isn’t Obama advertising them? According to the booklet these wind turbines will revolootinze the energy business! Maybe the energy business dose not want no stinking revolootinizing?

Maybe Elizabeth Warren for president? Shes a women and she seems smart and way smart, compared to what the Republicans seem to be dragging out from under there house in Kansas!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 3, 2011 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

Assume what you want since that is what you do best anyway
truedigger3.  I said I do not know much about Immelt.  But I will
search and learn more.  From what I read so far about the appoint-
ment, there was no mention of nuclear energy.  Going green energy
is more than nuclear!  But regardless of what is going on in Japan,
nuclear energy is still the best bet at the moment for American
demand for electricity and less carbon emissions from gasoline, oh
yeah, and price differentials.  And the government has ordered all
nuclear power plants, over a hundred of them in operation, to be
thoroughly checked for possible accidents.  So far, we are safe!  So far.

Seems T. Boone Pickens has a noteworthy idea about natural gas that
sounds like a very viable alternative.  Of course he has much money
invested in natural gas.  He is also a huge supporter of wind mill
generated energy.  His argument about getting America off petrol-
based energy seems pretty good since there is more natural gas
reserves in America than anywhere else on the planet so he says.  But I
am going only on the logic of what I’ve read and there is a lot more to
catch up on.
 
See the chart on best profitable energy investments in the article at
http://seekingalpha.com/article/260801-t-boone-pickens-extremely-
profitable-energy-bets

The interview with Dylan Ratigan is informative:
http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/03/31/fueling-change-for-
america/  As a matter of fact http://www.dylanratigan.com/all-articles/
gives a plethora of articles on the energy problems.

What I wonder about is why more investigation of hydroelectric energy
is not being made.  Maybe it is but I haven’t seen anything or heard
anything about it.  There is plenty of water here and there and the
electrical power dams that have been build around the country seem to
be doing a superior job of providing energy to residents, businesses,
and manufacturing.  I’ve never heard of a hydroelectric plant going
rogue.  Why not build more dams?  Is that too far fetched?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 3, 2011 at 9:14 am Link to this comment

The problem with Obama is that he’s weak and spineless, and, that any and all Republican alternatives are far, FAR worse. 

Unless, of course, one sickly hopes for “armed insurrection” when a Michelle Bachmann takes over as President.

Be careful what you wish for.

Report this

By truedigger3, April 3, 2011 at 9:04 am Link to this comment

Re: By Shenonymous, April 3 at 10:59 am

Shenonymous wrote about Jeffrey Immelt:

“I do not know Immelt except that he was the CEO of General Electric and is an outspoken advocate for clean energy and criticized by those who have investments in it and keeping the status quo on energy continue and played a prominent role in trying to get the cap-and-trade bill through Congress. Cap and trade is an environmental policy piece of legislation that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while simultaneously providing sources flexibility in how they comply.  He has been appointed to run the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.”
—————————————————————————-

I assume when you say Immelt is an “advocate of clean energy”, you mean Nuclear Energy, which GE is one of the prime builders of Nuclear Reactors in the world.
Ha. Nuclear Energy is NOT clean or safe. Japan, Shernobel and Three Miles Island anybody!!!
Nuclear Reactors produce radiation-active waste that will be active for thousands of years to come and the world didn’t find a safe and effective way to handle it yet!!
Many Nuclear Re-actors suffered “mishaps” in the form of escaped or released radio-active gases, spelled or leaked radio-active waters which were handled “quietly” and “discreetly”???!!!
Jeffrey Immelt is the last one to ask about creating jobs in USA. During his reign, thousands of GE US employees lost their jobs, while GE subsidiaries overseas gainded thousands of jobs!!!
Cap and trade is a scam to make “people in the know” very rich. One of them is Al Gore. For example they come to a sleepy poor third world country that produce very little “carbon print” and say according to your area and population you are entitled to so and so “carbon print”, would like to sell that??!!
Probably there will be increase in the “carbon print” in the world as a result of “Cap and Trade”!!!.
GE does not pay taxes??!!.
In short, Jeffrey Immelt is the embodiment of what is currently wrong with Corporate America from uncontrolled greed, disregard for the environment and offshoring jobs.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 3, 2011 at 8:16 am Link to this comment

And as I said truedigger3!  Last sentence of second paragraph.
Do you have someone else better in mind?

Report this

By truedigger3, April 3, 2011 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

Re: By Shenonymous, April 3 at 10:59 am


Shenonymous wrote about Elizabeth Warren:
“She has impressive academic experience and has been interviewed on her views many times where she gained much recognition.  People who gain the media’s attention almost always rise to celebrity status and Warren is certainly one of those who has.”
——————————————————————————
I am very sketptical of anyone who get praise and attention of the Finance/Corparate owned and controlled media!
Will Elizabeth Warren fight Wall St. and try to clean house and make serious REAL changes? I seriously doubt it? Most likely there will be make-believe COSMETIC changes aka “Team Obama” theatrics.
If Elizabeth Warren did try doing REAL changes, she will be immediately replaced with a skelton placed in her closet!!!
As the say TIME WILL TELL!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 3, 2011 at 6:59 am Link to this comment

Elizabeth Warren was assigned an incredibly important job as head
of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in recognition of her
acumen in the world of finance and helped craft crucial legislation
and implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and
has testified in Congress.  She ran the Congressional panel exercising
oversight over federal financial bailouts and received much praise of
her abilities for her robust and spirited conduct.  She has impressive
academic experience and has been interviewed on her views many
times where she gained much recognition.  People who gain the
media’s attention almost always rise to celebrity status and Warren
is certainly one of those who has, and deservedly so, but she has just
been appointed to a critical and decisive position that was created to
protect the American people from the credit corporatocracy. 

I do not know Immelt except that he was the CEO of General Electric
and is an outspoken advocate for clean energy and criticized by those
who have investments in it and keeping the status quo on energy
continue and played a prominent role in trying to get the cap-and-
trade bill through Congress. Cap and trade is an environmental policy
piece of legislation that delivers results with a mandatory cap on
emissions while simultaneously providing sources flexibility in how
they comply.  He has been appointed to run the Council on Jobs and
Competitiveness.  His success at leading GE to record profits midst
much criticism for it from Republican quarters first of all I think
imminently qualifies him for the job! Secondly is his understanding
of business which is what someone in charge of finding ways to create
jobs needs to have.  The fact that GE does not pay taxes is a travesty
but is a separate issue from his ability to create a jobs environment in
the government sector. Elizabeth Warren is one of my heroes but is not
a jobs creation expert.  She does know about financial machinations
however and her job is perfect and it looks like that is where we
desperately need her.  We have to wait to see her real abilities when July
rolls around and the legislation starts working.

Nader’s open letter is another whining grandstand on his part to
get his name in the news once again.  And his call for impeachment
over Libya is just the kind of thing that gets the conservatives all
vampirically slobbering such as reported in Newsmax a conservative
strong arm “newsmouth” instrument.  It is expected from someone
who looks for any opportunity to get his name in the paper and seen as
critical of government, a sure way to slip on the slippers of the
disgruntled.  It’s one minute to twelve and time is running out for
dear Ralph.

Clarion caller Leefeller has been a thorn for years in the side of the
vacuous drifters who visit Truthdig as truthdippers and he always
poses self-reflective observations.  With his biting remarks he skewers
the fatuous immediately who always feel the sting and who never fail to
hoot and scream in defense.  It is a laugh riot.  He is an indispensable
dominant character on this forum and all the others he posts on.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 3, 2011 at 6:15 am Link to this comment

If the Democrats would come up with an option for Obama, I ask why would they? The Republicans seem more and more like the Democrats every day with their bickering while rearranging the potential candidates on the deck of the Titanic.

So deviousness and diversions seem the only thing Republicans have to offer, from what I can tell Nader is one of the Republicans diversions?  I would not be surprised if the Republicans did not do some back door campaigning for Nader in Democrat country.  Even this village Idiot knows politics is a slimy business.

Boy,..... Redwood Guys premise seem mighty invitingly tempting.

Most of the posters here seem to be aware of the futility of it all,.... I sure as hell know I do!

In my case Obama fooled me because I wanted to believe in him and the whole hope and change bull shit thing was an emotional vote. So even if everyone supports a person for Congress, what is to say they will not end up different than Obama after the campaign promises fade away?.....Maybe there is only Hope for change, so I cross my fingers and hope?

Report this

By Litl Bludot, April 3, 2011 at 1:42 am Link to this comment

Thanks Leefeller,

It’s great to have charmed you into an indirect thank you for Nader’s decades of
efforts on your behalf. It’s the little things that matter.

Back on topic, here we have a good article illustrating Scheer’s article’s title.
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/04/politics-rich-rich-rich

Of course, this is not a change for Obama, even though the media, and perhaps Scheer,
still propagandize that he wouldn’t do this if he had a choice.  It’s the old choice, thing.  You
can’t really do what’s right or ethical, because you just don’t have that choice. 
A familiar refrain from the people who couldn’t choose to vote for Nader, even
though they would have if they had had a choice.  So they voted for ,,, ah, I’ve
said all this shit before, and I’m disgusted and tired.

Good luck Leefeller.  Thanks for the offer to send me to charm school.  Perhaps
I could then learn to be as charming as power pimp Obama.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 3, 2011 at 12:57 am Link to this comment

Blue Dot stated:

“Ralph Nader spent his life saving your selfish, self righteous ass and your hard
earned money, because he thought it was the right thing to do.  You can’t even acknowledge it, let along thank him.”

Thanking someone is one thing, asking them to be my president is another!

By the way after reading the following from Blue Dot;..... ” What a fucking mess we’re in with people like you posing as wise, clever,
thoughtful, humane citizens and and others not having the wit to dismiss you as a vacuous, callous blowhard. Even in your attempt at ironic humor, you belittle what you supposedly believe in.”

Geeze Blue Dot;... guess you insulted me into it, .....I can see the light and will vote for Nader now?  By the way Blue Dot, if you ever need a reference for charm school….....

Report this

By Litl Bludot, April 2, 2011 at 11:41 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, thanks for your comments.

It seems I need to be reminded everyday what deep shit we’re in here in the
land of the free and brave.

A supposed old timer, with no idea of history or facts.  You don’t know who has
worked on your behalf, you don’t care, and you denigrate them if they ask for
your support. 

What a fucking mess we’re in with people like you posing as wise, clever,
thoughtful, humane citizens and and others not having the wit to dismiss you as
a vacuous, callous blowhard. Even in your attempt at ironic humor, you belittle
what you supposedly believe in.

Ralph Nader spent his life saving your selfish, self righteous ass and your hard
earned money, because he thought it was the right thing to do.  You can’t even
acknowledge it, let along thank him..

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 2, 2011 at 10:22 pm Link to this comment

Blue Dot
Shallow Leefeller here!

‘Nader is the only person of prominence who is now calling for the impeachment of Obama for war crimes.” ????

Come on blue dot, a bit Republican off the wall far fetched sounding to me? Kucinich has been screaming at the top of his lungs for the same thing, except he has pulled in his horns a bit.  According to Kucinch, Obama, would be king,.... so I suppose it depends on ones definition of a person of prominence.

Nader is a bit poor in the politicking arena, from what I have seen and heard, Nader seems eminently lacking in social skills and needs to attend charm school like I did!

“The tenor of some of the posters here (the shallow Shenonymous, for one) with regard to Nader is incredibly callous and thankless.  It shows no regard for intellectual honesty, much less for their judgment of who is a good person or not.’

Allowing myself to be included as one of Blue dots assigned; .... “some of the posters here”,....  I suggest a look in the mirror would do Blue Dot a world of good. If I just happened to be a Nader fan I would probably not insult others in his name.  Insulting seems a strange way of promoting and gathering support?  Is this the new Nader plan,.... to insult Nader into office?

Neither Nader nor his supporters seem politically inclined, Nader has not proven anything to me. Jumping from consumer supporter to president is how I see Nader.  Thinking of himself as a star and wanting to become pontiff from his alleged notoriety, instead of proving himself by working through congress, or even as a local dog catcher. If Nader had served at some capacity of public office, Nader would seem a more viable candidate. Hell,  Mike Gravel was a Senator!..... Far as I can tell the idiots on the Republican ticket have more experience than Nader and hell of a lot more notoriety.

Just because someone disagrees with a pov, doesn’t mean they are anything other than in disagreement, calling them “shallow” seems a tad ridiculous, especially if one is sincere in their promoting of a candidate or even of an idea. 

Now I have been known to insult on occasion,............. So in Blue Dot realm of promotions;.... apparently, you Blue Dot don’t know your ass from a shallow hole in the ground, ......so now I know you will vote for my choice of the most brilliant favorite perfect candidate and it is not Nader!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, April 2, 2011 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment

Even though Nader is probably stuck on thinking there is still a middle class of the common population’s class and culture; even after the academic professional class and culture’s 20% of the population took their academic capital, made the DLC and divided out of the common population’s class and culture in the 1980’s forming their walled community’s new class and culture separate and apart from the common population’s class and culture; he has in the past represented the liberal 70% majority common population; if Nader does run for president again, I will vote for Nader, because there is a chance he will represent the common man and woman.  I am never again going to vote for either a Democrat, who treat the common population as children, or a Republican, who treat the common population as tools.  I will stay a Democrat so that I can vote in the Democratic Primary, but my vote will never again go to a Democrat —Obama was the last.  I have been so disappointed with Obama, that I will never trust a member of the duopoly again, as neither can be trusted to
represent the common population of average Americans as citizens equal with the nearly noble Democrats or the noble Republicans.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 2, 2011 at 5:25 pm Link to this comment

Ah yes, the shallow Shenonymous, who does not call others names,
but the really flimsy-minded do, bluedot, like yourself.  The shallow
Shenonymous always deals with issues unlike the ignominious that
are so quick to put someone down such as you were earlier.  The
shallow Shenonymous takes a blast at Nader since he really is old
at 77 and he should have been in government a long long time ago.
I worked for him once so I do know his worth and he was worth his
salt many decades ago. His own bitter arrogance kept him from the
success he ever so coveted of others and would not let himself be
of any use to government.  He never in all the years he has been in
the political arena ever won an election.  So you dreamers of Nader
keep dreaming.

Report this
sallysense's avatar

By sallysense, April 2, 2011 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment

from political beginnings using underhand tactics…
that took opponents off a ballot before first elections…
to present day deeds which contradict previous promises…
still shows how well leadership lacks in more decent actions!...

so what sorts of addiction does this behavior now follow?...
do corporate-based shots raise big fears in large egos?...
or high doses of power surpass commonweal levels?...
to sustain pricey dealers who rely on this mode!...

Report this

By Litl Bludot, April 2, 2011 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

Michael Shaw,

Thanks for your post in reply to mine.  By the time frenemy, power pimp Obama was running for president, there was ample evidence of his collusion with the banksters, and all the other corporate fascists.  He was also clearly lying whenever it suited him.  There was no excuse for a rational, intellectually honest citizen to vote for him. None. 

There’s the rationalizations of having no choice, but of course, that’s a bit insane.  Either you vote for who you believe to be the best candidate, or you’re not free to do so, i.e you get shot or put in prison, or you’re family is threatened, etc.  Those who want to use that argument are not citizens anymore, they’re mindless, spineless, willingly ignorant, and are, themselves, threats to democracy and freedom.

As for Nader, he’s still brilliant and would put any other candidate to shame in a debate.  His knowledge of the government, the corporations, the corruptions, the military, the environment, the oil, nuclear, coal companies, and all the concomitant issues is unrivaled.  All the posters here probably owe their lives or at least one of the lives of their loved ones to the work he has done over the years.  We benefit every hour from the work he has done to make us safe and keep us from getting ripped off by the banksters and corporations (which is why the corporate media and the Democrats kept him out of the debates and off the air). 

The tenor of some of the posters here (the shallow Shenonymous, for one) with regard to Nader is incredibly callous and thankless.  It shows no regard for intellectual honesty, much less for their judgement of who is a good person or not.

Nader is the only person of prominence who is now calling for the impeachment of Obama for war crimes.  He believes in the constitution, the laws.  He believes in their enforcement regardless of who commits the crime.  The population here on TD mostly will agree, yet, not one poster other than me has called for Obama’s impeachment.  They don’t deny that he is a war criminal, but they no longer can act as individuals with conscience, they must be told what to do by the media.  We are headed for a dark period of brutal authoritarian rule, because the citizens here that profess to be humane, passionate, freedom loving individuals have become pre world war two germans, able to stomach any deceit and posturing when confronted with bullying and threats of terror.  This is what Hedges has talked about, as well as Nader. 

As you seem to know Shaw, the clever, ironic, faux worldly remarks here are no substitute for being able to admit facts and to see who’s telling you the truth.  When people no longer are capable of doing that, but instead can rationalize supporting those, like Obama, are in collusion with those who oppress, torture, rape and pillage us and the planet, then we are headed for disaster—economic, social, environmental, intellectual and physical disaster.

Nader on Democracy Now discussing with Daniel Ellsberg the wars, the Nuclear disaster, and impeachment of Obama.  For those who would like to compare his lucid, intellectually honest, wise and knowledgable discourse, with the slick, conniving, equivocating, double speak of your president, Obama.

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/18/nader_and_ellsberg

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/18/why_are_we_playing_russian_roulette

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/18/daniel_ellsberg_joins_peace_activists_risking

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
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