Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 22, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Loss of Rainforests Is Double Whammy Threat to Climate






Truthdig Bazaar
Mandate Of Heaven

Mandate Of Heaven

By Orville Schell

more items

 
Report

Sorry Elizabeth, Wall Street Said No

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

Posted on Jul 19, 2011
AP / Pablo Martinez Monsivais

President Barack Obama shakes hands with Richard Cordray after announcing his nomination as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is at Elizabeth Warren’s right.

By Robert Scheer

So much for the meritocracy. Despite an elite education, effusive charm and brilliant wit, Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, has ended up betraying his humble origins by abjectly serving the most rapacious variant of Wall Street greed. They both talk a good progressive game, but when push comes to shove—meaning when the banking lobby weighs in—big money talks and the best and the brightest fold.

The defining moment of Clinton’s capitulation was his destruction of Brooksley Born, the one member of his administration with the courage and prescience to warn him about the unregulated derivatives trading that ultimately led to the housing collapse. For Obama, it is his decision not to nominate Elizabeth Warren to run the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which she fought so hard to create.

Obama’s refusal to take the fight to Senate Republicans by nominating Warren should be taken as the vital measure of the man. This gutless decision comes after the president populated his administration with the very people who created the financial meltdown.

Robert Scheer recently discussed this column on Truthdig Radio.

The Harvard credential worked for the likes of economist Lawrence Summers, who carried water for Wall Street under both Clinton and Obama, but not for that university’s distinguished law professor Warren, an outspoken defender of consumer rights who dared represent the interests of the victims of the banking scams. It is a painful reminder that for Democrats as well as Republicans, governance is still all about serving the rich.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Both Democratic presidents had no difficulty appointing top bankers and their acolytes to all of the key economic positions in their administrations but drew the line at fully backing the rare member of their team who had a proven record of defending the public interest when it was being savaged. Consider the fawning treatment of former Goldman Sachs partner Gary Gensler by both Clinton and Obama. In the Clinton Treasury Department, it was Gensler working under both Robert Rubin and Summers who forcefully pushed for the radical deregulation of the financial industry that led to the biggest economic implosion since the Great Depression. 

As Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., put it in opposing Obama’s nomination of Gensler to be head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the position once held by Born: “Mr. Gensler worked with Sen. Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan to exempt credit default swaps from regulation, which led to the collapse of AIG and has resulted in the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history.” This bailout was engineered in cooperation with the Bush administration by Timothy Geithner, then head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, who was rewarded for his catering to Wall Street avarice by being named Obama’s treasury secretary.

With Geithner and Gensler now in charge of reregulating Wall Street as ordered by the Dodd-Frank law, it is no wonder that the lobbyists have been able to stall any significant progress in controlling the ever-threatening time bomb of the still unregulated $600 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market. It was after all Gensler who assured Congress back during the Clinton years that Brooksley Born was an alarmist and that the “OTC derivatives directly and indirectly support higher investment and growth in living standards in the United States and around the world.”

No wonder Gensler had no difficulty being confirmed by Senate Republicans and Democrats, who are basically united in giving Wall Street lobbyists the governance they paid for. Of course, the main culpability is with congressional Republicans, who are dead set against any meaningful consumer protection.

For that reason, they are likely to oppose the person Obama nominated instead of Warren, former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, who has acted forcefully to defend consumer interests. As David Lazarus, the knowledgeable business columnist for the Los Angeles Times, wrote, “President Obama shouldn’t have backed down” in the face of GOP opposition to Warren, because Republicans will probably also find Cordray unacceptable. The reason being that they don’t want a strong director for the consumer protection agency, or even the agency itself.

What remains to be seen is if Obama will play their game or finally take the gloves off. If we should have learned anything in the last decade of financial malfeasance by the banking industry, it is that consumers are in desperate need of protection. If Obama goes to battle for Cordray and he proves to be a strong director for the new agency, I will stand corrected, but the president’s abandonment of the brilliant and dedicated Warren is hardly an auspicious beginning.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s new 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.

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: Rupert Murdoch Doesn’t Eat Humble Pie

Next item: Murdoch: The Emperor Has No Clothes



New and Improved Comments

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

By DaveZx3, July 22, 2011 at 10:08 pm Link to this comment

Anarchy is the condition which produces the least violence.  That is why Kant described it as the only system which could include Law and Freedom without Violence. 

The box (structure) of government, no matter what specific form it takes, enables corruption (mostly by virtue of the pluralism which inevitably arises), and thus violence, as a result of the ensuing political process.  There are winners and loser in politics, and the losers are the violated.  Think of “government” to include the leeches who are not necessarily officials of formal government, but outside forces who collude with government for the purposes of violating the masses. 

This box of government, which the anarchist likes to think outside of, is absolutely the primary tool used by the powerful and rich to violate the masses.  The masses like to think that government violates them because it is corrupt, but most government has not really been corrupted, because it operates exactly like it was intended to operate and that is to violate the masses. Period.

Part of this violation is the adoption of the illusion called democracy.  Pretending that the masses have a say in what goes on through voting.  Obviously, this illusion has to be reinforced by actually allowing the vote to make some minor differences, but never allowing it to make the major differences that the masses desire.  Thanks again to Michael Calvan for the quote by anarchist Emma Goldmann, “If Voting Changed Anything, They Would Make It Illegal” 

The masses are turned into fools, spending valuable time struggling within the confrontational, divisive multiple party systems, as though the struggle is against each other.  They are deceived thoroughly by this system, and it serves to deflect their anger away from their “favorite politicians” by virtue of presenting the opponent parties as the acceptable objects of hatred. 

But it is just “good cop, bad cop” which the confused always seem to be fooled by, not understanding that both are cops with the intention of extracting something from the unsuspecting fools.  This is not a denuciation of cops, because I do know that there are good ones and corrupt ones, and the good ones certainly earn their paychecks.

The confining, violating box of government, receives it’s primary power and it’s ability to violate the masses from the very structure it utilizes to enact law.  Government places the right to enact law into the hands of a few easily identifiable, easily accessed so-called elected representatives of the people.  It is exactly this easily accessed structure which makes it so easy for the leeches to commit their violence against the masses

I hate to get biblical, but this situation was prophesied in the book of Ezekiel, paragraph 28, around verses 16, where it says:  “When thy wares went forth out of the seas, thou filledst many people;  thou didst enrich the kings of the earth with the multitude of thy riches and of thy merchandise.  By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with VIOLENCE, and thou has sinned:  therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God:  and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

This verse predicts a system of “multitudes of merchandise” would be engineered by “the covering cherub”  (Satan) for the purposes of filling the earth with violence, but enriching the kings of the earth.  Pretty amazing, in that it shows where the collusion of merchandise makers (corporate) and kings (governments) takes place.  The merchandise makers enrich the kings and fill the earth with violence in the process.  What could be more clear?

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 22, 2011 at 10:06 pm Link to this comment

Part II.

Anarchy is the answer.  Not abolishing the constitution, not abolishing government workers, not abolishing law, not abolishing freedom, BUT abolishing the structure of government that allows a few to be in positions to collude with the leeches for the purposes of enacting law and violating the masses.  You abolish that structure and put that power directly in the hands of the masses, themselves.  Wise minds can conceive of the details.  Fools will continue to be violated.

Report this

By Textynn, July 22, 2011 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The expressions on Warren’s and Obama’s face in the pic
attached says it all.  Warren looks like she’s had a
cactus shoved down her throat and Obama looks like a
swaggering indifferent ass pretending obliviousness.

Outrageous.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 22, 2011 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, July 22 at 12:26 pm:

‘... The default position of Anarchists, when confronted by the evidence that what they espouse is ridiculous is that what’s needed is smaller, impotent government. ...’

How would you know what the ‘default position of anarchists’ is?  Did you locate all the anarchists in the world and ask them what their ‘default position’ is?  Oh, wait, you didn’t ask them, you ‘confronted them with the evidence that what they espouse is ridiculous.’  I can see it now.  ‘So you see, Dr. Chomsky, the position you espouse is ridiculous.’  ‘Oh, jeez, J.D., thanks for pointing that out; I never thought of it before, and no one ever criticized or contradicted my ideas.  Guess I’ll have to fall back to my default position of promoting a smaller, impotent government!’ 

Oh, well.  Don’t let me interfere with the fun of making stuff up when you don’t know what you’re talking about.  You will probably never lack for a community of the like-minded.

Report this

By miles shafer, July 22, 2011 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m delighted Elizabeth is leaving DC… she has too much class for that dump!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 22, 2011 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

Wonderful!  Hardly anyone outside of academia speaks of Bacon! 
Are you familiar with his Four Idols?  Besides saying “knowledge is
power,” he also said “knowledge and human power are synonymous.” 
A theist through and through, Bacon would not have had any
patience with me and in his eyes I would be most ignoble, as where
he said, rightly, “man is kin to the beasts, by his body;” and, “if he be
not of kin to God, by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.”
I take it that he meant atheist women as well!  LOL

And continuing on this topic…(which is really just an interlude of fun,
to heck with the forum topic, as Elizabeth Warren will become Senator
Warren of Massachusetts! Because we will help her!).  George Bernard
Shaw said “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than
ignorance.” whereas Lao-tzu cautioned, “People are difficult to govern
because they have too much knowledge.”
 
While I am not Muslim, I do have a few books on Islam and a beautiful
text by Rumi that speaks of his immense knowledge that cannot help
him…  Aside from that, here is an appropriate Muslim saying that might
just fit our conversation:

“Know that a small amount of knowledge requires a great deal of action,
because knowledge of the Hour requires the person who has such
knowledge to act accordingly during his entire life. ‘Isa [a] said, ‘I saw a
stone on which was written, “Turn me over”, so I turned it over. Written
on the other side was “Whoever does not act by what he knows will be
doomed by seeking what he does not know, and his own knowledge will
be turned against him.”

Knowledge was/is highly valued by the Muslim culture. The problem I
see there is that many of the people are still tribal and not cosmopolitan
in their education.  It is still provincial. I am not sure to whom to give its
attribution.

Thank you JDmysticDJ for this treat!  I think I can frolic on the forums in
a more mirthful frame of mind now!

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 22, 2011 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment

RE: Shenonymous, July 21 at 5:42 pm

A small amount of knowledge can mislead people into thinking that they are more expert than they really are.

Origin

‘A little knowledge is a dangerous thing’ and ‘a little learning is a dangerous thing’ have been used synonymously since the 18th century.


The ‘a little learning’ version is widely attributed to Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744). It is found in An Essay on Criticism, 1709, and I can find no earlier example of the expression in print:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.

The similarity of the two phrases is demonstrated by what appears to be an impromptu coining of ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’ in a piece in The monthly miscellany; or Gentleman and Lady’s Complete Magazine, Vol II, 1774, in which the writer misquoted Pope:

Mr. Pope says, very truly, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

Both Pope’s original verse and the misquotation of it were predated by an anonymous author, signing himself ‘A B’, in the collection of letters published in 1698 as The mystery of phanaticism:

“Twas well observed by my Lord Bacon, That a little knowledge is apt to puff up, and make men giddy, but a greater share of it will set them right, and bring them to low and humble thoughts of themselves.

Again, there is a degree of misquotation here, as what ‘my Lord Bacon’, the English politician and philosopher Francis Bacon, Viscount St Alban, actually said, in The Essays: Of Atheism, 1601, was:

“A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

I’m not sure if this little treatise is a condemnation of classical wisdom, of something else, or merely food for thought.

Report this

By Rixar13, July 22, 2011 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment

“No wonder Gensler had no difficulty being confirmed by Senate Republicans and Democrats, who are basically united in giving Wall Street lobbyists the governance they paid for.”

Very sad indeed… sigh

Report this

By kali, July 22, 2011 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Perhaps, with luck, they were all quite aware and were waiting for the right moment to state their viewpoints on the TSA, FEMA, the detention facilities, and the trainloads of tax dollars that have been progressively funneled out from underneath the public eye to build mountain bunkers for the elite. Do they still think that reinventing either of those two corrupt parties is a viable solution. Both parties did embrace some strong ideals at one point in history, but now, that was the lip service it took to get elected and anything resembling the Constitution is considered conspiratorial.”


Just a few short years ago I would have thought such comments were insane. Not anymore. Those that created the financial meltdown were and continue to be rewarded. Looking closely one must wonder if the events unfolding are by design. If so, what is the endgame? Is the middle class of our great country and most countries European that can be labeled “western civilization” being culled? Are we becoming a Stazi like state? Are the Pentagon and CIA being unleashed on the American people to protect us from the military industrial complex created bogeymen ghosts? God help us.

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 22, 2011 at 1:43 pm Link to this comment

Potted plants not “happy” with CONditions in the hot-house could,
theoretically, CONtend amongst their “selfs” over some inalienable Floral
“right,” “endowed” in them by their “creator,” to CONtrol the
temperature/water/‘nutrient’ delivery systems in their artificial ‘environment,’
too.  Maybe they actually do fight over that….even though the actual
“management” those things is entirely out of their ‘hands.’

If domesticated plants do get that “self”-involved, though (which they probably
don’t), it probably never even occurs to any of ‘em, either, that there is a great
big wide wonderful Living Universe outside the CONfines of their CON-
TRAPtion….one in which their Free Wild Ancestors, and those of us who’re their
descendants, were and ARE perfectly at-home.  It rarely occurs to any of ‘em,
either, that the particular regime instituted to determine ambient relative
CONditions inside their bubble-world (government), itself becomes utterly
irrelevant when that bubble pops….which renders all their CONtention over its
CONstitution and CONduct foolishly futile, at-best (which the things
themselves hardly ever are even in the best of circumstances….which a hot-
house never is).

What will come to replace the “vacuum” left by the disappearance of
“government,” is really unimaginable to the terror-stricken inmates of the
“global” gulag who’ve never know anything else their entire half-lives.  Yet they
fear it as they’re programmed to fear each “other” and “nature” and “anarchy”
and “failure” and “darkness” and “evil” and….well, the list goes-on-and-on.

The apparatus the domesticated peoples became CONvinced would “protect”
them from all of that generally, and Nature in-particular, is nevettheless
disintegrating all around them (will-they, nil-they)....and Free Wild is about to
become again, even for them, the-only-Way-to-go.

HokaHey!

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, July 22, 2011 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

“Pretty soon Obama will be wearing a tube of Vaseline on a chain around
his neck…He is wall streets bitch, and that´s all he´s ever been right from
the start..maybe it will get bad enough that the military will take over…
Otherwise…Civil war is coming… .the north versus the south all over again…” 
prisnersdilemma

Ahhh, prisnersdilema.  Underneath that mournful garb lies the heart of a
genuine romantic. 

Rather than philosophize on the “possible” propensity of the word
“anarchy,” I prefer to view our current mind-boggling political quagmire. 
The idea that we must raise the national debt limit is Zionist/Obama
distraction of a fraudulent nature. As per usual. It is untrue. It is
designed to further frighten Americans into supporting Zionist ideation,
which is pragmatically psychotic.  Forget Barry Soetoro´s (Obama) bullshit,
folks. If social security is not paid in August, it is because the U.S.
Treasury has been directed by Obama and ilk entourage to default.  Not
because the debt ceiling has not been raised, and not because the funds are
not available.

Back to the concept of prisnersdilema.  We need to give consideration to
the U.S.Military planning that was solidified last year, 2010. Instead of
the Yanks vs. the Rebs, this time it will be the Yanks+Rebs against North
Command, or a combination of U.S.Army commands. It is predictable that the
cadre of the assigned command will be constituted by alien soldiers that
have been trained in U.S. Army installations. As clearly demonstrated by
Barry Soetoro (Obama) and entourage, foreigners- and many American born-
with the prescribed brain-washing and training- have no compunctions about
destroying the United States of America, and murdering Americans. That´s
why the +hundred thousand, multiple-body, plastic coffins are stashed at
various FEMA locations.

We would do well to recall the first varmint, presidential cabinet member
to enter the assigned “fall out shelter” early morning, on 9-11. Of course,
knowing to “get the hell out of Dodge,” hours ahead of the event, had
nothing to do with prior knowledge of the event.  Right? 
It also suggests that he anticipated destruction to his office building.
Where was his office?  Was that element of the plan not implemented?  Why?
Is that why comrade Bush Jr. was in a kiddie classroom many, many miles
away that morning ? 

If J.EdgarHoover were alive, I would return the autographed copy of
“Masters of Deceit” he gave me fifty years ago. It is well-written, total
propaganda. No insult intended for “Peach” and Lagrange, GA. The entire
concept of communism that Hoover and others showered on Americans,
provoking fear, was a fore-runner of GHWBushSr, fear provoking nazism. 

The observation of the U.S. agent in the 1980s, that the Russians would do
the world a favour by lobbing a 6-meg onto D.C. might have worked then, but
definitely not nowadays.  There are too many DeepUndergroundMilitaryBases
(DUMB) scattered around the U.S. 

The WWII NAZIs and Zionists have developed a murder machine in the USA, and
exported it around the world. 
This machine will require “fodder”. 
Until it is STOPPED. 

Being nice, sooth-saying and quoting allegedly-wise dead persons, has never
won a battle.  Nor will it clean the infectious human scum out of U.S.A.
leadership. Especially, when Barry Soetoro (Obama) and the NAZI/Zionist
entourage are speeding up the bus.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 22, 2011 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

Are modern day Anarchists Cruel? Not taking into account anomalies like Joseph Stack the anti-government suicidal lunatic who crashed his small plane into an I.R.S. facility, and others of that sort, I don’t believe, nor do I have any evidence that Anarchists are cruel, but that’s not the issue, the issue is, is Anarchy cruel?

What entities would fill the power vacuum left by not having government? One only needs to observe the realities found within failed states to identify what those entities would be. The consequences of having no government should be evident to everyone, and the concept of having no government is patently ridiculous. The “box” to be considered here is Pandora’s Box.

The default position of Anarchists, when confronted by the evidence that what they espouse is ridiculous is that what’s needed is smaller, impotent government. A society where government lacks the power to restrain special interests would also be beset by injustice and cruelty.

If you don’t like your government you’ll have to do the work necessary to change it, instead of coming up with ridiculous pipe dream theories about government being unnecessary.

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 22, 2011 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

Nobody loosens an entrapping CONceptual “framework” better than Life
Herownself.  Figures ‘frozen’ in the make-believe CONceits of some “space/time
CONtinuum” just don’t seem to be compatible with the Natural rhythms and flows
of Her never-ending Song ‘n’ Dance.  So She always finds a way, within The Way, to
break-up the “self”-serving intrigues which must “shun” Her Light in-order even
to manage temporarily their cheap-imitation-plastic simulacrum of wholeness and
health….the carcinogenic tin-god they call eCONomic “growth.” 

Looks like She’s already doing that, too, for Her Children caught-up in the
machinations of the “civilization”-disease-generating tormenting retro-viral
‘entity’ that (foolishly?) invaded the Whole Living Arrangement of our Mother Earth.

HokaHey!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 22, 2011 at 7:57 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3, July 22 at 1:38 am:

‘... To me, intellectualism (the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will: the capacity for knowledge) represents the proberbial box of old ideas which one must think outside of in order to come up with new ideas, which in turn are absorbed and then become a part of the established intellectual box of old ideas. ...’

That is what happens in science.  There is an additional element: that which is found outside the box can’t be too far from the existing box.  Quantum mechanics and Relativity would have been senseless to Aristotle and Archimedes.  Occasionally, one observes intuitions pop up which are validated only generations later; in their own day, they’re mysticism or poetry.  So in the case of the physics box, science can’t get to QM and Relativity until it has gone through and absorbed the work of Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and those like them.

We observe this in individuals as well.  Everyone has a box, a framework of what they consider to be valid and real.  If you present ideas too far outside that framework, they will usually throw them off one way or another.  Getting people to loosen their framework, much less expand it, is very difficult.

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 22, 2011 at 1:38 am Link to this comment

BR549,

You are indeed a wise man BR549.  I say that because you have the ability and understanding to slice through all my “sloppy thinking” and actually see my point.  Plus I love your statement regarding the constitution, “we haven’t spiritually evolved enough to live into its wisdom”  I agree totally. 

By Michael Cavlan RN, July 21 at 3:17 pm

“To quote from an old time Anarchist, Emma Goldmann
If Voting Changed Anything, They Would Make It Illegal”
—————-
That is really a great quote, Michael. 

On the other subject:

I don’t apologize for this thing I have, which seems to totally disregard any intellectual convention, being willing to put up dozens of totally asinine thoughts (in your opinion) merely for the sake of stumbling onto a really, really good one.  What Shenonymous refers to as “sloppy thinking” 

Sometimes I feel a rush of pure freedom, and it causes me to reject what I see as the fence of intellectualism.  Like a horse that breaks out of the pen, it just wants to run wild. 

I have seen that intellectualism has really demonstrated little power to solve man’s weightier problems.  The problems are still with us, are they not?  Maybe that will change, but so far it has not.

To me, intellectualism (the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will: the capacity for knowledge) represents the proberbial box of old ideas which one must think outside of in order to come up with new ideas, which in turn are absorbed and then become a part of the established intellectual box of old ideas. 

Intellectualism is like politics, you keep replacing the old with the new, but never, ever really seem to solve the big issues. 

When Shenonymous says,  “no coercion here to get you to speak relative to some truth” I think she means that, as an intellectual, she would prefer me to speak relative to all that is in the box, which is to say all that is accepted as known truth and has been tucked away in that box, at which time it becomes an old idea as far as I am concerned. 

My answer to that would be, if the truth were in the box, why aren’t the problems solved?  Why must I limit myself to speaking relative to some known truth, when I am inclined to run around outside the box searching for some new truth?

The perpetual failure to solve the big problems makes me skeptical of all that is in the box, and especially whether it actually represents truth.

The words of Thomas Carlyle keep coming to mind,

“Know this also, that out of a world of Unwise nothing but an Unwisdom can be made. Arrange it, Constitution-build it, sift it through Ballot-Boxes as thou wilt, it is and remains an Unwisdom,—the new prey of new quacks and unclean things, the latter end of it slightly better than the beginning. Who can bring a wise thing out of men unwise? Not one.”

I watch it all, and get the feeling that we are all on this big treadmill, forever running, but never getting anywhere.  Please forgive me for getting off for a while.

Report this
screamingpalm's avatar

By screamingpalm, July 21, 2011 at 8:03 pm Link to this comment

@ Sanjiv Bhattacharya

You just gained yourself a “subscriber” to your blog. Great stuff smile

Report this

By Steve E, July 21, 2011 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment

Nice knowing you Liz.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, July 21, 2011 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment

JimBob, July 21 at 3:57 pm
“Has it occurred to you that Geithner was rewarded because he engineered a bailout that saved our economy?”

Saved our country? His actions were right in line with the same progressive monetary sabotage going back into the ‘80s and before, like handing a drowning man a lead filled life jacket.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 21, 2011 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

Gracious, I don’t recall anyone saying “all” anarchists are indecent
and cowardly.  But then I only know a couple who say they are
anarchists, and I wouldn’t say exactly, that I “know” them, but I
don’t think they would throw a fire bomb at anything unless it was
verbally against a statist!  However, the violent anarchists with
incendiaries are the ones who give all anarchists a bad rap.  And it
depends on what one wants to accept as change.  Me, I like it in
quarters and dimes.  No nickels or pennies please.

JDmysticDJ, I am always willing to learn and if you do not agree with me
on some things, I’m sure I can learn something valuable from you if you
were to say what they are.  Serenity is always appreciated by me.  Why
you are the only one I’ve ever read on TD to speak of serenity.  I’ve come
across the axiom also, that a little knowledge can be dangerous is the
way I heard it.  And by the looks of the Republican politicians in
Congress these days, and the ones running for President of the United
States, the axiom fits like a glove.  Caveat emptor is another good bit of
advice.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 21, 2011 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment

The chaos that I fear becomes more and more evident. As the Center collapses to the Right, and the Left fragments from irrationality, the Right will come goose stepping in, and you fools will have no one to blame but yourselves. I, on the other hand, will have you morons to blame.

I warned about the consequences of turning away from the Democrats and allowing the Right to take power, and now, here we are, morons.

Report this
JimBob's avatar

By JimBob, July 21, 2011 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment

@CenterofMass:  You are alarmed by the following:
“This bailout was engineered in cooperation with the
Bush administration by Timothy Geithner, then head of
the New York Federal Reserve Bank, who was rewarded
for his catering to Wall Street avarice by being
named Obama’s treasury secretary.”

Has it occurred to you that Geithner was rewarded
because he engineered a bailout that saved our
economy?  You need to read some of the terrific books
on what happened during that period, starting with
“Too Big to Fail.”

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, July 21, 2011 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment

My Dear God in Heaven

I had concluded this conversation but…

The Anarchists I actually know are some of the most decent, kind and courageous people I know. They are committed to creating a world without violence, all kinds of isms and actual justice. I may not agree with their do not vote or participate in elections but I respect why they say that.

In fact during the RNC in St Paul, the “anarchists” created a political space where opposition to the policies of the Republicans could be organized. They were the ones that St Paul police open up with rubber bullets, tasers and pepper spray while chanting “This is a Peaceful Protest.”

For their troubles they were rounded up by the authorities and charged with a variety of bullshit charges. By a Minnesota Democrat Attorney General it must be noted.

One of them, Garrett read from Dr Zeuss as his defense.

These folks are goddamned modern day hippies and in the same mold as the Ken Keasey Merry Pranksters.

So of course apologists for the pro-war, corporate corrupted Kabuki Theatre of the Absurd, pseudo democracy two party shell game will hate them.

To quote from an old time Anarchist, Emma Goldmann

If Voting Changed Anything, They Would Make It Illegal.

Emma Goldmann is right. Maybe that makes me an anarchist.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 21, 2011 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous

By my appraisal, your comments here have been serene, courageous (Somewhat,) and wise.

I’m not in agreement with all that you have written, but that’s just me. I’ll try to be serene, courageous, and wise, by not offering annoying criticism.

I once found a gold coin, for a moment I thought it was my lucky day, but it turned out to be a cheap medallion from the somewhat cultish organization, “Alcoholics Anonymous.” The coin was inscribed with the words, “… grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference;” the famous, or infamous, “Serenity Prayer.”

I suppose that this prayer was meant to be an inspiration for individuals to help them cope with the ups and downs of life, but I think that this little bit of inspiration might help keep some of us from going off the deep end and developing a fetish for shot gun shells, 308 and 9mm bullets, totally insane theories of societal organization, and whatnot.

At present, there don’t appear to be any softer words for Anarchy, lawlessness comes to mind but that doesn’t seem soft enough, does it?

Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order.


Maybe a softer term for Anarchy would be, “Individual iconoclasm (With lots of shot gun shells.)”

In conclusion I’ll point to an old axiom that states, “A little education can be a bad thing,” It occurs to me that a lot of education can be a bad thing too. For example, if you give a lot of education i.e. academic training in the fields of business, economics, communication skills, debate, social sciences, philosophy, political science, how to succeed in business without really trying, etc, to a moron… you end up with a Republican or a Libertarian.

Report this

By radson, July 21, 2011 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment

drbhelthi:You don’t Mince words do you ,kinda reminds me of my old man -in a good way.The big Picture is what your lookin at and I understand the message.

cheers

Report this

By radson, July 21, 2011 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

BR somehow somewhere I have read these arguments before and have difficulty disagreeing with them.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, July 21, 2011 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

“Some say Obama is a coward, others that he is not. It matters not; he is
useless.”
“ Whatever you do don’t vote for Democrats or Republicans. They are the enemy,
nothing less and you might as well vote Ahmadinejad.”  Kulu

I find it neat, that someone comes thru occasionally with a couple sentences
of nitty-gritty, without weaving paragraphs of word-circles. Three of Kulu´s
ideas are valuable to me, but which I valuate variously. Barry Soetoro, (B. H.
Obama) grew up in familial settings that formed his basic character, a puppet
to whomever makes him feel worthwhile. His maternal Grandmother, mother and
step-father Soetoro were C.I.A. affiliates. Being sucked into the C.I.A. made
him somebody.

An explanation of what the word “coward” means in his situation, would be
worthwhile, similarly, the phrase, “he is useless.”  He was an asset to the
C.I.A., even before his handlers slid him into Illinois politics. Several
accurate observations were printed 2000-2004 by the famous “crooked judge
buster” of the 1970s, Sherman Skolnick, a marvellous historian of the Jewish
faith. Skolnick revealed Obama to be a Kenyan, tied to the crooked element of
Chicago politics.  A printout of a 2004 Kenyan newspaper, lauding Obama as the
Kenyan climbing into an Illinois senatorial seat, was on the internet until a
week ago. It disappeared about eight days after it was publicized.

“Obama” has furthered the goals of the WWII NAZIs/C.I.A. that have taken over
the Republican Party, and the Zionists who manipulate the Democrat Party,
doubling the U.S. debt in two years. “Obama” and the Zionist Bernanke, form a
useful team for the WWII NAZI-types and Zionist-types who have bankrupted the
U.S.A., manipulated the U.S.Military to murder folk stretching from the former
Yugoslavia up to Afghanistan, and have polluted the entire area with
radioactive ammunition that will deform neonates for incalculable years.

All in the name of instituting “democracy”.  Spelled O-I-L and p-o-w-e-r.  As
is being attempted in Libya and threatened for Iran.

Referring to Democrats – Republicans as “the enemy, nothing less” is
pragmatically accurate.  Both continue to steer the USA into dissolution. Few
of them notice that their handlers have them deadlocked in a power struggle
that European news media characterize favourably for “Obama”, classifying
Republicans as “obstructionists”. Thus, the C.I.A.-Zionist news-fraud machine
now extends into Europe. Fortunately, some Germans recognize it as Hitler-type
propaganda, and are protesting.

The phrase, “might as well vote Ahmadinejad,” makes sense to me.  Mahmud
Ahmadinedschad and Muammar Gadhafi appear to be the only two Moslem leaders
who have refused C.I.A. bribery. Thus, CIA operatives have not infiltrated to
the extent of destroying from within, Iran continues to exist, and has formed
allegiance with Russia. Also, in spite of the NATO puppetry attempt to murder
Gadhafi and family, and destroy his influence, he continues to exist. 
European support for him increasingly condemns the illegal NATO attack on
Libya, and may force it to a halt.

In summary, rather than Barry Soetoro (Obama) or whichever NAZI/Zionist puppet
is put forth, either Ahmadinejad or Gadhafi might be a better vote for U.S.
President in 2012. Either of them would be the third non-American to occupy
the U.S. Presidency, since Barry Soetoro (Obama) is the second.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, July 21, 2011 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

msb,
Hitler moved Germany in that same direction under supposedly democratic reforms and look where it took them. I agree with your post and would only add that this whole issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with politics, labor, reforms, or anything socially progressive; these are just tools used by those in power to keep the populace “busy” pretending they have a voice. The last line of the 10th episode on Lone Gunman was where the former CIA father was telling his diligent journalistic truth seeker son, “I know you and your friends are fighting for the American dream; .... just don’t expect to win”

That statement has truth written all over it because as it has been said, we will have just as much tyranny as we are willing to put up with. I mean, I have a hard time understanding how people are still thinking that changing from one leaking row boat to another will somehow offer them a viable solution for survival. WTF. So, while the feds are willing to brand anyone who dares upset their wobbly applecart as a terrorist, particularly anyone in a militia, a Constitution supporter, or someone who supports Ron Paul, you can bet that no matter which party gets in office, the elites will be hard on their heels to blackmail, coerce, bribe, or threaten them into compliance. The issue, after all, is one of integrity and Washington has almost none ........ but people will line up, as expected, every four years to put their head on a chopping block and then wonder why nothing changes. At some point, our elected officials have to just say NO.

Report this

By msb, July 21, 2011 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment

Alexander Pope once said “hope springs eternal”. But hope isn’t any help if it is
misplaced and keeps one on a path that is clearly unproductive. While the
Republicans have visibly been the party of the rich for years, it is increasingly
apparent that the elite are one big club, and that most Republican and
Democrats are either part of that elite group or are being paid off by them.
Obama will never take off the gloves to fight for Warren or for progressive
causes because he wants to be part of the elite.

This should have been crystal clear from the get-go when Obama appointed
Geithner and Summers. But for those of us who are slow learners or who are
hooked on hope, the last two years have taught us that Obama is never going
to deliver on his campaign promises of health care with a public option for all,
to close Guantanamo, to defend labor rights, or to reform the Patriot Act.
Instead Obama, supported by the Democratic party, is moving the country
further to the right, at times even outdoing the Republicans such as with his
recent extension of the Patriot Act that was even longer than the one the
Republicans wanted!

Report this

By BobZ, July 21, 2011 at 11:53 am Link to this comment

In a corporatist society like ours, progressives are an endangered species so it
behooves us to protect our own rather than throwing them to the wolves the way
Clinton did Brooksley Born, and now Obama throwing Elizabeth Warren under the
bus. And earlier the Obama Administration couldn’t wait to get rid of Shirley
Sherrod and Van Jones. Not a great track record Mr. President. Hopefully the
Republican’s will nominate Michelle Bachmann who has no chance to win next year
but if the Republican’s regain their senses and run a moderate, the president will
have his hands full. Add to that the full court press the Republican’s are putting on
at the state level to make it harder to the poor to vote, and you have a recipe for a
Republican president in 2013. Obama should have put forth Warren’s name and
fought like hell for her. It would have demonstrated his committment to fight
corporate interests and the banksters. This is a real failure of leadership. FDR
would have loved this fight against Wall Street.

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, July 21, 2011 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

What would be harm in fighting for what you, the president of the U.S., think is
right and also what your voters elected you to do? 

The president seems to think that in order to get anything done, you must
subtract from your position to embrace the other side in compromise, even
though the other side doesn’t compromise at all.  They say they are only keeping
their promises to a small group of voters.  It appears that it would be quite easy to
insist on keeping promises to an much larger group of voters that would decide a
re-election.

I don’t understand why compromise always works to the advantage of the Right.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, July 21, 2011 at 10:51 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3, July 21 at 9:05 am
Excerpt from DaveZx3, July 21 at 7:11 am
“The idea is not that you would abolish government workers, but that you would abolish government power, leadership and structure and repace it with people power and leadership without structure”

Bingo!
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that anarchy is what is needed to tear down, not the government, but the corruption in government that has seen fit to repeatedly violate the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and specifically in the case you bring up, the 10th Amendment. The English lost the Revolutionary War, but they weren’t done with us by a long shot. 1812, the Civil War, and in John Perkins’ fashion, economically sabotaging any entity that didn’t condone having its resources raped to support the English Crown; a practice that our own power elite have all too eagerly adopted.

The problem was never that the Constitution wasn’t well written or that it had too many loopholes; it’s that we never had a chance to empower the states enough to keep the burgeoning federal government in check. Many think it’s time to toss that document when we haven’t spiritually evolved enough to live into its wisdom.

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, July 21, 2011 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

@ Shenonymous

It is indeed. Kudos to you!!!!

and Kudos to ME!!!

Kudos to us all.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 21, 2011 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

You can be as sloppy in your thinking as you like DaveZx3, no
coercion here to get you to speak relative to some truth.  You are
your own man, remember?  And as far as your irritating the hell out
of me, you ought not to even imagine it.  I’ve got better things to do.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 21, 2011 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

EmileZ, yes, you spelled moot correctly and used it correctly also.
If I am not mistaken your personal image is a self-portrait of the
English artist Francis Bacon.  Is that right?

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 21, 2011 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

By Shenonymous, July 21 at 7:36 am

You really need to study forms of social organization, and their history.”
——————————————-

Oh, I’m sorry you missed it.  I was not in the historical mode, I was in that “other” mode, which always irritates the hell out of you, I know.

There are those of us whose lives are spent reiterating past events, living age old philosophies. and quoting a lot of dead people from big, rotting books. They pride themselves in their mastery of all the details. 

And we do need these people, even though they tend to say things like, “...some form of government is required to police the exceedingly selfish anarchists who think they have a right to everything”,———

Unfortunately, their historically orientated rearwards thinking causes them to miss the idea that, in the past that might have been true, but in the computer age, anyone abusing a system is quickly and easily spotted, making some burdensome government as ridiculous and unnecessary as carrying that huge book around under your arm.  Think of the feedback systems, such as eBay’s.  We have come to the point where large numbers of average Joes have the power to cripple huge business’s through informational systems, if it was worked correctly.  It is harder to make bad products and get away with it. 

But we do need people who confine their thinking to historical paradigms, as they make good school marms. 

And on the other side, there are some of us who could give a shit less about what some dead guy thought, because if he was that smart, all the problems should have been solved by now.  These types are more inclined to think than read.  (shudder, shudder)  They see ideas in their head with no idea what to name them, and no desire to name them anything. They see literalness as a burden that the intellectuals must bear.  They have secret delight in calling something whatever they feel like calling it.  It is in fact pure freedom from intellectualism.  I might be one of these people.

But to satisfy the school marm, please replace every reference to the word “anarchy” with the word “davearchy”, so I don’t have to retain the guilt of stomping on some dead guy’s ideas.

Definition of DAVEARCHY. 1. a : absence of government

Excerpt from DaveZx3, July 21 at 7:11 am
“The idea is not that you would abolish government workers, but that you would abolish government power, leadership and structure and repace it with people power and leadership without structure”

Comment:  Since the above statement abolishes government power, leadership and structure, the possibility of this being communism is remote.  Since when did communists allow the people to have real power? 

P.S.  I promise to read a book next month. It won’t be about forms of social structure though.  They are boring as hell.  I prefer The Hardy Boys.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 21, 2011 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

EmileZ, July 21 at 8:42 am:

‘Who gives a fuck about anarchism???’

It sometimes gets people to froth in interesting ways.  Things are getting a bit repetitious around here, though.

By the way, what’s that picture you use as an icon or avatar or whatever?

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, July 21, 2011 at 8:42 am Link to this comment

Who gives a fuck about anarchism???

The point is moot (did I spell moot correctly) at this particular juncture. No reason to slam it however. Anyhow…

There are still choices to be made about how we are to approach this sad sorry two-party system, and how we might influence things outside of the elections we have been so graciously granted by the powers that be as well.

Report this

By ksoskin, July 21, 2011 at 8:39 am Link to this comment

Mr. Scheer: 
While it is a relief to see you begin to recognize the shortcomings of
our president:
“...Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, has ended up betraying
his humble origins by abjectly serving the most rapacious variant of
Wall Street greed.”

It is clear that you still haven’t quite assimilated the full magnitude of
the situation we’re in:
“What remains to be seen is if Obama will play (the GOP’s) game or
finally take the gloves off.”

It does not “remain to be seen” if Obama will “play their game or not”
and in a number of ways, it’s troubling that you are still framing issues
this way.

First, it isn’t the GOP’s game.  It’s Wall Street’s game. It has been for
years. And they’ve already won.

Second, from the day he took office, Obama has played to benefit the
rich, and he has been consistent about his loyalties.  His defining
moment was appointing Geithner and Summers et.al., not refusing to
nominate Warren two very long and instructional years later.  Yes, this
was a gutless act that is “a vital measure of the man,” but it certainly is
no surprise to those who have been seeing Obama clearly for quite
awhile now.

Finally, it’s way past time to acknowledge that there is no useful
difference between the Republicans and Democrats in Washington and
to stop presenting the GOP as the devil and the Democrats as a viable
option for change. Both parties have proven beyond any doubt that they
are owned by Wall Street and care solely about serving them, not us. 
You are only playing the pawn to the elite 1% who rule us when you
continue to write about the government as if we still had party choices
that will make any difference to those who count on their government
to support and protect them.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 21, 2011 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

It is amazing that one can so contradict oneself without being the l
east bit aware of it.  Anarchists would not have any government, they
would be self regulating.  There would be no need for the concept of
democracy to even exist since there is no we the people, it is a me
and mine and only when necessary does one interact with another
outside that small clan. Anarchy is the epitome of Hobbesean political
ideology, dog eat dog, the absolute of self-service.  Anarchists would
not really be able to use a computer since it was developed by
government subsidy, government is a dirty word to Anarchists. 
Anarchy is not the best form of social construction.  It is the worst. 
It only works at the smallest number of group think.  And then it does
not last long since some form of government is required to police the
exceedingly selfish anarchists who think they have a right to everything. 
Not only does it sound absurd, it is absurd.  Your idea of anarchy is very
close to communism where everybody is in the same boat.  You really
need to study forms of social organization, and their history.

EmileZ – I could not agree with you more.  Life is full of disappointments
and we have to learn to tread the murky waters and avoid the sharks that
would eat us in one gulp.  Taking the lesser of two evils sometimes is all
the choice we have.  Some who are tarnished by abundance never know
this factuality.  Those two Supreme Court Justice appointment will be the
best thing Obama did for this country.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, July 21, 2011 at 7:16 am Link to this comment

ardee, July 21 at 2:55 am
“Oh Dave, First you claim to choose Law and Freedom without Violence, then you stock up on shotgun shells. Nicely thought out ...”

Actually, Dave’s statement is similar to the adage; ...... Walk softly, but carry a big stick, and also ...... Praise the Lord, but remember to tie up your horse. Dave’s stash of shotgun shells would probably only be rivaled by my stash of 308s and 9mms (no offense, Dave) but that doesn’t in any way mean that I don’t hold out for the intervention of a higher state of human consciousness. The adage about not being able to simultaneously wage peace and war is an interesting one. As long as we are still wrestling with our cultural inner demons, we will be just like immature punks duking it out in the school yard, but when maturing nations ever do get to the point where they have made all these weapons and could destroy the Earth many times over, but collectively decide that there is no longer any need for them, until such time arises, all we can do is practice on getting there. It’s a spiritual maturation process for the entire race. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

“Our resident Democrats here might say that, by not participating, you are as big a problem as are Nader voters and Green Party supporters. I think that at least we Greens and Nader lovers understand our duty to participate and work towards the society we desire for ourselves, our children and our neighbors.”

It sounds like what you are saying is that, according to the Democrtats, unless someone decides to vote Democrat, all the Greens and Indies are responsible for all the ills in our government and our economy. If the Democrats were actually able to transform themselves, they would have done so long ago, particularly after the last economic go-round. The fact is that they are no more capable of doing so than the Republicans, and no matter which side of the fence someone postures himself on, until such time that the Dems actually do clean up their own act, it will just be S.S.D.D. all over again. The rationale that “this time will be different” if we can only get enough votes was what everyone thought was going to happen in 2008 and look where we are; even further in the crap hole than under Bush.

When are people going to get this through their thick skulls? This has nothing to do with political parties. While people are arguing over whose fault this all is, the people behind all this, many of whom are securely calling the shots from within the higher echelons of BOTH parties, are throwing this country under a bus with the promises that they will be “taken care of” after the collapse. There is no sense of patriotism for these people; they merely use that term to enrage the civilian population enough to agree to send their children off to war. It creates a “novelty”, as Terrence McKenna defined it, that allows for shifts of power, increases in wealth usually for a select few, and the reduction in the population of what these parasitic sociopaths call “useless eaters.”

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 21, 2011 at 7:11 am Link to this comment

Shotgun shells was an abstract.  I should have softened it to something like “means of defense”

Anarchy is definitely the answer.  It’s only problem is the word itself.  Like shotgun shells, it needs softening.  Something short and sweet.

Anarchy gets a bad rap.  But I am starting to think of it as the ultimate democracy.  democracy without the baggage of majority oppression; democracy without the need for the vampire middlemen we call elected officials; democracy without the formal structure so useful for corruption on the part of industry, etc,
democracy without any use for political parties; democracy without any place for lobbyists. 

The computer age has made possible a system of anarchy of the people, anarchy by the people, and anarchy for the people. 

One of the greatest problems with US government today is now that the people are considerably empowered by the free, fast flow of information, they are more frustrated than ever that they don’t seem to have their views represented in a more direct way. 

Years ago, it made sense to elect a small number of representatives to meet and decide how to direct those who actually did the work, the bureaucracy, etc.  Today, wiki sites, as an example, show that it is possible, with a virtually powerless moderator function, to harness the power of literally millions of inputs to produce a perfectly cogent product.

The idea is not that you would abolish government workers, but that you would abolish government power, leadership and structure and repace it with people power and leadership without structure. 

The concept of anarchy would provide the key to the level of power that individuals would have, in that no one would ever be forced into subjection or to financing anything that they do not subscribe to or believe in.  So projects, wars, programs would live or die, not due to favoritism, pork barrel politics, or MIC influece, but due to their (project, etc) inherent ability to motivate the population to support and pay for them. 

As totally absurd as that sounds, I think there is great evidence for the idea that people give generously to finance legitimate needs, but it is the perception that government confiscates your taxes that makes people begrudge paying them.  Most very rich people give very large amounts to worthwhile causes, but they go out of their way to avoid taxes.
That is not out of meanness, but it is the way the system is designed to be responded to.  Our revenue system is totally absurd.  Voluntary participation would increase participation and revenues exponentially, IMO. 

The ultimate idea is to get everybody in the same boat, so there is no we and they, no republican and democrat, no rich and poor, no black and white, no left and right, no capitalist and communist.  Just a bunch of individuals coming together virtually, each with equal sovereign power and freedom to participate or not participate as they see fit.

Division saps the nation and makes it impossible to fight the corruption and accomplish anything meaningful.  Hell, it’s not like there’s anything to lose.  Nohing gets done anyway except the bureaucratic functions, and I often wonder about them. 

Anarchy is the answer.  Just need to find a better name, because that one has a lot of problems. 

Of course no one of any present influence would buy into it.  Why should they?  And of course it presents billions of issues to deal with in the eyes of those
who would lose something in the transition. 

That is what’s really frustrating about politics, it is rooted in traditions which will never go away until they are stomped all over, and no one has it in them to do that.  We would all lose in the short term, and there is really no consensus for what the replacement should be. 

You keep coming back to the same old idea that constitutional America is a great system.  It is just the people who fuck it up.

Report this

By ardee, July 21, 2011 at 2:55 am Link to this comment

Oh Dave

First you claim to choose Law and Freedom without Violence, then you stock up on shotgun shells. Nicely thought out ...

I do not know what your motivation is but hopefully you will not influence anyone to join you in your obvious dichotomy.

Our resident Democrats here might say that, by not participating, you are as big a problem as are Nader voters and Green Party supporters. I think that at least we Greens and Nader lovers understand our duty to participate and work towards the society we desire for ourselves, our children and our neighbors.

Report this

By tedmurphy41, July 21, 2011 at 2:31 am Link to this comment

Instead of surrounding himself with intelligent, principled colleagues, he backslides into the obsequious being that he really is, spineless in his behaviour with these unelected magnates, including the corporate and financial institutions, instead of doing what he was elected to do, which is to face them up in the interests of the general American public, people who now despair of their elected representatives ever upholding their rights and expectations, within America itself and including its tainted standing around the World.
I do hope he lives to regret this decision.

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, July 21, 2011 at 1:51 am Link to this comment

@shenonymous

I think the supreme court thing is the best excuse to hold your nose and vote for Obama. I wish I could think of another. Personally, I think things will get incredibly ugly for (most) americans (as well) either way.

I hope I am wrong. Unfotunately hope seems to be holding us back from facing things squarely, but as Chris Hedges has so kindly and indelicately pointed out (along with his many friends including Ralph Nader), it (hope) can work either way if you are willing to act (hopefully). ???? wink

Report this
kulu's avatar

By kulu, July 21, 2011 at 1:45 am Link to this comment

Some say Obama is a coward, others that he is not. It matters not; he is useless.

I agree with Ardee, vote Green or real progressive independent. If you can’t bring yourself to do that then, I suppose don,t vote at all. Whatever you do don’t vote for Democrats or Republicans. They are the enemy, nothing less and you might as well vote Ahmadinejad.

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 21, 2011 at 1:13 am Link to this comment

Part 2.  (sorry for posting these two parts backwards)

SUMMARY:

So there, I have summed up totally my political philosophy.  I honestly believe that society could function very well with

no other written guidance than what is presented here.  Since our present system seems to lack freedom, effective

law, peace and justice, mine will certainly do no worse, and perhaps a lot better.  And we would not have to compose 500,000,000,000 pages of guidance, and put up with some 1,000’s of ineffective leaders, as we now have.

I have only one task left, which is to stock up on shotgun shells, so I have some recourse within Hobbes First Law of Nature when the unjust come to steal from my garden instead of being content with the large amounts I put down by the road for free. 

If I have left anything out, please let me know.  I don’t mind making revisions as the need arises. 

In the meantime, you are free to continue your partisan political blathering if you like, but in the opinions of many, myself included, nothing is as clear as the fact that, for all of it, over the years, decades, and even centuries, it has had virtually no affect on the really significant problems that the general population face daily. 

So why do you do it?  Why do you struggle so much to accomplish so little?  I get fatigued just watching this circus you call politics.  So much so, that I think I need to go out in the back yard and have another beer, which I will dedicate to my new found freedom, law and peace.

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 21, 2011 at 1:10 am Link to this comment

I will not be voting in 2012.  I am dropping out of the impotent political circus which has let the people down continously.  I don’t consider that to be slacking on my civic responsibility, because in the end, we must be able to find the way ourselves before we can be of any true help to others. 

I came up with a new personal philosophy which allows me to interact with society in a less confused and exhausting way, while allowing me much more time to pursue the more pleasant things of life. 

After a lot of thought, I concluded that aside from the breath of air and a little nourishment,  I could basically make do with only three other things,  Freedom, Law, and Peace.

I referred to Immanuel Kant on how to proceed, as I recalled him somewhere giving a cogent description of the societal states:

A Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy)
B Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism)
C Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism)
D Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic)

Anarchy being the only choice, but insisting on a lack of leadership and government as it does, I had to find a source for Freedom, Law and Peace.  Obviously they do not occur naturally, and they are certainly not occuring politically.

LAW:

For Law, I chose the Sermon on the Mount for it’s absolute wisdom.  Wisdom is the key, and recalling the words of Thomas Carlyle in “French Revolution”:
 
“Know this also, that out of a world of Unwise nothing but an Unwisdom can be made. Arrange it, Constitution-build it, sift it through Ballot-Boxes as thou wilt, it is and remains an Unwisdom,—the new prey of new quacks and unclean things, the latter end of it slightly better than the beginning. Who can bring a wise thing out of men unwise? Not one.”

The source for Law has to be from anything but the works of natural “men unwise”, and since there are no words more filled with wisdom than those of the Sermon on the Mount, that became my source for Law.

FREEDOM:

My source for Freedom is the first two sentences of the Declaration of Independence.  Beyond those first two sentences, the water gets murky, so I will let those two sentences suffice, and I will base my freedom on them.  It is fortunate to have the Bill of Rights as a functional reference, but not really necessary.  It is also nice to know my freedom does not originate from the fickle thoughts, actions and governments of men. 

PEACE:

Peace requires covenants, so I dragged out an “oldie but goodie” by Thomas Hobbes called “Leviathan” published in 1651, for a little understanding of social contract theory. 

Hobbes describes the causes of conflict as: competition, diffidence and glory, “The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation”.

His First Law of Nature states, “that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it: and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.”  Also, “In a state of nature, every man has a right to every thing, even to then go for one another’s body” 

His Second Law of Nature states that in order to secure peace, “that a man be willing, when others are so too… to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself”  (this principle dovetails nicely with the source of Law, The Sermon on the Mount” 

His Third Law of Nature goes into the contracts and covenants which secure peace, of which the failure to perform becomes the source of all injustice. 

(continued)

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, July 21, 2011 at 12:58 am Link to this comment

I agree with everything you are saying Mr Scheer, but the defining moment, I believe came when Obama decided to support an extension of the Bush tax cuts (if not long before).

It is interesting to me that now when the “gang of six” is reported to be discussing eliminating the top tax brackets and the mortgage deduction that Obama is coming out for the repeal of the DOMA. This is an incredibly ruthless and cynical politician at work.

Report this

By johncp, July 21, 2011 at 12:57 am Link to this comment

Once again, Scheer pretends to be writiing about Obama, when he’s actually writing about Clinton.  Scheer is a Clinton hater, pure and simple.  This article is just another hit piece for the other Clinton haters, waiting to jump out of their holes and attack on the most trivial grounds.  What you pretend, Mr. Scheer, is, that his lapses of judgememt, in the view of his enemies, are characteristically, uniquely Clintonian.  I can’t tell you of the contempt I feel for such cheap lies.  You know down to your soul, that blaming Clinton for the rubbish you malign him for, is to pretend that such failings are only possible in Bill Clinton.  I’ve racked my brain for years, trying to discover some other explanation for this vicious, stupid and irrational hostility for Clinton.  I’ve given up.  It remains, that only the word “jealousy,” suffices to explain nearly all such garbage as we see, constantly from puseudo scribblers like Scheer.  Every president has made errors of the kind you single out Clinton for, and made worse ones.  Yet on nearly all other presidents, Scheer is silent by comparison.  I’ve come to regard all such malicious verbal outbursts as proof of the shallow character of writers.  Yes, Obama and Clinton are duplicates of each other, if the only criterion by which you judge the two, is their capitulation to “big” money.  But this capitualtion is not simply endemic to Presidencies, it’s an absolute requirement if anyone is to attain to high office, and, Mr. Sheer, you know it.  Why, then, do you single out Clinton, and direct your deceitful harangues aganst him, almost exculsively?  Do you hope to turn the less intelligent among your readers, against Clinton.
Yes both Clinton and Obama give much ground to the super rich, but the difference is, that Clinton was a true president, courageous, passionate, devoted, brilliant in handling and understanding everthing put before him, and not because he went to some prestigious university, but because he was Clinton.  He was also overwhelming in his appeal to women, wasn’t he Mr. Scheer?  And, he took advantage of that appeal.  He was smooth, cool, and a dare-devil, qualities as absent in Washington as they could possibly be. You deliberately ignore the good that Clinton did, as much good as the gangsters around him would allow, proven by his ongoing humanitarian effors, pretending that president’s have a “choice,” when you know that they have no such thing.  You’re a jealous liar, Mr. Scheer.  In spite of enemies such as yourself, Clinton remains a “celebrity” among presidents.  The most honored, the most hungrily sought after, the most respected politician on earth.  Comparing him to Obama, is a pointless joke.  Obama is an adolescent, a poseur, as ordinary a man as it’s possible to be.  Clinton is one of a kind, and the best president we’ve been fortunate to have, since FDR.  “The faults of great men, are the consolation of fools.”

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 20, 2011 at 11:18 pm Link to this comment

Obama is the candidate.  Not doubt about it.  Who would I prefer? 
Bernie Sanders, then Howard Dean, either order.  It doesn’t sound
like either guy would be acceptable to you. Libertarian Republican
Ron Paul is completely unacceptable to me. His stand on women’s
right to their own bodies made him offensive in the last election
in which he ran and he is still offensive.  He can go straight to…
well, I won’t say it.  I advocate women’s right to choose for them-
selves what to do about unwanted pregnancies and their own bodies. 
I don’t like his position on taxes either. 

The fact is Obama will be the Democratic candidate. He has raised over
$78 million for campaigning.  All politicians are narcissists, so yours
and all the others’ namecalling is mostly flaming bombast.  It depends
on what exactly you mean by “cleaning house.”  As disappointed in
Obama as I am, and it is not less than anyone else, he has done a few
things that I totally agree with, a few of these include getting rid of
DADT. I have family in the military who are gay and family who are gay
and married. These people are amazing human beings and a lot more
moral than a sea of people I see who are straight also family members!
He saved the collapse of the American automotive industry by making
GM restructure before bailing them out, and putting incentive money in
to help the industry; he shifted the focus of the war from Iraq to
Afghanistan, and putting the emphasis on reducing terrorism where it
should have been all along; he appointed the first Latina to the
Supreme Court; he authorized construction/opening of additional health
centers to care for veteran… I could go on but there really are too
many, like closing the offshore tax safe havens where the corrupt had
hid their wealth and made a deal with Swiss banks to permit the US to
gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals.  Just things like
that.  So he has not been a total loss as everybody is screaming he is.

Yes, we are disgusted with his handling the debt limit debacle, and
his non-existent argument about what to do about the budget.  I
hate what he is not doing to stop the Republicans from decimating
our social entitlement and other programs and not holding strong
about increasing revenue through letting the rich take advantage of
this country.  But we were screwed when George Bush was elected
twice.  Twice screwed.  And screwed with Reagan.  You would think
we had got used to it.

I keep hearing about third parties, but nothing is coalescing.  Not
enough are passionate enough to really get one sufficiently glowing to
be picked up by MSM, and that is what it will take to influence enough
voters.  That is why I am pushing for Deep Blue reform within the
Democratic Party that has the voting membership.  We really have to
wait to see what happens with the budget, what happens in the next
two years, and if a third party can get any traction to be able to beat
the Republicans.

Report this

By Conden, July 20, 2011 at 10:10 pm Link to this comment

Obama’s gloves are so caked with blood and corporate excrement that I’m sure what lies underneath them is going to be worse, not better.  He isn’t just a coward, he is a right wing scumbag.  We have to build a real democracy, where we have the power to vote out the system and make a new one (and yes, that does mean an updated constitution, unlike the old, right wing one.)

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, July 20, 2011 at 9:57 pm Link to this comment

Pretty soon Obama will be wearing a tube of Vaseline on a chain around his neck…

He is wall streets bitch..and that’s all he’s ever been right from the start ..maybe it will
get bad enough that the military will take over…

Otherwise…  Civil war is coming….the north versus the south all over again…

Report this

By litlpeep, July 20, 2011 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment

Expect nothing from Obama.

You’ll be neither disappointed nor surprised.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, July 20, 2011 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment

Shen,
Who will run in Obama’s stead? If he runs we are screwed. If the Republicans win (well, maybe except for Ron Paul), we are also screwed, particularly with the likes of that narcissist Boner (excuse me, I mean Boehner) hanging around.

But then we have two other narcissists, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary. Even if Ron Paul gets in, while I trust him, I don’t trust the Senate, the House, or the judiciary to do anything that resembles supporting the Constitution ....... I mean, look where we are. How many of them have joined forces to get us back on track. Whatever it is, it is never enough, and from one administration to the next, we always head further into the toilet. As it is now, too many people are being hoodwinked into thinking that the Constitution has somehow lost any modern day validity; heck, we never even came close to living up to what that document could fully represent and yet we have idiots in the SCOTUS ready to rewrite or trash it, which is exactly what the globalists and bankers want.

So, I don’t have the answer. I greatly value your input, but I’m just not seeing this. I don’t see how, after traitors like Clinton and Obama can give this country away, we can do anything more constructive with them than we could with the Bush Family traitors and Reagan’s paranoia and Alzheimers.

I think it’s time to clean house.

Report this

By ocjim, July 20, 2011 at 7:28 pm Link to this comment

Republicans are so unbelievably radical right that the highly blemished, cowardly, self-serving, and gutless Obama is still better.

We need a pure parliamentary system with a Prime Minister who is not Obama or any Republican.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 20, 2011 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment

All I can say is that if enough people have become disgusted
enough, “maybe” something different is possible this time.

You might be right with that statement, BR549, but the reality is
that of the slightly more than 122 million voters in America, 53%
voted Democratic, 47% voted Republican.  Now please tell me more
about reality. 

Disgust is something that has to be sold these days.  You seem to
think the electorate are lemmings. That they move as in a herd over a
cliff.  That is a myth.  What third party is muscular enough to
emotionally influence both Democrats and Republicans? Or, just the
Democrats!?  The only way to change the landscape of politics is to
change the Democrats from within.  I am calling them the liberal Deep
Blue Democrats and they are the ones who will have to infect the 53% of
the electorate.

Report this

By Bill, July 20, 2011 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The question this piece raises is,  ‘What do you get when you put a pig in a mink coat?’

The answer, as it always is, is you get a pig.

The White house, it’s chief, his scurrying host of pimp minions, are merely the latest assemblage of pigs in mink coats.  And he and they know from whence
their slop issues forth.

The mass media are the perennial fawning sycophants who do little more than furiously grope toward the lie: attainment of a false, shallow, and inflated sense of worth, a false sense self importance as they weave their spin web in order to grow ‘close to’ and ‘admitted to’ the self-exaulted ‘light’ shed by
hollowed dry husk of the murderous soul of the Pigdom.

The electorate remain the media narcotized millions of festering suffering boils on the arses of the pigs, endlessly and furiously fighting each other for their fair share of the taste of the putrid festering poisonous ‘milk & honey’ of the Pigdom’s ‘largesse’.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, July 20, 2011 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment

I hate to say it but any attempt to put another Democrat back in office will only send the signal that enough people are satisfied with the status quo; that they enjoy bending over with a new “blue” jar of Vaseline every four years. From 2000 through 2008 it was “red Jar, but always the Vaseline.

Shen has stated that anything other than voting for a Dem will put a Rep in the White House. All I can say is that if enough people have become disgusted enough, “maybe” something different is possible this time. If too many are still doing the Kool-Aid and Pablum thing, we are screwed either way. If, for example, there were enough voters who had Independent candidates on the ballots, and a very high percentage of those blew out the Republicans and Democrats, what do you wanna bet we’d have another false flag crisis in November/December of 2012; that last final push to implement martial law? That is, after all, what the politicians and power-brokers have been after for decades.

I was watching a bunch of congresswomen today on C-Span and, after listening to them speak, wondered if they even had a clue what was going on in this country. Perhaps, with luck, they were all quite aware and were waiting for the right moment to state their viewpoints on the TSA, FEMA, the detention facilities, and the trainloads of tax dollars that have been progressively funneled out from underneath the public eye to build mountain bunkers for the elite. Do they still think that reinventing either of those two corrupt parties is a viable solution. Both parties did embrace some strong ideals at one point in history, but now, that was the lip service it took to get elected and anything resembling the Constitution is considered conspiratorial.

Report this
ETNIKS's avatar

By ETNIKS, July 20, 2011 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

I’m afraid Barak Obama has become as disgusting to me, as W Bush has been.

I can’t believe I campaigned so hard for him, especially all the heated arguments defending him from the recalcitrant right wingers.

He’s a traitor to his own professed causes.
Obama is definitely NOT a change, and much less one “we can believe in”

Report this

By ardee, July 20, 2011 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3, July 20 at 5:55 am

Just an acknowledgment of your ability to read and respond without thinking you are being attacked personally for the views you hold with which I disagree. A rather refreshing change from some around here.

Turn on, tune in, drop out. It didn’t work in the sixties and I see no hope of its working now. Perhaps you have no children so you are not invested in the future. Perhaps you can ignore the millions around the world suffering because of the foreign policies of our nation. Perhaps you can ignore the plight of your fellow citizens whose lives are made increasingly difficult by the creeping ( almost galloping by now) fascism that has usurped our democratic processes and purchased our politicians.

If so I almost envy you the ability to find personal satisfaction despite the suffering all around you. I have four children, one affected by the shrinking economy, so far only one. I have fifteen grandkids as well, so the future is a reality for me and thus feel impelled to work for a better one than currently forecast.

A pleasure talking with you,Dave.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 20, 2011 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

Do anything except vote Democrat and you get Republican.  It is
time Deep Blue Democrats take charge.  The Republicans got you
into this hellhole and Obama has not yet shown he can bring us
out, but Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders could.  Also getting
Elizabeth Warren elected as Senator of Massachusetts will be the
beginning of an energized liberal coalition.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 20, 2011 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment

Overseas

As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.[22] Some of the largest contingents are the 85,600 military personnel deployed in Iraq, the 103,700 in Afghanistan, the 52,440 in Germany (see list), the 35,688 in Japan (USFJ), the 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), the 9,660 in Italy, and the 9,015 in the United Kingdom respectively. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units.
Altogether, 77,917 military personnel are located in Europe, 141 in the former Soviet Union, 47,236 in East Asia and the Pacific, 3,362 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia, 1,355 in sub-Saharan Africa and 1,941 in the Western Hemisphere excepting the United States itself.
Within the United States
Including U.S. territories and ships afloat within territorial waters
As of 31 December 2009, a total of 1,137,568 personnel were on active duty within the United States and its territories (including 84,461 afloat).[15] The vast majority, 941,629 of them, were stationed at various bases within the Contiguous United States. There were an additional 37,245 in Hawaii and 20,450 in Alaska. 84,461 were at sea, 2,972 in Guam, and 179 in Puerto Rico.

Overseas

As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.[22] Some of the largest contingents are the 85,600 military personnel deployed in Iraq, the 103,700 in Afghanistan, the 52,440 in Germany (see list), the 35,688 in Japan (USFJ), the 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), the 9,660 in Italy, and the 9,015 in the United Kingdom respectively. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units.
Altogether, 77,917 military personnel are located in Europe, 141 in the former Soviet Union, 47,236 in East Asia and the Pacific, 3,362 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia, 1,355 in sub-Saharan Africa and 1,941 in the Western Hemisphere excepting the United States itself.
Within the United States
Including U.S. territories and ships afloat within territorial waters
As of 31 December 2009, a total of 1,137,568 personnel were on active duty within the United States and its territories (including 84,461 afloat).[15] The vast majority, 941,629 of them, were stationed at various bases within the Contiguous United States. There were an additional 37,245 in Hawaii and 20,450 in Alaska. 84,461 were at sea, 2,972 in Guam, and 179 in Puerto Rico.

According to my calculations the total number of U.S. troops at home and abroad is 1.5 million. If all these troops were to leave the military and enter the job market, a ridiculous scenario, 1.5 million would be added to 11 million or more already unemployed. Supposing we only brought troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and other Southwest Asia countries and throwing in something over 100,000 contract workers, the numbers added to the unemployment roles would be negligible. I’m unable to calculate the numbers of jobs that would be lost here in the U.S. if we ended the wars in Afghanistan et al. but factoring in the cost of supplying U.S troops e.g. $400 for a gallon of gasoline, it seems to me the savings would be significant. I’ll suggest that the savings accrued from ending the wars, if redirected into stimulating the economy, thus creating jobs, would offset any increase in unemployment.

These calculations are extremely rough, and most inadequate, but the contention that ending these wars would do great harm to our economy seems to me to be erroneous and counter productive.

(More on topic, Elizabeth Warren hand picked Cordray as being a good candidate to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, also Summers and Geithner have changed their economic philosophy since the near total collapse of the economy.)

Report this
flaco's avatar

By flaco, July 20, 2011 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment

Stop crying, do not vote for Obama. Do not expect anything from the Republicans or Democrats.

Report this

By Morpheus, July 20, 2011 at 3:11 pm Link to this comment

I said long ago obama was a weak leader. He’s still better then anyone else in the field, SAD. He won’t fight for anything.

Memo to America: Stop waiting for Democrats and Republicans to save you. It’s bad
for your health and your future.

“WAKE UP PEOPLE!”  -  JOIN THE REVOLUTION
Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://www.revolution2.osixs.org )

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
We don’t have to live like this anymore. “Spread the News”

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, July 20, 2011 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment

Do you suffer from BPDS?

Battered Progressive Democrat Syndrome. Do you feel compelled to make excuses for the political corruption that has destroyed democracy?

There is a cure.

Leave your abuser.

New Progressive Alliance

October2011.org

You Tube Anonymous The Plan

Join the resistance. Be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.

*disclaimer. This ad was not brought to you by corporate America.

Report this

By Bucky5, July 20, 2011 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment

Many astute posters here note that change—good or bad—comes incrementally. Leadership makes small changes that become the norm and then we step down another notch, and another, etc. Many astute posters also note that Obama sold out long ago on many issues, thus proving himself to be a politician’s politician, not a representative of the people.

To those who wring their hands and support Obama with the “He’s better than….” argument, rubbish.

The old adage that you have to hit bottom before you can start back up has never been more true. We can keep drifting toward bottom and find we never reach it. Or we can blast our way there quickly and easily by voting for oh, say, a Bachmann-Beck ticket in 2012.

Until the the great, befuddled, unwashed, herding mass of We The People—and not just an elite handful of academics—realize that we’re getting the shaft will things turn around. In this case, a race to the bottom is imperative.

What better way to win the race than for Americans to vote for the leaders who can drag us down the fastest? It’s not a question of if we’ll get there, but when. Start donating to the RNC and/or Bachmann right now. Let’s get this party started…

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, July 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As Robert Scheer is being led into his cell at Quantanimo he’ll be saying, “Now lets’s wait and see what Obama plans to do with this place.  We may have the guy all wrong…..”

Report this

By fahrenheit 110, July 20, 2011 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s apparently been an agonizing decision for Obama.
He looks 10 yrs older.  He’s turning 50 but THIS
sudden aging is visibly a result of selling his soul.  I can’t help but feel sorry for him.

Report this

By glider, July 20, 2011 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment

Obama does not lack a spine. He plain and simple doesn’t want anyone of Warren’s ilk heading up this consumer commission, which will ultimately be castrated.  This is the first step of that process.  If you remember he had to practically be dragged kicking and screaming to appoint her in the first place.  He has simply picked the most politically astute method of getting rid of her.

Ditto, with regards to Obama wanting a grand deal that includes tax increases.  Obama had that for the cost of doing nothing but let tax breaks expire back in December.  So he set up this whole charade in the first place.  All he is doing now is playing politics, by trying to appear to be populist without hurting his owners in the least.

Report this

By bluesman, July 20, 2011 at 1:07 pm Link to this comment

Pres Obama has disappointed me in many ways also.
However, the alternative (the crazy Republicans) would have been way worse.
I know it doesn’t seem like it, but mark my words, they would have been disastrous for the country.
Can you imagine McShame and Halfwit running the country?
I keep hoping that the Democrats will finally grow some, but as time plays out, it doesn’t look good.

Report this

By dailyplanet, July 20, 2011 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cataclysmic disasters don’t always arrive with an explosive…Bang!

History has shown that the most heinous assaults on social structure and
destructive political policies are often spoon fed to the populace in incremental
doses of poison.  Get them used to the taste until they can’t distinguish the
good from bad…and even ask for more of the same.

Slowly normalize the aberrant until the majority is deceived into accepting a
status quo that would have been condemned in the past…prior to the success
of a coordinated, sustained program to deform the consciousness of a good
portion of a society.

Reagan set the ball rolling, Bill Clinton gave it a significant shove and over the
years the whole political system has been diverted to serve the interests of the
corporation, the bank, the insurance company. 

As for Obama…is he really as gutless as he appears…or is he a willing,
committed participant in the strategy to relinquish our democracy to rule by
the lords and masters of finance…..?

Report this

By CenterOfMass, July 20, 2011 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

@JimBob: You make a significant point about the Republicans.  However, your dismissal of the role of Geithner is puzzling.

“This bailout was engineered in cooperation with the Bush administration by Timothy Geithner, then head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, who was rewarded for his catering to Wall Street avarice by being named Obama’s treasury secretary.”

How can you not recognize and be alarmed by this connection?  Geithner is nothing but an agent of Wall Street, pure and simple.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, July 20, 2011 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment

Some of us were speaking up and were proven right (as in correct) after all.

We were screamed at, called Tea Baggers, racists, spoilers etc etc etc.

Then forced off of various “progressive” sites, groups, list-serves, marches, rallies etc etc.
That was then. This is now. We were proven right and while some may still attempt to attack and smear us, a growing number of folks are now listening. Our truth and integrity remain.

New Progressive Alliance

October2011.org

Anonymous

Take your pick and join the resistance movement

Report this

By Arouete, July 20, 2011 at 12:16 pm Link to this comment

Part One:

Well, I can’t disagree with this article nor any of the well-founded disappointments of the progressives and gutless liberal courtiers who feel betrayed by Obama.  But the problem I have is not with the complaints but the complainants for whom I have little sympathy as they remind me of Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous “first they came for ...” statement.

With all due respect to Mr. Scheer, the vast majority these whining pundits have little reason to complain if some us turn a deaf ear to their grumbling they were bamboozled by Obama et. al.  After all, they remained unanimously silent in the face of actual notice America was being hoodwinked by the shysterism of a faith-based pettifog.

When Obama (a so-called ‘civil rights lawyer’ - this might be a good place to vomit) actually stood before gay activists and cavalierly tossed over the classic segregationist ‘states’ rights’ rubbish that the ‘right to marry’ is left to the states (thus disgracefully trashing the seminal ‘equal protection’ holding in Loving v. Virginia which legitimized his own parents’ marriage) those gay activists remained silent and swallowed the legal rubbish with nary a bubble of pretest. So I have NO sympathy when those same activists complain of betrayal after kissing the *ss of the pettifog whose legal insults and intellectual rubbish should not have gotten past a second year law student.

When this ‘civil rights’ lawyer failed to give even one substantive legal reason why the federal government and the courts should not mandate marriage equality, but instead tossed over the additional insult that, well, it’s “the religious connotations to marriage,” everyone again remained silent.  Nary a bubble of protest.

Report this

By Arouete, July 20, 2011 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment

Part Two:

When this civil rights lawyer actually suggested that violating the First Amendment (separation of church and state) was a legitimate reason to deny a ‘fundamental’ right guaranteed under the 14th amendment (that’s two violations of the Constitution) again nary a bubble of protest.  (But do see “Untangling Barack Obama’s audacious mumbo jumbo” at http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=guest_op&article=73.)

It is axiomatic that when clerics solemnize a secular marriage contract they also act as public officials and perform a secular duty. As such they take an oath to treat all ‘persons’ equally and deny none ‘equal protection’ of the law.  One may simply not take up secular authority and then decide which class of citizens amongst their own denomination will be denied that civil right.  As clerics they surely have the right to refuse to marry whom ever they please; but when they act in a secular capacity they are duty bound to uphold all ‘persons’ rights to ‘due process’ and ‘equal protection’ of the law.

Again, the LGBT response to one violation of the Constitution was to enact another unconstitutional law.  As such clerics, acting as secular magistrates, were granted an unconstitutional exemption from the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment by which they may deny their sworn secular duty to one class of citizens who are members in good standing of their own church and religious denominations. Again, nary a bubble of protest. (But see, “New York Marriage Equality Law Violates Federal Constitution” at http://www.scribd.com/doc/59034845/New-York-Marriage-Equality-Law-Violates-Federal-Constitution .)

Every one of these grumbling complaints was on actual notice that this civil rights lawyer was misrepresenting the law, pandering to religious bigotry, furthering religious discrimination, and funding faith-based proselytizing far beyond Bush’s most wild wet dream. (See “Secular Coalition for America’s Sean Faircloth to Obama: End Religious Discrimination” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T63kv5O-vu8) )

Gay activists regarded all this disgusting pettifogging as their stealth ‘strategy’ but it’s hard to justify misrepresentation of the law and pandering to ignorance and bigotry as ‘civil rights activism’.  Straights, on the other hand, (especially lawyers and academics) felt, well, after all, it was not their ox that was being gored was it. Besides, if gays sucked up to such pettifogging, why should others speak out?  But, for whatever self-serving reason, none of the people who complain now spoke up then. Now that the betrayals of this bamboozler begin to stack up against them too they should expect little sympathy from others when their ox is now gored.  They can go like their self-inflected wounds elsewhere.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, July 20, 2011 at 11:59 am Link to this comment

Entropy

Agreed.

However, for those people who are tired of the long list of betrayals of Obama and his corporate corrupted, pro-war political party.

New Progressive Alliance

or

October2011.org

or
you tube
anonymous the plan
and July 30th 2011
Operation Onslaught

Carry on

Report this

By Textynn, July 20, 2011 at 11:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What will Obama do in the future??  He will serve his
masters, Wall Street.  He will serve them today,
tomorrow, next week, and next year.

Report this

By ent, July 20, 2011 at 11:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Scheer is delusional and obama is evil—-at best.

It hardly matters if Warren has principles. No principled person can survive in this landscape.

Good to find some functioning gray matter on this site. Including Mr. Cyr’s.

Report this
JimBob's avatar

By JimBob, July 20, 2011 at 10:55 am Link to this comment

Relax, Bob.  The architect doesn’t have to live in
the house he/she designed.  Congress is the problem,
not Wall Street.  The CFPB isn’t that big a threat to
Wall Street—making loan documents and credit card
apps simpler and more honest isn’t going to bring
down Goldman Sachs.  It’s the Republicans in Congress
who don’t want to give Obama anything that can
remotely be called a “win”, for him to get credit for
any meaningful addition to the well-being of the
country.  There’s your problem, not Tim Geithner. 

Bob, I love you, but sometimes you’re a real broken
record!

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 20, 2011 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

Is “markus” suggesting below that “CAUCASIAN” is a species unto itself (That
argument has indeed been advanced quite seriously by some over the years)?  Or
is s/he saying that Barack Obama’s mama was some Kind other than Human? 
What if one’s “mother” is a bleached blonde?

No wonder the virtual subspecies homo domesticus is so utterly and paralytically
(and radioactively) “atom”-ized….in all it’s “individual”-ized gory glory.

HokaHey!

Report this
entropy2's avatar

By entropy2, July 20, 2011 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

Would-be progressives…piss and moan all you want. When it comes down to it in ‘12…

Will you vote for BHO?

Measure your fear right now…multiply it by 10000.

Unless it looks like a total runaway for BHO, most Starbucks liberals will never muster the nerve to abandon the Dems.

And the corporate Dems who really run the party are fully aware of that.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 20, 2011 at 10:20 am Link to this comment

“How does Robert Sheer or anyone posting here know that [Dr.]
Warren didn’t ask ?President Obama to pass on her because she is
interested in doing something ?else for either a living or public
service.  Perhaps she is planning to run for ?elected office in ‘12 and
be in the Senate rather than just being staff in a ?regulatory agency.”

Yes, it is an interesting thought.  And I think this was the plan long
ago when there was absolutely no doubt Republicans in Congress
were going to excoriate Elizabeth Warren which was shown when
they started at that one hearing and tried to hang her out to dry. 
She does not deserve that, but she does deserve to be a Congresswoman
herself!  And as a senator, just think what havoc she could render against
those very detestable Republicans!  If you are interested, check out
http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/survey_warrentdraft_nl/?source=bp
When she was interviewed on Rachel Maddow the other day, it was stunning
how she did not pull any punches.  She must be made to win that election
in Massachusetts and unseat Scott Brown!  Why?  Because the Consumer
Protection Agency is on the Republican hit list and they will be going after
defunding it sure as there is a sun in the sky.  I was so mad at first when it
was leaked she was not going to be the nominee.  But when I read Cordray
was going to be named, I relented and after deliberation I reasoned that it
is for sure she will run for the Senate seat and maybe not all will be perfect
in the Kingdom of the United States but it certainly will be better.

Report this

By Cole..., July 20, 2011 at 10:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To the contrary, C.C. Dillon at 12:06 a.m.
Obuma is a “hero” to the other side, which at the same time loaths him—even as he manipulates to give them more than what they want.

Want a change? Try this, sent to me and passed on:
——————————- =
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified!  Why?  Simple!  The people demanded it.  That was in 1971…before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.
 
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land…all because of public pressure.

I’m asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list;  in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
 
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.  This is one idea that really should be passed around.
 
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
 
1.  No Tenure / No Pension.
  A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office. 
 
2.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately.  All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.  It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.
  The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.  Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.  Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message.  Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!

If you agree with the above, pass it on.  If not, just delete.


You are one of my 20+.  Please keep it going.

Report this

By Unmoved, July 20, 2011 at 10:05 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3 said:

“It is this getting, achieving, struggling mentality of man which is the problem. It is not observable in nature, and a mystery as to why he has been plagued by it.”

Somewhere along the line man got lost.  The instinctual sense for physical survival jumped the track and either usurped or created the psychological arena where the self, that jumbled insatiable beast consisting of nothing more than dead experiential memories, took control and currently reigns supreme.  An interesting issue worthy of deep, careful observation.  In any case, you hit the nail right on the head.  Kudos…..

Report this

By Barbara Crowley, July 20, 2011 at 10:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama will never take the gloves unless it is to grind the middle class and the poor into the ground. His record is absolutely appalling. He is a right winger. Not only about Wall Street but he never declared himself to favor abortion rights or same sex marriage. Perhaps he is only a high
level coward but the outcome is the same

Right now as I write he is busy in Washington decimating the two most successful social programs ever created.They have changed the face of the country. Before Medicare 57% of the elderly were in poverty and
before Social Security it was much worse. Poor houses and poor farms where the elderly were warehoused till death. This is what will happen again. This is one of the Republican’s goals so Obama must be one of them.

And the corporate media - a disgrace. And the people?? Where are they? Even the AARP says these programs need to be cut. The president led the way in this, not the Republicans so he must be following their orders or has always been with them and just lied his way through a
sadly successful 2008 campaign.

Whatever deal was made before he ran for office I do not know but most certainly there was a deal. If McCain had won we would have been stronger because the Democrats would have pulled together and fought like mad. Instead
they wondering what brilliant strategy Obama was concocting while he gave away the farm and the store and
the country.

All that money will go to Wall Street and into the pockets of the top 2 or 3%. It seems to me we are now in the same boat as the 1950s South American dictatorships with all power at the very top . They have reformed while we are moving in the opposite direction.

How long will it take to climb out of this? Not in my lifetime. Things always change but in the meantime millions are dying and suffering. And more war. Elizabeth Warren isn’t the final blow. No doubt he has more orders from Wall Street up his sleeve. If we give him four more years we are all crazy.

Report this

By Bobby, July 20, 2011 at 9:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“How does Robert Sheer or anyone posting here know that Ms Warren didn’t ask
President Obama to pass on her because she is interested in doing something
else for either a living or public service.  Perhaps she is planning to run for
elected office in ‘12 and be in the Senate rather than just being staff in a
regulatory agency.”

Good question, and we don’t know for sure that Ms. Warren did not ask to have
her name withdrawn so that she can run for elective office.  What we do know is
that President Obama showed no inclination to fight for her confirmation up to
this point.  From this we may infer that he did have consider having Ms. Warren
at the head of the Consumer Protection Agency to be a high priority.  The
essential point that Robert Scheer makes in his piece is that this is a reflection of
the President’s obeisance to the big-money interests on Wall Street, not the
people’s interests on Main Street.

Report this

By Archie1954, July 20, 2011 at 9:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Government to me serves only one purpose, the greatest good for the greatest number. Everything it does should be based on that goal. If it isn’t than the government is off base.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, July 20, 2011 at 9:07 am Link to this comment

“We need to send home the tens of thousands of troops we are supposedly “training” from other countries,” I think there is a major problem in bringing them home all at once. ”  Shenonymous

Agreed.
Currently, an insurmountable problem !

However, perhaps BR549 was NOT referring to American troops.  Perhaps BR549 was referring to the thousands of foreign troops that American troops are training.  Too many of whom are in the USA, and who are receiving stipends for the period of their training inside the USA, primarily at US Army installations.

Some of us know why and for what these alien soldiers are being prepared.  Which some Truthdig bloggers would not be able to believe, if it were explained.  It is only logical, that similar to other USA-destructive measures, the Rockefeller-Rothschild-type owners of Ann Dunham´s illegitimate son have instructed him to increase the numbers of the alien soldiers being trained in the USA. Of course, in order to be prepared for - - - - -  you figure it out.

Disposing of Ann Dunham via cancer, before she divulged the truth, similar to an auto accident for Dr. Barack H. Obama, is a standard tactic of the NAZI element of the CIA. An injection of cancer cells under the guise of an inoculation is nothing for a CIA physician. Simply review the list of wierd accident deaths of former associates of GHWBush Sr., and his junior.  Many of which persons died just prior to providing formal testimony against Bush and associates. “The Chronicles of Chip Tatum” provide valuable insight. Also, “The Chronicles of Ted Gunderson”.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, July 20, 2011 at 9:01 am Link to this comment

Shen,
The tens of thousands of troops I was referring to were from other countries, stationed here under the guise of training. We have always done “training” here to some degree to gauge the cooperation of second and third world countries and their compliance with our dysfunctional foreign policy. The down side of all of this is they owe allegiance to the UN and couldn’t give a rat’s ass about wasting someone’s father trying to protect his home. If anyone has been wondering why so many of our fighting age men and women have been
shuffled out of Dodge, it hasn’t been solely to protect our interests abroad, it has also been an attempt to minimize the effective response by the citizenry, should a civilian uprising occur.

The bottom line here is that the globalists have no sense of patriotism to any country; Soros is a perfect example. Their only loyalty is to themselves.

As far as pulling out of this, first and foremost is getting as many people up to speed about what is really happening and not the pablum-coated news that comes from the mainstream media. Then, after their going through their struggle with Kubler-Ross’ “Five Stages of Grief”, they might actually be ready to storm the Bastille. What we have in Washington is the worst example of moral degradation and corruption ever witnessed by mankind, yet enough people holding the focus for a higher ideal (like actually living up to the ideals of the Constitution instead of assuming it needs revision) can turn the tide of human consciousness.

Some people won’t understand the issue and go back to their Pop-Tarts and Dancing with the Stars”, but hey, that what evolution has been all about.

Report this

By garyrose66, July 20, 2011 at 8:33 am Link to this comment

How does Robert Sheer or anyone posting here know that Ms Warren didn’t ask President Obama to pass on her because she is interested in doing something else for either a living or public service.  Perhaps she is planning to run for elected office in ‘12 and be in the Senate rather than just being staff in a regulatory agency.

Report this

By markus, July 20, 2011 at 8:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To drbhelth

I apologize for the improper quote that I made.  It was meant to be directed to
DaveZx3.  Sorry!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 20, 2011 at 8:19 am Link to this comment

So well said, BR549, that it is scary.  What you said, “Who would
we default on? We could refuse to default on Social Security and
those currently in the military and intentionally default on the
Defense Industry, which I would venture to say would undergo
some belt tightening before having to reinvent themselves in the
transportation and energy conservation industries. Ultimately, and
for some stupid reason, we automatically assume that the banks
must always be paid off first. Screw the banks, we don’t owe them
a dime. They have manipulated people to think that they can’t survive
without currency and yet it just so happens that currency is exactly the
vehicle that the banks use to parasitize the rest of the world’s working
population.”
is so insightful and precisely the tonic needed to set
this government straight.  Actually it is a stunning solution. So now how
to go about convincing the needed number of people to actualize it? 
But seeing the resolution to a problem is half way to solving it.

While I think you are right here as well, “We need to send home the
tens of thousands of troops we are supposedly “training” from other
countries,
” I think there is a major problem in bringing them home
all at once.  I was going into the market the other day where an ex-
Navy man was soliciting funds to help military veterans.  We had a short
but poignant conversation where he told me the trouble he had getting
a job when he got home.  The Funds for Veterans hired him and he said
he was financially saved or would have had to go on the street, and he
was grateful.  It was heart wrenching really.  Of course he could have
been exaggerating, but I didn’t get the feeling he was.  But it pointed to
the observation I’ve made before on TD forums that we will have a
huge problem as the soldiers come home in the climate of 9.6%
unemployment and they will need jobs.  Sure they will have some
mustering out income, not much though, in the ever-increasing
inflation happening from the relentless recession.  The jobs catastrophe
is the key to solving most of middle America’s problems. But creating
those jobs is just that.  They need to be created and minds put to their
creation.

Report this
Allan Krueger's avatar

By Allan Krueger, July 20, 2011 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

Hell no, we wouldn’t want Elizabeth Warren leading a consumer protection agency, she may actually protect some consumers!

2012: Fascist Regime takes over, completely!

Report this

By Markus, July 20, 2011 at 8:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@ Dave Zx3
t is this getting, achieving, struggling mentality of man which is the problem. It is
not observable in nature, and a mystery as to why he has been plagued by it.

You must be spending too much time on the Internet.  My God, as an
Outdoorsman I find Nature no different than the Life of Man.  The Deer and Black
Bear are no different than man in their quest to find food,shelter and breeding. 
And not to mention the fact this Planet we dwell upon is constantly trying to rid
itself of a pestasite known as Man.

Report this

By seedmother, July 20, 2011 at 8:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I really thought I detected that Warren was holding back tears in her interview
with Rachel Maddow. I shed them for her, this is not just a betrayal of the peoples’
choice but a betrayal of what society could be. But we must be used to that by
now. It’s infantile to blame Obama, he’s bought & paid for like anyone higher up in
gvt. than dog catcher. Really sad, people need to stop watching TV and let
cynicism do its work on the mind. We’re in an outrageous state.

Report this

By Johnahan Mann, July 20, 2011 at 8:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let me ask You All something: Is it better to have Warren run for Senator and probably take back that seat, and have a near copy of Warren nominated for her agency, or just nominate Warren for it? Let’s not forget the fact that the Republicans, no matter how hard Obama fights for Warren, would not have let her in. Criticizing Obama is fine, and there is plenty to criticize about, but blindly criticizing him because things don’t turn out just the way you want is unproductive and could help the Republicans win. In this case this decision could turn out to be a brilliant political move. As the election draws near You All better start thinking of good things to say about Obama, otherwise You All could be partly responsible for the Republicans taking total control. And That would be a catastrophe for our country, far worse than having Obama as President.

Report this

By Markus, July 20, 2011 at 8:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@ drbhelthi
t is this getting, achieving, struggling mentality of man which is the problem. It is
not observable in nature, and a mystery as to why he has been plagued by it.

You must be spending too much time on the Internet.  My God, as an
Outdoorsman I find Nature no different than the Life of Man.  The Deer and Black
Bear are no different than man in their quest to find food,shelter and breeding. 
And not to mention the fact this Planet we dwell upon is constantly trying to rid
itself of a pestasite known as Man.

Report this

By bpawk, July 20, 2011 at 7:53 am Link to this comment

I agree with your criticism of Obama and Clinton, however just as you say in your article:

“They both talk a good progressive game, but when push comes to shove—meaning when the banking lobby weighs in—big money talks and the best and the brightest fold…”

I believe you could apply the statement to most Americans - you believe the rhetoric of the dems, but when push comes to shove, you don’t vote for Ralph but fold for the dems again ...

Why criticize when you’ll just fold again come election time.

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 20, 2011 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

“DaveZx3” cuts right through all the zero-sum obfuscation and misdirection
rampant here, and gets right to The Heart of “The Ten Thousand Things.”  He
wisely asks, in effect:  What in hell ‘else’ should all the bitchers-and-moaners
(of whatever “political” stripe) expect from a “dominance”-paradigm-delusion-
CONtrived CON-TRAPtion in which both a dumbed-down domesticated general
population and their idiot “wardens” in the “global” gulag’s administrative
CONtingent are deeply mired and sinking fast….except exactly what the
damned industrial-strength toxic-waste “deliver system” is puking-up all-over
‘em all already?

The “self”-styled-“political” prisoners here remain locked-down in the “self”-
satisfying (but crippling) CONceit of still being able to “vote” their “self” into
some less dead-certainly disastrous socio/eCONomic CONfiguration than that
of “anarcho-capitalism.”  That their already literally half-life-threatening (and
rapidly approaching terminal viscosity) difficulties are entirely BIOLOGICAL at
their roots, and that their idolized ideological/institutional/technological
CONstruct offers them nothing but poisonous faux “fruit,” hung deceptively on
the limbs of The Tree of Life by the retro-viral tormenting ‘entity’ they worship,
and which “names” itself “THE SELF” (while inviting them seductively to ‘share,’
as micro-mini ME’s, in that supposed-to-be-but-never was-or-ever-will-
achieve “eternally infinite perfection”) is utterly unimaginable to the (at-best)
semi-CONscious captives….never-mind merely unthinkable.

So “The Zombie Jamboree” proceeds apace, despite the Natural Fact they all
“done that already”....and at-least four or five times.  You have a sickness,
tame Sisters and Brothers.  It is not some make-believe “moral failure”-caused
“tragedy” being staged for the edification of some non-existent “audience” of
demi-gods.  The perpetual “war” between “Good” and “evil” is the ultimate
CON-game….or, as Gen. Butler called it, “racket.”

What’s needed here is simply The Medicine specific to the “civilization” disease,
the syndrome generated here by the wannabe parasitic “SELF”-same tormenting
‘entity’ to which you are witlessly sacrificing your own virtual ‘kind’ (homo
domesticus), and slap-happily trying to throw on the pyre ALL ‘the rest’ of us
here, from Aardvark-to-Zebra, too.

That ain’t gonna happen!  Better you all get well, by getting-over your too
precious “self,” instead.  Better you forget all-about your non-existent “human
rights,” and pick-up instead your share of our Human Responsibility as a
component of Her immune system (The Tao of Humanity) in The Living
Arrangement of our Mother Earth….

......where The Buffalo roam and The Deer and The Antelope play.

HokaHey!

Report this

By markus, July 20, 2011 at 7:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@Sanjivb Bhattacharya
Loved everything you said, except “That and the fact that President Obama is a
Muslim from Africa.”

  I don’t know how old your Gender is but as long as I have dwelled on this planet,
you are what your MOTHER is.  I do believe she is CAUCASIAN.  (white)

Report this

Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

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

Like Truthdig on Facebook