Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIt's Much Later Than You Think
Most Americans have a rough idea what the term "military-industrial complex" means when they come across it in a newspaper or hear a politician mention it. President Dwight D. Eisenhower introduced the idea to the public in his farewell address of January 17, 1961. "Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime," he said, "or indeed by the fighting men of World War II and Korea... We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions... We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications... We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."
Although Eisenhower's reference to the military-industrial complex is, by now, well-known, his warning against its "unwarranted influence" has, I believe, largely been ignored. Since 1961, there has been too little serious study of, or discussion of, the origins of the military-industrial complex, how it has changed over time, how governmental secrecy has hidden it from oversight by members of Congress or attentive citizens, and how it degrades our Constitutional structure of checks and balances.
From its origins in the early 1940s, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was building up his "arsenal of democracy," down to the present moment, public opinion has usually assumed that it involved more or less equitable relations -- often termed a "partnership" -- between the high command and civilian overlords of the United States military and privately-owned, for-profit manufacturing and service enterprises. Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that, from the time they first emerged, these relations were never equitable.
In the formative years of the military-industrial complex, the public still deeply distrusted privately owned industrial firms because of the way they had contributed to the Great Depression. Thus, the leading role in the newly emerging relationship was played by the official governmental sector. A deeply popular, charismatic president, FDR sponsored these public-private relationships. They gained further legitimacy because their purpose was to rearm the country, as well as allied nations around the world, against the gathering forces of fascism. The private sector was eager to go along with this largely as a way to regain public trust and disguise its wartime profit-making.
In the late 1930s and early 1940s, Roosevelt's use of public-private "partnerships" to build up the munitions industry, and thereby finally overcome the Great Depression, did not go entirely unchallenged. Although he was himself an implacable enemy of fascism, a few people thought that the president nonetheless was coming close to copying some of its key institutions. The leading Italian philosopher of fascism, the neo-Hegelian Giovanni Gentile, once argued that it should more appropriately be called "corporatism" because it was a merger of state and corporate power. (See Eugene Jarecki's The American Way of War, p. 69.)
Some critics were alarmed early on by the growing symbiotic relationship between government and corporate officials because each simultaneously sheltered and empowered the other, while greatly confusing the separation of powers. Since the activities of a corporation are less amenable to public or congressional scrutiny than those of a public institution, public-private collaborative relationships afford the private sector an added measure of security from such scrutiny. These concerns were ultimately swamped by enthusiasm for the war effort and the postwar era of prosperity that the war produced.
Beneath the surface, however, was a less well recognized movement by big business to replace democratic institutions with those representing the interests of capital. This movement is today ascendant. (See Thomas Frank's new book, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, for a superb analysis of Ronald Reagan's slogan "government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.") Its objectives have long been to discredit what it called "big government," while capturing for private interests the tremendous sums invested by the public sector in national defense. It may be understood as a slow-burning reaction to what American conservatives believed to be the socialism of the New Deal.
Perhaps the country's leading theorist of democracy, Sheldon S. Wolin, has written a new book, Democracy Incorporated, on what he calls "inverted totalitarianism" -- the rise in the U.S. of totalitarian institutions of conformity and regimentation shorn of the police repression of the earlier German, Italian, and Soviet forms. He warns of "the expansion of private (i.e., mainly corporate) power and the selective abdication of governmental responsibility for the well-being of the citizenry." He also decries the degree to which the so-called privatization of governmental activities has insidiously undercut our democracy, leaving us with the widespread belief that government is no longer needed and that, in any case, it is not capable of performing the functions we have entrusted to it.
Wolin writes:
"The privatization of public services and functions manifests the steady evolution of corporate power into a political form, into an integral, even dominant partner with the state. It marks the transformation of American politics and its political culture, from a system in which democratic practices and values were, if not defining, at least major contributory elements, to one where the remaining democratic elements of the state and its populist programs are being systematically dismantled." (p. 284)
Mercenaries at Work
The military-industrial complex has changed radically since World War II or even the height of the Cold War. The private sector is now fully ascendant. The uniformed air, land, and naval forces of the country as well as its intelligence agencies, including the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), the NSA (National Security Agency), the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), and even clandestine networks entrusted with the dangerous work of penetrating and spying on terrorist organizations are all dependent on hordes of "private contractors." In the context of governmental national security functions, a better term for these might be "mercenaries" working in private for profit-making companies.
Tim Shorrock, an investigative journalist and the leading authority on this subject, sums up this situation devastatingly in his new book, Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing. The following quotes are a précis of some of his key findings:
"In 2006... the cost of America's spying and surveillance activities outsourced to contractors reached $42 billion, or about 70 percent of the estimated $60 billion the government spends each year on foreign and domestic intelligence... [The] number of contract employees now exceeds [the CIA's] full-time workforce of 17,500... Contractors make up more than half the workforce of the CIA's National Clandestine Service (formerly the Directorate of Operations), which conducts covert operations and recruits spies abroad...
"To feed the NSA's insatiable demand for data and information technology, the industrial base of contractors seeking to do business with the agency grew from 144 companies in 2001 to more than 5,400 in 2006... At the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the agency in charge of launching and maintaining the nation's photoreconnaissance and eavesdropping satellites, almost the entire workforce is composed of contract employees working for [private] companies... With an estimated $8 billion annual budget, the largest in the IC [intelligence community], contractors control about $7 billion worth of business at the NRO, giving the spy satellite industry the distinction of being the most privatized part of the intelligence community...
"If there's one generalization to be made about the NSA's outsourced IT [information technology] programs, it is this: they haven't worked very well, and some have been spectacular failures... In 2006, the NSA was unable to analyze much of the information it was collecting... As a result, more than 90 percent of the information it was gathering was being discarded without being translated into a coherent and understandable format; only about 5 percent was translated from its digital form into text and then routed to the right division for analysis.
"The key phrase in the new counterterrorism lexicon is 'public-private partnerships'... In reality, 'partnerships' are a convenient cover for the perpetuation of corporate interests." (pp. 6, 13-14, 16, 214-15, 365)
Several inferences can be drawn from Shorrock's shocking exposé. One is that if a foreign espionage service wanted to penetrate American military and governmental secrets, its easiest path would not be to gain access to any official U.S. agencies, but simply to get its agents jobs at any of the large intelligence-oriented private companies on which the government has become remarkably dependent. These include Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), with headquarters in San Diego, California, which typically pays its 42,000 employees higher salaries than if they worked at similar jobs in the government; Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the nation's oldest intelligence and clandestine-operations contractors, which, until January 2007, was the employer of Mike McConnell, the current director of national intelligence and the first private contractor to be named to lead the entire intelligence community; and CACI International, which, under two contracts for "information technology services," ended up supplying some two dozen interrogators to the Army at Iraq's already infamous Abu Ghraib prison in 2003. According to Major General Anthony Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib torture and abuse scandal, four of CACI's interrogators were "either directly or indirectly responsible" for torturing prisoners. (Shorrock, p. 281)
Remarkably enough, SAIC has virtually replaced the National Security Agency as the primary collector of signals intelligence for the government. It is the NSA's largest contractor, and that agency is today the company's single largest customer.
There are literally thousands of other profit-making enterprises that work to supply the government with so-called intelligence needs, sometimes even bribing Congressmen to fund projects that no one in the executive branch actually wants. This was the case with Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Republican of California's 50th District, who, in 2006, was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years in federal prison for soliciting bribes from defense contractors. One of the bribers, Brent Wilkes, snagged a $9.7 million contract for his company, ADCS Inc. ("Automated Document Conversion Systems") to computerize the century-old records of the Panama Canal dig!
A Country Drowning in Euphemisms
The United States has long had a sorry record when it comes to protecting its intelligence from foreign infiltration, but the situation today seems particularly perilous. One is reminded of the case described in the 1979 book by Robert Lindsey, The Falcon and the Snowman (made into a 1985 film of the same name). It tells the true story of two young Southern Californians, one with a high security clearance working for the defense contractor TRW (dubbed "RTX" in the film), and the other a drug addict and minor smuggler. The TRW employee is motivated to act by his discovery of a misrouted CIA document describing plans to overthrow the prime minister of Australia, and the other by a need for money to pay for his addiction.
They decide to get even with the government by selling secrets to the Soviet Union and are exposed by their own bungling. Both are sentenced to prison for espionage. The message of the book (and film) lies in the ease with which they betrayed their country -- and how long it took before they were exposed and apprehended. Today, thanks to the staggering over-privatization of the collection and analysis of foreign intelligence, the opportunities for such breaches of security are widespread.
I applaud Shorrock for his extraordinary research into an almost impenetrable subject using only openly available sources. There is, however, one aspect of his analysis with which I differ. This is his contention that the wholesale takeover of official intelligence collection and analysis by private companies is a form of "outsourcing." This term is usually restricted to a business enterprise buying goods and services that it does not want to manufacture or supply in-house. When it is applied to a governmental agency that turns over many, if not all, of its key functions to a risk-averse company trying to make a return on its investment, "outsourcing" simply becomes a euphemism for mercenary activities.
As David Bromwich, a political critic and Yale professor of literature, observed in the New York Review of Books:
"The separate bookkeeping and accountability devised for Blackwater, DynCorp, Triple Canopy, and similar outfits was part of a careful displacement of oversight from Congress to the vice-president and the stewards of his policies in various departments and agencies. To have much of the work parceled out to private companies who are unaccountable to army rules or military justice, meant, among its other advantages, that the cost of the war could be concealed beyond all detection."
Euphemisms are words intended to deceive. The United States is already close to drowning in them, particularly new words and terms devised, or brought to bear, to justify the American invasion of Iraq -- coinages Bromwich highlights like "regime change," "enhanced interrogation techniques," "the global war on terrorism," "the birth pangs of a new Middle East," a "slight uptick in violence," "bringing torture within the law," "simulated drowning," and, of course, "collateral damage," meaning the slaughter of unarmed civilians by American troops and aircraft followed -- rarely -- by perfunctory apologies. It is important that the intrusion of unelected corporate officials with hidden profit motives into what are ostensibly public political activities not be confused with private businesses buying Scotch tape, paper clips, or hubcaps.
The wholesale transfer of military and intelligence functions to private, often anonymous, operatives took off under Ronald Reagan's presidency, and accelerated greatly after 9/11 under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Often not well understood, however, is this: The biggest private expansion into intelligence and other areas of government occurred under the presidency of Bill Clinton. He seems not to have had the same anti-governmental and neoconservative motives as the privatizers of both the Reagan and Bush II eras. His policies typically involved an indifference to -- perhaps even an ignorance of -- what was actually being done to democratic, accountable government in the name of cost-cutting and allegedly greater efficiency. It is one of the strengths of Shorrock's study that he goes into detail on Clinton's contributions to the wholesale privatization of our government, and of the intelligence agencies in particular.
Reagan launched his campaign to shrink the size of government and offer a large share of public expenditures to the private sector with the creation in 1982 of the "Private Sector Survey on Cost Control." In charge of the survey, which became known as the "Grace Commission," he named the conservative businessman, J. Peter Grace, Jr., chairman of the W.R. Grace Corporation, one of the world's largest chemical companies -- notorious for its production of asbestos and its involvement in numerous anti-pollution suits. The Grace Company also had a long history of investment in Latin America, and Peter Grace was deeply committed to undercutting what he saw as leftist unions, particularly because they often favored state-led economic development.
The Grace Commission's actual achievements were modest. Its biggest was undoubtedly the 1987 privatization of Conrail, the freight railroad for the northeastern states. Nothing much else happened on this front during the first Bush's administration, but Bill Clinton returned to privatization with a vengeance.
According to Shorrock:
"Bill Clinton... picked up the cudgel where the conservative Ronald Reagan left off and... took it deep into services once considered inherently governmental, including high-risk military operations and intelligence functions once reserved only for government agencies. By the end of [Clinton's first] term, more than 100,000 Pentagon jobs had been transferred to companies in the private sector -- among them thousands of jobs in intelligence... By the end of [his second] term in 2001, the administration had cut 360,000 jobs from the federal payroll and the government was spending 44 percent more on contractors than it had in 1993." (pp. 73, 86)
These activities were greatly abetted by the fact that the Republicans had gained control of the House of Representatives in 1994 for the first time in 43 years. One liberal journalist described "outsourcing as a virtual joint venture between [House Majority Leader Newt] Gingrich and Clinton." The right-wing Heritage Foundation aptly labeled Clinton's 1996 budget as the "boldest privatization agenda put forth by any president to date." (p. 87)
After 2001, Bush and Cheney added an ideological rationale to the process Clinton had already launched so efficiently. They were enthusiastic supporters of "a neoconservative drive to siphon U.S. spending on defense, national security, and social programs to large corporations friendly to the Bush administration." (pp. 72-3)
The Privatization -- and Loss -- of Institutional Memory
The end result is what we see today: a government hollowed out in terms of military and intelligence functions. The KBR Corporation, for example, supplies food, laundry, and other personal services to our troops in Iraq based on extremely lucrative no-bid contracts, while Blackwater Worldwide supplies security and analytical services to the CIA and the State Department in Baghdad. (Among other things, its armed mercenaries opened fire on, and killed, 17 unarmed civilians in Nisour Square, Baghdad, on September 16, 2007, without any provocation, according to U.S. military reports.) The costs -- both financial and personal -- of privatization in the armed services and the intelligence community far exceed any alleged savings, and some of the consequences for democratic governance may prove irreparable.
These consequences include: the sacrifice of professionalism within our intelligence services; the readiness of private contractors to engage in illegal activities without compunction and with impunity; the inability of Congress or citizens to carry out effective oversight of privately-managed intelligence activities because of the wall of secrecy that surrounds them; and, perhaps most serious of all, the loss of the most valuable asset any intelligence organization possesses -- its institutional memory.
Most of these consequences are obvious, even if almost never commented on by our politicians or paid much attention in the mainstream media. After all, the standards of a career CIA officer are very different from those of a corporate executive who must keep his eye on the contract he is fulfilling and future contracts that will determine the viability of his firm. The essence of professionalism for a career intelligence analyst is his integrity in laying out what the U.S. government should know about a foreign policy issue, regardless of the political interests of, or the costs to, the major players.
The loss of such professionalism within the CIA was starkly revealed in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. It still seems astonishing that no senior official, beginning with Secretary of State Colin Powell, saw fit to resign when the true dimensions of our intelligence failure became clear, least of all Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet.
A willingness to engage in activities ranging from the dubious to the outright felonious seems even more prevalent among our intelligence contractors than among the agencies themselves, and much harder for an outsider to detect. For example, following 9/11, Rear Admiral John Poindexter, then working for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the Department of Defense, got the bright idea that DARPA should start compiling dossiers on as many American citizens as possible in order to see whether "data-mining" procedures might reveal patterns of behavior associated with terrorist activities.
On November 14, 2002, the New York Times published a column by William Safire entitled "You Are a Suspect" in which he revealed that DARPA had been given a $200 million budget to compile dossiers on 300 million Americans. He wrote, "Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every web site you visit and every e-mail you send or receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book, and every event you attend -- all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as a 'virtual centralized grand database.'" This struck many members of Congress as too close to the practices of the Gestapo and the Stasi under German totalitarianism, and so, the following year, they voted to defund the project.
However, Congress's action did not end the "total information awareness" program. The National Security Agency secretly decided to continue it through its private contractors. The NSA easily persuaded SAIC and Booz Allen Hamilton to carry on with what Congress had declared to be a violation of the privacy rights of the American public -- for a price. As far as we know, Admiral Poindexter's "Total Information Awareness Program" is still going strong today.
The most serious immediate consequence of the privatization of official governmental activities is the loss of institutional memory by our government's most sensitive organizations and agencies. Shorrock concludes, "So many former intelligence officers joined the private sector [during the 1990s] that, by the turn of the century, the institutional memory of the United States intelligence community now resides in the private sector. That's pretty much where things stood on September 11, 2001." (p. 112)
This means that the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, and the other 13 agencies in the U.S. intelligence community cannot easily be reformed because their staffs have largely forgotten what they are supposed to do, or how to go about it. They have not been drilled and disciplined in the techniques, unexpected outcomes, and know-how of previous projects, successful and failed.
As numerous studies have, by now, made clear, the abject failure of the American occupation of Iraq came about in significant measure because the Department of Defense sent a remarkably privatized military filled with incompetent amateurs to Baghdad to administer the running of a defeated country. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates (a former director of the CIA) has repeatedly warned that the United States is turning over far too many functions to the military because of its hollowing out of the Department of State and the Agency for International Development since the end of the Cold War. Gates believes that we are witnessing a "creeping militarization" of foreign policy -- and, though this generally goes unsaid, both the military and the intelligence services have turned over far too many of their tasks to private companies and mercenaries.
When even Robert Gates begins to sound like President Eisenhower, it is time for ordinary citizens to pay attention. In my 2006 book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, with an eye to bringing the imperial presidency under some modest control, I advocated that we Americans abolish the CIA altogether, along with other dangerous and redundant agencies in our alphabet soup of sixteen secret intelligence agencies, and replace them with the State Department's professional staff devoted to collecting and analyzing foreign intelligence. I still hold that position.
Nonetheless, the current situation represents the worst of all possible worlds. Successive administrations and Congresses have made no effort to alter the CIA's role as the president's private army, even as we have increased its incompetence by turning over many of its functions to the private sector. We have thereby heightened the risks of war by accident, or by presidential whim, as well as of surprise attack because our government is no longer capable of accurately assessing what is going on in the world and because its intelligence agencies are so open to pressure, penetration, and manipulation of every kind.
[Note to Readers: This essay focuses on the new book by Tim Shorrock, Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008.
Other books noted: Eugene Jarecki's The American Way of War: Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and a Republic in Peril, New York: Free Press, 2008; Thomas Frank, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, New York: Metropolitan Books, 2008; Sheldon Wolin, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.]
Chalmers Johnson is the author of three linked books on the crises of American imperialism and militarism. They are Blowback (2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (2006). All are available in paperback from Metropolitan Books.
Copyright 2008 Chalmers Johnson
122 Comments so far
Show AllThey can't sell, let alone exist, what we won't buy or pay for. Same for drug dealers. But can we really expect the American public to kick their habit? Doubt it. And yet, broke and broken by neocons, the planets' greatest consumer class is out of funds. And they're not happy about it, they're not content to submit to their newly assigned
insolvency, and they will spring back, notwithstanding their dirth of education, of which, maybe, they've got just enough left to figure it out and save themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD7BDP3XMG0&feature=related
speaking of MIC: this is a bizzare response from bush to a question regarding privatized mercenaries. unbelievable.
I JUST finished Chalmers Johnson's book "The Sorrows of Empire" on my one-week vacation last week. Excellent read! Excellent read! I agree with the very first comment by bryand - they should be required reading for Americans.
RE: marc melchiori July 28th, 2008 3:33 pm
"Wait wait wait…. I'm waiting for someone one this site to blame the jews. Its all there fault….right…."
Wait, wait, wait, until you brought up the subject no one had mentioned Jews, Isreal, or Zionists at all. The only thing even close was blogger Mike's acronym of MIMIC, which refers to a collusive media/MIC/fascist link. Are you in denial the media is dominated by Jews?
Since you broached the subject are you feeling some guilt the Jewish culture is so famous for, or are you just trying to distract from the point of this article by picking the lame tired fight about, "You're anti-semitic...No, I'm not!", once again?
I never saw Chalmers mention religion one time in this article, did you, so why are you bringing it up and instigating an argument?
Hey guess what dogs? I am getting ready to go with my girlfriend to meet.................................yea, you guessed it buddy- Vincent Bugliosi! THE MAN himself is signing books in Pasadena CA. Guess what hosers? Yea buddy I will have my very own copy of Vincent Bugliosi's "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder ISBN 978-159315-481-3(2008)" signed by none other than Vincent Bugliosi!
I know you dogs are jealous. Aren't you? Kiss my butt!
Somebody above said there is no profit in peace. True of course, even WWII, and certainly WWI was primarily about profit.
Lest we forget however, this is strictly speaking, not just profit but theft. Even organized crime knows enough not to squeeze the cow completely dry.
Our parasites are not so smart. They apparently plan to steal from us until we starve. Who's going to clean their houses and cook their food then?
The Democratic Party blame-game is favorite lament. They love to sit around and lick their wounds, real or imagined.
In this country there is no law against anyone not a Democrat or Republican to run for office if they can qualify.
If the Democrats lose (which they really didn't in 2000 & 2004, they just gutlessly and prematurely threw in the towel) they have nobody to blame but themselves.
If they offered better and more progressive candidates the Naders of the world wouldn't get any votes. The Democrats LOVE to blame Nader. Such weaklings!
The thought that a Democratic candidate can be rejected for not being progressive enough seems truly sinister to a DPA. They live in a bi-polar world of good vs. evil, black vs. white, Lakers vs. Celtics and Democrats vs. Republicans. There is nothing else for them.
Ever notice how DPAs never blame the 200,000 Democrats that voted for Bush, or the many thousands that didn't bother to vote at all?
As did John Kerry in 2004, jozef.
Kerry conceded the Election 12 hours after the polls closed.
John Edwards, his VP running mate was furious over his early concession!
John Kerry had in place dozens of lawyers, anticipating voter fraud. And when reports of voter fraud started coming in, what did Kerry do? Instead of fighting, he conceded the Election.
So who's to blame for Bush's two victories?
... Gore, for not running an effective campaign; not being able to defeat the most defeatable Republican to have come down the pike.
... And John Kerry, for not being able to beat George Bush after four disasterous years in office. And then conceding the Election, fraught as it was with voter fraud, without a peep. Amazing.
"In 2000 and 2004 we had people not vote because Gore and Kerry were not far enough to the left. How did that work out? Over one million dead, $3 TRILLION down the drain, and a boost to our enemies." Gore won! 300,000 Democrats voted for Bush in Florida. Gore rolled over and played dead.
While Obama has started to show his "flip-flopping" colors, and expose himself as just another political newbe/hack of status-quo Washington D.C.,he has another agenda of disarming the citizens of the USA. He isn't an advocate of the 2nd Ammendment, in fact, he is anti gun.
So while he glibly delivers his prepared telepromter speeches with panache and a "seemingly self possesed intellegence", deluding the giddy Obamaites and media that the Messiah has come, he's laying the ground work for a "casterated 2nd Ammendment" and police state.
Of course he'll spew that he is for upping the dollar count to protect the USA and her interests abroad and at home. That is the "HIT TUNE" of the big show the ratbastards in Washington are playing.
"Homeland Security my country tis of thee"...it's all the rage. So by all means lets spend Billions more protecting them from us. Not the other way around. For they have seen the enemy, and it is us!
What Obama is very good at is the old Washington Two Step. Americans love a good show,and Obama can Razzle-Dazzle `em like the professional carney hack he is. He's Dr.FeelGood and he's got the cure!
Ya right! Some where over the rainbow where blue birds fly too! Zippity DOO Da, Zippity yeah!. Mah oh Mah, watt a wunner full dey! Come on Barack, sign it loud, sing it proud...your groveling minions await...
What good will any protests, or anti-anything rallies do, when the citizens have nothing to back up their dissatifaction with but sticks and stones? In todays settings, with highly trained S.W.A.T teams,/Para Police-Soldiers,and Crowd controlling heavy ordinaces,plus 600+ FEMA prison camps ready and waiting for the buses and train loads of dissidents, civilians yeilding nothing but pitch forks and torches will not change a damnned thing! It will take gunfire to really create "CHANGES WE CAN BELIEVE IN", not some unctuous shady lawyer from Chicago making hollow promises.
I am flummuxed at the numbers of mindless Sheeple, lining up for their shearing and sorting,and micro-chipping by the Democratic Party fascist's.
As "We the People" watch our nation go belly-up financially, run out of everything critical for daily life as "PEAK" everything roosters come home to roost, and the Government goons squads crack open the heads of those who dare utter a single cry of dissent, and ship them off to FEMA camps, I hope those that "JUST LOVED the B.O. SHOW" and just maybe got him elected, remember it, when they have no rights, no defense, and no hope! They'll be neck deep in shit, and the Obama's will be tap dancing on top of their heads.
Is it just me?, because Michelle Obama seems like the biggest, seething, hatefull, two faced, bitch of all time? She is NO Jackie K-O believe it! Michelle is an evil-eyed HARPY. Not a Nubian Queen...
WAKE UP AMERICA!
I wish about one million would turn up on the streets of DC when Congress is in session. That was the actual number in London and Rome in Feb 2003. In Nov 1969 I was one of about 400,000 in DC. It really lifts the moral of the anti-war movement.
Keith July 29th, 2008 10:01 pm
Keith taking to the streets sounds good. The other day I went to visit my mom at a senior's complex and was elated to see a few seniors out on the streets waving antiwar signs! I honked vigorously. I am going to take a page out of their book and make some homemade signs and stand on a busy corner near my house and do the same. Since I'm on vacation for the summer I want to try and do it every day.
I am not suggesting this as any kind of solution but every bit helps. Who knows maybe others will join me.
I was born poor and went to public schools and a state university and they were EXCELLENT! If not for them, I would have only had sunday school, because my parents couldn't afford private schools.
Clete,
I think Marc is confused.
Let's hope so, in that when I did a page-search, the only time the word "Jew" appeared was in marc's post, and in your post *quoting* marc! LOL.
Or, put another way, "lots of luck," marc ... with that one.
Being against a particular Israeli governmental policy is not anti-Semetic. This would seem so obvious that one wonders why it should even have to be stated. Yet the connection persists in some minds.
There is more dissent against the policies of the Israeli government in Israel than there is in the United States. Are all those Jews in Israel who disagree with their government's policies "anti-Semitic," marc?
The US government tries to play the same game, tries to pull the same con when it comes to dissent in the United States -- i.e., to be against a policy of the American government is to be "anti-American." ... That's bullshit, marc, and you know it.
In fact, let's consider for a moment this cockeyed notion of being "anti-American." ... Does the French government label someone who opposes a French governmental policy "anti-French"? ... Does the Italian government label someone who opposes an Italian governmental policy "anti-Italian"?
The governments of the United States and Israel are the only governments in the world that label dissent as either "anti-American" or "anti-Semitic." Nobody else does it.
On a somewhat related note ... The United States and Israel have voted TOGETHER AND ALONE in the United Nations an extraordinary number more times. That is to say, on many, many occasions, the General Assembly vote has been -- the US and Israel on one side of the vote, and every other nation in the world on the other side of the vote!
Pointing that out is hardly "anti-Semitic" or "anti-American." So cut the crap, marc, eh. We ain't buyin' it.
Israel is the JEWISH nation. a theocracy. Don't make fun of my spelling I was born poor and went to a public school.
tailcap: "-in 2006 we overwhelmingly voted for Democrats to stop the war and stop Bush
HOW DID THAT WORK OUT?"
I agree. So what should we do? Apparently, when I say take to the streets, that is not good enough for you. You tell me.
marc melchiori, the Palestinians and the Lebanese that the Israelis have been killing for 60 years are SemItic, too. The majority of Israelis are critical of their country's foreign policy. Does that make them anti-Semitic? I have been critical of US foeign policy for 40 years. Does that make me anti-American? Very poor reasoning!
marc melchiori July 28th, 2008 3:33 pm
"Wait wait wait…. I'm waiting for someone one this site to blame the jews. Its all there fault….right…. I mean I have never been to a more anti semetic website in all my life… Lets be honest, even herr hitler would be impressed by some of the messages on this site".
You're kidding, right? Or are you confusing criticism of the Israeli govt policies towards Palestinians with anti-semiticism, which is attacking people who follow Judaism? A govt and a religion are two different things, and I've never seen any negative comments about Jews, so you must be joking. Also, it's anti Semitic, not semetic.
"Barack Obama is the ruling class' response to the recklessness of the Bush administration ... Bush's foreign policy is a disaster. That's clear, even to America's ruling elite. But the question is: what to do?"
Check out this book if you haven't already: How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy by Mark Engler
Barack Obama wear nice suits, doesn't he? Well, that being the case, here's how Barack Obama can win the election in a landslide. ...
Barack Obama should display two things on the lapels of his suit. On one lapel he should have affixed a little notepad (you know, one of those small notepad, like a detective would carry),and in that little notepad should be a list of the names of every prisoner tortured as a result of US foreign policy. ... Just the names.
And wherever he goes, Barack Obama shouldn't say a word, not a single word, but instead he should simply *point* to the list of tortured prisoners affixed to one of his lapels.
And each time he does, he should hand out a card to whomever is present, the card stating: "If I'm elected, on January 20, 2009, torture stops, renditioning stops. Americans don't torture. Civilized people don't torture."
No words, no speech, just the list of people being tortured, affixed to one of his lapel; along with the little cards (the promissory notes) he would give out, over and over and over and over, to everyone and anyone he meets.
And on the other lapel? ... On the other lapel of the real nice suits Barack Obama wears, there should be electronic-counter that reflects the numbers at this site -- http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home This is the running total of how much the Iraq War is costing US taxpayers -- roughly $15 billion per month. The total cost is now past $540 billion.
And all Barack Obama would do is *point* to this electronic-counter, as it flips out the billions of dollars being spent by American taxpayer to murder innocent people; while, at the same time, making rich those who profit from America's military-industrial complex.
... No words, no speech. He just points to the counter.
So that, first debate -- Obama doesn't say a word. He just points to one lapel and then to the other. And when he points to the lapel with the list of tortured prisoners, he walks over to Charlie Gibson or George Stephanopolis or whatever Harry or Harriet Hairspray is moderating the debates and gives then his little "calling card" on torture.
Second debate -- same thing.
Third debate -- same thing.
30 second commercials -- same thing.
Press conferences -- same thing.
Barbara Walters interview -- same thing.
Diane Sawyer -- same thing.
Boy Scouts of America "speech" -- same thing.
Now, if Barack Obama were to outfit his lapels with those two items, silent as a lamb, he would:
a.) Win the election in a landslide. (In fact, he'd be so far ahead in the polls John McCain would quit the race and take up chicken farming);
b.) Win the respect and the support of the overwhelming majority of people throughout the world; and
c.) No one would be able to accuse him of being "an empty suit."
But, then again, I'm obviously *not* talking about Barack Obama. I'm talking about a candidate with political and moral principles. Someone who believes in the values that America was founded on -- America being a country *founded* on dissent.
Also, Rich, re. your comment on torture, you write:
"Obama's stance on the MIC is very similar to his stance on torture — ie, he may have mentioned it once or twice, in videos Defenestrator has not yet located — but he has virtually nothing to say about it. It's an entirely negligible part of his campaign."
Not only is that true, but this go 'round of DPAers (Democratic Party Apologist) urging voters to vote for the lesser-of-the-two-evils **now involves** voting for a candidate, Barack Obama, who, as a spokesman for the US war machine, also includes in his resume a tacit acceptance of torture.
I mean, how much further to the violent, morally bankrupt, anti-democratic, anti-American right does this country have to go before the DPAers say: "Stop! Enough! If we're not willing to draw the line politically, then we will at least draw the line morally; we will at least draw the line at torture."
But, evidently, the DPAers are not willing to do even that. "The line" keeps moving further and further to the right, morally as well as politically.
And since the Democratic Party will always field a candidate "slightly better" than the Republican, the line, given the political duopoly in the United States, will continue to move, inexorably, to the right. … Unless and until that political duopoly is challenged and, in turn, defeated.
(Continued)
Rich M,
To follow up on something you stated in your last post, re your comment:
"And Obama did not really 'oppose the war from the beginning.' That's a grossly misleading overstatement."
Quoting from Matt Gonzalez's February 2008 article entitled, "The Obama Craze: Count Me Out" --
"First, he (Obama) opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, 'There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.'
Gonzalez continues:
"The Tribune went on to say that Obama, 'now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation;Â a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.'
"Obama's campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he's done just that."
Click here for the entire article by Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader's vice-presidential running mate -- http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html
(Continued)
"And how does Barack Obama feel about America's military-industrial complex? (The question of course is rhetorical.)
Barack Obama is the ruling class' response to the recklessness of the Bush administration. You see, it's really quite simple. Bush's foreign policy is a disaster. That's clear, even to America's ruling elite. But the question is: what to do, what to do???"
Check out this book if you haven't already: How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy by Mark Engler
Keith July 29th, 2008 6:18 pm writes "In 2000 and 2004 we had people not vote because Gore and Kerry were not far enough to the left. How did that work out? Over one million dead, $3 TRILLION down the drain, and a boost to our enemies."
-in 2006 we overwhelmingly voted for Democrats to stop the war and stop Bush
HOW DID THAT WORK OUT?
marc melchiori July 29th, 2008 4:27 am
".....turd world hole."
Man, is that offensive!!! You got that from Savage, didn't you? He's the only other one I have heard use the term.
Since I live in California and Obama will probably win it by 25%, I will vote for Nader. My politics are actually to the left of Nader. But what I said still stands. The next president of the United States (barring McCain's health or Obama's assassination) will be either McCain or Obama. Anybody want to bet? If you think "pressuring" is too soft (maybe I meant hard pressuring). What do you suggest? I am all ears. I was tear gassed in front of the White House in 1970. I'll do it again. Tell me where and when.
In 2000 and 2004 we had people not vote because Gore and Kerry were not far enough to the left. How did that work out? Over one million dead, $3 TRILLION down the drain, and a boost to our enemies.
Some commenters here are too smart for their own britches. It's almost as if the cynical, fatalistic intellectualizing is a way of preparing not to be disappointed when things get worse... oh, and it let's us off the hook if we do little to change things. We can feel smug and correct in having foreseen the coming doom.
Best comment so far:
kickapooviking July 28th, 2008 5:17 pm
Meet us in St. Paul.
Defenestrator, who falsely claimed yesterday at 6:40 that Obama discusses the MIC in this YouTube video, is today (1:56 pm) lecturing us on "honesty." This is too funny!!
I urge people to check out Defenstrator's short video, just to see what a liar he is. He obviously didn't even bother to listen to the stinking 1 min 35 seconds himself, before using it as grounds for calling other people "dishonest." The video's title is NOT "Barack Obama on the Military-Industrial Complex", as Defenstrator asserted. Rather, it's "Obama-Caucus4Priorities." If you listen to the whole 1:35, Obama never once utters the phrase "military industrial complex." Rather, he chats about saving taxpayers money by not spending it on "unnecessary weapons systems."
In the video, Obama also promises to "stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq.... I'm the only candidate who opposed this war from the beginning."
This is very sly wording. If you cut the spending to only $8 billion a month, you could claim you kept your promise. And indeed, it looks like Obama intends to modestly de-escalate Iraq, but only so he can escalate in Afghanistan. // And Obama did not really "oppose the war from the beginning." That's a grossly misleading overstatement. He made one lousy speech while still an Illinois state senator, in which he opposed the Iraq invasion, not on principled or moral grounds, but rather on the grounds that he felt it wouldn't work out well from the standpoint of the invaders. It was (he feared) likely to become a bit messy.
Obama also promises in the video to "end" the Iraq war. Obviously, he doesn't really intend to do that. On the contrary, he intends to keep tens of thousands of US troops there.
So far as discussing the MIC is concerned, Obama never remotely approaches the issue. Simply yabbering about your military plans is not "discussing the MIC" -- the essence of which is speaking directly about the ominous threat to democracy posed by an unaccountable & immensely powerful complex of governmental, military & corporate interests.
All in all, Obama's stance on the MIC is very similar to his stance on torture -- ie, he may have mentioned it once or twice, in videos Defenestrator has not yet located -- but he has virtually nothing to say about it. It's an entirely negligible part of his campaign.
man, im getting so wordy im even boring me.
but well, if we all really need to be dry and "realistic" then: voting for obama is a worthless cause - he'll serve his elite masters, voting for nader is a worthless cause - its a fkn joke in terms of political clout, the progressive movement is a marginal expression of the groaning masses - it will have no impact on the military industrial complex, or even on the nation's airwaves, corporations will gain even greater dominance over our freedoms, an elite class of wealthy power brokers will assume final control of our politics/corporations (or already has), and anyone not serving happily will one day be caged in privatized prisons, by elite-controlled above-law mercenary armies, while the ecology crashes completely, and the economy melts into a worldwide quagmire where everyone dies but the rich, who stamp on our faces with their boots as our children lay dying in the wasteland of what was once civilization and is now simply a never ending war for our masters' dominance.
or.. you could take a juicy and less realistic view: maybe we the people, with some few strong leaders, using whats left of our hearts and souls, whats left of civilization in our genetic code, and whats left of hope, fkn change some of this shit and stop whining.
as for postruring "correctness" - we wont know about obama until after the election, all we can do is surmise. shit, i'd be surprised if ANYONE knows the "real" obama - even his dem-corporate handlers. we'll have to wait to find out, and im keeping an open mind, despite the facts.
yes, it is the progressive's job to stay left of this ailing system, and keep the margins wide left. it widens the playing field even for mainstream candidates who might want to move left. if we dont push them left, the right will pull the whole country exactly where they did: shipwrecked.
so of course we gotta stay left. this is common-dreams after all. our high ideals are blueprint that shape future possibilities. but im kinda sick of peeps (even myself) acting like its all about some narrow reactionary "common nightmares"..the endtimes sequel to rome. i see the fire, smell the smoke..but until its burnt to the ground, im still manning the bucket brigade. otherwise, i'd be more dry and realistic.
As for your point about Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky urging voters in 2004 to vote for Kerry in swing states and Nader in safe states ...
It's an interesting point and certainly a legitimate issue to discuss -- but not the way you've discussed it! Allow me to elaborate.
Personally, I have nothing but the highest regard for Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn; the reason being that they do more than just vote, much more. Still, I, and others on the left, disagree with them on their "safe state" voting advice. Progressives, especially radical progressives, shouldn't be urging voters to vote for someone like John Kerry -- John Kerry, who not only embraced the war in Iraq in 2004, but who in July 2004 in an interview he gave to the "Wall Street Journal," indicated that, if elected, the US would probably still be in Iraq at the end of his first term.
So there are any number of people on the left who, like myself, disagree with Zinn and Chomsky's voting advice but, at the same time, greatly respect their overall commitment to peace and justice.
But what's interesting -- and what's rather *ironic,* given how you started your post about "dishonest arguments" regarding Barack Obama -- is the way you make your point about Zinn and Chomsky's voting advice ... you write:
"Maybe they (Zinn and Kerry) are both idiots too. ... Maybe Zinn's 'SICKENING ATTIUDE IS A GOOD ILLUSTRATION OF THE COWARDICE, SUBMISSIVENESS AND CAPACITY FOR SELF-DELUSION OF DEMOCRATIC VOTERS.'" (Capitalization added.)
The irony is that the words you quote and that I've put in caps, beginning with "sickening attitude," are those of Rich M. But Rich M. used those words NOT to refer to people like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. Not by a long shot. Rich M. was referring to a different type of lesser-of-the-two-evils voter. And you know it. You talk about a dishonest critique of Barack Obama!! It's dishonest on your part to argue the way you have, that is to say, equating Zinn and Chomsky with your typical DPAers (Democratic Party Apologists), a.k.a, "cruise missile liberals," a.k.a., soft-left rationalizer.
There is a world of difference between Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, on the one hand, and DPAers on the other -- but your argument, dishonest as it is, doesn't in any way acknowledge that.
Defenestrator,
In your last post, you wrote that it's "a dishonest critique of Obama" to say that
"Obama has never talked about the military-industrial complex."
Come on, Defenestrator, cut the crap; you know as well as anyone that the point is that Obama has never discussed the military-industrial complex in the way that, for example, Chalmer Johnson has written about the military-industrial complex in the above article. ... That is to say, in a way that a genuine peace candidate would discuss the military-industrial complex -- Barack Obama during the Democratic primaries purporting to be a peace candidate.
"Rich M," in a previous post pointed out that:
"The funny thing about this video (the video that you, defenestrator, posted and claimed has Obama talking about the military-industrial complex) is that if you go to it, Obama actually does NOT mention the phrase 'military industrial complex' in it, and it is NOT actually titled 'Barack Obama on the Military-Industrial Complex' (as you, Defenestrator, indicated in your post it was titled!). Instead, it's titled 'Obama-Caucus4Priorities.'"
Is this true, defenestrator? Say it ain't so! My computer currently can't play videos, but is this true, can it be? For shame, for shame! ("Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!")
(Continued)
judi,
Regarding your point about Bill Clinton ...
A few years ago, Howard Zinn wrote an article, "The Clinton Presidency and the Crisis of Democracy." Anyone who thinks that Bill Clinton was, in any way, shape or form a progressive, should read the article.
Bill Clinton did his job ... As a functionary of Corporate America, he moved the United States even further to the right. Barack Obama will do the same.
Here's the link to Professor Zinn's article --http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnclicri23.html
An honest critique of Obama:
Obama has talked about corruption and waste in the Pentagon system, but I don't think he really means it.
or
Obama's talk of cutting Pentagon waste and eliminating our nuclear weapons arsenal doesn't get to the basic, systemic problems with the military-industrial complex.
A dishonest critique of Obama:
Obama has never talked about the military-industrial complex.
There is a lot of Bush's "you're with us or you're against us" mentality in these posts. If someone points out that no, it's not actually true that Obama has never talked about the "Military-Industrial Complex" (wow- he never used the catchphrase, during a speech on the pentagon system - so that doesn't count!) that must mean that whoever points it out must be an "other" who "just doesn't get it". Again, it is more about posturing than trying to win anybody over.
I appreciate the passion, but you're preaching to the choir. I've been pointing out for a long long time that Obama is a standard Democrat. And I've also been pointing out that in 1994 both Zinn and Chomsky recommended voting for Nader if you're in a safe state and voting for Kerry in you're in swing state. They know that a standard Democrat causes less human suffering than a right-wing Republican. Maybe they are both idiots too. Zinn pointed out that with Kerry, there was a chance that popular movements could effect his policies, and with Bush there is no chance. Maybe Zinn's "sickening attitude is a good illustration of the cowardice, submissiveness, & capacity for self-delusion of Democratic voters."
Again- what's the goal? To be a righteous outsider or to make your views mainstream?
Excellent report and especially informative. Also more should be revealed on just how Clinton sold away America just as carelessly as Reagan and Bush's did. What may happen with all of these privatized specialities is some major Mafia connection that could enslave millions, steal Identities, place innocents in privatized prisons, ect. The Dangerous use of privatized armies is yet to be disclosed.
Ooooh, my poor tortured tax dollars!
InstantKarma July 29th, 2008 7:08 am writes "You say you want a Revolution? Then, do as the Ruling Class does: Vote with your wallet!"..."However, the truth is, that no one here is prepared to make the slightest sacrifice"
-InstantKarma makes some excellemt points. He looks at it from outside the two opposing boxes we sit in (DPA vs "Purist"). It's a well reasoned, good post.
Keith (2:19 am) writes, "...All we can do now is to support Obama and vote for the most progressive house and senate that we can. Then constantly pressure Obama and those in congress for the most progressive course possible."
- This sickening attitude is a good illustration of the cowardice, submissiveness, & capacity for self-delusion of Democratic voters. There is no such thing as "pressuring" the US govt for "the most progressive course possible." That's just crap that gutless liberals like to tell themselves, so they can feel better about their own spinelessness & passivity.
If there was such a thing as "pressuring Obama," he wouldn't have betrayed his base with his FISA vote; he wouldn't be sucking up to AIPAC; he wouldn't be making the "War on Terror" his primary foreign policy goal; & he wouldn't be preparing to escalate the war in Afghanistan. Obama is not "progressive" in any way, shape or form. He's just another militarist/corporatist/nationalist, just like all US politicians of recent decades. Politically, he's not too different from Bush & McCain, & resembles them more with every passing day. Every single position he's taken since wrapping up the nomination has been a betrayal of progressive goals.
Anyone who's deceiving himself with pretty phrases like "we must pressure Obama for a progressive course" should consider how much good "pressuring" the Pelosi Congress has done. That's how much good "pressuring Obama" will do.
These Private companys have there own private army of scumbags.
The private armys seek out targets , gang stalking style.
The target is sensitised using cointelpro and mkutlra tactics.
Then the community alarm is is triggered by the legitimate side of Spy / surviellance corporations.CACI ,L3 communications.
Oh , you know they have ground crews for mobile surviellance. Did you think it was all about phones and email?????
They move into your town , train your cops, firefighters, local community watch groups on anti-terrorist activity, and local business's, they all get money for helping community watch groups.
They slander, defame, libable the target, while trying to
create a delusional victim.
They train thier troops on the target lossing his cool, and being ready to act.
They try to get the target to loose his cool.
I know, I have been on this list for 17 months.
Why? Because I made the mistake of accepting a dinner invitaion from a woman I thought was single.
Truns out, she was married. We never went to dinner, but her husband heard my voice mails trying to accept the invitaiotn 1 week later.
He called my office and accused me of trying to date his wife. I called him and told him it was a misunderstanding, and we nerver had dinner.
He told me he did not beleive me , and was going to have me followed and find out everything about me.
That was Dec / 2006. I have been followed, harrased and totured gang stalking stlye for 17 months, by every possible known groups.
Church groups, IAFF, ploice, FBI, DHS, local community watch grups, 24 /7 .
This guy is just one of many freaks running our national security companys.
This guy has great power and resources, I am a poor innocent victim holding on to a meger existance.
I have no legal recourse because George Bush and our congress granted immunity to the Telcom companys.
I know my phones are tapped, if I could find out by who I could have my day in court.
King Goerge and congress has sealed a horrible torture fate for thousands Americans.
The billions being spent on the spy infrastructure is truly frightning and should be a huge concern to all Americans.
I don't think its a coincidence that at time when Americans are loosing jobs the fastest growing industry in America are the Spy cvorporations.
Wow , what a smooth transition into a Natzi regime.
Well on a positive note, since we are at war, this torture is a war crime.
They will not be able run or stay hidden forever.
Who knows, maybe God is giving me the training I need to become a war criminal hunter, a job I will take , with great honor.
BornFreeMen
Support Obama? Why? Nader has succeeded in the beginning process of breaking down barriers to a viable third party candidate for President. His lawsuits in every state have had some success and he has the endurance to persist (as does Kucinich). This is what it takes to make changes. You can't compromise too much or give in. As I have said a number of times also, the 'stolen dem votes' by Nader is a lie. He found 38% of his votes from registered dems only (and I have doubts they all would have voted for the dem candidate); you add repubs, libertarians and get-out-to-vote votes and it probably was close to a net-0 or even positive for the dems! And that is in ADDITION to the principle of needing another party in our politics that isn't part of the duaopoly, regardless of the temporary transitional effects. We should have been cheering that there WAS NO COST. There is no 'winner' between two evils.
Mr. Johnson does it again! A true visionary.
These reports may seem over the top, but they are not at variance with the premises of this article ...
http://www.worldreports.org/news
Wait, there IS an election going on in the fall - and not for just the oval office. Remember, state and local elections are just as important as federal elections. Many of the issues that are discussed here and many of the solutions to those issues need to be tried out on a smaller scale first. Why not fund progressive candidates for local elections to showcase progressive ideas. I hate to say it but its, in part, about marketing and packaging - make the solutions easy to understand and pretty to look at. This is why Nader, aka grandpa al lewis of the munsters, has very little street cred. Instead of reaching for the attainable he has to reach for the stars.
Keith July 29th, 2008 2:19 am
"Then constantly pressure Obama and those in congress for the most progressive course possible."
And just how do you propose to do that? Writing letters? Making telephone calls? Delivering petitions?
We've already seen how effective that is since the 2006 election when we tried to pressure the Dems to impeach Bush and end the war in Iraq.
There will be no change until progressives force change by refusing to vote for Democrats. Will the change be immediate? Most certainly not. There is no instant gratification here. But one thing is certain. There will be no change at all as long as we continue to vote for them on the basis that they are the lesser of two evils while they continue to do exactly as they please rather than representing those who elect them to office.
Lobo Gris
An excellent article by Chalmers (who ever said this man is a great American is right on the money!). I also enjoyed the bickering political blogs on Obama between the "Lesser Evils" (DPAs as someone coined it) and the "Purists."
But, the whole contention of Obama as "saint-sinner" is wrongheaded and misses the point. We're all laboring under the delusion (and illusion) that there is a political "election" cycle going on in the U.S. this fall, when nothing of the sort is actually going on.
I know everyone loves to get into the act and vicariously "win" by selecting the next CEO of the land… How easily duped we are. The way this fantasy so easily enters our lower consciousness (our passions) and is perpetuated through the mass media, is great for the foxes running the hen house. After all, a "horse race" is all the hoi polloi can assimilate between bouts of donuts, extended doses of TV 'reality' fare, perpetual war, the degraded natural environment, rising gas prices, and bank failures.
Is the de facto President Obama really MLK or just a house slave? This question is moot. The fact that no one has put a bullet in his skull tells you unequivocally that he's not the genuine article. So, the "Purist" argument wins on points... Rationally, one should face the facts – that is the responsible, mature approach to the weighty matters of this world.
Unfortunately, politics is not about logic (otherwise, framing a convincing political argument would always win). Rather, it's the rationale for "the art of the possible…" (of course, another euphemism for what is 'profitable' for the Ruler and not the ruled). Nevertheless, politics taps a very human proclivity towards "shaping" the future. This offers us the false impression of participation and a modicum of "hope" in cruddy times (and in a God-less universe, to boot).
But this kind of HOPE is dope for the masses! The DPA "Lesser Evils" are thus very human beings – and, I'm sure, very good folks at that! They have hope and they want to believe that, this time, it will not be yet another Big Lie.
We all want to believe. We're grasping at straws; something that'll give us enough for 'salvation' until January 20th… We want to be liberated without having to do much more than punch a button on an electronic voting machine, or the remote on the Tube. (Why can't we all vote through TV? We do it every day!)
Sounds like a losing proposition to me. Denial is attrition for the soul… Instead of being disappointed after November (and your 'little voice' inside you're head is never wrong about the important things!), why not do something utterly political? Yep… to actually change things?
You say you want a Revolution? Then, do as the Ruling Class does: Vote with your wallet! You never see a Wall Street Speculator lower him/herself to go into a filthy precinct office to cast a vote for their favorite political candidate (of the 'Republocrat Party'). Nope, through their political donations, they've already voted with their wallet and checkbook…! The "2008 Selection" is a foregone conclusion.
Stop buying ANYTHING that travelled more than 50 miles to get to your nearest store (you can then actually choose what you buy!). Think about it! Stop feeding the Beast! That's the "lazy man's" solution to this conundrum… But, there are other choices…
However, the truth is, that no one here is prepared to make the slightest sacrifice (yeah, I know voting for Obama is a "huge" sacrifice!). And, without sacrifice… well… the Foxes (a.k.a. the Fascists) win! They're certainly making the working poor suffer the sacrifice in Blood and Treasure, to get what they want!
We all want the "uneven" fantasy world wherein we get everything for nothing… But, I got bad news for you all – that jig is up! The Neocons have gobbled up the last of all the golden chicks in the coop, and there are no more online to cough up the golden eggs! If you liked the Great Depression of the '30s of the last century… you're gonna love the economy Obama will be asked to manage over the next 8 years (of course, you DPAs knew he's slated to get "re-selected" in 2012, didn't you?)
We're all laboring under the delusion (and ilusion) that there is an "election" going on in the U.S. this fall. The way this fantasy is so easily perpetuated through the mass media is great for the foxes running the hen house. After all, a "horse race" is all the hoi polloi can assimilate between bouts of donuts and extended doses of TV's 'reality' fare.
's call this process what it really is: another lame reality show. The two sides are
Who are the shareholders in the companies that build the mines and bombs? They are no less guilty of murder than the companies.
And speaking of pressure - no way to shifting the war from Iraq to Afgahastan to Pakistan to some other desolate turd world hole. Bring our soldiers home and our greebacks!
well reasoned Keith. Sometimes your choices in life are not that great, but better than nothing at all. And if you think the other side is going to go to the booths smiling that mccain is there choice - your wrong. The good part of our democracy is that we can lobby our elected leaders to move in this direction or that - so long as we push real hard and DO NOT GIVE UP! Speaking of bloated budgets - how bout that farm bill past a few months ago 300 billion with 2/4 not even going to farm related stuff. Both Dems and the other side were wrong to pass it and I must give congratulations to those republicans that said NO. Give creedit were it is due.
The next president of the US will be either Obama or McCain. I am not really sticking my neck out with this prediction. It is too late to say 'Kucinich would be better' or 'Edwards would be better' or 'Nader would be better'. I think we were lucky not to get Hillary. All we can do now is to support Obama and vote for the most progressive house and senate that we can. Then constantly pressure Obama and those in congress for the most progressive course possible.
Yes, the Pentagon budget is over $500 billion per year, but when you include all military spending that is outside the Pentagon budget, it comes to about $950 billion per year.
There seems to be some evidence that the Anglo-American establishment supported Hitler and the Nazis in an effort to construct a bulwark against Russian expansion. See Sutton and Conjoring Hitler.
Boy are we screwed.
That's cool Sir Armchair. I don't care what anybody says about you armchair, in my book you're alright!
sir daddy-oh, u gots tha elder status. hope. hahaha, yeah, im im keeping an open mind, because the alternative would be a permanent militarization of our nation with no federal grants for, lets say, fading school's infratstructure throughout the country. gotta hope the stand is now, jus in case its time to stand. dont you wanna be ready? if obama stands after the election, ima ready daddy-oh. if he doesnt, im still only an armchair..same as it ever was.
Sir armchair, next year I will be 50 yrs old, so I guess for you to call me son you must be around 70 yrs old. Is that right?
Your positions are inconsistent with the policies Obama has stated he is in favor of. I guess I could post that I hope that the price of gas goes back down to $1.20 based on absolutely nothing other than my wishful thinking!
name's armchair, son. ive stated clearly that OBAMA has stated his interest in policy changes (moving in the right direction) intimating a direction similar to what carter has already done, and that he MIGHT do it, as he stated he will. i also stated that obama must move centrist during this portion of the election, and its possible he will make maneuvers exactly in the direction i mentioned after being elected IF he is going to stand on previous assertions. im simply illuminating peeps like you that if he does, know where to push: support or pressure. if he doesnt, then he will be what i expected all along. p-ssssout
armchair July 28th, 2008 8:58 pm writes "...so if usa were to continue to engage the world, under a legitimate president (obama?).....excess revenue could go to something nutty like health care for poor americans or sumtin."
-this blogger seems unaware that Obama has called for more not less military spending. He is actually making the point in reverse.
-it is the complete opposite of what is being posted! If Obama were calling for decreasing military budgets instead of increasing them then the blogger could get his "nutty health care"
Amazingly, this blogger is oblivious to the fact that voting for Obama is the equivalent of voting for the OPPOSITE of what he stated he wants!
ive read every piece of legislation obama has initiated as a juinior senator (yes, thats what he is folks, a freshman senator).. and i have seen nothing that implies obama will do anything to change the world, or even anything significant. ive always felt he'll let us down.
jlocke123, im jus sayin that obama has intimated the right things, THE PARROT HAS FKN SPOKEN.. and he's implying he might nip it back, redirect the monies, refocus. im saying he's HAS TO go centrist now to get the vote. im saying POPULISTS GOTTA BACK HIM when/if HE STANDS ON THESE ISSUES and point him in the right direction (through our numbers and knowlege), to redirect these funds away from war through restructuring and cutting flow to certain above-stated conduits that support the development of the "military industrial complex" (the misappropriation of monies from america's needs). its a direction for obama and us to take, if he shows sanity - keep your eyes open and pressure on him to move that way. thats all.
15.) Many right-wing supporters are *delighted* with Obama's move to the right. So delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" -- whose editorial board generally reflects not just the right-wing but the right-wing within the Bush administration -- so delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" regarding Obama's recent lurch to the right, especially as regards Iraq, that on July 2, 2008, they published an editorial entitled "Bush's Third Term." In it, they gloatingly stated: ""Maybe he (Obama) is worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate running for it (Bush's third term)."
Do these *facts* sound to you like Obama supports the military-industrial complex? And isn't that the issue, defenestrator?
Sounds to me like Obama wants to be a "wartime president." Would you agree?
Yes, sorry, I shouldn't have suggested that Obama may *never* have uttered the phrase "military-industrial complex." Your, as you admit, "5 seconds of research" discovered that he did. Still, I'm sure Adolph Hitler uttered the words "peace" and "justice" any number of times, but I assume we can agree that when he did so he was ... lying. … The same way Obama was lying when he purported to be a peace candidatel the same way Obama was lying when he purported to be an agent of "change."
Obama support the military-industrial complex and, as such, he supports US imperialism -- US imperialism maintaining that the United States has the right to interfere in the affairs of other countries. Has the "right" -- by force of arms -- to overthrow governments, subvert elections, support corrupt governments, invade countries, install puppet regimes. Obama supports two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and he's expressed interest in waging wars in two other countries (Iran and Pakistan). Does that sound like someone who is a threat to the MIC or, rather, or an enabler of the MIC?
As for your comment: "... the purpose of that kind of writing (my post) is not to inform; it's to prove 'I Am More Radical Than Thou.'" … Alas, my friend, if only it was that simple. I'm afraid the issue is a bit more complicated, a bit more far-reaching than that.
6.) Afghanistan is the 20th country the United States has bombed since the end of World War II. *Before* Bush started bombing Afghanistan, one out of every 7 Afghans were either starving or in imminent danger of starving. I don't have a statistic on what the current ratio is. I assume it's much worse. … This is the country that Obama wants to send more US troops to, more US firepower to, more US military contracts and military contractors to.
7.) Obama has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $450 billion.
8.) The Pentagon budget is over $500 billion dollars a year.
9.) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing the US taxpayer
15 billion dollars per month. See http://www.costofwar.com/ Note: The vast majority of the 15 billion dollars per month is going into the hands of those who profit from America's military-industrial complex.
10.) Over 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of Gulf War II. See the following http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768/
11.) Obama voted to confirm Condeleeeza Rice, as well as a host of other Bush nominees.
12.) In 2006, Obama went out of his way to campaign for Joe Lieberman.
13.) Obama voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act.
14.) Obama voted for the F.I.S.A. bill – after vowing not to.
(Continued)