Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAnti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism is Being Exposed
Bretton Woods was the system of global financial management set up at the end of the second World War to ensure the interests of capital did not smother wider social concerns in post-war democracies. It was hated by the US neoliberals - the very people who created the banking crisis writes Noam Chomsky
THE SIMULTANEOUS unfolding of the US presidential campaign and unraveling of the financial markets presents one of those occasions where the political and economic systems starkly reveal their nature.
Passion about the campaign may not be universally shared but almost everybody can feel the anxiety from the foreclosure of a million homes, and concerns about jobs, savings and healthcare at risk.
The initial Bush proposals to deal with the crisis so reeked of totalitarianism that they were quickly modified. Under intense lobbyist pressure, they were reshaped as "a clear win for the largest institutions in the system . . . a way of dumping assets without having to fail or close", as described by James Rickards, who negotiated the federal bailout for the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management in 1998, reminding us that we are treading familiar turf. The immediate origins of the current meltdown lie in the collapse of the housing bubble supervised by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, which sustained the struggling economy through the Bush years by debt-based consumer spending along with borrowing from abroad. But the roots are deeper. In part they lie in the triumph of financial liberalisation in the past 30 years - that is, freeing the markets as much as possible from government regulation.
These steps predictably increased the frequency and depth of severe reversals, which now threaten to bring about the worst crisis since the Great Depression.
Also predictably, the narrow sectors that reaped enormous profits from liberalisation are calling for massive state intervention to rescue collapsing financial institutions.
Such interventionism is a regular feature of state capitalism, though the scale today is unusual. A study by international economists Winfried Ruigrok and Rob van Tulder 15 years ago found that at least 20 companies in the Fortune 100 would not have survived if they had not been saved by their respective governments, and that many of the rest gained substantially by demanding that governments "socialise their losses," as in today's taxpayer-financed bailout. Such government intervention "has been the rule rather than the exception over the past two centuries", they conclude.
In a functioning democratic society, a political campaign would address such fundamental issues, looking into root causes and cures, and proposing the means by which people suffering the consequences can take effective control.
The financial market "underprices risk" and is "systematically inefficient", as economists John Eatwell and Lance Taylor wrote a decade ago, warning of the extreme dangers of financial liberalisation and reviewing the substantial costs already incurred - and proposing solutions, which have been ignored. One factor is failure to calculate the costs to those who do not participate in transactions. These "externalities" can be huge. Ignoring systemic risk leads to more risk-taking than would take place in an efficient economy, even by the narrowest measures.
The task of financial institutions is to take risks and, if well-managed, to ensure that potential losses to themselves will be covered. The emphasis is on "to themselves". Under state capitalist rules, it is not their business to consider the cost to others - the "externalities" of decent survival - if their practices lead to financial crisis, as they regularly do.
Financial liberalisation has effects well beyond the economy. It has long been understood that it is a powerful weapon against democracy. Free capital movement creates what some have called a "virtual parliament" of investors and lenders, who closely monitor government programmes and "vote" against them if they are considered irrational: for the benefit of people, rather than concentrated private power.
Investors and lenders can "vote" by capital flight, attacks on currencies and other devices offered by financial liberalisation. That is one reason why the Bretton Woods system established by the United States and Britain after the second World War instituted capital controls and regulated currencies.*
The Great Depression and the war had aroused powerful radical democratic currents, ranging from the anti-fascist resistance to working class organisation. These pressures made it necessary to permit social democratic policies. The Bretton Woods system was designed in part to create a space for government action responding to public will - for some measure of democracy.
John Maynard Keynes, the British negotiator, considered the most important achievement of Bretton Woods to be the establishment of the right of governments to restrict capital movement.
In dramatic contrast, in the neoliberal phase after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in the 1970s, the US treasury now regards free capital mobility as a "fundamental right", unlike such alleged "rights" as those guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: health, education, decent employment, security and other rights that the Reagan and Bush administrations have dismissed as "letters to Santa Claus", "preposterous", mere "myths".
In earlier years, the public had not been much of a problem. The reasons are reviewed by Barry Eichengreen in his standard scholarly history of the international monetary system. He explains that in the 19th century, governments had not yet been "politicised by universal male suffrage and the rise of trade unionism and parliamentary labour parties". Therefore, the severe costs imposed by the virtual parliament could be transferred to the general population.
But with the radicalisation of the general public during the Great Depression and the anti-fascist war, that luxury was no longer available to private power and wealth. Hence in the Bretton Woods system, "limits on capital mobility substituted for limits on democracy as a source of insulation from market pressures".
The obvious corollary is that after the dismantling of the postwar system, democracy is restricted. It has therefore become necessary to control and marginalise the public in some fashion, processes particularly evident in the more business-run societies like the United States. The management of electoral extravaganzas by the public relations industry is one illustration.
"Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business," concluded America's leading 20th century social philosopher John Dewey, and will remain so as long as power resides in "business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda".
The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats. There are differences between them. In his study Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Larry Bartels shows that during the past six decades "real incomes of middle-class families have grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans, while the real incomes of working-poor families have grown six times as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans".
Differences can be detected in the current election as well. Voters should consider them, but without illusions about the political parties, and with the recognition that consistently over the centuries, progressive legislation and social welfare have been won by popular struggles, not gifts from above.
Those struggles follow a cycle of success and setback. They must be waged every day, not just once every four years, always with the goal of creating a genuinely responsive democratic society, from the voting booth to the workplace.
* The Bretton Woods system of global financial management was created by 730 delegates from all 44 Allied second World War nations who attended a UN-hosted Monetary and Financial Conference at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods in New Hampshire in 1944.
Bretton Woods, which collapsed in 1971, was the system of rules, institutions, and procedures that regulated the international monetary system, under which were set up the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) (now one of five institutions in the World Bank Group) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which came into effect in 1945.
The chief feature of Bretton Woods was an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate of its currency within a fixed value.
The system collapsed when the US suspended convertibility from dollars to gold. This created the unique situation whereby the US dollar became the "reserve currency" for the other countries within Bretton Woods.
203 Comments so far
Show AllAnyone who would be interested in attending a Nader party in Northern New Jersey later this month, email auspiciousbunny@yahoo.com
Main Stream Media, The Ultimate Feeders of Garbage to the American People
It's more visible than ever, 99% of what Main Stream Media feeds the public in its paid for propaganda Sudo News Casts. It's garbage from the bowels of the immoral rats from hell, who have stolen our democracy, destroyed our economy, and who have push our environment to brink of it loosing it's ability to maintain life as we know it for most species on our home Planet Earth.
As Americans we have been eating a load of Garbage for so long we seem to forget the truth and what what a strong effect it has on reality. Try shining a spotlight on a group of Racoons on your back deck, and watch how fast they will scatter. Its the same way with the Greedy Old Pigs who are distorting our perception of reality with the Lies, and blatant racism the feed us and thrive off to enpower their greed, power and lock up every little bit of what we once held sacred and grind it up for their own personal use.
The Republican Party is done. Once the facts become widely circulated to a most illiterate electorate and people have a chance to see the broad scope of the evil these creatures have inflicted on our once proud country, there will be a backlash against the Right Wing, Trickle Down Economic, Republicans, that the party will not be able to recover from. If you don't have supporters you don't have a chance.
We need to empty the rotting fermenting Garbage cans full of slime puss filled criminals who are controlling this country and push them to justice. We should start with the Scum like the Supreme Court Justices who circumvented the Rule of Law and stopped the vote from bieng counted in Florida in 2000. It was most visible there with the Paid for Republican Goons Pounding on the door of the elections office in florida. This kind of MOB rule is the core of the Republican party. The problem is now, the main street people the mom's and Pop's who don't have health insurance, or Savings and are loosing their homes are not buying into this crap any more. It's over Bush Cheney. Justice Grinds Slow, but it keeps on Grinding, you can run, but you can't hide from her.
The questions should be:Who is Behind the Fiancial Meltdown?
The market is heavily manipulated. The driving force behind the meltdown is speculative trade. The system of "private regulation" serves the interests of the speculators.
While most individual investors loose when the market falls, the institutional speculator makes money when there is a financial collapse.
In fact, triggering market collapse can be a very profitable undertaking.
There are indications that the Security Exchange Commission (SEC) regulators have created an environment which supports speculative transactions.
There are several instruments including futures, options, index funds, derivative securities, etc. used to make money when the stock market crumbles.
The more it falls, the greater the gains.
Those who make it fall are also speculating on its decline.
With foreknowledge and inside information, a collapse in market values constitutes a lucrative and money-spinning opportunity, for a select category of powerful speculators who have the ability to manipulate the market in the appropriate direction at the appropriate time.
Short Selling
One important instrument used by speculators to make money out of a financial meltdown is "short selling".
"Short selling" consists in selling large amounts of stocks which you do not possess and then buying them in the spot market once the price has collapsed, with a view to completing the transaction and cashing in on the profits.
The role of short selling in bringing down companies is well documented. The collapse of Lehman, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns was in part due to short selling.
Short selling has also been used extensively in currency markets. It was one of the main instruments used by speculators during the 1997 Asian Crisis to bring down the Thai baht, the Korean won and Indonesian rupiah.
Speculation in major currency markets also characterizes the ongoing financial crisis. There have been major swings in currency values with the Canadian dollar, for instance, loosing 10% of its value in the course of a few trading days.
Temporary Ban on Short Selling
Following the stock market meltdown on Black Monday September 15, the Security Exchange Commission (SEC) introduced a temporary ban on short selling. In a bitter irony, the SEC listed a number of companies which were "protected by regulators from short sellers". The SEC September 18 ban on short selling pertained largely to banks, insurance companies and other financial services companies.
The effect of being on a "protected list" was to no avail. It was tantamount to putting those listed companies on a "hit list". If the SEC had implemented a complete and permanent ban on short selling coupled with a freeze on all forms of speculative trade, including index funds and options, this would have contributed to reducing market volatility and dampening the meltdown.
The ban on short selling was applied with a view to establishing the protected list. It expired on Wednesday October 8 at midnight.
The following morning, Thursday 9th of October, when the market opened up, those companies on the "protected list" became "unprotected" and were the first target of the speculative onslaught, leading to a dramatic collapse on of the Dow Jones on Thursday 9th and Friday 10th.
The course of events was entirely predictable. The lifting of the ban on short selling contributed to accentuating the downfall in stock market values. The companies which were on the hit list were the first victims of the speculative onslaught.
The shares of Morgan Stanley dropped 26 percent on October 9th, upon the expiry of the short-selling ban and a further 25 percent the following day.
The winners of financial warfare are JP Morgan Chase and Bank America. Both banking institutions have consolidated their control over the US banking landscape. They have used the financial crisis to displace and/or take over rival financial institutions.
The concentration of wealth and the centralization of financial power resulting from market manipulation is unprecedented.
Thank you, great post! Am always looking for information that explains things in ways that folks like myself, not versed in the specialty language of finance, can understand. Will you post some more on some of these other "initialized" financial instruments?
Do you think that all "derivatives" should be outlawed? I gather that you think short selling should be. Are there any good arguments for short selling or any other of this alphabet soup of financial instruments? I have always had the impression that most, if not all, were none other than fancy forms of roulette wheels and were certainly nothing to base an economy on.
Thank you again!
Thanks to you too! I've found other good articles who should be the answer to you questions: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10495
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10546
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10544
And by the way, the Massmedia is paid by the shareholders of huge companies, so not everything we see on the TV, or read in the "normal" Newspaper is trustfully;-)
Thank you very much - this is a great site! I really do think that if someone has the nerve to finally write this up - the links with Goldman Sachs, Citi, Rubin, Paulson, etc., in connection with the high mucky mucks in both parties, we will be looking at the Teapot-Dome of the 21st Century. But no one will do it before the election because I think Rubin may wind up being a more toxic assoc. of Obama than Ayres ever was, and the "liberal", even "progressive" media won't do anything that could seriously upset Obama's apple cart. I also think that the Rep won't raise this issue because they're in it just as deeply.
This gets more interesting all the time!
.
" What did you learn today?
Did you learn how to believe? or..
Did you learn how to think?"
~ Seventeen Traditions ~ by Ralph Nader
.
Hard to imagine America without Nader -- we'd be missing most of what
we know of politics.
And he will always point us back to what it is good in our past and what
was foul.
If you want a clear understanding of where we were, what went on, where
we are at present and where we should and shouldn't go --- it's NADER!
No one knows the corruption of our government/democracy like Nader knows
it -- no one has warned us as he has -- and he's still warning us!
Love ya, Ralph!
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Amen! Wish I could state such ideas as well as you with so few words.
PS - does anyone suppose that Chomsky reads any of our responses to his stuff?
Chomsky always says the same thing.
There are some great talking points in this article. If "Thomas More" "always" reads Chomsky, why isn't he passing on these kinds of important talking points in his many posts at Common Dreams? There is little awareness in society of what Chomksy says as we head for this very important election.
What have you learned?
.But repetition is not the same as wrong....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The most understandable explanations that I have run into so far as to what is going on with the economy is coming from NPR's This American Life. It is time to start learning exactly what the problems are that we are facing so that we can take the discussion to another more practical level, and TAL is doing it. Credit Default Swaps, Commercial Paper, etc., gambling habits disguised as the American Way with the good Christians of the right holding hand over heart all the way or at least since Reagan replaced Jesus, for all intents and purposes, with Money.
Absolutely the TAL entitled #335 "the global pool of money" is the ONLY article or news program that traced the whole chain of economic predators from individual slipshod predatory loans to the "global pool" money available from all over the world and traced with humor and style to boot. The follow up from last week #365 Another frightening show about the economy is a good followup to #335.
Ok, what the heck, this is as good a place as any to post a version of something I wrote a couple of days ago and am intending to include with candidate flyers I will be going door to door with.
Oct. '08
-------------------------------------------------"He Can't Win"--------------------------
The biggest threat to our democracy and our way of life today are those three words. Bigger than terrorism? Bigger than losing our homes, our jobs, our healthcare, our education? Yes, for the very simple reason that once we believe these three words we will refuse to even consider, let alone support, the candidates for office that may well have, not simply the best, but perhaps the only, solutions to all of these threats.
I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard someone who, after having heard so called "minor" candidates said, "Yes I agree with this person, I would like to vote for him, but I won't because HE CAN'T WIN". But I don't have those nickels and neither do they or they would be able to buy all the "air time" they needed so that no one could say the other thing I hear so often, "Who's he, I never heard of him?" And they don't have those nickels for the simple reason that the people like you and me that these candidates represent are running out of them and have to spend them on other things like food, clothing, housing, education and healthcare.
I have been around long enough to have seen how far down both "major" parties have brought us, and, although I am a "registered" member of one of them, try as I might I cannot believe in their candidates anymore. This country was founded on principles not parties, on ideas not ideology. When the parties have abandoned their principles and their ideology trumps our ideas, in short, when they have abandoned us, it's time to abandon them.
There was a time the "law of nature" was perverted in order to physically subjugate one group of human beings to another based on the color of one's skin. Now it is the "law of markets" that is being perverted to financially subjugate an even bigger group of all colors to another much smaller one based on the size of one's purse. But the end result of both perversions is the very real loss not only of freedom but of the ability to make our and our children's lives better.
And the way this travesty is being foisted upon us is very simple - just convince folks that "there is no alternative" and that anyone who suggests there is "can't win". Astonishing, isn't it, that such a simple idea can be so destructive. Amazing that we can be so easily convinced to not "spoil" the chances of either of the "major" parties that have both done so much in the last few decades to spoil OUR chances for a better life. Have our ideals become so shriveled that we use the ballot box, won for us by the blood, sweat and tears of so many, to vote, not for what we need and aspire to, but only for the table scraps the media tells us is the most we can hope for, or just to "beat the other guy"?
150 years ago we had to fight an actual war to free victims of that first perversion. This time we don't have to use guns, we CAN use the ballot box to reclaim that heritage and defy the establishment once again to free ourselves from that second perversion, but only if we truly understand that we can. It is time, past time, for us to do so. If we do not believe in the power of the ballot to achieve a revolution, then what is a democracy for?
And to remind yourself to "never doubt that a .... group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world ...", every time you hear or are tempted to think those three words of mass destruction, silently say a prayer of thanks for those men and women of the Revolution who refused to say, "I like Washington's ideas, he's right, but I won't support him because HE CANT WIN."
( I apologize if this not is not so very eloquent; I am not a professional writer. But I wrote it because I believe it and I would post it on every tree I could find (instead of at your door), but there aren't so many of those anymore, either..... )
Thank you for your eloquent presentation of the “HE CAN’T WIN” phenomenon. It is truly amazing to me that we live in a country where a free electoral system is in place, but where the population have been convinced by that simple argument to not use it. In another thread I mentioned how even if a third party or independent candidate does not actually win, scoring a reasonable percentage of the popular vote can be very valuable. For example, had Nader won more than 5% of the popular vote in the last election the Main Stream Media (MSM) would be unable to exclude him from the televised debates this time around. I really don’t understand what the obstacle is for people to vote for Nader. It can’t be his policies, because almost everyone who takes the trouble to read them agrees that they are much better than either of the two main party candidates. Perhaps you have explained the reason, but your answer frustrates me. Can such a simple three word phrase really cause so much damage to our democracy.
One thing is for sure, this voter will not voter for either McCain or Obama, because voting for either of them means “WE CAN’T WIN”.
But he didn't win more than 5percent. The people spoke. I don't like that he comes out every four years. I think his work on consumer problems has been great. I think he should have been included in the debates. I wouldn't vote for him and won't.
NTCartist
Even though you will not vote for Nader, I think the relevant point is that other people should be afforded the opportunity of hearing from him in the debates so that they can realize that there actually is an alternative to the two pro corporate and pro military candidates. In a true democracy, one should be allowed to vote for whomever one chooses even if that candidates actually turns out to be neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
OREZ ENO:
Thank you for your comment. Yes, that 3 word phrase can destroy the possibility of our using our own democracy to make the country we want, because if we believe it we will not consider anyone outside of the 2 "major" parties, and if those parties are both beholden to moneyed interests, as just about everyone agrees that they are, that belief locks out the possibility of change.
If Christ, or Buddha, or Ghandi - pick your revolutionary - showed up today and was saddled with the "can't win" label, as no doubt they would be, how far would they get? Frustrating? Yes, but my answer to that is to do what I tried to do here and that is to point out the devastating consequences of belief in that phrase, to suggest that the way out is to refuse to allow it to determine our choices and to give an example, the Revolution, of what is possible when you do. You cannot achieve what you cannot conceive, so the first step is to dismiss the demon of "can't win" with the phrase "get thee behind me, Satan", or perhaps "Rubbish" would do just as well, and proceed to rebuild our country with the same spirit with which it was founded.
I have no patience with the "can't win" philosophy, I know what can be accomplished when you refuse to allow it to determine your course. And, ironically, apparently the candidate for whose benefit this phrase is hung around Nader's neck, Obama, doesn't believe in it, either - isn't HIS slogan "Yes we can!"? Is he the only one entitled to use it?
Thank you, again.
(P.S Does your name suggest you are a DaVinci devotee?)
Are you mixing radicals, direct action and political parties? Nader is no Gandhi, Christ or Buddha. Would you explain your "PS Does your name suggest you are a DaVinci devotee"?.
Nope, I never claimed to be comparing Nader with Buddha, etc. The point I am trying to make is that the "can't win" argument as a determinant of whom we we will support has taken such a powerful hold of American psyches that even these figures I have mentioned, if the powers that be attached the "can't win" label to them, would be rejected. It IS the 800 lb gorilla in the room of progressive politics, which politics will get nowhere, no matter how good the ideas nor how worthy the candidates, until folks realize how dangerous and debilitating it is and consciously refuse to allow it credence.
"Can't win" is a weapon of mass destruction designed specifically to eliminate an opponent without ever having to engage him/her or his/her ideas. It is absurd on its face, which is why it astonishes me that it has been so effective. Anyone who meets the constitutional requirements for office and is on the ballot CAN WIN. Whether or not the person WILL win depends on how many people vote for him/her. In America, apparently, people don't use their ballot to vote for what they want but only to choose between those who the media says "can win". If the media says a candidate "can't win" (an absurdity as pointed out above), then people remove him/her as an option even when they would WANT them to win. It is quite ridiculous and would be downright amusing if its effects weren't so devastating.
Using the Amer. Rev. as an example, I am quite sure there were the equivalent of our contemporary lesser evilists who argued that their only "viable" choice was to petition the Brits for a kinder, gentler governor than to support those pesky patriots, who, after all, "couldn't win" and, if supported, might result in a much meaner fellow being appointed governor. If enough of those who were otherwise sympathetic to Washington's cause had been so persuaded, there would have been no Rev. and perhaps no USA. (And I'm sure folks pointed out that Washington was no Christ, either)
Another example might be that of those who cautioned Thurgood Marshall NOT to argue that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional. They were willing to accept separate school systems as long as they were equal and were afraid that going for the whole enchilada was too risky. I'll bet they told him, "Look, Thurgood, you know you CAN'T WIN this, don't risk the crumbs we COULD get." If Marshall had listened, there would have been no Brown v. Board of Education decision as we know it. (And I'm sure Marshall never claimed to be Christ, either)
I'm sure many of you out there can think of historical figures who never would have achieved what they did, for themselves or others, if their actions had been determined by accepting "can't win".
Try this as an experiment. Ask yourself or others who you/they would WANT to win. Then ask them who they will vote for and, if the answer is different, ask yourself/them why. When you count the number of times the "can't win" reason comes up you will understand why this phrase is so destructive. I suggest that it is the AIDS of democracy; it destroys it's immunity to the political diseases of our day.
Before you dismiss this as hyperbole, think about it. Are you one of those infected by the "can't win" virus? If so, think about how it diminishes your political health. Please, suspend your disbelief just long enough to honestly take a look. How many times would you have voted for what you really wanted or needed if "can't win" had not intervened? All of those times were lost opportunities - for all of us.
I really do wish I could get folks to understand how subversive of democracy this phrase is ....
Perhaps the older generation remembers that song (name?) one of which verses was "Once there was a little ole ram, thought he'd punch a hole in a dam ......" Perhaps it's time for progressives to adopt that as their theme song, it does have a catchy tune.
Look, if you don't like Nader's positions, O.K., that's fine. My only argument is, don't reject him simply because the "common wisdom" is that he "can't win".
- mirror writing? -
Running a third-party candidacy is not the same as fighting a revolution. Had Washington lost, he & the Congress would have been all hung as rebels to the crown. In the past century, the duopoly in Washington was changed over the course of the years to make third-party building itself an impossibility. Any success of a third party can only come at the expense of one of the two. Rove & Cheney & friends were out to extinguish all opposition in the US forever. A two-party system can not be reformed into a multiparty one; it can only collapse or be abolished. The question is, who will be in the field when it collapses?
Precisely! If Washington's supporters had such poor prospects of winning, and would be hung if they lost to boot, how can we, as their purported heirs, be so easily intimidated into not even VOTING our principles!
I don't really care how many parties there are as long as SOMEBODY stands up for us and how can we expect anybody to stand up for us when we won't even VOTE for them when they do!
Chomsky is correct, we have one party in Congress,with very few exceptions,made up of attorneys for big,corporate, businesses.The last crooked, bailout where the opposition of the American public, was running as high as 100:1 should convince even the most naive of the truth that the average American does not matter. Vote third party.
Gawd, it's always the same tired ignorant rants on here commenting on every story. You know who you are. Every story. You are all experts on every topic. Why the hell don't you shut the fuck up and go back to your trailers and vote for McCain or Nader or whoever and leave the intellectual discussion to people with a clue.
Of course Common Dreams leans left everyone knows it, if that bothers you go somewhere else. And if you haven't read Chomsky before you might like to notice he too leans left as does Howard Zinn and most people who have a brain.
It would be great if we had a third party to vote for but the third parties don't have a chance in a national election today. If they were to build a grass-roots following at the local level and get people's attention maybe they would have a chance but as it is no. I think they should definitely be part of the debates so the candidates have to at least consider their ideas.
Your argument would work better, for me, if you left out the "f" word and "go back to your trailer". It's obvious why. And the "brain" thing. Don't reward bad behavior. And lots of folks live in trailers, a money thing,yes?
Yes, I do know who I am. Well, I guess the reason I keep posting the same rant for almost every article is because people like you keep repeating the same defeatist attitude that independent candidates cannot win and therefore voting for them is a waste. I counter constant repetition of your undemocratic opinion with more repetition my own democratic opinion. Besides, every day new readers discover this site, readers who need to see that there are many people in this country who reject the idea of a two party system, and most importantly that it is not un-American to vote in that manner.
So I continue to repeat, “Be smart. Vote independent.”
By voting for McCain or Obama “WE CAN’T WIN”.
Don’t believe those who aspire to the two party system. They are the ones who have put us in the mess that we are in.
! Sorry, double post.
OK, here's the problem. All you folks out there who use the "can't win" argument on the national level and want to see "local" 3rd parties built first don't seem to realize the collateral damage of the "can't win" argument.
I am supporting a 3rd Party candidate for Congress in upstate NY (NY CD25) in an open (no incumbent) race. Now, granted, Congress is not a "local" office, per se. It is for a particular state region, but it's not even a statewide, let alone national, position. This candidate has been working his buns off for YEARS (he is credited with being one of the founders of the Green party in the US) in political races at ALL levels. This is the first time I have been involved in his campaign. There were a number of debates scheduled, one of which is being sponsored by Syracuse Univ, Maxwell School of Citizenship. Initially they refused to include this candidate in their debate because "he didn't have a chance of winning". This is a school of CITIZENSHIP, for Pete's sake! After pressure from other faculty, etc. they are allowing him in.
I have attended a couple of fora/debates he has participated in and it is so disheartening when I keep hearing folks who say, "You know, I really like him and would like to vote for him, but I won't because HE CAN'T WIN."
So please, all you folks who want people to start at the local level first, tell me at what level where Dems and Reps have ruled the roost forever, can a 3rd Party candidate be free of the "He can't win" curse you are placing and perpetuating here and in so many other places. I hope it gives you consolation to know that this phrase may be the biggest enemy of progressive politics on the planet!
Seems that you believe there is a positive correlation between trailer dwellers and Nader supporters. Please elaborate, so we can continue this "intellectual discussion" of yours.
I'll start if off for you: What makes a trailer dweller incapable of "intellectual discussion?"
hoosierhick displays the fascist tendencies and lack of tolerance that so typifies the Republicans. She insults us because she doesn't agree with our point of view. Modern day Democrats are slightly left of center intolerant Republicans that prefer D over R and blue over red.
On the fundamentals, war, Wall Street bailouts, transfers of wealth upwards, lack of social programs that help people and the squandering of our national wealth for the benefit of the already obscenely rich both parties agree and by supporting them so do hoosiers.
People like hoosierchick would be welcomed in states like North Korea where she could sit on a censureship committee and decide which pro-government comments were state-sanctioned and which would be censured. After that a McCarthy-ite lynch mob could go after the offenders and teach them a lesson.
Very enlightened thinking hoosierchick. People like you, status quo, conventional, stay-the-course, in-the-box "thinkers" applaud the narrow-thinking band allowable discourse that is Obama/McCain 08. Both pro-war, pro-corprate and pro Big Oil. Let's talk about Wright, how many houses McCain has, lipstick and Arabs. Smart.
While we're at it, let's keep 3rd parties out of the "debates" right hoosierchick?
I am in the Hoosier Hick's camp. Sure I'd love to have a third party All Green and stuff that would say no to big business, a Sierra Club candidate who is a tree hugger par excellance. This is a luxury that we simply do not have. I love to dream, but I am awake and not dreaming as I post comments. To say that there is NO difference between R and D is simply intellectually dishonest. We have a chance to turn away from the ugly Republicans at their worst AKA- GWB and his evil cronies. I am voting early in CO and it will be for Obama. Mock me if you wish.
PS- I am from IN and graduated from Purdue with a BS in Genetic Biology- Now living in Colorado. Although it has the highest average elevation of any of the 50 states- No I can not see Russia from here!!
Let’s see.
The Democratic President Johnson lied about the Bay of Tonkin incident in order to get congress to authorize the Vietnam War, which resulted in a military defeat at a cost of over 50,000 American and 2,000,000 Vietnamese lives.
The Republican President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and responsibility for the 9/11 disaster to get congress to authorize the Iraq War, which will result in defeat at a cost so far of over 4,000 American and 1,000,000 Iraqi lives.
Sounds the same to me.
wow hoosierhick yous really winning me ov-ah hee-yah.
You know, hoosierhick may just be a simple-minded rube with an attitude, but... come to think of it, there's really nothing else to add to this sentence.
You sound like the most ignorant of them all. Lesser Evilists are the most stupid kind, you know.
Chomsky couldn't have put it clearer: "The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party."
Like I said in an early comment, he should have put the end of the concept first because comments like yours were predictable. You left out Chomsky's next part.
The last part doesn't really change the first, that's why I left it out. The crumbs that Democrats give the middle class and working poor are *not* reason to vote for them. This is not real progress, except for Dem Party Apologists and Lesser Evilists, the dumbest people on Earth.
In reality, the US national income has greatly decreased from the 1950, with Democrats alternating the power charade with Republicans, so they have both worked against American workers and in favor of their slavers.
Chomsky also quoted that middle class income has grown twice as fast under democrats during the last 6 decades and 6 times as fast for the working poor.
I think most people who read progressive sites like CD understand that we are ruled by the one "business party" for the most part, and voting democrat isn't going to change this. But what is the best strategy right now? Is it stupid to at least want to move away from having a total neocon puppet idiot like Bush in office? And what good will voting for a third party do? Not that I'm opposed to the idealism and work for real change. But until we have something like instant run-off voting or a major change in our political system it won't make a difference.
It seems progressives can make insights all they want, but until a large majority of US citizens can simply get past the GOP's mindless patriotic and religous slogans not much will happen.
The crumbs that Democrats give the middle class and working poor are *not* reason to vote for them. In reality, Chomsky forgets that the US national income has greatly decreased from the 1950s, with Democrats alternating the power charade with Republicans, so they have both worked against American workers and in favor of their slavers.
Democrats in power are *not* real progress, they've been part of the problem.
Progressive third parties will have a tough time as long as they are labeled "socialist" by the establishment. That's a scare word as much as "communist" was in the fifties. Also "raise taxes" is another scare phrase the business party uses against true progressive forces. Until we can counter that, third parties will have a tough time.
The New Deal's successes lasted until the Clinton years. Robert Rubin was one of those responsible for the Clinton era shift in Democratic Party values. Rubin is now a top adviser to Obama. I was around during the Johnson years. Bad war but at least he didn't dump on the poor and middle classes like today's new-Democrats. Current Dems are pretty much the same as the Republicans - it's definitely a one party system.
I'd like Chomsky to elaborate on this. He must know, all the benefits were before Clinton, not after.
The Rubin/Bill Clinton pro-Wall St. ideology is called neo-liberalism, and the wing of the Democratic party that ushered it in was the Democratic Leadership Council (the DLC). They, along with Republican Phil Gramm and a Republican Congress, deregulated Wall St. (a prominent example was the repealing of the Glass-Steagall act, which had put a firewall between commercial and investment banks during the New Deal) in the late 90s.
Unfortunately (and tellingly) Rubin is now a chief economic advisor to Obama. But I'll still vote for him over McCain.
We're at the point where a respectable, mainstream newspaper (The Guardian) is quoting Gramsci and Lenin:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/29/uselections2008.useconomy1
Interesting.
The jackboot jerkoffs think the Guardian IS a communist paper. Or they would if they read it. I'm sure Governor Moosekiller has it on her desk every day with all the other ones.
I wish that Chomsky had included some information on non-statist alternatives to state-capitalism and state-socialism, such as workers cooperatives. Readers might like to consult the Counter-Economics section of the Smygo list's Links section for examples (link below). Many of these alternatives can be, and are, being implemented already.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
thanks, this is actually a good idea!
Avoid the two partys like the plague. They ARE the plague. Vote 3rd party!!!
snydly
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM IS NOT A STRAIGHT LINE WITH 2 ENDS---IT'S A BROKEN CIRCLE WITH THE ENDS CLOSER TO EACH OTHER THAN TO THE REPUBOCRAT MIDDLE. THERE IS OUR POWER, LAID OUT BEFORE US, IF ONLY WE WOULD DROP THE PET ISSUES EACH MARGINALIZED PARTY CLINGS TO. ALL ARE FOR THE END OF EMPIRE AND CORPORATISM, BALANCED BUDGET, CONSTITUTION AND A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY, REASONABLE HEALTH CARE AND STEWARDSHIP OF THE PLANET.
WE CONTROL 60-70% OF THE VOTES IN THIS COUNTRY (IF NOT THE ENTIRE WORLD).
LET'S GET OFF OUR ASSES AND DO IT! RON, DENNIS, THE CINDYS, RALPH AND ALL THE REST, NOT NECESSARILY IN THAT ORDER BUT ALL TOGETHER, MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT...
THERE WOULD BE DANCING IN THE STREETS.
snydly-Well said. I personally intend to vote for whomever is deemed the winner of the third party debates being organized by Ron Paul. Even if it's Barr, whom I detest, I'll vote for him in hopes that everyone else gets the message. Look for details at ThirdPartyTicket.com
National Initiative for Democracy: Creating a Government BY THE PEOPLE
ni4d.us
Barr would be a horrible 3rd party choice. There are MANY better than that rat.
iowablackbird -
your reposte is gooder still...
me too got my lawn sign and bumper sticker
Good article, my first comment, seeing where it goes.
welcome wildcat2009, hope you like the progressive news- you will find it here, typically headlines & articles are updated daily by 1000am. I like the CommonDreams.org handy lists of hyperlinks, into breaking news, authors, government, & the world via the internet. Click on your account, and check your 'tracks', it makes it easy to see your posted history.
wild;)
If Chomsky is verified to be a hypocrite in his personal financial conduct [vs. the System changes he publicly advocates], it will mark him for me as a visionary who's less personally integrated than, for example, a Gandhi; but not, therefore, necessarily wrong in his public observations and critiques of the wretchedly-corrupt, humanity-killing US System .
Chomsky still lucidly analyizes, more so than almost any other commentator, the consequences for human economic and social life of pseudo democracy: pseudo-democracy being, in crucial ways, far worse than outright, in-your-face tryanny.
His piece above is, as usual, an honest & insighful summary of the generally unexamined contradictions that bedevil us - especially as standard analysis tends to confuse economic models with political models.
Except for his concluding/lamenting mention of the globally abandoned gold standard for national currencies, in which (as I understood him) he was advocating a return to such, Chomsky continues to makes good sense.
But Chomsky surely must know that, until there is a unified World Government or a Global Economic Authority, gold or any other naturally-precious substance, will predictably be hoarded and/or have its international value speculatively manipulated by one or another individuals or nations -- and is therefore ultimately useless as a 'fixed backing' for any national or international currency valuation.
What was Noam thinking on this point, I wonder? Or did I misunderstand him?
logos.nine, good post....
"What was Noam thinking on this point, I wonder? Or did I misunderstand him?"
chomsky didn't say, he only outlined the necessity of creating of the bretton woods institutions after ww2.
the implications of the current crisis are global and the political/economic solutions to these problems will entail participation from recently developed countries.
the resources from china could be used to address the vacuous holes in our spread sheets, if the chinese government - releases dollars from their reserves to shore up economic problems that originated in the US, isn't it reasonable that china will want chinese representation at the traditional bretton woods institutions (wld bank/imf) or at whatever table replaces these institutions.
it's absurd to continue to ignore china, russia, brazil and india's relationships w/ the traditional global economic powers. the economic crisis is undermining any US economic leadership/legitimacy in the future.
--------------
'Crisis marks out a new geopolitical order', Financial Times, 10/09/08, By Philip Stephens.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0ed4a750-961e-11dd-9dce-000077b07658.html
{Yet the rich nations have yet to face up properly to the implications. They can imagine sharing power, but they assume the bargain will be struck on their terms: that the emerging nations will be absorbed – at a pace, mind you, of the west’s choosing – into familiar international forums and institutions.
When American and European diplomats talk about the rising powers becoming responsible stakeholders in the global system, what they really mean is that China, India and the rest must not be allowed to challenge existing standards and norms.
This is the frame of mind that sees the Benelux countries still holding a bigger share than China of the votes at the IMF; and the Group of Seven leading industrialised nations presuming this weekend that it remains the right forum to redesign the global financial system.
I have no inhibitions about promoting the values of the west – of preaching the virtues of the rule of law, pluralist politics and fundamental human rights. Nor of asserting that, for all the financial storms, a liberal market system is the worst option except for all the others. The case for global rules – that open markets need multilateral governance – could not have been made more forcefully than by the present crisis.
Yet the big lesson is that the west can no longer assume the global order will be remade in its own image. For more than two centuries, the US and Europe have exercised an effortless economic, political and cultural hegemony. That era is ending.}
-------------
Michael Hudson interviewed on dem now...
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/10/bush_to_host_emergency_finance_meeting
{And this has created such a mistrust abroad that Europeans and Asians and OPEC country investors are simply pulling their money out of the US, because they don’t have a clue as to the solvency of the banks. We’re seeing the end result of the Alan Greenspan deregulatory revolution, where he said markets are all self-regulating. Right now, you’re seeing the markets self-regulate themselves. And the result is a wipeout of the American pyramiding.}
--------------
what happens to the global economy when the US dollar is worthless? will the world adopt the yuan or the euro as the reserve currency or will some agreement/understanding replace the sovereignty of the federal reserve's responsibility to determine US monetary policy (say determining interest rates). the g7 are meeting behind closed doors and will determine how our banking system will be restructured. it seems unrealistic that the central banks would rescue the speculators w/out direct control of the assets.
why should americans be immune from the same restrictions that we (american institutions) imposed upon others through the imf/wld bnk ?, structural adjustments and severe austerity programs.
who will lift us from our crisis, who will demand their pound of flesh?
...peace..
There are a couple of agreements already signed, or at least being negotiated, on a primary resource, by China, and most of Asia, with the Middle East and South American countries. These agreements leave the U.S. out of the loop. The resource is obvious. If Iran has an agreement in place with China for its oil, while the U.S. is left out, who will the U.S. pressure? Hardly China. So what you are seeing is the U.S. preparing a premptive on Iran for lack of that agreement including the crybaby across the Atlantic who sucks up most of the worlds fossil fuels with no global policy to minimize its own monstrous contribution. Less of course those feeble carbon trades for corporate benefit, but no one else.
If fuel resources determine viability of an industrial country, what evidence is there that the U.S. is now nothing more than a fast food restaurant, a few light industries, arms suppliers and 300 million psychopaths allowing bigger, richer psychopaths to deny them what their own Constitution supposedly prevents? The world owns us. Get it?
The fact there are not 20 million Chinese soldiers standing in front of all the banks and all of Wall Street is not evidence to the contrary. They are paying ours to do it for them. You cannot see the threat, like you cannot see the crimes of Bush. Or at least not the smoking gun.
But don't worry. Just keep shopping. At that 99 cent store. There won't be credit for that POS Humvee or Caddie, let alone for a Prius.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
From the article:"In a functioning democratic society, a political campaign would address such fundamental issues, looking into root causes and cures, and proposing the means by which people suffering the consequences can take effective control."
The author makes common sense assertion- then forgot to mention The Independent campaigner that does just that. There really is more than just the existing duplopity.
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008!
Nader/Gonzalez 2008 is the only candidate advocating the end of Corporate personhood. ( a fundamental cure )
Nader/Gonzalez 2008 is the only candidate that says NO to 700b swindle. ( and related nonsense )
Nader/Gonzalez 2008 is the only candidate that addresses grass roots responsiblity society. ( stumping FOR 'congressional birdwatchers')
wild;)
Yes. I am afraid, Yes!
We will be the first rounded up and hanged.
I saw a right wing blog - just surfing a bit one day - and I saw comments just like that. "If we lose this war, supporters of the left wing should be gathered up and hung!" Not exact quote but close.
It was an 850 billion dollar bailout--w/ the ridiculous tax cuts thrown on top--and that is just the beginning of the biggest class warfare event in modern history.
Still, GO Nader!
Yeah! I'm voting Nader.
Obama out-hawked McCain! FCS!
It's time for a wake up! If McCAin loses because the Democrats can't win, that means we need alternatives. period.
In The Economic Consequences of the Peace, John Maynard Keynes wrote:
"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some." [...]
"Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."
Lenin should know. He profited immensely from his corruption of Marxist economics. Not to mention his preoccupation with murdering the educated elite, medical doctors lawyers, teachers, artists, politicians. And when he went to his deserved hell, Stalin had his day to the blood of an additional 23 million 'undesirables.' Meanwhile, he had Trotsky murdered in Mexico because he could not stand the threat of a less violent and murderous personage as head of state. Anything Lenin said has no bearing on a fucking thing, since he never had an original thought in his life.
If you want to quote Keynes, fine. Put it in context. After all, if it weren't for him Raygun and the rest would not have had anything to rebel against except their own Adam Smith, who, sad to say, was not a corporate psychopath.
Provide a source for your (vague) claim that Lenin "benefited immensely from...Marxist economics". First though, explain what the hell you are talking about. Then source it.
Look it up yourself.
LOL, you win the debate!
I am supposed to look up what the hell you meant with that uselessly vague smear?
good call!
Excellent analysis, though I disagree with his argument that voting for Obama is better than voting for Nader.
Look what we got when we voted for Clinton over Bush and Dole: Nafta, only one minimum wage increase (same as Bush!), media deregulation, bank deregulation which led directly to the current crisis, welfare deform (not reform), failure to take on corporate crime, illegal invasion of Yugoslavia---which caused the ethnic cleansing there, illegal bombings of four countries in one day!---to divert attention from Lewinsky, expansion of NATO---further escalating tensions with Russia, the screwing over of Pres. Aristide in Haiti, an absolutely abysmal environmental policy, increasing support for ridiculous standardized testing that paved the way for NCLB, failure to support organized labor in attempts to organize workers to raise wages, failure to support the widely popular single payer health care plan---instead pushing for a hard to understand HMO-corporate dominated plan that went down in flames, etc, etc, and on and on.
All stuff we were supposed to get if we voted for Bush I or Dole. We got it all anyway!
And Obama is even more corporate and more imperialistic than Clinton.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
Excellent analysis, though I disagree with his argument that voting for Obama is better than voting for Nader.
-agreed
sierra7
Its an unfortunate side effect and an enormous one that the only reason independents should think of Obama (Democrats) is the upcoming choices for possibly two supreme court justices.
Myself am a non-partisan voter in California. My reaction to all the years of deception from both major parties is, "a pox on both their politically criminal houses." That being said, I'm still not sure; I do know that after the president I will vote straight "alternative" parties.
I've chaired democrat groups for more than 4 years in the town where I live and I can't believe the lack of knowledge amongst the most "politically acute" about our sorbid foreign policies and of course the terrible record of treating its own citizens like trash before the corporate compactor.
Been following Chomsky, Herman, Zinn, and so many others for more than 50 years and you have to remember there's only so much space in an article such as this....read his books, and the others' also....William Blum...etc..
This economic crisis is criminal and many should be going to jail including the whole Bush half-wit administration....the job of de-reg started under Carter, mushroomed under steroids with Reagan and thru Bush 1 and this mentally defficient president and his "Chicago School (Boyz in the Wall Street Hood)of economics...those that raped the old Soviet Union under that US supported drunk, Boris Yeltsin......and now are principle economic or foreign policy advisors to both campaigns....
Like I said, a pox on both their houses.
Reasonable post but the "HOW ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT?" argument has been diluted with the way Dims always end up supporting the Republican choices. How about the vote on Chief Justice Roberts?
All 55 Republicans voted to confirm Roberts; 22 Democrats, including Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Patrick Leahy of Vermont, also voted to confirm Roberts, as did the one independent (Jim Jeffords). 22 Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, voted in opposition.
22 Democrats voted to confirm Bush's Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Democrats always vote with the Republicans to allow the confirmation of right wingers. I mean you have to go back more than 20 years (1987) to when they stopped Bork to cite examples of Democrats successfully standing up to Republicans. Nowadays a judge like Bork would be easily confirmed by Nancy Pelosi and Co.
Can we all agree Noam Chomski is a genius? One that is shut out of the MSM.
In a functioning democratic society, a political campaign would address such fundamental...
-that is a VERY important point. We no longer have a functioning democracy. Wake up DPAs. The sham we got going Obama/McCain is not democracy. It's a card game with marked cards. One where either way the PTB wins.
The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats. There are differences between them.
-Thank you!
That is inarguable to some extent, anyway.
The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats.
This is, without a doubt, the most important point of this article.
What does this mean?
Simple...VOTE 3rd Party!
When will any of you get it? Democracy, in all of its expression, is a sham and a charade to entertain us and blindsides us by implying that it empowers the people. Apologists for the system ("democratic" as it is) must see that society is not divided by political parties, but rather divided by the people who have and the people who don't have. Sorry to say, the only thing that will save us now, if anything can, is a complete reorganization of society and a complete re-distribution of the wealth.
May I suggest www.plp.org.
Agreed, and I liked the video on your website (I watched the whole thing), but I've gotta object to your equation of democracy with bourgeois parliamentarism, aka "representative" democracy + a liberal capitalist economy.
Democracy is my preferred political system, over anarchism or any other proposed alternative to the status quo, but real democracy is not possible in this country or this economy: only a "money democracy" is possible at the moment. And a money democracy is indeed what we have. The effects of money on the whole political process--not just through the elections, but through the media and the military-industrial complex too--must be erased before true political democracy can even be *tried*. The world has arguably not seen real democracy yet.
When the cannibalism begins it'll be raft of the frigate Medusa. Already.
"Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business," concluded America's leading 20th century social philosopher John Dewey, and will remain so as long as power resides in "business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda".
Dewey said this about 80 years ago, I'm guessing, maybe 50, maybe 95. Not sure, but he lived a long life and was writing throughout most of it. Point is, nothing's really changed in all that time. We're still a society wholly owned and controlled by Big Business, as we all know. Why we remain lashed to the wheel of fire that is capitalism, most of the rest of the world must surely be asking. All it gives us is endless wars and permanent economic insecurity, unless we're among the billionaire class who create all these problems. Hang 'em high. Bush has been their front man for 8 years, so put him and Cheney in the center of the long treeline of gallows. They all think they're gods. We need to show them what we think of them.
Two points: I only regret that Noam Chomsky put "there are differences" AFTER he said, "one party, the business party, with two branches:one Republican and one Democratic". Some people will stop too soon in their quoting of this great thinker.
Second: look where Chomsky had to have this published:Irish Times. I am grateful to CommonDreams for picking it up and republishing it.
Why does Common Dreams never post Chomsky articles except this one that offers a plug for the Demok party? It looks like Common Dreams is cherry-picking with an agenda to support the Demok party at the expense of the progressive left.
Agree --
And you can count on it that wherever this is a supposed liberal trail being
blazed, there will be an attempt to curtail it --
Common Dream is no different --- there is a watering down at work . . . .
slowly, gradually --- it is there.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Moe Seager to rtdrury, Readers,
The CD editor issued his own written appeal to Vote "Obama" some 10 days ago. So yes, it would be in CD's editorial interests to link the current crises, the totalitarian Bailout package in particular, linked to a last resort option, e.g. Obama. After the Obama appeal appeared, CD put up 2 lead opinion pieces, one from the S.F. Chronicle that was pure white liberal spin. The author noted that San Francisco, was early on and overwhelmingly "Planet Obama". The sophomore scribe gushed how near to the "fantasy"(sic) we've come to "Electing a black president", pride of America, prideful to the world. What the kid remissed, the Black San Franciscan population had decreased by nearly 40% over the past 20 years,as a consequence of real estate and commercial developers confiscating the 2 largest black communities, the lower Fillmore district-Western Reserve and the housing projects site, Hunter's Point. I have regularly visited san Francisco over the past 5 years, oberving first hand the urban removal policy of city hall administrations-commercial intersts. I got the point: San Francisco is to be maintained as one of America's showcase cities- if you can pay to live there, ranked consistantly with New York as the most expensive city. This is what is happening in New Orleans since Katrina accelerated the 10 year conspiracy of the city's white fathers and mothers,divine opportunities for fat cats to remove black cats. To my shock, in traditionally Beat, Jazz, bohemian North Beach, when I remarked on this calamity to fellow writers and artists, many replied, what are gonna do? Poets Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Jack Hirschman and then city controller, Matt Gonzalez,were a tireless trio campaigning to save blacks from urban removal. We organized a area solidarity days in support of Hunter's Point residents, netting some 40 odd supporters, most of whom from a Maoist party crying for revolution by sundown. At a fund raiser hosted by Gonzalez, he and Lawrence admitted to me they had lost the battle to the San Fran cool-if-you- got-the-dough-boys cartel.One frank wanna be over-the-hill hippie exclaiming,"Well, I look at it this way. With the blacks gone we have it a lot nicer". He then drew hard on his joint and went on with panhandling. Yeah, i thought CD struck journalism gold publishing the hack report from the yellow brick road.
The second CD article appearing the next day was logged as guest submission of CD. This was of a bleeding heart nature, extolling 50 ways he is your lover, Obama, or die under the distictly more fatal reign of McCain. It appeared the same evening that Robin Hood Barack signed onto the finaicial coup de l'argent, sealing our collective fates to perpetuity.
Chomsky, Gore Vidal,Noemi Wolf,Dennis Kucinnich me, you, even the little green men that talk to Shirley McClain the actress, we have it right: 1) the bailout is much more than state corporate welfare, it's an instrument of authoritarian control. Noemy Wolf reports that she was told by congressional members that Bush warned them in the second round ultimatum - "pass this bill tonight or I'll declare martial law on Monday". Me thinks the Bush man was dissin the 4th Amendment our Constitution. He meant it. The Kaiser had broken Constitutional law in the Patriot's Act, wresting executive command of the U.S. Army First Brigade. The brigade answerable to the president, not to congress. Obama and the Dems backed off their Constitutional grounds to arrest and impeach Bush and Cheyney last year, Obama in league with these confederates.
Tell me: If Obama is a celebrated Harvard Law school grad, how could he not know the implications of the Patriot's Act and the Bailout? Replete with the lobbyist Army First Brigade, privatized army of the Bush-Cheney putsch-ists? Perhaps my mind is dumbed down by too many Wolf Blitzer situation rooms featuring the star club regalia "the best political news team in television". Go howlin Wolf! In fairness to the Wolf, he's runnin with brother FOX, Clear Channel this if you can, Rupert the Morbid cartel and by 3 network designer brands, A,B,and C this? Now you don't.
This is why I took to reading CD. Truth Dig and Paris Calling on blogspot.com.
And now...
We continue battling our brains out over the "lesser of 2 evils" versus our intuitive and confirmed evidence for a vote for a third party candidate. We can register people to vote. Hope they don't get gassed, dog bit, arrested and tried for terrorism under the Patriot Act as they carry out Constitutionally guarenteed exercises in patriotic democracy.
Yo People, "Change we can believe in".
"Noemy [sic] Wolf reports that she was told by congressional members that Bush warned them in the second round ultimatum - 'pass this bill tonight or I'll declare martial law on Monday'."
Do you have a reference for this statement by Naomi Wolf?
You can watch the floor speech by Rep. Brad Sherman (D - California) for yourself where he talks about martial law.
I think Naomi Wolf has been misstating what Sherman said. Sherman did not say that Bush said he WOULD impose martial law if the Congress didn't pass the bailout bill.
If you listen carefully to his statement, and to be fair his statement was not overly clear, I think he was told that the financial crisis might quickly get so bad that martial law MIGHT need to be imposed. I did not interpret the statement to mean that "if you don't give me what I want, I WILL impose martial law."
The link is there for you to make your own interpretation. Without question, fear-mongering was the tactic. Whether that included a definitive threat that martial law would definitely be imposed remains open to question.
John, do you live in FL? I may know you, buddy.