Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLizard Brains
The blogosphere exploded on Tuesday with the rumor that President-Elect Barack Obama might ask Sen. Hillary Clinton to be our next secretary of state.
Immediately, pro- and anti-Hillary comments lit up the Web. Personally, I can't wait for her to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but in the meantime, welcome to the next eight (I hope) years, where fractious Democrats, liberals, progressives, libertarians and even a few conservatives -- opinionators each and every one of them -- create a cacophony of comment over every move Obama does or doesn't make.
This is why I'm bewildered by a comment made by conservative Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan last week. "There is joy to be had in being out of power," she said. "You don't have to defend stupid decisions anymore. You get to criticize with complete abandon."
What stupid decisions did you have to defend in your influential column, Peggy? Perhaps invading Iraq? If you thought that was dumb, why didn't you speak out before more than 4,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed, numberless people were wounded or displaced, and our national treasury was looted? What other wisdom did we miss from the woman Brian Williams nominated this year for a Pulitzer Prize?
But perhaps this illustrates one of the interesting differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals argue over almost everything. They're the ones who gave us the phrase, "circular firing squad."
But for the past eight years, conservatives have marched in lockstep to defend the indefensible. Just about everything that President Bush and his administration have done has been endlessly praised, defended and echoed. In fact, in their arrogance, Republicans have described Bush's actions -- to an increasingly skeptical populace -- as creating its own new reality.
I'm thinking of the unnamed Bush official who, in 2005, told reporter Ron Suskind, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Now that most of America has rejected Bush's version of reality, you have to ask, what were these people thinking?
Was it the lizard brain in action? That's the amygdala, an almond-sized part of the right side of the brain that generates fear and blocks out the logical left side of the brain. When presented with a life-threatening situation, the amygdala kicks into gear in the classic "flight or fight" mode. Reason becomes impossible and the subconscious looks for any nonverbal cue that communicates safety and security.
Since 9/11, the lizard brain of the white heterosexual male appears to have been in charge of the national psyche. Fear -- of terrorism, of "the other," of pointy-headed do-gooder liberals out to take your Bibles and guns away, of homosexuals and feminists and black people -- has been steering the ship of state. No questions allowed.
We like to think that this election was a triumph for the reality-based, multicultural community -- the people who didn't believe we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq and who suspected that cowboy capitalism might not advance the greater good.
Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN (formerly the New Democratic Network), recently described the fix the GOP is in right now.
"I really believe there is a strong argument to be made that the GOP is further from power, more discredited and more out of touch with the American people than any time since the days of FDR and Truman," he said. "The GOP's challenge isn't a moderate-conservative one, a North-South one, a black-white-brown one - it is a forward/backward one... Their government failed at a level that has done grave and lasting damage to their brand, and their leaders seem firmly grounded in an old politics that is simply no longer credible in this new day."
The GOP will have to completely reinvent itself, he said.
"They will have to develop a new argument that meets the emerging challenges of the new century head on; a new electoral map; a new coalition that at some point begins to accept our fast-growing, nonwhite population; and competency in a whole new set of media and tech tools. They will have to shed the exploitation of race that has been at the core of their domestic politics; shed their raging intolerance of people not like them; of their comfort with politics and theater over governing; of the binary simplicity of the Cold War and the limitations of free market fundamentalism... This task is a big and complex one, harder perhaps than anything the right has had to do since the founding of the National Review in 1955."
Or, at the very least, can we hope that instead of finding new leaders who will tell them what to think, Republicans will start thinking independently again? There's a great new conversation going on, and their voices would be welcome.
Yes, there will always be people out to get us. But give the old lizard brain a rest.
61 Comments so far
Show Allfools for letting that Mena Coke Biz bilarybushcheaney in as anything to do with this new man's cabinet
judge, are you kidding?
only if she renounces what her hubby was into in Mena, and at Bohemian grove
and still with Carlyle group
and I think maybe not, as Mr Ricardson is the ONLY logical choice,
1. as the 'legal' hispanic vote greatly contributed to his win
2. he will not piss of the rest of the world, as they know her 'mess in Mena'
and the new guy ....seems......logical
si el es tanto stupido a poner este bitcha alla, entonces
Viva La Revolucion
because then he will demonstrate he is same as them
Viva El Frente/Verde
http://hodad26-senorpescado.blogspot.com
What is it about HC & her supporters? Even JM here sounds like she's got that "glaze" in her eyes.
HC is a psycho. A power-crazed woman that should have probably been born a man.Enemy fire? Remember that? The woman ain't right.
Obama should appoint her as ambassador to some little poe-dunk corner of the world where we don't have to see her again. (She can take Billy-Bob with her, too.)
Thomas More & Joe Hope -
I will begin to worry about the nature of "the lizard brain of black homosexual females" only when African American dykes come close to actually taking over control of any branch of the American government or our national economy.
As a white male who knows how to shoot but doesn't own a gun, feels comfortable with religion, loves women, and respects blacks and gays, it does not offend me in the least if the WASP masters of the universe who have been running things for the last eight ugly years find themselves getting ridiculed through the use of stereotype from time to time.
Collectively, the Bush regime and its public policies have, in fact, been warlike, religiously bigoted, intolerant, condescending towards women, racist, and rabidly homophobic.
If the shoe fits, why whine about it?
Why worry about the comfort level of somebody else's footwear, especially if they're not even crossing your path or causing inconvenience?
Bill from Saginaw
"We like to think that this election was a triumph for the reality-based, multicultural community"
And only a fool would think this. There is no multicultural community. Multiculturalism has proved to be exclusionary and devisive every time its reared its ugly head. It is by definition devisive.
My hope is that this writer has confused multiracialism which is our community and nation for multiculturalism.
So I can see that every time I log on to CD there will be post after post about how horrible Obama is and will be.
Here is my question.
How exactly do we get someone who is progressive, someone who is basically against almost every major way the country is run, from media, to war, crime & punishment, liberties, rights, capitalism, healthcare, jobs, education, etc... elected?
How exactly is Obama supposed to accomplish all the things we want him to, appoint all the people we want him to, pass all the laws we want him to, etc... when he is only one of many people in the Government.
It seems we would need most of the 535 members of congress to be progressive, also we would need most of our media outlets to be progressive, the CEO's of most major corps to be progressive, Judges and lawyers to be progressive, teachers to be progressive, most parents to be progressive, actually you need most of the country to be progressive for any of the things we complain about to get done.
We basically are saying that we know best and the rest of the country doesn't. Don't you see that the same thing they do to us and the rest of the world? The world doesn't revolve around us progressives. We have one way of thinking and they have another. The problem is, it is not possible for Obama even if he wanted to, to institute change on a massive scale by himself. I don't agree with his choices I don't agree with a lot of his policies. But I do know that if he tried to do any of things that we want him to do. He would get shutdown and he wouldn't be taking seriously. Just like Dennis Kucinich, Nader, and McKinney.
We have to change the entire country from the core and work our way up. How do we think by putting someone at the top they can some how change everything? It has to start local, we need more of the 535 to be progressive, not just a progressive President.
O Rei de Reis November 20th, 2008 12:00 pm wrote:
How exactly do we get someone who is progressive, someone who is basically against almost every major way the country is run, from media, to war, crime & punishment, liberties, rights, capitalism, healthcare, jobs, education, etc... elected?
We vote outside the two-party system. There is always at least one candidate that fits your description. This last time either Nader or McKinney would have made great presidents.
That's right. Just one little tick mark on the ballot will do it.
Spread the word.
"We basically are saying that we know best and the rest of the country doesn't. Don't you see that the same thing they do to us and the rest of the world? The world doesn't revolve around us progressives. We have one way of thinking and they have another."
You want us to dedicate equal time to "wrong" when the world can't wait?
But he can do some of them given a chance. Progressives are a small part of America and Obama must represent all of America, unless its a Bush of a different stripe that everyone wants, not fairness or real representation.
"Joe Hope November 19th, 2008 6:11 pm
"Since 9/11, the lizard brain of the white heterosexual male appears to have been in charge of the national psyche."
It''s totally okay to write sexist and racist comment about white males. White males are scum, right? CD has no problem with this, right?"
All these posts and no one has an answer for Joe Hope?
Tom, I hear what ur saying about jumping all over white guys but I can't stand it when people try to equate it with racism. Racism is the belief that an entire race is morally and intellectually superior to another race. Racism is bigotry plus power. And the undeniable, inarguable fact is that the race problem in America, is specifically, anti-black racism. That's not to say others haven't been discriminated against but there is a QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE difference between the racism experienced by black folks and that of every other ethnic/racial group in America. Period. Not even in the same ball park. So, while I agree that people ought to figure out a way to critique white-skin privilege w/o all that guilt stuff, it's simply intellectually and morally dishonest to equate spiteful and sometimes bigoted remarks made about white males with the depth of evil perpetuated against Americans of African-decent.
Good point, Thomas, such polarizing rhetoric does not get us anywhere. And many who deem themselves 'progressive' are all too glad to toss around derogatory labels, not considering that they may be as 'brain-washed' and racist/sexist as they accuse the 'right' of being. For example, if you are not in favor of the 'homosexual agenda,' you are labeled a 'homophobe' or anti-civil rights, or not in favor of illegal immigration--well, you fill in the blanks. This makes it near impossible to examine issues objectively when we have the propaganda machines (for or against) screaming at the top of their voices. Further, the elites and power brokers use these ongoing conflicts to deflect attention away from what they are doing, and especially keeping us from uniting for the good of the whole. Reacting to an issue with strong emotion makes clarity difficult, if not impossible, and stereotyping becomes all too easy.
As some have observed before, apparently what was wrong with our "dark past" was not that people were racist or sexist, but that they were racist and sexist against the wrong race and sex. Now the "enlightened" understand that only racism against whites and sexism against males is acceptable. Grouping people together to demonize them is so fun and so easy! Superficial appearance, and not behavior, is what determines the character, and the value, of the individual, right?
Yea, I am sure corporatists are hoping that Marcel keeps it up. The more division one sows between the races and even more so between the sexes the easier it is for the few to control the many.
To Joyce Marcel:
What a fine piece of writing you have turned out and the proof of that is the excellent discussion that it has engendered.
My response to both the article and discussion:
In very selective defense of "regressives" (that term is so much better than "conservative") their mistake is equivalent to driving down the highway of life by constantly looking in the rearview mirror.
Progressives are vulnerable to the exact opposite mistake of never looking back to learn from their own past mistakes in order to inform their future course. That to a large degree explains why (after 36 years of dominance in American politics) the U.S. fell out of love with progressives.
As Joni MItchell observed in her wonderful song "Circle Game":
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We're captive on the carousel of time
We can't return we can only look
Behind from where we came
And go round and round and round
In the circle game
Poet
Wow, and the circle goes round and round..........
Throughout Europe there is a sense of "Hope".....Everybody here thinks that Obama will have a hard time, but at least he is intelligent and has an understanding that the U.S. has a great influence in the World......Before the "Invasion", 85% of the Europeans were against the "Invasion" and thought the U.S was the greatest threat to World Peace.
Everyone has watched Obama go through the Clinton list for nominees and membership in the Council on Foreign Relations......So, we know that we are getting a Right of Center Government.....We also know that Al Gore had refused the Neo-Conservative requests to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and support their (PNAC).....
"The great thing about Democrats is their diversity. The bad thing about Democrats is their diversity."
Let´s try to focus on one issue at a time. The drain on the U.S. Budget has been an illegal and immoral war against a people who did nothing against the United States and had been victimized by a dictator for years......Bring the troops home now! 1.2 million dead is enough and bombing villages is "Mass Murder".
richardwb1
i think the term "lizard brain" as used here does a disservice to lizards.
Lizards mind their own business, and don't commit war crimes for fun and profit, as far as i can tell.
i prefer the term "reptilian-brained", as in predatory venomous snakes, to describe those two-legged mammals who delight in torture and murder.
Best Wishes,
World Peace.
Obama's alleged/disputed/refuted progressiveness aside, why do so many on the progressive/left in the U.S. ascribe omnipotence to the ruling elite?
Why isn't the U.S. progressive-left bigger?
Why doesn't the U.S. progressive left or whatever you wanna call it attract larger numbers?
From what l read in The Audacity of Hope BO is slightly left of Ayn Rand.
Cute but ridiculous. Listen, I don't think Obama is some closet radical progressive but slightly to the left of Ayn Rand? Can you say hyperbole?
Sorry to barge in here but I'd like to repeat something I posted on another article that I think will helps us get past this "true progressive" credential contest where only a few "real progressives" see the truth while all the rest of us are just Obama-kool-aid sippin' fools.
A few simple questions: what about the numbers? The cold-harsh reality is: there ain't enough of "us" to raise the social costs to the point where progressives can force "real change." And I'm not talking about polls that indicate most Americans actually agree with progressives on most major policy issues. I'm talking about committed ACTION; people willing to immerse themselves into and engage the project. At the moment, there's simply not enough of "us." And if you think about it, it makes sense. Why would some ordinary Joe want to join the progressive movement? Progressives speak in language that is mostly incomprehensible to ordinary folks, especially the downtrodden we say we care so much about. I don't know how to put this but the relative handful of progressive/leftists who "get it" are so far away from the uninitiated, as it were, that its seems impossible to envision how to even begin building the bridge from "here" to "there." And I'm a big fan of starting where people ARE. Not arguing with them until the magical, mystical day when they see the light and meet us over here, if you get my meaning.
Another question: if you had a button to destroy capitalism overnight would you push it, no matter the immediate, real-life consequences it would have in terms of literally crushing millions of the very people progressive/leftists claim to be fighting for?
Or to put the question another way: do you have to be a marxist or socialist or revolutionary anti-capitalist to be a true progressive? Is the litmus test really: thou must desire the utter and total overnight destruction of the current economic system to be considered a real progressive?
And finally (actually I have more but I'll stop after this), where the hell are "the masses" supposed to get the time or the resources to actually commit to the struggle?
Joyce Marcel writes, "Personally, I can't wait for her [Hillary Clinton] to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court"
That sounds like Lizard Brain thinking to me. But then again, the democratic party brain that compromises every core value that its supporters supposedly hold dear is one of the mysteries of life.
It may be a slightly different corporate elite that the democratic party supports, but the coming months will prove that they hold the general public the same place the republicans held them, out of sight and out of mind.
Anytime anyone who claims to be progressive and supports Hillary (or Bill), it is time to dismiss most of what they have to say. You can't dismiss everything because even a broken clock is right twice a day.
What progressive has Obama nominated for any position in the government? Talk about lizard brain.
Yakpsyche
This is quite a discussion. I can only say, as a psychologist, that the lizard brain is indeed at work. The television culture has successfully dummied down the populace making us open to whatever fears the leaders wish to implant. The fear card has been played and played, quite intentionally and quite effectively, it would seem, by some slick psychopaths who, in usual psychopathic style, have managed to make themselves look good and blame the other guy, while picking our collective pockets, big time.
We are in an era of politics as piracy, abetted by mass hypnosis through the media. The odds that the populace will rise up in rebellion are really slim, which is one reason why all these jolly Internet discussions can go on and on with no interference or censorship, which, you may recall, the Patriot Act clearly allows, in the interest of national security. There will be no revolution and they know that. When things get so bad that people want to rise up and rebel there will be a publicly identified scapegoat against whom these actions will be directed, giving the real culprits the chance to plunder further and tighten the noose even more. Not a very pleasing prospect, I'll admit. But, I don't know the answer. I hope some of the rest of you do.
Yakpsyche wrote:
There will be no revolution and they know that.
Yes, third party voting actually went down this last election. They have the population bamboozled (Obama's vocabulary) big time and they know it.
Yakpsyche wrote:
these jolly Internet discussions can go on and on with no interference or censorship
How true. Why would anyone bother censoring us. The chatter that occurs here is so outside the sphere of mental activity of most Americans that they need not fear it ever having any real influence. Besides, I'll bet even here most people voted for Obama. The two party system's stranglehold on the country is so complete that it inherently guarantees its own continuation. I wouldn't be surprised if our human genome is even evolving a "Two-Party Gene" that future generations will inheret, thus eliminating all possibility of any other form of government.
Maybe some day we'll get lucky and a giant comet or asteroid will strike North America. It worked to get rid of the dinasaurs. Maybe it'll work to get rid of the two-party system?
"which is one reason why all these jolly Internet discussions can go on and on with no interference or censorship"
Ha! No interference or censorship?!!? Welcome to CD, yak-soon-to-be-banned-psyche.
"Or, at the very least, can we hope that instead of finding new leaders who will tell them what to think, Republicans will start thinking independently again?"
What the heck are you talking about Joyce? After Lincoln and possibly Ike, when has a mob of fearful, superstitious, ignorant, racist, jingoist, reactionary, violent, murderous, immoral, antisocial and greedy conservatives ever had one independent thought?
Joyce Marcel writes "Since 9/11, the lizard brain of the white heterosexual male appears to have been in charge of the national psyche." A very apt observation.
However, I think this phenomenon was dominating much of America's domestic political discourse well before 9/11 - at least since World War II, I'd say.
Unconditional surrender. Fight or flight. Warrior or wimp. Better dead than red. Victory over the evil Soviet empire versus containment. Draw a line in the sand, or else retreat back into appeasement. Regime change or peaceful coexistence. In the name of law and order, we gotta crack down on the riff raff and take back the streets before it's too late.
The cataclysmic imagery of 9/11 surely did trigger existential threat perception in a lot of individual Americans' amygdalas. There's also little doubt that fear (and fear mongering) indeed was "steering the ship of state" on the Bush/Cheney watch for a couple of years after that traumatic event, "no questions allowed."
It's this last part of Marcel's metaphoric formulation that merits emphasis, for it casts a whole new light on the old phrase about what happens when a man starts thinking only with his little head.
The questions about 9/11 weren't allowed because all the answers were classified.
And so we fucked up collectively, big time.
That strikes me as a real good place to start, if we're serious about transcending the limits of our little lizard brains.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill, will you describe for me what the the lizard brain of the black homosexual female is?
Do they hate heterosexuals, men, and white people?
"Since 9/11, the lizard brain of the white heterosexual male appears to have been in charge of the national psyche."
It''s totally okay to write sexist and racist comment about white males. White males are scum, right? CD has no problem with this, right?
"Fear -- of terrorism, of "the other," of pointy-headed do-gooder liberals out to take your Bibles and guns away, of homosexuals and feminists and black people -- has been steering the ship of state."
All white males love guns and Bibles, and hate women, blacks, and gays. Great.
Well, I think they mean privileged, wealthy, white male plantation owners who kept slaves...you know, the 1 percent of all white males that the rest of us slackers are expected to be like.
Your point is well-taken (at least by me).
I'm not sure this has much to do with the article, but I was thinking about what we teach our young children in school: to share, not to hit, and that winning isn't everything (to name a few). Then we, collectively, do the exact polar opposite: enable the top few to hoard, bomb and kill and, in one way or another spit upon the poor 'losers' at the bottom of economic rung. Ironic when you think about it, isn't it?
Maybe in Kindergarten we teach kids not to hit and to share, but by junior high they're beginning to play competitive sports and schools have "pep assemblies" promoting "school spirit", thus beginning the Us vs. Them mentality, teaching that if you're not with us your against us. By high school, they've been ranked and filed, tested and numbered, named and placed. The jocks can hate the stoners who can hate the geeks and they can all hate the homosexuals. By the time they graduate they have already honed social exclusion to an art. Then they can go to Harvard or Yale and learn how to financially and politically screw everyone that they hate. Sorry to say it but I think our kids are doing exactly as they're taught, both in school and by example.
Yea, that makes one wonder just how many of the societally approved rules were designed for the children of the "middle-class losers" so that they would not become competitors of the children of the elites and would instead become docile sheep who do not complain too loudly, cause any real disruption, or even notice how the elites game the system. The "nice little people" enable the elites to hoard the resources, bully others, and corrupt the rules for their own purposes.
My gut feeling is that in any society of highly polarized wealth distribution there is no operative social contract and only a fool accepts the rules as they are.
The Repubs will come roaring back, no doubt, for several reasons.
Contrary to Dem talking points, pundit mumblings, and the accepted wisdom of the MSM, the Bush/Cheney regime was a massive, unparalled success, taken on Bush/Cheney terms. They got everything they wanted, from war to massive privatization of the commonwealth, to huge rewards for their cronies, all their Supreme Court and most of their federal bench nominees, NO Child Left Untested, the end of habeus corpus, the Military Commissions Act, immunity vs. all their scandals, the creation of the "unitary executive" ...should I go on? They continued to win even after the 06 Dem victories.
They are not unaware of the massive extent of their political victories. They'll come back to try to capitalize on all this and expand it.
Unlike the Dems, the Repubs view all this as life-or-death battle. Winning is the point and sharing the spoils is the reward. The Dems hide behind flannel-mouthed blatherings about "bi-partisanship" and "post-partisanship" and "crossing the aisle" to "solve problems". The Repubs know that the victory is won when the enemy's body stops twitching. The Dems pretend victory is won when both sides get a few symbolic morsels to throw to the crowd and the uninterrupted continuity of elite rule is once again perpetuated.
About 49% of the country voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin, two hapless clowns utterly unable to convey a coherent worldview, a program or even a single fully realized idea. These people are going nowhere and not surrendering one inch without a fight. Against this raging, incoherent mob of Know-nothings and their snarling mouthpieces, the Dems will fold like delicate posies on a hot summer afternoon, if past behavior is any indication.
The Dems will not defeat these people. Only if the rest of us are riled up and militant, engaged and unbending on principle will the Dems even try to hold the line. These people do not share an underlying belief that we are "all Americans" and all united in common cause, with polite differences over policy emphasis, social issues, etc.. These people think we are a menace to be permanently crushed. The Dems will never allow this to be discussed. Only outside pressure, as strong and unrelenting as what we are about to see from the Right, will work and even then nobody can know how well.
You have expressed your point here extremely well, JAReilly. Every time Bush or someone in his gang got up and said "we're winning in Iraq", I would think: somebody sure is.
Sioux Rose
JA REILLY: Unfortunately, everything you have articulated is all too true.
"I really believe there is a strong argument to be made that the GOP is further from power, more discredited and more out of touch with the American people than any time since the days of FDR and Truman".
I'm affraid we need to hear more of this "strong argument" before we can rest assured that the far right is that discredited. Blutodog is right, the Republicans still got 46% of the vote and they will be back for sure.
2008 does not represent a victory on the path to a progressive revolution. If this is where your hopes are then I think you should be prepared for disappointment.
The author has a great point that has been relatively neglected in the last days of Bush. That is that Republicans have swallowed W's party line with as much foresight as an auto industry executive. They completely ignored what would happen to the party when W turns into a pumpkin and they are out of power. If one chooses to rule as a dictator, he had better actually rule a dictatorship. Democracies have a way of changing administrations from time to time.
The GOP was able to return to power in relatively prompt fashion after Watergate because it eventually took the high ground and lead in ridding us of Nixon when the truth became known. It was Barry Goldwater and other leading Republicans that told Nixon he had to go now or risk destroying the party, making him an offer he could not refuse. Goldwater also indicated that a number of Republicans felt the same way and would not support him.
Today, despite all the flag waving and patriotic flatulence Republicans spew. They have been Republicans first and Americans second, at best. True, not all Republicans have spewed patriotic flatulence; many just stayed quiet and that my friends is the problem. One that may haunt them deservedly for some time.
Let's hope Obama learns this lesson,upholds his oath to the Constitution, and restores the rule of law. He can start by investigating W and his administration for crimes against the Constitution and humanity; and if guilty, prosecute the criminals to the full extent of the law. Otherwise, all of this insanity will repeat itself when the GOP "reforms" itself and returns to power.
Obama has said that he would look into the matter of Bush wrongdoings and that he would get back to us. If this is the same Obama, who up to election time, was not aware of anything "grave" enough in Bush's actions to warrant impeachment and the risk of being "divisive" to the country, then I'm not sure exactly what it is that you're hoping for. I suspect that a number of Obama's plans will not pass muster with the Constitution as well, and better not to rock the boat.
Nothing he does is good enough for you.
"Let's hope Obama learns this lesson, upholds his oath to the Constitution, and restores the rule of law."
He's already violated his oath as Senator, which is one reason why many of us didn't vote for him. It's already becoming clear that he's the "same as the old boss" and that millions were "fooled again."
Joyce Marcel:
I applaud your theory that American policies have been driven mostly by the reptilian section of people’s brains.
But then you say:
Now that most of America has rejected Bush's version of reality, you have to ask, what were these people thinking?
What makes you think that the last 8 years has been any different than all of American history? What makes you think that previous administrations (both Democrat and Republican) represent any different way of thinking than the last 8 years? What makes you think that putting the Democrats in power represents anything different? The democrats are responsible for just as many genocidal crimes against humanity as the republicans. Remember Vietnam? And the further back you go, the worse the atrocities get, some even on our own soil, as in slavery and genocidal annihilation of Native American societies. Throughout its history America has been a country built by the reptilian section of people’s brain.
It is too bad that you, Joyce Marcel, are only using the reptilian section of your brain in this article. It’s too bad that you don’t see that the opinion that everyone has rejected Bush’s version of reality is only a smoke screen. By bringing in a new bought-and-paid-for party, a new Manchurian President, and the same old group of corrupted individuals and calling it a “new administration, America is allowing the military industrial complex to continue in the same manner with its very same distorted version of reality that it has always operated under. Disgusting!
See you at the next American genocidal atrocity, most probably Afghanistan, but possibly Iran.
Sioux Rose
OREZ-ENO: As much as I like Ms. Marcel's writing, I have to agree with your 2nd to last paragraph. It truly is quite a spectacle to see the degree of TEAM WORSHIP, the pride, emotions and vitriol when about 90% of the time, their respective representatives VOTE for the same things?
It is particularly disappointing (to put it mildly) to see the old guard given new uniforms. Madeleine Albright? I'm amazed she can look in the mirror after that racist comment, "we think it's been worth it" with respect to the willfully passive slaughter (via cruel sanctions) against half a million Iraqi civilians. One of the only things that keeps me sane these days is a steady belief in the law of karma, and an understanding that Universal Justice DOES preside over this planet... the difficulty lies in the timing of its implementation.
Sioux Rose,
You have a very good way of putting it. TEAM WORSHIP. Yes, that does seem to capture the phenomenon, doesn’t it? It’s as if the government, through the media, is trying to make us all cheerleaders, hoping that our blind pride and enthusiasm will keep our minds off the corrupt reality of their actions.
In my experience their approach seems to work. Except for a few free thinkers here at CD, like yourself, everyone seems to be bamboozled (Obama’s vocabulary). My own family is against me. They whisper behind my back, “Grampa is too old. He’s senile. Don’t talk to him. He can’t understand what is going on in the world anyway.” Then they all sit at their dinner table (I’m not invited) and brag about how they are all changing the world by voting for Obama. Sometimes I completely lose my patience. I told my daughter that because she voted for Obama, she is increasing the likelihood that her own daughter may one day have to join the military, and possibly get killed. But she just dismisses me as an old fool. She says, “Of course not. Everyone knows that Obama is going to end the war. Why don’t you pay more attention to what’s going on instead of living in the past.”
I’ve raised a family of blind fools.
Sioux Rose
OREZ ENO: The new phenomena that mankind has only begun to struggle against is the fact that the MEDIA is a pervasive voice in every home. It deconstructs family values to substitute its own commercially preferred brands of behavior. I thought I raised daughters as open to the mystical/spiritual as I am, but there is a reflex often seen where children will rebel against their parents to mark their own "identity turf." My best friend says the apple never falls far from the tree. In my case, trying to prepare my daughters for this obvious DEPRESSION is like talking to a wall. Having seen my hippie chic ways, as they put it, they think Mom just doesn't like to spend $. She cuts her own hair, has no cell phone, nor cable TV, buys everything at consignment shops, goes for early bird dinner specials, etc. I made a choice a long time ago that I'd rather preserve my freedom to do my own thing and have less, than work for a corporation and have $, but no time to write or just BE. And the pull to nature is far too strong for me to abide a city.
It is NOT our fault that the younger generation finds its belief systems and mindsets configured to align with the 24/7 relay of messages from the commercialized mainstream media. Eventually the Truth shall set them free. Tragically, at this final phase of the Piscean Age, an Age that borrows from the symbol of Jesus crucified, we're all indeed wrestling with our own crosses to be borne.
You're trying to train your daughter to be too much of a luddite. I'm not saying let her be a pig but somewhere you got to balance it so that she at least sees the how and why of your newfound life style. In time, she'll learn from you. Give her a chance. Besides, we're in a country where frugal people are trashed at.
I don't understand some of your abstract comments you're making at times. You need to sound more like in layman's terms.
Lizard brains..humans always try to justify their own embarrassing failures as a species by knocking others who are must better at governing themselves.
ah humans, clowns of nature.
To Simon Rosenberg:
How dare you explain the current GOP's situation in these terms:
"having failed" and "done grave and lasting damge to their brand".
With all due resepct I find this a dispicable way to characterize the travesty and horror that was successfully accomplished by Bush Co. these last 8 years:
- thousands of American deaths, untold numbers of Iraqi deaths and refugees
- torture of all whom they hate or fear and with impunity
- looting of the U.S. treasury that continues unabated despite the outcries and demands of s stunning majority of U.S. citizens
- spying and a creeping technological police state in this nation
- executive powers and secrecy in the Oval Office to a degree that we have never seen before
- a spiraling military budget, funding useless programs like "Star Wars"
- censorship in the public commons (from our daily newspapers, to "Stop the War" T-shirt wearing teachers). Add to that a steady diet of military propaganda
I won't go on, at CD we can all recite a long list.
Point being, to use the language of commercial "branding" as if the GOP was merely a product sitting on s shelf or a company in need of an updated "look" is highly offensive.
Not to mention morally repugnant.
Sioux Rose
PENELOPE: Good points and I share your outrage; however, let us remember Andrew (greeting) Card referred to WAR as a PRODUCT you don't MARKET in a certain season. These are some really sick cookies running the big show, totally amoral, devoid of conscience, insatiable when it comes to their lust for money, and taken in sum, a true anti-Christ force. If Christ taught turning the other cheek, demonstrating compassion, recognizing SELF in OTHER, then every slogan designed to incite a belief in an enemy, and arm the naive to go so far as to slaughter persons on the basis of nonsensical fictions = the anti-Christ. How ironic then that the Prez behind these policies hid behind Jesus, as does Eric Prince and a plethora of despicable souls. Not that fundamentalist Muslims or Jews are blameless. When religion is used as a REASON to divide and bloodily conquer, it blasphemes any claim to Divine intention.
I really must reccommend this item as it talks about the whole marketing aspect of electioneering and other aspects of politics. We are truly in the Age of Orwell, but few understand just how deeply.
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality"
The abuse of hard drugs also creates your own reality, with similar results.
Where are all the Richard Pearls & Bill Krystols today? Does their own personal reality tell them that they are successful and admired, while they masturbate to their own reflection in a cracked mirror?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
I'm thinking of the unnamed Bush official who, in 2005, told reporter Ron Suskind, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Now that most of America has rejected Bush's version of reality, you have to ask, what were these people thinking?
The hyperarrogance of the Republicans is matched only by their hyperstupidity. "What were they thinking?" No reasonably sane, rational person can ever know because the Republicans' virulent stupidity is unfathomable.
Let's not start allowing ourselves too believe we just had some HUGE victory. The GOP still managed to get 46% of the vote 3 weeks ago. Consider that for a moment. 46% of the voters even after the collapse of the economy still voted for the regressive right. We have a lot of work too do and this is no time to be sitting on our laurels or bragging. It's bad form and it invites complacency and arrogance.
According to American University political scientist Curtis Gans,about 62% of 208.3 million eligible voters participated in the 2008 election. Therefore, Barack Obama's 66.9 million votes works out to about 32% of the voting-eligible American public. This is hardly '...most of America reject[ing] Bush's version of reality' as claimed by Marcel. If anything, numbers like this show a tremendous amount of works needs to be done, most effectively, I believe, at a community, face-to-face level.
That's about what I said Nov. 6 when most of the votes were in. There was no "landslide" for Obama. A massive landslide of spin, certainly. Street's item provides the reasoning why Obama can easilly become as vilified as Bush, and ought to be if he behaves as regressive as many now anticipate, and many predicted prior to the election.
"The GOP's challenge...it is a forward/backward one"
This is why I call for re-framing the political battlelines. Cease the 'left-right' dichotomy and use 'progressive-regressive'.
Conservatives may be 'right' but Regressives go backward.
If Republicans decide to move forward they will have to be progressive.
Historicly, your comment is funny as Republicans were the first "Progressives."
Conservative is defined as "opposing change." So how can a party which inherently opposes change, change? And, if they embrace change, then that would mean they were no longer conservative by definition.
No wonder so many of them are so damn crazy...
Sioux Rose
FRANK: You get the prize for word play analysis.
Liberals and progressives are every bit as crazy as conservatives, but in different ways. We are all just guessing our way through life, muddling through, as there are no algorithms for dealing with the problems of unbounded complexity we face every day. I just hope that this past election indicated that most US citizens have come to fear that conservatives, at least the neocon, corporatist, militarist kind, are crazy in more dangerous ways.
Sioux Rose
KIVALS, my friend, the human mind is an endless set of labyrinths. It is in the HEART that these answers may be found. Your logic is so charming, but it must at times drive the mathematician in you crazy. (I have similar debates with a borderline genius attorney who was a significant love in my past... recently orbiting back my way.)
"Is all that we see or seem, but a dream within a dream?"
E.A. Poe
Don't worry Sioux Rose. I know that every decision is ultimately to some degree a guess, and a guess that is informed by one's desires.