Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama’s Moment is Passing Quickly
The actions of Obama's Chief Financial Adviser Larry Summers and his Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner in permitting the payment of $165 million in bonuses to AIG executives (Summers, according to the Wall Street Journal, actually pressed Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CT, to secretly remove a bar to the payment of such bonuses from the bailout bill) and the storm of public outrage that has followed public disclosure of those payments, provides President Obama, whose administration is stumbling badly on many fronts, to turn things around and avoid political disaster.
He should promptly demand Geithner's and Summers' resignations, and should also fire the CEO of AIG, Edward Liddy (as 80% owner of AIG, the US has the power to do that anytime). It would also be a good idea at the same time to fire the CEOs of all the leading banks that are at this point surviving on government bailouts.
This would allow Obama to correct the fundamental mistake he made during the transition period following the November election in installing a bunch of Clinton-era economic advisors and Bush holdovers to be his economic team.
The US economy is in disastrous shape, and it is going to take new ideas, and people untarnished by the last 30 years of deregulatory excess and unsavory links to Wall Street, to rescue it. Obama has no shortage of good people to turn to: Nobel economist and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman, former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz and economist James Galbraith all spring immediately to mind as people who could offer new and better approaches to addressing both the immediate crisis and the longer-term challenge of restoring the health of the nation's economy, and of making it work for everyone, instead of just the wealthy few.
Of course, it could be that Obama is really not interested in radically changing the US economy, and its financial system. He has certainly accepted the tarnished coin of the Wall Street establishment during his campaign, and could simply be doing their bidding, but one has to operate on the hope that this is not the case. After all, the Obama campaign also raised an unprecedented amount of cash from ordinary folks, and if money is influence, he owes those little people big time.
In any event, it seems clear that if this president who spoke during his campaign of "hope and change" continues to cater to the bankers and the corporate interests that want to see no major revamping of the economic system and the regulatory apparatus, he is headed for a one-term presidency--and a sad and failed one at that.
The voters who sent Obama to Washington have been willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt, even when he made his almost uniformly lousy cabinet picks. They were willing to grant that he had been handed a disastrous situation by the last administration.
But as each week passes, the disaster becomes less Bush's and Cheney's, and more Obama's.
The same can be said of Obama's other big crisis: the two endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, Obama has largely retained and accepted the advice of the same people who helped run these huge policy disasters during the Bush/Cheney years, and is buying the basic assumptions of those two wars. He is most certainly not ending the Iraq conflict, and is now talking about leaving as many as 50,000 US troops in Iraq for years--as many as were in Vietnam in the fall of 1965. He is reportedly talking about doubling the number of troops in Afghanistan to over 60,000, and about expanding the war into Pakistan, and not just the tribal areas, but Baluchistan province, a heavily populated part of that country. This latter decision, which could lead to an explosion in Pakistan, and the collapse of the central government, could lead to an huge demand for more US troops in the area--perhaps hundreds of thousands more--and even to India's entry into the conflict.
This is as outrageous and doomed a strategy as is his economic program of trying to salvage the nation's zombie banks while nickel-and-diming a "stimulus" program for ordinary people.
He should seize the moment, shitcan his corrupt and inept economic team and sack his military advisers, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his Centcom commander David Petraeus, and bring in people who will tell him how to get the US out of both conflicts pronto.
If he fires and replaces his economic and military teams, and announces both a quick end to the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and the immediate break-up of the country's big failed national banks and financial institutions, he has a chance to become a great president. If he does not, it is as predictable as the rising of the seas that his presidency will be a failure. We are nearing a point where the American public is going to lose patience with the half measures, the continuing pouring of national treasure down the twin sinkholes of the failed financial institutions and the two endless wars in the Middle East, and the tone-deaf behavior of cabinet secretaries and advisors who don't have a clue about how average Americans are living these days.
This is President Obama's moment for action. Firing Geithner and Summers would be a good start.
Americans should make an effort to let President Obama know that they want more than token stimulus programs. (Just consider this: official unemployment is now 8.1 percent, but only 4.5% of American workers are able to collect unemployment benefits, and meanwhile, real unemployment is closer to 18 percent. That's a lot of hurt, and not a lot of help.)
A good idea would be to join a march
on the Pentagon set for this Saturday, March 21, (http://natassembly.org/
- Posted in
132 Comments so far
Show AllWouldn't hurt a thing if he could get rid of Bernanke as well. Obama is not left leaning on his economic policies, many hoped he would be as President, but we are still just hoping. Stiglitz, Krugman, Galbraith have always been the best choices, but they don't like the way Wall St. runs the world and Wall street doesn't like their sense of fairness and their belief that, as Jim Hightower would put it, "everyone does better when everyone does better".
Obviously, but the problem is that ego loves to feel 'superior,' even if it's an illusion. Additionally, people don't really want societal harmony because it's too 'boring,' whereas competition is much more exciting. How many thrill with pride, when in your mind you compare yourself with someone else you deem is doing 'worse,' or feel 'better,' saying, "at least I'm not doing THAT bad"? The problems we're seeing are a reflection of the 'majority psyche.' For things to change, we must first be honest with ourselves. Do you notice that it is always someone else who is at fault?
Sioux Rose
CHESSGAME: It's neither fair nor accurate to speak about people NOT wanting societal harmony given the vast array of conditioning agents pushing them into competitive mode, from elementary school tests and "ranks," to sports teams and "you're number 1!" chants, from a false take of American HIStory, to the premise that God smites enemies, and you'd better follow the straight and narrow or burn in hell. In other words, on this mental diet of shit that's been fed to just about every innocent mind born into this land (and a number of others), to speak about what human nature is or is not is a false notion. HARMONY has never been tried, except for in a few unique lands and time periods.
I know that much that is related tends to be a projection of the individual relating it. Is your ego asking for a tune-up?
My ego and your ego asks for--demands--the same thing, even if it comes in a different disguise, or is focused upon a different object. Ego only wants to glorify itself or, alternately, wallow in self-pity. Both sides of the coin--negative and positive--feed the purposes of ego equally well. I don't buy the conditioning argument (not saying that we are not heavily conditioned, though, as you point out) because that is often used as an excuse for continued bad behavior, and a refusal to change. Well, you say, I'm a product of this or that, and that's why I am the way I am: blame, blame, blame. That takes no effort at all.
Harmony has never been tried because the majority of psyches are inharmonious and do not WANT it in their undeveloped state (we lie to ourselves all the time, no?), and THAT'S what's being projected now in every corner of the world. And, yes, the the pop psychology of what human nature is, is indeed a false notion because it does not take into account the possibility of transcendent development in man.
Understandable because genuine sanity is so rare and of a spiritual nature. The darkness of human nature is easy to see if one self-observes, and is honest about what he or she sees (neither condemning nor justifying it, but just seeing what is). Look at the results of what society has begotten so far, how we treat one another, especially when we want something really bad, and that will reveal much.
I GRANT that we must begin wherever we are, but let's not make excuses for why we continue to be so. Now, the present moment is ALL we have, Rose, all we can ever have. Society is a RELATIONSHIP, and reflects what the majority of the whole are REALLY like, not what they IMAGINE THEMSELVES TO BE. And, mostly, the individual's preferred self-image is a LIE, meaning we see ourselves as we WANT to see ourselves, not as we actually ARE, else we'd begin to change. Now, if there were no such thing as a Greater Reality, then this discussion would be meaningless, and morality merely an invention of those who wish to exploit others. Happily for us, this is not so.
I post this not because I think the situation is hopeless, but to point out that we cannot simply THINK our way out of the mess we are in. Only an inner revolution will save us from ourselves. Seemingly, it's the elephant in the room that everyone wants to ignore. Then so be it.
Hi _C H E S S G A M E S 56,
I believe we are in agreement, for clarity, I will rephrase the situation of our collective EMERGENT creative enlightenment.
We both observe that the majority of our society ( population_A ) is lagging behind a much smaller number of very together and conscious people ( population _B ). We have a bi-modal distribution ( two distinct averages of consciousness ), with a growing number of fence sitters.
We agree that the larger population _A are essentially living an unrecognized LIE, mostly unconscious of the true reality and seriously unable to perceive their true connection with the source of ALL existence. As you say
"Society is a RELATIONSHIP, and reflects what the majority of the whole are REALLY like"
Considering history, I believe that society has been becoming more conscious, and that the ratio between the relative populations -- B / A -- has been increasing for some time.
For simplicity, population_B is ALIVE and BEing the yeast in the mix
We cannot legislate morality or consciousness enhancement.
Let's say that the possibility of HARMONY is mathematically dependent upon our bimodal populations melding into a harmonious ONE.
Now realistically, we can expect a population inversion effect, where a significant number of population_BE people will ultimately "convince" the rest to change -- specifically on their on initiative ( the only way to GO ).
For those in population_BE to be most effective, we must hold the rest of the society in their highest possibilities, for them to see for themselves -- and then move ( of themselves ) toward that unprecedented future of true HARMONY.
The bottom line is that teachers can only lead the class to the water, and that the decision to drink is always going to be an individual one ( free will ).
We all need to accept that the consequence of this -- that we cannot change these "others" -- and as you correctly stated "we cannot simply THINK our way out of the mess we are in"
The best that each of us can do is"an inner revolution [that] will save us", to do our best to live our own lives in balance and harmony -- to change ourselves first ( as examples ).
Namaste
All good points npwr. Perhaps this crises will move some of the 'fence sitters' as you say. If we/they will begin to see their personal relationship with the whole of consciousness, that will be a good thing. Thanks for your post. :-)
Wasn't there an article on CD, entitled "Obama's Failed Presidency," or something of the like? Seems like it was taken down.
Close, bit the title is The Failed Presidency of Barack Obama
How the president's timid response to the economic crisis failed to capture America's populist outrage
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/18-10
Obama is probably too bought to succeed. If you look at the opensecrets.org website, operated by the Center for Responsive Politics, you will find that Goldman Sachs was the top funder of his 2008 campaign. Small wonder we have GS alumni all over his economic and financial team.
He will sacrifice Geithner and others if he sees his poll numbers take too much of a hit. He has been batting for the wrong team for a long time now, even before he took office, so he may very well not start doing the right thing until his moment of effectiveness has passed. It will then be too late for him, and he will be a one term president, guaranteed.
And unfortunately, that will be the judgment of Republicans AND progressives.
Since the Democrats will certainly not run another Democrat against him in 2012 (incumbents always run again), the election could well be between an abysmally failed Democratic president and whoever the Republicans think can beat him.
It's really hard to accept that America had such a great need for this president to undo the destruction of the Constitution, the imperialistic warmongering, and the collapsing economy brought about by the GW Bush administration, and this is what we got instead after all the campaign promises of "change", transparency, and "fixing the problems" caused by the Bushies. An entire "Democratic" administration of right-leaning corporatist supporters.
There is just no comfort zone in politics anymore for people like me.
"Since the Democrats will certainly not run another Democrat against him in 2012 (incumbents always run again), the election could well be between an abysmally failed Democratic president and whoever the Republicans think can beat him."
It may be more correct to say "Whoever Rush Limbaugh thinks can beat him."
q
Another tragic outcome-
If his road of timidity, backtracking and heeding the advice of craven good ol' boys opportunists continues, and I hate to say this, but he will emerge as a clueless sucker and will it reflect on his race? Will some think that a black man can't be a leader? That rich white men call the shots?
- (incumbents always run again) -
Except, as we all should know, LBJ, who spent 4 years escalating more and more US soldiers into an unwinnable war in a distant Asian land.
Oh, yeah, I forgot about LBJ. His record on the war was a real downer though he pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and his Great Society, both good populist moves loved by liberals, even if conservatives hated them. I wonder if Obama will have anything meaningful to his credit in four years? On this path he's chosen, he won't.
"There is just no comfort zone in politics anymore for people like me."
That may be a good thing. I think that many of those who voted for Obama as President did so because it seemed safer and more comfortable than backing candidates who more forcefully opposed the Bush administration and supported the people. If people are no longer comfortable voting for the lesser of two evils, maybe the underdogs will stand more of a chance. I suspect that instinct and emotion play too large a role in presidential elections for this to happen, but we can always hope for change ...
People like you will be responsible for President Palin!
Is that what you want?
We have finally elected a progressive president and now all people can do is complain.
This is a new era. This is our moment.
Obama is clearly not Bush. Shouldn't we celebrate that difference instead of constantly berating him for every perceived shortcoming? Isn't it nice to have a president who is at least well-spoken and intelligent?
I suggest reading this article on CD today:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/03/20-3
This is what change looks like. This is what it means to have a president who will listen to us. We should be thankful.
Good points, joehope.
I wonder if he's the man who will eventually get around to addressing in a meaningful manner the ultimate problem: 6+ billion humans is 5 billion too many.
Unless that's solved, nothing else really matters a generation or two down the road.
Yes, EUGENICS is an important plank in the New World Order agenda. Multiple wars just can't seem to off people fast enough for some. Reducing the world population by 80 to 90 percent is the preferred goal.
Horrible thought, isn't it?
Has anybody come up with any alternative constructive ideas? Maybe science will find a way to shrink humans to the size of ants. That should also shrink our footprint.
>>Obama is clearly not Bush.
Yeah....and Ghengis Khan is clearly not Hitler. Whoopee.
>>This is what change looks like.
Try telling that to the pile of dead people killed by that predator drone strike in Pakistan just a few weeks ago.
joehope
If Obama continues to refuse to repair the devastation left by the GW Bush administration, you'd be more accurate to blame Barack Obama if Sarah Palin becomes president, just like the GW Bush Republican administration can be blamed for the Republican losses since 2006.
Yes, Joe, it is very, very nice to have a president who is well-spoken and intelligent! It really makes one's day.
" voted for Obama because it seemed safer and more comfortable than backing candidates who more forcefully opposed the Bush administration and supported the people."
Hello John. It isn't a matter of mental comfort it's about ORGANIZATION. When there is a militant and growing union movement, and a radical community movement which blocks evictions and foreclosures, and builds co-ops, as in the 30's, THEN AND THEN ONLY will we be able to push candidates and sitting presidents to the left.
An alienated and isolated population will be dominated by capitalists. If half of the people who write to blogs learned how to organize FACE TO FACE, we would be able to build an alternative.
All good points.
So far Obama has shown an incredible fealty and subservience to Wall Street, as did Clinton before him, and it will end up destroying his presidency.
Americans are starting to "get it" that the system is stacked against us, and I don't think people will be so willing to have another Clintonian presidency that caters to the rich and lets the rest of us have the crumbs. It may be better than Republicans who sweep up the crumbs and keep them for themselves, but it's no good when times are hard, as they are now and will be for years to come.
To succeed Obama needs to take on the bankers and the corporate titans. He can only do that by rallying the base--the people who voted him in in the so far vain hope that he would be on their side.
One problem is that little business people, the folks who bankroll the Chamber of Commerce, have for so long bought the right-wing economic propaganda that they are still siding with the bankers in this crisis. Obama should try peeling them away, the way Roosevelt did, by attacking the big banks, which really don't care about, or lend to, the little guys.
A full-out campaign of anti-trust break-ups of the financial industry would be a great way to go.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
"So far Obama has shown an incredible fealty and subservience to Wall Street"
"Obama should try peeling them away, the way Roosevelt did, by attacking the big banks"
That's because Obama is owned by Wall St. Take a look at opensecrets.org and see where he got all his money from. You'll find Goldman and half a dozen other Wall St firms amongst the top 10. Why do you think Obama 'changed his mind' about taking public financing for the general election after talking about it all during the primary? The short and ugly answer, so his Owners could get a bigger piece. Obama owes Wall St big time. Don't expect him to to anything to upset that apple cart. Attack the big banks??? Please. Stop being silly.
Don't expect him to do much of anything to upset ANY corporate apple carts. Look at how he's back tracking BIG TIME on single payer health care.
Obama has got to be the biggest disappointment, or the biggest con job, in the history of the Democrat party. While I'm glad I never fell for all that crap, I'm sorry that so many did.
Sioux Rose
DCOSTELLO: As Mr. Lindorff pointed out, the public will not be satisfied with the Clinton style triangulation this time. FAR too much is at stake! Americans may be complacent when their cupboards are full and they are employed and can meet their bills, but it's quite another thing when this security-oriented Cancer (July 4) nation has its basis for security pulled out from under.
The hopes indeed were high around this election. The nation was like a dry forest ready to ignite... so when the man from hope arrived, shaped from a different hue, optimism surged; but little by little, we hear words that SOUND like the things that many voted for, but the ACTIONS undermine the words because they essentially are retaining 80% of the bad policies that Bush, the lesser, put brutally into affect with or without congressional support (signing statements and basic edicts of those of a 13th century monarch).
The levels of disgust and anger are strong and rising, and lies, obfuscation, and PR are NOT going to stem this tide. Unfortunately a recent Pentagon report that spoke of future battles being fought in urban centers did not specify in what lands these centers would be targeted.
"The nation was like a dry forest ready to ignite... so when the man from hope arrived, shaped from a different hue, optimism surged"
Optimism may have surged but so did stupidity and lack of due diligence. The reason I never supported or fell for the Obama BS is that I looked at his voting records. I didn't listen to any of his BS speeches, instead I read his writings. The Real Obama was always there for anyone who took the time to investigate rather than become hypnotized by the BS. Not much of what Obama has done has surprised me. His love of Wall St was espoused in his book. His hawkish nature was exposed by his voting records and by his writing.
Brand Obama was SOLD to the American public just like Madison Ave sells us everything else. The thing of beauty they did with Obama was to present everyone with a 'hope and change' blank slate upon which everyone could write their own hopes and changes and somehow believe that Obama was going to deliver them. The most impressive thing about Obama was how he got sold to the voters.
The thing I don't like about your writing is your propensity for blanket statement that take opinion and parade it as fact. "...it will end up destroying his presidency"--- I don't believe Clintons presidency is considered a failure, so why would Obamas if he follows his lead?
"To succeed Obama needs to take on the bankers and the corporate titans. He can only do that by rallying the base--the people who voted him in in the so far vain hope that he would be on their side."
What measure of success are we talking about. If his actions stave off a depression, and the economy starts growing again, most people will think he's successful. You likely wont because you'd like him to dismantle our economic system.
" it seems clear that if this president who spoke during his campaign of "hope and change" continues to cater to the bankers and the corporate interests that want to see no major revamping of the economic system and the regulatory apparatus, he is headed for a one-term presidency--and a sad and failed one at that."
Obama is working on reform of the regulatory system. Major revamping of the economic system? What are you talking about, dismantling capitalism?
"The voters who sent Obama to Washington have been willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt, even when he made his almost uniformly lousy cabinet picks. They were willing to grant that he had been handed a disastrous situation by the last administration. "
What makes you think you can speak for the voters who sent Obama to Washington? Did you vote for him? I think the polls have him in pretty good standing.
I support what Obama's trying to do. Is he perfect? NO. But in the eight years that Bush was in there, there were 2 decisions he made that I could agree with---That's TWO. His African AIDS initiative and his making a wildlife reserve in Pacific Ocean. So far, there have been about 2 DOZEN decisions that Obama's made that I agree with. All in less than two months.
Take off your blinders, Dave, and look around.
Something I find interesting is that when the poll numbers are good for your guy, then the American public must "get it", but when they are good for the other guy, they don't know what they are talking about and are a bunch of idiots. Remember, alot of the people who thought early on that Bush was doing a swell job now feel Obama is.
You "don't believe Clinton's presidency was a failure"?!?!?!? What planet are you living on? Clinton set in motion the deregulation of the banks, eliminated welfare "as we know it", and because of his sellout of Democratic values, virtually destroyed the Democratic Party in Congress for nearly a decade and a half. It was as much his betrayal of progressives over the course of two terms as it was his under-the-desk activities in the Oval Office that sank Al Gore in 2000 (he should have won that election in a landslide, instead of by a squeaker that could be stolen).
As for the rest, Obama is not going to "stave off" recession. He is blowing the money needed to do that by pouring it down a rathole into zombie banks that will eventually have to be scuttled and broken up.
Because so much money has been borrowed and wasted on that venture, the Fed has now had to print anothe trillion dollars, which is leading to a crash in the value of the dollar. That will lead to inflation because so many goods Americans need are now imported, not least oil, which has spiked over $51 a barrel despite falling demand simply because the dollar is dropping in value. None of that had to happen, but is happenining because of Obama's fealty to the banking industry.
Revamping the economic system would mean standing firm on the Employee Free Choice Act helping to restore unions, it would mean breaking up the banks that are currently deemed "too big to fail", a situation which never should be allowed to exist. Trust me, you can go a long way toward restructuring the US economic system in a more progressive way without coming close to destroying capitalism. Just check out Sweden, Germany or France, which, last time I looked, were capitalist.
Well yes, I did vote for him. And as someone who spent the last two years traveling around the country as a journalist talking about impeachment, I have a pretty good sense of why a lot of people backed Obama, and trust me, a lot of them are feeling pretty let down now--not just because of his pathetic handling of the banking crisis, but also because of his unwillingness to hold Bush administration officials accountable under the law, to his own adoption of Constitutionally threatening signing statements, to his continued authorization of rendition and his claim to the right to hold people without trial, and to his continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These are all BIG reasons to be upset with Obama.
What this guy needs is not apologetics like you are offering, but heavy duty pressure from the grassroots to start doing the right thing. Show up in Washington on the 21st and on Wall Street on April 3-4!
Dave Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Sioux Rose
DAVE: Three more very important "mistakes" of the Clinton president, those that place him into the Republican-lite category as far as I (and Michael Moore) are concerned are:
1. Approving NAFTA: The plan to ship jobs outside the U.S.
2. FCC deregulation: It allowed certain prejudicial media giants to own far more market shares, i.e. access to gigantic segments of the US public, than any sane democracy ought to have allowed.
3. Deregulation of Glass-Steagall: Set into motion the financial calamity of our times by undermining intelligent oversight and thus allowing bankers to play fast and loose with OTHER PEOPLES' money, turning Wall St into a new unregulated Vegas.
I think these fatal decisions trump ending welfare!
The Defense of Marriage Act ought to at least get Dishonorable Mention.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I don't believe Clinton's presidency is generally considered a failure---no. What you and I and others to left of the mainstream democratic party believe, is another question.
But your point about "heavy duty pressure from the grassroots", is taken. Pressure is good.
"Do you really think that "economic growth" is a valid measure of success? "
Read that bit you quoted from my post again. Does it say anything about what I believe? I'm not "most people".
All good points Madcow.
I support Obama and did not vote for him because he is the "lesser-of-two-evils". Because, frankly, Obama is not evil.
Obama is our first community-organizer president. He knows what the real world is like. He is "of the People" and "for the People".
Clinton was pretty good, but a mixed bag. He did lie to us.
>>Obama is our first community-organizer president. He knows what the real world is like. He is "of the People" and "for the People".
Right....the "people." Like those "people" Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, AIG, Bank or America, ad infinitum.
Yeah, your right Joe Dope. He's doing an absolutely fantastic job of organizing taxpayer money for the banking and financial "communities."
I suggest that you take a look at Obama's community organizing and how it impacted him as a politician. It isn't what you think. He was far less successful at it than all the glowing reports claim.
Clinton was another in a long line of mass murderers. Have you read the Alan Nasser article yet??
I am tired of people blaming Obama for not turning around the economy fast enough. The American economy is a supertanker or a freight train that takes miles to come to a stop, let alone reverse direction. Us, liberals, need to give Obama full support in what he is doing with the economy and not blame him for reversing the full direction of the economy within his first two months in office. Our government is not omnipotent! No policy could achieve what people are expecting of Obama.
That said, I think Obama is being too cautious in Iraq. He needs to do more to demonstrate the good will of the American people towards Iraq, by pulling out faster. The longer we stay there with the larger number of soldiers, the stronger Al Quaeda becomes and the less stable is the Iraqi government. I would suggest buttressing the Iraqi government with monetary support, but even that may be counterproductive.
I am not saying he has not turned around the economy. That of course will take time. I'm saying he's not taking the right actions to accomplish that goal, and that if he doesn't take bolder steps, which would require ceasing to pour trillions down the banking rathole, he will fail both us and his presidency.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Sioux Rose
Mr. Lindorff, I applaud the bold honesty of this most current article of yours. One thing I would add is that the times are so very precarious, that this whole dark art of "business as usual" catering to Wall St (a modern incarnation of Mammon) and the military (a modern expression of Mars) is little short of a mass suicide pact, a new take on M.A.D with religion, false wars, and an imperialism designed to only benefit a few its ruling urges. The entire fabric is tainted and has NO mitigating virtues, no track record that in any way justifies its present priorities or course. It's utterly tragic for Obama to lend his intelligence and up until now positive public image to these policies of destruction.
Even if there are planetary influences at play, Rose, it does little good to know that as long as one remains unconscious to the interplay of those 'forces' within oneself. Everything depends upon what we do when we find ourselves in a state of ignorance and unconsciousness; do we deflect the inner work we must do by blaming others and/or seek more elaborate escapes, or strive to find a way out of the 'madness'? Without understanding the relationship between the inner and outer, we are doomed to repeat the past and thus accelerate our downward spiral.
Sioux Rose
CHESSGAME: The real reason the elites (in that time it was the church-state) banned astrology, made its practice a heretical sin punishable by death, was to make sure this information was NOT ever understood by lay persons. It indeed IS empowering. It sees the individual as a microcosmic expression of the greater macrocosm, yet each of us individualizes the forces set round the wheel of time based on how we have mastered each principle in previous lives. We are expected to further refine these powers in the present. When society as a whole applauds the worst in human nature (note how self-proclaimed rewards go to the great thieves of the Wall St temple, today's moneychangers, or how as an example to our society the militarist planners of others' deaths, cowards use sophisticated weaponry against largely unarmed people in their homelands and are awarded medals of bravery) it is far more difficult for individual souls (shades of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest") to rise above the moral morass.
I am an advocate of BOTH the school of working on one's self AND that of establishing in society equitable ideals of social justice, placing peace before force first, and funding programs that LIFT persons up, rather than tempt them with a battery of self-destructive ego-driven behaviors (guns, porn, alcohol, violent games) and then spend $ on policing the effects of these massively distorted expressions.
Yes, I know the feeling, Rose, the feeling of outrage and impotence toward the machine, but then I realize that the whole point of evil is to get me to hate it--which merely ends up reinforcing it, albeit in a more refined way. Many people think that evil can be condensed into a static set of dos and don’ts, and do not realize it is a dynamic energetic 'matrix' that must 'possess' and act within the human psyche to survive, meaning 'evil' has no existence whatsoever outside of the activities of human beings. Castaneda gave an interesting analogy in "The Active Side of Infinity" (I should point out here that I am in no way a Castaneda adherent) with what he called the Mud Shadows: predatory entities that feed off the psychic energy of human beings.
In other words, in our unconsciousness, we are being USED by INVISIBLE energetic forces of which we are UNAWARE. This is evident in the outward manifestation of evil, where exploitation and violence is the rule--people exploiting each other on both a micro and macro level, largely to reinforce a sense of self. That is also why cruelty is the rule in society rather than the exception. Buddhists refer to the 'darkness' as Mara. You point out that the prevailing force or influence in society is Mars and Mammon (Mara?), which has cast its spell upon individual souls through its pervasive and persistent expressions. So where is our authentic responsibility in all of this? To become mindful of what is going through us and refusing to yield to the darkness. Outwardly it means NON-COOPERATION or, as you might say, refusing to follow the dictates of Mars and Mammon. It does NOT mean attacking others or institutions. In certain cases it may mean being 'punished' for that refusal. Punishment could mean disapproval, being ridiculed or ostracized, imprisonment, facing a firing squad, or anything in between.
Modern society leads us to believe that we are 'independent,' self-directed entities, not under the influence of anything or anyone--whether planetary forces, Mud Shadows, Mara, or anything else. But is this really so? Whatever the case, evil amounts to a misuse of precious energy, leading to disharmony and destruction in both our outer and inner worlds. That much is easy to see.
I should put in here that belief cannot change the nature of Reality (or Universal Law), and that one cannot bend the 'Greater' to his or her will by simply believing. It's through belief, and the desire to believe (born of fear and insecurity), that we deceive ourselves and reinforce this deception in the population at large; people worship belief because it gives them a false sense of security. And, of course, every belief has an opposite, leading to conflict and discord.
Rose, you may have also explored enneagrams, which are credited to the philosophy of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. They were meant to point to the tendencies of essence within us. In enneastroloy, certain attributes have been attached to the planets. I cannot personally speak to planetary influences because I have no firsthand awareness of them, and any attempt to explain existence in those terms would merely be an exercise in imagination for me (just being honest). However, I HAVE observed definite tendencies in essence, and as individuals we do exhibit a certain combination of qualities more strongly than others (these 'qualities' are not to be mistaken with those of personality, which is acquired. Qualities
of essence are inborn). While the church certainly did ban astrology, that does not either validate or invalidate astrology, itself. In Salem, Massachusetts religious leaders also put witches to death for practicing 'magic,' which may have been a case of one kind of superstition punishing another kind.
Rose writes: "It sees the individual as a microcosmic expression of the greater macrocosm, yet each of us individualizes the forces set round the wheel of time based on how we have mastered each principle in previous lives. We are expected to further refine these powers in the present."
Have you ever explored G's explanation of the Law of the Seven, and Law of the Three? It's very thought provoking, as is a book called, "The Theory of Celestial Influence," written by Rodney Collins.
One very titillating application of astronomical (and astrological) elements is the ancient Mayan calendar, which predicts something dramatic occurring in 2012 due to an alignment with the galactic center.
Sioux Rose
CHESSGAME: I have studied numerology, read some of Gurdjieff & Ouspensky, and certainly Casteneda. Evil is the absence of Light, the Light that recognizes self as a tiny expression of the Great Benevolence, a universe held together by LOVE, the force that coheres. We can analyze evil ad nauseum, come up with countless figures and historical data... but the short cut to overcoming evil is thinking of other, of other as extension of self, in short... by LIVING LOVE which is Venus, built into the cosmic plan as intended co-equal partner and counterbalance to the ravaging trespasses of Mars. Because certain people wanted power, and learned to divide in order to conquer, religion and state have essentially upheld Mars as the symbol of what "God" wills, and designed hierarchical societies that accord with premises of might (even the might of $, because Mars requires Mammon as a co-partner to maintain its controls) makes right.
I am short for time, although your post deserves more commentary. How 'bout a rain check, "to be continued..." even if up the road on another article/thread that catalyzes these same(rhetorical?) questions of ultimate, possibly eternal concern.
"That said, I think Obama is being too cautious in Iraq. He needs to do more to demonstrate the good will of the American people towards Iraq, by pulling out faster. "
Godisstillspeaking, Don't you know that in order to demonstrate good will, one needs to have good will to demonstrate.
Where is the good will of America towards Iraq? Is it the occupation and killing of one million souls? Is that it? Sorry but here outside the asylum you call the US we don't confuse blitzkrieg with goodwill.
"I am tired of people blaming Obama for not turning around the economy fast enough."
And I am tired of those apologists only willing the ignore the evidence that increases the liklihood that we all get steamrolled. You should ask yourself this: If it was McCain talking about addressing entitlements, privitizing veterans' healthcare, taxing health benefits --or being 'cautious' in Iraq would you give him automatic cover?
Didn't think so.
Godisstillspeaking sez: "The American economy is a supertanker or a freight train that takes miles to come to a stop, let alone reverse direction."
***
That is a fair and valid point. I believe the nervousness from those on the left comes from seeing Obama continuing to shovel coal into the boilers.
There is of course hope that Obama will do said things, but to have Obama change course and be an independent thinker means he posseses a strong willpower. As with hanging out in any group, eventually you begin to agree with the herds view points, and I espeacially think this is true when your herd is in power (like the jocks and cheerleaders in school). Why change it? they will ask you. Obama, I feel, may have been an idealist (in a good way) at a younger age, but to many lunches at the "cool" table have befuddled his mind.
So what we have left are unanswered phone calls for hanging out Friday night while Obama rolls our house.
A herd apparently without Obama as its leader. I think.