Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Bad Influence
Now that Europe and the United States are officially reunited, it seems worth asking: is this necessarily a good thing? The Nobel Committee, which awarded the prize specifically for Obama's embrace of "multilateral diplomacy," is evidently convinced that US engagement on the world stage is a triumph for peace and justice. I'm not so sure. After nine months in office, Obama has a clear track record as a global player. Again and again, US negotiators have chosen not to strengthen international laws and protocols but rather to weaken them, often leading other rich countries in a race to the bottom.
Let's start where the stakes are highest: climate change. During the Bush years, European politicians distinguished themselves from the United States by expressing their unshakable commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. So while the United States increased its carbon emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels, the European Union countries reduced theirs by 2 percent. Not stellar, but clearly a case where the EU's breakup with the United States carried tangible benefits for the planet.
Flash forward to the high-stakes climate negotiations that just wrapped up in Bangkok. The talks were supposed to lead to a deal in Copenhagen this December that significantly strengthens the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, the United States, the EU and the rest of the developed countries formed a unified bloc calling for Kyoto to be scrapped and replaced. Where Kyoto set clear and binding targets for emission reductions, the US plan would have each country decide how much to cut, then submit its plans to international monitoring (with nothing but wishful thinking to ensure that this all keeps the planet's temperature below catastrophic levels). And where Kyoto put the burden of responsibility squarely on the rich countries that created the climate crisis, the new plan treats all countries the same.
These kinds of weak proposals were not altogether surprising coming from the United States. What was shocking was the sudden unity of the rich world around this plan--including many countries that had previously sung the praises of Kyoto. And there were more betrayals: the EU, which had indicated it would spend $19 billion to $35 billion a year to help developing countries adapt to climate change, came to Bangkok with a much lower offer, one more in line with the US pledge of... nothing. Oxfam's Antonio Hill summed up the negotiations like this: "When the starting gun fired, it became a race to the bottom, with rich countries weakening existing commitments under the international framework."
This isn't the first time a much-celebrated return to the negotiating table has resulted in overturned tables, with hard-won international laws and conventions scattered on the floor. The United States played a similar role at the UN conference on racism in Geneva in April. After extracting all sorts of deletions from the negotiating text--no references to Israel or the Palestinians, nothing on slavery reparations, etc.--the Obama administration decided to boycott anyway, pointing to the fact that the new text "re- affirms" the document adopted in 2001 in Durban, South Africa.
It was a flimsy excuse, but there was some kind of logic to it, since the United States had never signed the original 2001 document. What made no sense was the wave of copycat withdrawals from around the rich world. Within forty-eight hours of the US announcement Italy, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Poland had pulled out. Unlike the United States, these governments had all signed the 2001 declaration, so they had no reason to object to a document that reaffirmed it. It didn't matter. As with the climate change negotiations, lining up behind Obama, with his impeccable reputation, was an easy way to avoid burdensome international obligations and look progressive at the same time--a service the United States was never able to provide during the Bush years.
The United States has had a similarly corrupting influence as a new member of the UN Human Rights Council. Its first big test was Judge Richard Goldstone's courageous report on Israel's Gaza onslaught, which found that war crimes had been committed by both the Israeli army and Hamas. Rather than prove its commitment to international law, the United States used its clout to smear the report as "deeply flawed" and to strong-arm the Palestinian Authority into withdrawing a supportive resolution. (The PA, which faced a furious backlash at home for caving in to US pressure, may introduce a new version.)
And then there are the G-20 summits, Obama's highest-profile multilateral engagements. When one was held in London in April, it seemed for a moment that there might be some kind of coordinated attempt to rein in transnational financial speculators and tax dodgers. Sarkozy even pledged to walk out of the summit if it failed to produce serious regulatory commitments. But the Obama administration had no interest in genuine multilateralism, advocating instead for countries to come up with their own plans (or not) and hope for the best--much like its reckless climate-change plan. Sarkozy, needless to say, did not walk anywhere but to the photo session to have his picture taken with Obama.
Of course, Obama has made some good moves on the world stage--not siding with the coup government in Honduras, supporting a UN Women's Agency... But a clear pattern has emerged: in areas where other wealthy nations were teetering between principled action and negligence, US interventions have tilted them toward negligence. If this is the new era of multilateralism, it is no prize.
This column was first published in The Nation (www.thenation.com)
245 Comments so far
Show AllThe ruling class all the world round suffers (or more exactly makes *us* suffer) from the same clinical pathology: narcissistic greed. If our psychopathological taxonomies weren't contaminated with classism, we wouldn't have a ruling class because its would-be members would be diagnosed and in care before they ever got powerful enough to be a danger to us.
As Diamond has said, echoing both the late J.K.Galbraith and Adam Smith in a different contexts, the ruling classes are so so sick that they're willing to kill us all rather than give up any of their privilege. As long as they can ride us to the bottom and die last, they'll do it.
About half-century ago, regardless of what you thought of them, there were leaders who appeared to stand tall--Ho Chi Minh, Gandhi, Nehru, Sukarno, Nasser, Mao/Chou, De Gaul and, of course, Castro, as well as others. It now mostly seems that all we have are political midgets, with the sole exception of Mandela, who is in his twilight years.
What about Chavez? W/ that possible exception, you are quite right. However Russia and China, for now, are stabilizing factors. Consider a world w/o them; the US w/ zero opposition. terrifying, huh?
While most people get a warm and fuzzy feeling when Mandela's name comes up, "freedom" from Apartheid has resulted in "reforms" which have made the economic conditions for the average black South African no better or, even worse than under Apartheid. Mandela allowed his deputy president Thabo Mbeki, to abandon the ANC's "Freedom Charter" (promoting social and economic democracy) and make a deal with the IMF/WTO Neo-Liberals and the Apartheid powers-that-be to essentially maintain the economic injustice of the Apartheid era. So, except for a few blacks that have entered the ruling class, most black South Africans, have theoretical "political" freedom but economic servitude. I also think that a closer look at especially Nehru, Mao and de Gaulle would show that these leaders don't deserve their "height".
For me, your list of "leaders who appeared to stand tall", the operative word is "appeared". Incidentally, appearance is also the operative word for Obama. It's all about image, not substance.
The original post called them "leaders" not "gods."
If you look closely enough at anyone, you'll find things that displease you.
q
Sioux Rose
TOM: Have you read "The Shock Doctrine" by Klein? If so, you'd realize that the elites put vices on leaders like Mandela and Lech Walesa and others. As their nations faced inordinate economic challenges, there was the World Bank and WTO with "offers you can't refuse" organized-crime style "agreements." Many leaders felt they had no choice but to go along. The same thing is taking place here at home. With the treasury emptied for wars (without reason), and to prop up bankers who spit on us all by giving each other obscene bonuses (with OUR money!), NOTHING is left for basic services. States, one by one face bankruptcy and things that are important to civilian life are getting routinely chopped off the "auction block." This is the design of elites, if not absolute evil; and you no longer have to look overseas to watch it come into view.
Sioux Rose, you sent me scurrying to my dictionary to check your phrase "...the elites put vices on leaders like Mandela..." and I wonder if you perhaps meant "vises" (vise: a device for compressing and rigidly controlling something)...
...or is it an intended, masterfully done play on words?
Wonderful, my dear!
Sioux Rose
Hello Ray, I try to use words to craft visuals, so yes, I did mean the tool... that's known as a vise. Thank you for pointing out the spelling error, although as you related, it almost works "both" ways!
Yes I have read the Shock Doctrine. But I don't think Klein offers the final word on what happened in South Africa. My understanding is that Mbeki was a willing accomplice in selling out the original goals of the ANC and black South Africans. In the MSM politics and economics are often portrayed as being separate issues. They are not. Every economic decision is a political decision. For this reason I think that Mandela holds some important responsibility for the disaster that South Africa has become for most South Africans.
Thabo Mbeki is indeed a hideous disappointment.
He should stand in the dock at the ICC along with Clinton, the Bushes, B.Liar, Straw, Albright, Rice, Brown, Rummy, Cheney, Obummer, R.E., ...cheese Louise, I just can't spare the time to type the whole list, but I'm sure everyone knows who I mean... all charged with crimes against humanity.
Lingum,
I'll admit it.
I'm a midget. I know nothing of Nehru, Sukarno, Nasser.
Would you care to enlighten me?
Otherwise, I must assume you are under the delusion, that a communist/socialist structure will solve everything. When I see quite the opposite. I see all systems of government, when they get too big, as being tyrannical and greedy, monopolistic, global and tribal; only looking after the interests of the monied or the already powerful. Globalization will happen just as readily under a communist system as a Capitalist one. The answer to both ailing systems is the same: You must ensure competition by breaking up companies when they reach the status of a Oligopoly, which is the case in 90 percent of Wall Street today.
Our problem is Wall Street, and we must shun it until it is broken into a million pieces.
Do you disagree with me?
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Sioux Rose
MAIREAD: I was about to say something along the lines of your post. Basically by Obama giving the path of "do nothing/let the market decide" a whole new panache, he has set up a game of pied piper where all these rich fools (leaders of wealthier nations) will follow. And what are they turning their back on? Pledges to the world's poorest, leading with real green changes given the enormity of what's environmentally at stake. Their short-sightedness presents, on the current world stage, a 21st century enactment of the story of King Midas. In their lust for gold alone, they are sacrificing the natural world, the more genuine worth embodied by green ecosystems that all life forms depend upon. As they watch their personal assets turn to gold, what will gold do for them? Is it a god to be worshipped like the idol Moses found his followers kneeling before, when the earth turns arid, the harvest fields become barren? We may well be looking at precisely this morality tale about to be retold in quite real (and equally painful) terms. The sell-out of so much for so little would be far better retained as a mere story in the world of fiction. Instead, its actual enactment is going to extract the price no sane society should ever have to wager.
How very valid your post is Sioux Rose,
As our fields are turned into MonInsaneto Obamanations and "Corporatized" before our very eyes. Food is nothing but a commodity to be gambled on, and nothing but world-wide misery will result.
Famine, the normal state of any successful species is set to be amplified, just as was the artificial "oil shortage" of 2008 whereby millions of islanders in the Pacific were priced out of LP gas for cooking and had to result to chopping down the few remaining trees on their island for charcoal, a process that takes days of burning a fallen old growth tree covered by blankets, polluting the area for miles in all direction.
Damn you Bush. Damn you Oil speculators like Cheney. Damn you.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Sioux Rose
TJ: It's almost new moon, in Libra, the sign of Jimmy Carter, John Dean, Jesse Jackson and others who seek an equivalence of partnering with others to form different versions of "the rainbow coalition." This peace-loving sign is most gifted of all in the art of diplomacy and compromise. New moon is always a good time to renew our spirits, rededicate to the eternal cause of justice (for all). I find that rituals of replenishment directed AT the inner spirit are as necessary as decent food (what's left of it) and vitamins, in order to sustain us over the distance. We are in a very real battle these days, and it's one that impacts our lives on levels from the mundane to the spiritual. Carl Jung understood the mysterious "entity" he defined as the "collective unconscious," and it operates like a web of frequencies too subtle for dense machinery to pick up on. Yet it does tie every living being together through a massive web of vibrations. In fact, the technological development of the computer-generated world wide web simulates this more mystical phenomena, its "etheric cousin."
Those of us who replenish ourselves add LIGHT to the web, and it is SO needed now as the voices of anger, hatred, violence, vengeance pollute this nether zone. As the adage goes, it only takes one light to put out the darkness. I think in this forum some of us "lights" take turns, as there certainly is an inordinate amount of darkness (on so many levels, impacting all aspects of our lives) to grapple with.
On the one hand you preach peace and speak against voices of anger, hatred, violence, and vengeance but on the other hand, I see you siding with those same voices of anger, hatred, violence, and vengeance inventing names such as Pentagon trolls with no proof or basis. You don't replenish yourself by relying on black magic to explain everything or by associating yourself with liars hiding behind famous names like ThomasJefferson.
Mr Shawn Berry,
"The pursuit of happiness" does not require your approval or even your understanding. It is a individual private affair. If Astrology makes Rose happy, so be it. She is a gifted writer and adds a southing dimension to this chaotic war state we are in. The New York Times reported last year:
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.
In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.
A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.
“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.
Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.
As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.
“Night and day,” Mr. Allard said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”
The Pentagon defended its relationship with military analysts, saying they had been given only factual information about the war. UNQUOTE
I submit they troll anti-war sites as well since it is so cheap to do so. I would. More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?_r=1
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Sioux Rose
TJ: I like the part about the "gifted writer," but I just want to remind that in addition to astrology, I am well-read on lots of subjects, have traveled through numerous countries, lived in a few, raised children, and counseled many. I bring a lot to "the table." To have some kid posting here all day who's never been anywhere, probably not read much, and thinks he's entitled to derogatory castigations against others' creative lines of work, specifically mine, won't be politely tolerated. In any case, I am done with this thread. Peace.
Sioux Rose says:
"I am well-read on lots of subjects, have traveled through numerous countries, lived in a few, raised children, and counseled many. I bring a lot to "the table.""
I find that hard to believe but I don't know you.
"To have some kid posting here all day who's never been anywhere, probably not read much, and thinks he's entitled to derogatory castigations against others' creative lines of work, specifically mine, won't be politely tolerated."
I'm 45 and I don't post here everyday unlike you. I didn't know that being practical and realistic wasn't progressive. You think you can topple me just because you post all day every day on this site? Unlike you, I go out and fight it out with my congressman and senators than you would ever try. You're welcome to sit on this site and offer your astrological tirade. You're giving astrologers a bad name.
If you had been around the world, you wouldn't be posting childish drivel. Neither would you be dependent on your other aliases to be clustering around you patting you blindly on the back.
Yes of course Sioux Rose,
You enrich the column immensely with your comments and your perspective. The regulars here all know this is true. Sorry for my negative comments on the Bushmonkey which probably set him off. I just get so frustrated sometimes that one criminal elite family could cause so much damage to the USA and the world. Berry's attacks on many here are unfair and I think that it's either because he's a recent Faux New discharge, plucked fresh out of the Empire Matrix, or he's just aggressive by nature.
CD was nice wasn't it, before the NeoCon's discovered us here, huh? ;-) Of course, they think watching faux news is progressive. That Shaun Insanity, what a progressive, eh? Either he has rabies or he never went to college...... ooops.... it's true: The moron never went to college. Like many of the trolls we suffer since Wal Mart started selling computers.
Oh well, at least I love you SR! I'll try not to feed the trolls anymore!
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
ThomasJefferson, SiouxRose, Jill Baines, and webwalker could just be one person with multiple aliases but I cannot verify that either so I won't. If you aren't, then none of you are independent and rely on clustering around each other to personally attack.
You still think I am a neoconservative? I challenged you to prove it and you couldn't. Your personal bs-ing and namecalling shows your lack of maturity and understanding. You think you can win like that? Oh well, quibble amongst yourself. Showing personal love or hate for someone you have no knowledge of is not what the real Thomas Jefferson would have approved of. I don't have to go to college to have some common sense. I'm a construction worker if that is something you would like to laugh about.
Then have a modicum of humility about you, Mr Berry. There are some very profound intellects here at CD, and you don't distinguish yourself at all with this kind of disrespect to everybody. If you want to attack the subject, then by all means do it. Attack Astrology. Attack Religion. Attack politicians and public figures. Attack the term progressive. Attack the term Neo-Conservative (Neo meaning "New") or "NeoCon" for short. But try not to attack the individual. This is what you would have learned in your first year of college.
I was not in fact calling you a name. I was classifying you as a pro-war, Neo-Conservative based on your obvious background and politics. NeoCons think they know everything; Neocons think everything is a polar extreme: wining and losing. But it is not. Things are not black and white. Try reading for about six months before posting and both your vocabulary and your disposition will improve markedly.
By the way, Thomas Jefferson had multiple long-distance correspondence affairs with married women that he had only met one time. I suspect you know little about Thomas Jefferson. He had children with his slaves. One known is Sally Hemings who is a positive DNA match with TJ's burial remains and the surviving great great grand children. [p 363 "American Sphinx" by historian Joseph J. Ellis.]
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
"I was not in fact calling you a name."
Lying again aren't you? I read you and your sockpuppet posts. Your name is not Thomas Jefferson even if you want to hide behind that name.
"I was classifying you as a pro-war, Neo-Conservative based on your obvious background and politics. "
Again, pure lies and bs. You claim to know everything about neoconservatives but you contradict yourself by being like them. You think you can fling shit at me? HA ! Your attempted bullying doesn't affect me.
"NeoCons think they know everything; Neocons think everything is a polar extreme: wining and losing."
That's exactly what you, SiouxRose, webwalk, ILA, and the rest of your associates are doing.
"Things are not black and white."
No, but YOU are forcing things to be black and white.
"Try reading for about six months before posting and both your vocabulary and your disposition will improve markedly."
I read posts on this site when I feel like it. I see you posting under several aliases and accusing other people of being pentagon trolls and neocons with no evidence or proof to back up your slander. The real Thomas Jefferson would never slander anyone, not even his biggest adversaries.
Sioux Rose
THOMAS: I so agree with your post. As a matter of fact, I took the time to count the number of responses SHED by Shawn Berry and they were 51 of 221... that's 25% of the dialog he tried to dominate, spending UNTOLD hours on this site. In the time I drove to another city to shop, have lunch, run errands, biked, watched a movie, all that time he was HERE? Seems like he is absented a life.
In any case, I wrote to Craig Brown today to inquire if there might not be a CAP on number of posts any person can place on a thread. In my mind 10 should be sufficient. It seems that some very intelligent serious posters have left this site, perhaps due to the nonsense from the trolls which ultimately lowers the intelligence of the debate or issue at hand. Where is Voxclamantis? Rich M is posting less?
Thank you for your kind words. Anyone who chastises the dimension of thought I bring to this forum as "black magic" does me a significant prejudice, and whether an atheist or not (he's about as progressive as Nixon), he grants me FALSE WITNESS which is a sin. And it's almost hilarious how his narcissism shapes the entirety of discussion, when it doesn't validate his black/white view of the political world, as an attack on him. Yet he has cast aspersions on so many, myself and you, included. I wonder what he sees when he looks in a mirror? This is one who cannot apparently see himself at all. Early stage vampirism, or an inordinate empathy deficit?
You are prejudiced and for censorship. You call me narcissistic for being realistic and hide behind your associates? You have an attitude problem. You are not a progressive. You sound like a neocon repug in progressive drag.
""The pursuit of happiness" does not require your approval or even your understanding. It is a individual private affair. If Astrology makes Rose happy, so be it. She is a gifted writer and adds a southing dimension to this chaotic war state we are in."
The real Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be a tyrant like you dictating that only astrologers are "gifted". I have nothing against Rose loving astrology but I take objection to her using astrology in discussing issues in a confusing manner. How many people were taught astrology in the US? Not many. She could make up predictions about what will happen but even astrologers can go wrong. I take issues when she couldn't argue on the facts and then abouts pulling out her superstition and arguing using that. She may as well have pulled out a bible. Neither is science, and neither reflects what is easily seen in daily life or in history. You are, of course, free to to believe whatever she says, etc. Sometimes, she's right but sometimes I believe that her writing sounds sexist, and she uses her astrology to justify it. Those are my own conclusions, drawn from what I have read in past comments. Sometimes, her writings appear to add more deadly dimensions to this war state. I'm a proud blue collared progressive atheist.
Mr. Berry,
I believe you are having a little trouble with this concept of free speech. You need to learn how to selectively read, instead of trying to coerce others into posting what you want to see placed in the thread.
Also, it does not appear that your glasses are working. You said: "The real Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be a tyrant like you dictating that only astrologers are "gifted""
I never said any such thing. Nowhere in my post is the word "only." You've trolled me on other threads using a different screen name the same way; misrepresenting what I actually said. Lastly, to be a tyrant I would have to have some sort of power over you. I do not.
tyrant [ˈtaɪrənt]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who governs oppressively, unjustly, and arbitrarily; despot
2. any person who exercises authority in a tyrannical manner
3. anything that exercises tyrannical influence
4. (Historical Terms) (esp in ancient Greece) a ruler whose authority lacked the sanction of law or custom; usurper
[from Old French tyrant, from Latin tyrannus, from Greek turannos]
I was merely expressing that I enjoy SR's posts. She makes infinitely more sense than you do, in my humble opinion.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
So the idiot posting behind a famous president makes a mockery of the real Thomas Jefferson. You're the loser trying to coerce others into thinking your way or the highway. You should clean up your own hypocrisy first before preaching.
I have never had multiple accounts and you have no evidence to prove it. You are making up lies and bullshit. What names did I post under that you think are me? Please do tell and prove it. Until then, you are slandering and the real Thomas Jefferson wouldn't like it. I never trolled you on other threads or on this one. You, SiouxRose, webwalk, and your other associates are the ones trolling.
Sioux Rose
S.B... Ah, the lady doth protest too much!
Protest too much? Lady, you're the one doing all the protesting and Obama trashing. I'm a man, not a woman. Pay attention.
Sioux Rose
BERRY boy: You did 51 of the 220 posts on this thread. Talk about trying to dominate a discussion and have NOTHING of worth to add. Be careful who you name-call, son.
I guess that goes to show that I can stand on my own two feet while you rely on your associates to speak for you. You can't debate so you join your associates in name-calling and hate talk. Try learning from Boyd Collins and Henry8. Grow up.
RE: "Rather than prove its commitment to international law, the United States used its clout to smear the report as 'deeply flawed' and to strong-arm the Palestinian Authority into withdrawing a supportive resolution." - Naomi Klein
FROM THE FACEBOOK GROUP 'Richard J. Goldstone: Integrity Personified'
"That the United States attacked the report, authored by Judge Goldstone, one of the pre-eminent jurists in the world, demonstrates that it is willing to debase both the law and a respected jurist in its effort to protect a client state, despite its crimes." - Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights (based in N.Y.)
>>> JUSTICE BRANDEIS ON 'GOVERNMENT AS THE OMNIPRESENT TEACHER' <<<
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis elaborated in Olmstead v. United States (1928): "In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
>>> GOLDSTONE FACEBOOK GROUP - 'Richard J. Goldstone: Integrity Personified' <<<
> Name - Richard J. Goldstone: Integrity Personified
> Category - Common Interest, Beliefs & Causes
> Description - A group for individuals who admire and respect Justice Goldstone. (In 2009 Justice Goldstone led an independent fact-finding mission created by the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate international human rights and humanitarian law violations related to the Gaza War.)
> LINK - http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=152832719154
And the media will continue to report that Obama is a liberal who is repairing the relationships that Bush broke.
As a result Obama supporters will stand down.
And the wing-nuts will throw a tantrum pushing him farther to the right.
By the way, N-O(bel)-bama is planning to increase troops by 45,000 in Afghanistan, the BBC is reporting. I guess the peace prize didn't box Obama in one bit.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23727.htm
A million species are slated for extinction in 40 years, thanks to human-induced global warming, largely driven by the USA's consumptive habits.
Don't fret.
Humans are also on the list.
Just further down the page...
Not if the USA belligerence against Iran results in Russia and China throwing a few thousand Nukes at us.
I was very disappointed to read some posts by normally astute posters somehow rationalizing that Barry is in reality "reaching out to Muslims".
Here are the ACTIONS which deny the "ludicrous reaching" out fantasy.
More USA troops killing Muslims than ever before in history.
Twice escalating AFPAK ( BBC says 45,000 more today)
Demanding sanctions on Iran who has opened its doors to inspectors and has no known nuclear weapons program.
Sanctions are unjustified, irrational and if it involves blockades an act of WAR.
Silence on israel's 200 nukes
Barry's suppression of Goldstone report
Attacks in Somalia
Ongoing Renditions
No USA war criminals prosecuted
Torture by request
Bagram replaces Gito
Glenn Ford: you summed it up well. With friends like these, Muslims don't need any enemies (as they say)>
Check out this one too!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15622
"Obama and the Nobel Prize: When War becomes Peace, When the Lie becomes the Truth"
Excellent observation, Naomi Klein. I almost wonder how analysis like this could keep you in the stable of mostly Obama-fawning writers at The Nation. For a companion piece that sees the Nobel award in much the same way, see Saswat Pattanayak's Black Agenda Report article on the "Eurocentrism" embedded in Nobel's history of prize selectees. I recommend it as a piece that complements the equally incisive observations here of Klein:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/militarist-obama-and-corporate-nobel-peaceful-partnership
Just the threat of communism would make a difference. Isn't that one of the reasons for the New Deal? Didn't Roosevelt save capitalism's butt?
I don't think anything substantial will come out of the progressive left so called "movement" - not unless a strong laxative is administered.
What did Nader and McKinny collectively get in the last election? less than 1%?
Heck of a job lefties! If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious.
You're right, Naomi is not a radical. What has historically defined the radical, are those persons, (as in mathematics to go to the root) who are willing to critique the system itself. Naomi will criticize "disaster" capitalism bu not capitalism itself. After reading her book, I thought, great book, but is disaster capitalism that much different (or worse) than the capitalism that preceded it?
Brandbama is clearly superior to Brandbush the way Benetton is to be preferred to The Gap or Gain laundry detergent is to be preferred to Cheer or Pepsi is to be preferred to Coke.
The verdict is in and the world court of public opinion clearly concurs.
Now it's on to more important things like who will win the World Series and what in the world Britney Spears is up to!
Poet
"... what in the world Britney Spears is up to"
She's probably getting bonked by Obama.
You don't need a detailed analysis to convince me that Obama has achieved next to nothing for peace in nine months as the new US president.
American boys and girls in US uniform are still killing people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, using depleted uranium which will continue to burn living creatures for billions of years. Really!
The official 9/11 story with all its absurdities and murderous implications is still told.
Israel, the Zionists and their extraordinary lies are still magically good.
Trillions of dollars, the equivalent of how many ordinary men/hours? were given to a few, little-known men, without a plan for peace, except that this money wasn't all spent of war, yet.
For a start, all what Obama has to do is to say, live on TV: "Dear Americans and citizens of the world, you have been lied to for many years. But before I tell you more about this, you should know that I just gave the order to bring all our soldiers home from *every country* where they are based. Yes, *every country*. The US will close all its military bases located abroad, because we don't need them, and then we'll abolish our army like Costa Rica did in 1948. From now on, we will buy what we need like the Chinese do, because we really believe in the free market, which means that we don't need any soldier to help us fix the price of anything, the oil included. Now about Israel, please listen carefully..."
But that's impossible, because the only job of the US president is to give a smile (or a smirk) to the decisions of the international corporate powers that be.
"American boys and girls in US uniform are still killing people in Iraq"
They are also being killed there.
That wouldn't happen if they weren't there, but perhaps I see your point: American boys and girls wouldn't be killed in Iraq if their commander in chief hadn't ordered them to go there, or to stay there.
Touche' !
It might not be our commander in chief who did it alone. Without our thirst for oil or inflating the value of Saudi America's oil, would our commander in chief still be sending troops to Iraq or mercenaries for that matter?
//Without our thirst for oil or inflating the value of Saudi America's oil, would our commander in chief still be sending troops to Iraq or mercenaries for that matter?//
Indeed not, and I never thought otherwise.
It's a funny coincidence, that I was discussing this issue with a senior AFP journalist tonight. I told him about the 'inflating the value of Saudi America's oil' hypothesis, and he told me that he had never thought about that.
===