Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTwenty Years From Now, You Will Lie To Your Children
Take a look at a video of George W. Bush speaking to the nation five or six years ago.
Like a pop single from 1962 (or 2002, for that matter), it didn't age very well.
It's astonishing that this transparently frightened man was the leader of the free world for eight years, and was given so much license to commit so much destruction.
But, then, nothing seems to define our era quite so much as license.
We give ourselves license to incur fantastic levels of national debt, and hand the bill to the next generation.
We give ourselves license to invade other countries on the most patently bogus of pretexts, bringing disaster upon them and us.
Or at least some of us, that is, because we also give ourselves license to allow a tiny fraction of the population to carry the entire national security burden for all the rest of us.
We give ourselves license to spend half again as much as any other country in the world on healthcare, only to be ranked 37th ‘best' by the World Health Organization, just so we don't have to do the simple work of writing corporate predators out of the parasitic cash cow booty feeding troughs in which they're entrenched.
Meanwhile, a bullet is heading toward the heart of the body politic in the form of global warming, and we give ourselves license to pretend that the threat isn't even clearly defined, lest we should have to relinquish our precious Hummers.
The list goes on and on. I regret to say that history will not judge us, here and now, a serious people. Nor should it. I certainly don't either.
Indeed, even when we get serious, we don't. Barack Obama was supposed to be the antidote to the excesses and negligences of the Bush years. In fact, nearly a year of his term has now gone by and he has almost nothing to show for it. Which means that neither do we. When Saturday Night Live parodies you by having your character claim "jack" and "squat" as your administration's two greatest achievements - well, that's never a good sign.
Nor does Obama appear to have a lot of intent at accomplishing much, either. At least anything that requires the ruffling of a feather or two - which of course includes just about anything that matters. For any given question put before this president, it seems that his position can safely be estimated to fall square in the middle of the road, right there alongside Jim Hightower's proverbial yellow stripes and dead armadillos. In reality, though, that's actually an unfortunately generous estimate. Obama's politics, if you actually look at them - rather than at most people's false impression of them - turn out to be remarkably similar to George Bush's on everything from the fiscal stimulus to big corporate healthcare initiatives to escalating war policies to eroded civil liberties to unequal treatment for gays.
And yet this milquestoastiest of presidents generates the most outrageous volumes of the most egregious vitriol in our public discourse, as if he were wrecking the country through disastrous wars based on lies, unprecedented constitutional shredding, or massive fiscal hemorrhaging. Oh, wait - that was the last guy. Never mind. Somehow those travesties didn't precipitate much noise from the cave-dwelling set - unless you count deafness-inducing cheers of approval, or enough slurpy mass salivation to befuddle and alarm Dr. Pavlov.
One of the most astonishing things about the right in America is the degree and frequency with which they turn out to be precisely the opposite of what they claim to be. It's quite Orwellian, actually, in a charming sort of war-equals-peace kinda way. They adore dressing up like they're the big military tough guys, but they all had to go to Woodstock or something during Vietnam. They like to lecture us incessantly about the virtues of their particular brand of sexual morality, and then it always turns out that they're the ones who love to dress up in leather and Vaseline and gang-bang packs of small furry rodents. They can't wait to pontificate on the virtues of itsy-bitsy, low taxing, low spending government, but then whenever they get their hands on the damn thing they drive up the national debt like Yahweh himself told them it was their personal holy crusader's mission to party hearty at the public's expense ("I command you to choose a hockey mom from amongst your number, and cause her to buildeth a bridge to nowhere!").
I could keep going forever, and it would actually be pretty entertaining, if only the real world effects weren't so bloody destructive. One of my favorites, though, I have to say, is the riff on responsibility. You know, as in, they're the ones who have it. Remember when the Bush crew came to power, literally saying "The grown-ups are back in charge"? I can think of a lot of things I would call George W. Bush, but "grown-up" is more or less last on my list, right there after "brave", "articulate", "compassionate" and "thoughtful". In any case, these guys always fancy themselves the mature, reliable, responsible stewards of American government. That's more than a little scary, isn't it - to think that these are the nation's best and the brightest? To imagine that Bush and Cheney and Rove represent the crowning achievement of six or ten millennia of civilizational development, topping off millions of years of genetic refinement?
Wuuuuhhhh. That lurching twitch you just felt was a serious shudder going down your spine, your body's involuntary reaction to perceptions of sheer horror. But, meanwhile, did I mention that the real story of responsibility is slightly different than the regressive version?
Start with global warming. I'm not a climatologist and I don't even play one on Fox TV. Which is why I rely on the people with the PhDs in the field and their masses of data, elaborate models and giant supercomputers to tell me what is happening on that question. Like most people, I wouldn't even have the foggiest sense of whether the Earth is spherical, flat, or shaped like a bicycle-built-for-two, were it not for the geographers and explorers who figured it out. There's almost no way to get there on your own from daily experience. Hence, I take their word for it, just like I take the word of astronomers that our little planet is not, after all, at the center of the universe (which is good news indeed for the universe).
Our happy regressive friends do the same thing, of course. Except when they don't. They reject evolution in favor of a 6,000 year-old Earth. Though I notice that they're quite content to queue up for radiation therapy when they're sick with cancer, even while rejecting the veracity of radio-carbon dating of ancient fossils. Hmmm. Go figure. They mostly have reconciled themselves nowadays to a heliocentric solar system, though they did imprison Galileo for telling a but too much truth on that one. Given the recent tenor of the religious right in America, I'm waiting for even this bit to get tossed out with evolution, any day now. You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen. Mark my words. The Earth will return to the center of the universe, just like the good book says.
Meanwhile, the same people who would happily burst through the doors of the National Archives, yank the Constitution out of its case and run it through a $19.99 shredder they just picked up on sale at Office Depot - all in the name of fighting terrorism - are simultaneously working frantically to make sure we don't do anything at all about the very real threat of global warming. Udickuitous Cheney once said that we have to pull out all stops in case there was even a one-percent chance of a terrorist attack that might kill thousands. But a survey of the experts on climate change suggests that there is a more than ninety-nine percent probability that whole countries will be drowned and entire groups of species eradicated in the coming decades. And that's just the easy part. Still, the regressive prescription for this looming nightmare is to continue to do nothing at all, lest we anger the supreme goddess Commerce.
I've always been a little weird this way, but where I come from, that ain't exactly the most responsible choice. Neither was invading Iraq. More than 4000 dead Americans later, and George Bush is still looking under his desk for the missing WMD (heh-heh, wasn't that a hilarious little comedy routine he did on that?). As if that would have been a valid excuse to invade a country that was neither attacking us nor threatening us, anyhow. As if dozens of countries don't have WMD. As if the Republican government of the United States didn't cover for Saddam at home and at the UN at the time he was actually using chemical weapons on his own people.
So perhaps a million Iraqis are dead now, American finances are in the toilet, the country's global reputation is too skanky to qualify for horizontal employment in a makeshift basement brothel in Tijuana, and our national security - supposedly the purpose of the whole exercise - has been radically diminished by the decimation of an army that even Colin Powell described as "broken". This is what you get from the "responsible" ideology, ladies and gentlemen.
But wait! There's more! How about a crushing national debt. Hey, why not borrow money recklessly to pay for these fun wars based on lies? And how about those super-rich folks out there? Don't they deserve additional tax cuts? I'm sure our children won't mind paying for the loans to finance those giveaways, plus interest, in the future. Why would those crazy kids want to actually bring home the fruits of their labor in a paycheck anyhow? They won't mind working long hours to finance the ‘responsibility' of unparalleled deficit spending by regressives, will they?
Well, actually, that question is likely to be a moot issue now anyhow. That's because the upshot from the ‘responsible' economic policy provided by our nice regressive friends increasingly means that the youngins won't have any jobs at all. That certainly solves the problem of spending a lifetime paying taxes to finance their parents' spending sprees, doesn't it? Pretty clever, is it not? No regulation, no economy; no economy, no jobs; no jobs, no income; no income, no taxes; no taxes, no worries! Damn! I wonder if the good folks on the right had this all figured out from the beginning!
Ho-ho, eh? Not so funny, though, if you're on the butt end of the joke. Which we all are, not least the younger generation. There is an era of bad feeling in America, long in the making, but hardly at its nadir. The United States has been on a southward glide path for three decades now, an act of political physics as natural and inevitable as gravity itself, but also deeply exacerbated by the predatory political movement pioneered by Reagan and Thatcher, and continued by Bushes, Blairs, Clintons and Obamas alike.
It was bad enough that we lived for as long as we did at a greedy and unsustainable level, stealing from other peoples, from our environment, from brown and female workers, and even from our own children. But now it's getting much, much worse.
In twenty years those children are all too likely to be living poor, on a hostile planet, working long hours to pay down the sins of their fathers.
And they might well be enraged, too, as they should be.
A decade or two from now, if they confront their right-wing elders - gazing in anger and astonishment at the bottomless capacity of their parents' selfishness - you can safely bet that their questions will be met with dissembling deception.
Twenty years from now, regressives will lie to their children.
We know this because those regressives are already lying today, covering their execrable crimes the only way possible.
With deceit.
100 Comments so far
Show AllRight Wing Conservatives lack empathy, which is an indicator of how far up the ladder of evolution they are. The main things that separates from the animal is our empathy/compassion for others, and our awareness and concern of the environment around us. Conservatives possess neither, as they have not reached that stage of evolution yet and are more like animals than we are. This is hopefully a positive sign since evolution keeps moving forward and hopefully propels into a world without the conservative reptilian brain.
What's rather interesting is that many non-human species have behaviors that, in humans, we would interpret as empathetic.
For example, elephants will gather around a dying member of their herd, frequently touching the dying one, and not leaving until life is over.
Those who prefer to see humans as the Chosen Species naturally try to interpret such actions in mechanistic ways, but doing so is very unscientific. When non-humans and humans share so much DNA, it's much more reasonable to expect that similar-looking actions have similar meanings.
I'd say that psychopaths/neo-cons are much more on a pre-mammalian level in respect of rapacious self-centeredness. A good comparison might be with crocodiles.
This is a pretty optimistic piece. It assumes that we still have 20 years.
Hey, its football Sunday! I'll lie and cheat and consume and cheer and act American, wave the flag, buy a model drone for my kids for Xmas, what the hell, God damn it, long live the stud!!!!
For a while the right almost apotheosized a president (Bush) who was a deserter and a coward during Nam. What? It takes "balls" to order others folks' kids to murder other folks' kids?
Well, support the troops, as the good Nazis did theirs.
"One of the most astonishing things about the right in America is the degree and frequency with which they turn out to be precisely the opposite of what they claim to be. It's quite Orwellian, actually, in a charming sort of war-equals-peace kinda way. They adore dressing up like they're the big military tough guys, but they all had to go to Woodstock or something during Vietnam. They like to lecture us incessantly about the virtues of their particular brand of sexual morality, and then it always turns out that they're the ones who love to dress up in leather and Vaseline and gang-bang packs of small furry rodents. They can't wait to pontificate on the virtues of itsy-bitsy, low taxing, low spending government, but then whenever they get their hands on the damn thing they drive up the national debt like Yahweh himself told them it was their personal holy crusader's mission to party hearty at the public's expense ("I command you to choose a hockey mom from amongst your number, and cause her to buildeth a bridge to nowhere!")."
I'm glad to see someone around here hasn't lost their memory. For the last year all I've heard the right wing bitching about the loss of Constitutional rights, economic irresponsibility, and Obama's socialist tendencies. I can hardly choke back a bitter laugh at the amazingly willful amnesia at the speed and near total destruction of our Constitution within just the first year of the Bush (Cheney) junta. Of course Obama hasn't rescinded a single executive usurpation, and has certainly expanded things ever so slightly - although the difference between Obama and, say, Cheney/Bush is that at functions the Chimp or his Sith master appears at you can be arrested just for wearing a t-shirt they don't like, while Obama lets small things like assault rifles slide. (Better watch your ass with that notoriously right-wing-fascist 'secret service around - they're so secret they're bound to let one slide past them in into our chief exec, just so they don't blow their cover.) Certainly Obama continued some ghastly economic policies that were well begun before he set foot in the White House, and sure, he's let the banks basically take complete control of government, and hasn't used his bully pulpit for a damned thing that I'm aware of. As for his 'socialist' tendencies, I'm still waiting to see them, unless you are willing to call (multinational) corporate welfare 'socialism'. Funny thing though. I've always thought that taxing the poor (whether through deliberate meltdowns, govt. bailouts, rampant printing of currency, etc) was something that was a hallmark of right-wing fascism. It is, after all, a government system of, by, and for corporations. When single payer advocates are arrested rather than allowed to sit at the debate table for health care reform, or when some banks (the biggies) get bailed out with taxpayer money, while others (smallies) are allowed to sink and bailouts for auto industries (which might save an American job or two) are nearly non-existent - or are a pittance in comparison to that handed to multinational banks without any oversight whatsoever... And bailing out actual people (flesh and blood, rather than legal entities created by a political pen-stroke) in danger of losing their homes?) whose taxes pay for those banks criminality HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! Of course it becomes obvious that Obama is anything but a Marxist, much less any kind of advocate for democracy (which is inherently socialist inasmuch as it is theoretically about the decentralization of power into the hands of the people, equally, without regard to social, religious, racial, or economic status).
Anyway, if Obama doesn't start swinging soon I'll have to assume he's a piece of shit like Kerry after he threw his fight. The bastard didn't even utter a peep of protest at the obvious theft of the 2004 election, after he strongly promised to do otherwise should there be the scent of a dead rat in the polls. And Kerry, whose history in the take-down of the BCCI (Iran/Contra) affair proves that he knows where some of the bodies are buried, never mentioned a word about any of that during the campaign - and we all know he could have wiped the floor with Bush in any debate.
So you tell me what the deal is. I can only assume that everything we see and hear concerning national politics is pure theater, and that not a bit of it is to be believed. Unfortunately that leads to the logical conclusion that our republic is lost, and that until enough folks wake up to that fact nothing will change. And even if they do wake up it appear the fuckers on the Hill have been making sure there will be an army here at home to deal with it, should things get nasty. Peaceful protests are useless, and are utterly and completely ignored by the Bushes and the Obamas, so eventually people that care are going to step things up a bit, or not. Terrorist, like "Witch" can be a scary name to be called, and did I mention the Constitution is in tatters thanks to so-called 'conservative' government? So long any chance at open court, public scrutiny of evidence, and, um, habeus corpus...
"That's more than a little scary, isn't it - to think that these are the nation's best and the brightest? To imagine that Bush and Cheney and Rove represent the crowning achievement of six or ten millennia of civilizational development, topping off millions of years of genetic refinement? "
What I see is the evolution of force and fraud outpacing that of reason and honor - of corruption becoming so sophisticated that the root 'sophist' positively leaps out and strangles me to death. We have been gang raped in every orifice and sensory system for so long we're beginning to like it.
DMG just about summed up our politics in a nutshell. So did you.
In Orwellian fashion, anyone who stands against these corporate fascist powers is a terrorist. In reality, who holds massive arsenals of nuclear bombs that could destroy the entire planet in a matter of minutes? Who sends robotic drones to far flung regions of the planet to destroy their perceived enemies and kill countless innocent women and children? Who has developed and holds biological weaponry that could destroy large swaths of life on this planet? Who is the most imprisoned populace on the planet, replete with armies of jackbooted thugs who quell any resistance? Who are these people who celebrate black Friday and engage in commodity fetishism and celebrate their consumerist obsessions? Who are these people who promote and nurture a society based on greed and exploitation. A society that promotes the distribution of wealth to the point that over 3 billion people live on two dollars a day or less, 1 billion live in starvation. It becomes obvious who the real terrorists are.
It is our collective ignorance that holds us back. Obama, the GOP, the Democratic party have become convenient excuses for our lack of understanding and action. We as a society have been hypnotized and programmed to defend this orgy of greed and exploitation. It is time for America to throw down these shackles, become aware and take action.
David Michael Green has a great pen! His sardonic and acerbic commentary hits the nail on the head. It indicts the foolishness and fecklessness of Amerika's ruling class... and the fat ass toadies that support them.
I strongly suspect that a decade or two from now... the have $nots will be hunting down (to kill and eat) the haves. At the very least... the have $nots will want a pound of flesh. Amerika's ruling class (and the pea brains supporting them) will be in hiding. Mansions will be burning; shotguns singing. And the only factories in the United $tates manufacturing anything will be those making guillotines.
Sad to say... the violent, evil, war-mongering beast that corp-rat fascist Amerika has become must be stopped! And it will be stopped! The whole world will rise up and render the righteous karma that Amerika (and its masters in Israel) so justly deserve.
Can ewe folks hear the 'musick'? Yesss... Old Coyote Knose it raging gunfire singing into a long night of open rebellion... birthing guerrilla war... inexoribly morphing into civil war. Goldman $achs beware!
I guess it would be asking too much to see the word "oil" - as in Peak Oil or oil depletion - mentioned in an essay about the decline of the American empire.
Even more amazing than the delusion of the Obama voters that the "change" rhetoric was more than a marketing campaign (good cop / bad cop) is the refusal of the "progressives" to look at how oil depletion motivates US elites, especially regarding the War on Iraq. But since few people understand where their food, water, electricity, liquid fuels, etc. come from, it's likely people will react to the symptoms of energy collapse without understanding root causes.
The liberals and the conservatives are generally united in not wanting to look at the limits to exponential growth on a finite planet. One side blames oil companies, the other side blames environmentalists. Few on either side look honestly at the fact that fossil fuels are not infinite and we are passing the point of Peak Oil, with tremendous implications for a growth based monetary system, long distance shipping of food, etc.
---
from the ASPO-USA Peak Oil Notes, October 29, 2009
www.aspo-usa.org
Quote of the day:
“(Steven Chu, US Secretary of Energy) was my boss. He knows all about peak oil, but he can't talk about it. If the government announced that peak oil was threatening our economy, Wall Street would crash. He just can't say anything about it.
-- David Fridley, scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, quoted in an article by Lionel Badal (see Peak Oil News, 10/28, item #23)
My God!!
David Michael Green "out-superbs" the superb writers/thinkers such as Ralph Nader, Thom Hartmann and Katrina vanden Heuvel.
What an incredible genius you are Mr. Green.
Since I am not the genius that you are, I tend to simply say the Bush/Cheney/Rove are above all, the following.....
They are cowards and bullies. They have done more ACTUAL damage to America than anyone else, ever.
Anyonw who is thinking, "No, Hitler did"..... think again.
Hitler did a lot of damage to other countries and some to America, but nothing remotely like Bush & Company have done, when one factors in the environment, the war crimes, the unConstitutional actions hurting our citizens' liberties, etc. etc.
But, in conclusion, David Michael Green, you have said it all and done a superb job of writing it intelligently.
DG said like physics we've been falling for 30 years. Co-rrect.
But then says our children will work long hours to alleviate our egregious sins-
well, in 20 years our descent as DG points out will be a 1/2 century plummet; sure as the truth's of physics, NO work(s) by anyone at that point will alleviate, change, slow or alter America's imminent and inevitable demise. REVOLUCION.
We should all notice that what is wrong with this country is that the GOP is filled with faux conservatives, and the DNC is filled with faux liberals.
Eight years of GOP rule, and the government GROWS?? How is that even POSSIBLE under the rule of true conservatives??
And if what Obama has been doing is liberal, I'm ashamed to call myself one. Bailout WallStreet, making Main Street pay?? Health insurance reform that BEGINS by taking single-payer off the table?? And, of course, we can't raise taxes on the 1% of the country that now own 40% of the country (up from 20% during Reagan) because that would be too politically expensive. Just how many votes do they buy anyway?? And we'll continue to stay in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, but, boy, will we express regret about it!! Faux liberalism is as dangerous as faux conservatism. Both fake identities encourage voters who really CARE about issues to drop out of politics, tune it out and do something constructive. And thats hardly what our nation needs right now.
Believe it or not, there is something good in conservatism: spending cuts to pare down the size of government. Its just that, THESE GOP conservatives NEVER get AROUND to that. They just cut social programs and increase defense programs. And there's something good in liberalism: tax increases to pay for the gov't programs we all want. Its just that, THESE DNC liberals NEVER get around to that either, it might upset the corporations and the people who own them. So, BOTH parties just take us further and further into DEBT.
I disagree on two points.....
You said the the GOP is "filled with faux conservatives".
No. In my book, if someone is not a conservative s/he would have to be essentially like a Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader. I can't think of any GOP politician who is like that.
And secondly, you seem to think that Obama is supposed to be a Liberal.
He isn't. He is a Centrist.
And that is why he was not one of my top three picks for President in 2008. Of the candidates, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards and Chris Dodd were more liberal (with Kucinich being the most liberal, and my pick).
I really like the idea of us having a President who is non-white and/or a woman, but Obama and Hilary Clinton are too conservative for my tastes. Give me a Barbara Boxer or Keith Ellison any day, rather than H. Clinton or Obama.
David MicharlGreen,
http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/the-israel-lobby-and-the-jewish-kings.html
The USA has a very big cancer. It's called Zionism and it is killing us. If you are a Jew, you must join the fight to eliminate zionism and zionists from the USA. This is a malignant tumor that puts no restraints on ambition (see Blankfein of Goldman Sachs) and the common people be damned. Loyal American Jews MUST condemn zionism for their country's survival. If you are Jewish and have some confusion about the name of YOUR country, then you have a problem. Solve it. We cannot afford to ignore Israel's fascist behavior any more. They are going to drag us into a war we cannot win. If they want to stupidly fight and bleed, that's their problem. We need to break ties with Nazi Israel now. Like an abused child They have assumed the role of their abuser. They are sick.
There are some things I envy about Israel such as their moving towards going oil free on transportation. Saudi Arabia won't be pleased and since Israel relies on the Saudi royals as well, this could turn out to be interesting. There's also Egypt and Jordan. I believe India is also with Israel. Those four nations alone could change Israel by backing out but it's true that US will have to cut down its donations to that zionist government.
Something good DID come out of the Obama election. McCain lost.
At this point, it is irrelevant. Actually, the worse Obama does, the more people might wonder if we were better off having Mccain. With Mccain, you would know what he would do next. With Obama, slick and unpredictable for most except those of us who seriously mistrust him and expect the worst. We could have had Ralph Nader or Cynthia Mckinney instead of Obama or Mccain. Examine Dubya's record while in office and compare it to Obama's and see how much Obama is competing to move to the right of Dubya.
Jrnnifer,
Yep. And this is a big part of it:
http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/the-israel-lobby-and-the-jewish-kings.html
David Michael Green.
You are an amazing optimist! You believe that there WILL BE a USA in 20 years.
I hope you are right but it's time for you to stop complaining about dinosaurs and their appetite for destructive acts. Of course they lie. Of course Orwellian behavior is their modus operandi. What else is new?
What's this about those poor few with the whole "national security burden"? What fucking burden are you talking about? The wars for oil and Israel burden? Have you considered Aliyah? You've got a blind spot shaped like a six pointed star. They are our MAIN national security burden.
We don't give ourselves license. We give it to representatives of the oligarchy.
I will only comment of Green's assessment of Obama.
He is of course exactly right about Obama.
I believe Obama would like to do more, but he has two problems.
1. The right wing press would crucify him if he really spoke up for what most Americans would like which is a. single payer health care and b. ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
2. The fact that he is a man of color would if he championed the public's two biggest desires probably not be good for his hopes for a long life.
When the police tolerated people attending town hall meetings with assault weapons and did nothing to make them get rid of the arms before entering the meetings is a scary sign of what could happen when such unneeded behavior is left unchallenged. There can be no doubt that a person did not need an assault weapon to protect himself at those meetings; the organizers and almost all others in attendance were unarmed and likely didn't even know the carriers of the weapons.
The sad fact is that the lunatic fringe right can behave this way and it is supported by the media without much if any outcry against it.
Given that, Obama likely knows he has to wait for a better opportunity. If he completely blows his chance by going for the best solutions and getting crucified in the press he knows he will be a lame duck thereafter and out after one term.
I know it looks like he is now useless to the American people, but suspect he is waiting for a sure thing before playing his big cards.
He didn't come into the presidency like FDR did. FDR was from a well respected white family and he was able to get people to "make me do it". In addition, the press in FDR's time was a lot more free of its ownership's politics. Obama isn't there yet and may never get there because of the points I listed above.
I too wish he was doing all the right things now, but "we aren't making him do it" now and it doesn't look like "we are going to make him do it". Until we force it he will have to wait.
So the answer to Obama's ineffectivenes is our ineffectiveness. We have to get on with our job so he can get on with his.
@greatwhite--your comments are cogent and persuasive, contrary to the opinions of the 2 critics who disagreed with you but did not offer rebuttal. I had been intending to point out that timing is everything, and that the POTUS can best put his reputation and rhetorical skills to work as the 2010 elections approache. By that time the health insurance compromise will have been struck, and it will be clear which Red Dog Democrats need to be replaced as the fight to stop global warming proceeds in the Congress. You describe the reality of the current political climate very well. Obama is walking a tightrope. He cannot be expected to reverse half a century of Orwellian propaganda against single-payer health care in his first year in office, or even his first four. Likewise if a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and retreat from Afghanistan were followed by a spectacular terrorist attack on the homeland, the return of GOP control of the Congress and WH would no doubt be hastened.
The great, dysfunctional behemoth that is the US political system has been successfully commandeered away from the iron grasp of its corporatist controllers and is now being carefully raised from its ossified foundations to provide access so that the extent and nature of necessary repairs and modifications can be assessed. In the meantime the politics of reaction and revenge is pervasive on the talk radio and cable network circuit. It is up to all of us to go forth and confront the reactionaries, in the media, on the streets, and with our wallets and resources. Assisting the Obamaphobes in their crucifixion campaign will get us nowhere. It is in the upcoming election that the efforts of progressive will be crucial.
Spoken like a true Obama apologist.
Meaningless. Absolutely a waste of e-time and e-space.
a lotta wind
"We see as through a glass darkly," as the Bible says. It's nearly impossible to answer Lenin's inevitable, irreducible question, "What is to be done?" since most of us have, at best, a partial or confused idea of "what is" in the first place.
I would recommend reading (or watching or listening to) the work of "big picture" thinkers such as Immanuel Wallerstein, David Korten, Jack Rasmus, futurist John Smart, or any one of many of the "green" authors and science writers who truly are "thinking globally." Whether you happen to agree or disagree with some or all of their specific ideas, you'll find your own perspective expanded so that you're thinking and seeing things in terms of the interaction of global systems, instead of getting lost in the wash of minutia that passes for "news" in our increasingly dysfunctional society.
Please feel free to add to my small list of big thinkers.
A fine piece, but - as I've mentioned before - yet another list of problems we, the choir, are all but expert at by now, without a single hint of a suggestion as to what the f**k we could possibly do to...
If ya add up all the pieces just like this one posted here for, say, the last six months - that is, those that list the problems without offering solutions - you'll find so many, there's only one conclusion you can draw:
There is no solution. We're goin down, the 1%ers are grabbing what they can before we completely capsize - in broad f**king daylight they're so panicked - and the rest of us are doing our best to avoid facing the ugly truth.
There is no more such thing as 'job creation,' the effects of catastrophic climate mutation are imminent, our natural resources have been decimated, and we hate each other more and more every day.
That's not me being cynical and nihilistic - that's the experts talking, right here, every day...
If your children are already young adults, you're either lying to them now or you're helping them deal with reality. I have one son who just got out of film school and feels he has five years before it's all over.
The other one gets what I'm doing (living small in the country, promoting a small footprint diet) but I don't have the heart to tell him 'saving money so I can quit and live just like you' probably isn't possible.
I plan on gradually helping him see it's better to downsize and become more light-footed. You can do a bit of this and a bit of that to make ends meet if you scale back your expenses to something a bit more like the majority world's people. And use less resources.
If you don't have any connections to speak up like the EPA whistleblower couple, leading by example is second best.
Lynn Shwadchuck
http://www.10in10diet.com/
As Shakespear said, "First, we kill all the lawyers."
Quite so, Frank1569: The U.S.A. is indeed a hopeless case; condition terminal, and in more ways even than rendered in Prof. Green's rehearsal of the insultingly obvious. Those of us not into "denial"--i.e., not into the American Exceptionalist fantasy that "we" can escape the consequences of "our" American Dream--work on accepting this situation. Acceptance is a wonderful thing to cultivate; while anger is toxic in a hopeless situation. Of course, "we" Americans know nothing of Acceptance, since "we" always want more of exactly those things that make "us" as wonderful as Prof. Green describes. Acceptance begins with that line from the "Hotel California": "You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave."
Excellent post.
i don't know what else to do.
i work at my local unionized organic food co-op;
push the co-op to build the local food economy, be sustainable in our own practices, and make clean local organic food affordable to everyone;
write articles in my co-op newsletter (circulation 10,000) about everything;
live in a small rental house with three other people and we do not turn the heat on (Seattle so we can survive that);
we are turning our lot and two adjacent lots into a 1/4 acre urban farm complete with laying hens and soon to build a greenhouse out of used windows;
incorporating the urban farm so we can sell cheap vegetable starts through the co-op;
starting a new fund to support local grassroots organizers (working on the papers right now);
planning another organization to support workers and consumers organizing co-ops;
talking to everyone i know about everything...
i've done a lot of nonviolent direct action in my life, less involved the past several years. i've never been involved in any party politics, have voted mostly non-duopoly throughout my life but never joined any party.
As i've written here before and allude to today in my climate change posts, i've been watching this train wreck happen for forty years now, it's pretty excruciating, i've participated with direct action organizing to try to spark public awareness and engagement on real issues but to little avail.
i don't know what else to do.
webwalk,
Believe me, you are a hero and you are doing a lot more than David M. Green is doing. He is the one that should feel guilty for not attacking his Wall Street pig friends.
Thank you for being a responsible human being. We need more like you.
I second AGG -webwalk.
we can only do what we can..but at least as much as we could.
you are indeed heroic in what you have been doing and living by ...and at the very least - you will always have a clean conscience...and are an inspiration to the rest of us. we need that.
I 3rd that webwalk. I knew from your posts that you were a person with integrity and clear thinking. Glad to read about all the great things you are doing. I am on that same track. Many will be following soon. The Permaculture trend, supporting self sustainable living, investing in local economies, disenfranchising corporate structures....this is our future. That is, if we are not thwarted by DU or chemical warfare by the Corporate Fascists! If we have a patch of ground and some clean water we can survive. If not (and try to imagine what it must be like in Darfur and other totally destroyed places) God help us for no one else will.
Thanks AGG and teddy, i have really appreciated both your efforts here at Common Dreams.
i'm pretty busy and i can't come here every day. i know this little community is just a virtual world where we try to connect and uphold our knowledge of what is really happening in the world to work for change and survival, and the Internet is not solving the world's problems, but you should know that your efforts here help me to see a broad picture of different perspectives. You and lots of other posters too.
It is easy sometimes to think that participating here is just shouting in the wind, and maybe it is, but thanks for your shouts.
And for all the issues people have with CD, thanks Craig and the team for keeping this space running. That said, i know this has been suggested many times, but if there is work going on to provide a space here where we can discuss our actual projects, separate from just commenting on articles, that might be really useful. i'm sure lots of posters here are trying lots of different tacks to work for positive transformation of society and self.
That is a fantastic idea! I rarely post comments because I would rather have a space where we can talk about what we actually ARE doing. I made an attempt for the last decade or so to get a sustainable business of the ground. The one thing I didn't account for was that doing that in Minneapolis would leave me TOO MUCH LOCAL COMPETITION! Lol. Needless to say things failed, so in despair, I left. Right now I am teaching English in Korea, and learning about their infrastructure which is much more ecologically thought out than ours. Granted, as with anything there are problems, but it's interesting to see all the energy saving technology that is commonplace here. I would like to have a space on CD to talk more about that.
Astonishing piece of insight. Well done.
Thanks for calling Obama a "milktoast". It perfectly captures the combination of squeamish thumb twiddling cowardice, panicky microcalculation and yuppie "good taste" that is this phony's hallmark.
We exist in a whole world but the blue and red cesspool have combined to inundate the Potomac with their body waste and words of no meaning and even though the words and the waste have reached to the heights of the monument it does not give them pause.The world will pay for the blue and the red that would gather all that is not nailed down as there is no limit to thing they can own.Is that not what life is all about? and global warming is just a theory!When,not if,the world rebels and lets the blue and red drown in all the shit they have unloaded will there be justice rendered?Nay!For the blue and red have space on the world and they will blur any future for all.Tony
One of the very best articles of the year, with humor and tragedy mixed in almost perfectly. This one should be placed on the old hard drive.
Perhaps no one can save the country now without certain creditors and aggrieved parties demanding repayments of various types. And we know for sure that no one who remains enslaved to either of the main parties can save it.
But that does not excuse Obama for being a virtual cypher, for being, in David Michael Green's words, the "milquestoastiest of presidents".
Oh well, at least Professor Green can not (yet) lose his job at Hofstra for speaking the truth.
Suggested reading, "the Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins...and then realize after over a trillion dollars spent on the Iraq disaster and counting, with corporate dreams of endless big money for the excersize, Iraq is giving it's contracts and oil to other countries...another good look at 'Farenheit 911' shows how they were expecting a different scenario. It's with dread that I wake up each morning and wonder, "what's next?"
What's next? The U.S. invasion of Venezuela from its new bases in Colombia. Maybe not tomorrow or next month, but it's coming. We cannot allow socialism in this hemisphere and they have lot's of oil. Time to bring back democracy to Venezuela.
Arry, buff, and seriousprofessor all make good points.
i am happy to see Green inching toward a deeper analysis - not just about right-wing manipulators, but about the nature of the system, and the state of the nation. Green is more inclusive now of Obama as part of the problem, along with the litany of Bush / Cheney evil that is his stock-in-trade.
So if the problem is deeper than just the temporary ability of right-wing manipulators to seduce the masses or steal power and lead the country into war and regression... perhaps Professor Green will begin to write about the kind of awareness and action that would be required to address the problem.
Insightful, inciteful, and a "well duh" moment ...
... now what do you suggest we do, prof. Green? I'm interested to read that next piece.
There are two main solutions:
1. Fix the broken appliance or tweak it depending upon the damage kinda like moving the Democratic Party to the left.
2. Discard that appliance and buy a new replacement kinda like having a new progressive party replace the Democratic Party.
The first option costs less and looks easier.
No, the first option does not "cost less or look easier." In fact, it's not an "option" at all.
There is no such thing as "moving the Democratic Party to the left." Though the indoctrinated & foolishly naive never tire of imagining it's a serious possibility, the smallest bit of reflection immediately shows that it's completely impossible.
The Party is a fundamental prop of the corporate Establishment. It's permitted to be one of the 2 officially-approved parties precisely because the Establishment is 100% confident that the Party will always protect its interests. This means that the party is corporatist to its core, & will always support US imperialism & militarism, because these are important ways in which the Empire seeks to strengthen its grip on regions of strategic value.
If the corporate Establishment trusts the Dem Party to always support its interests, don't you think you should ask yourself why this is? If they thought there was the slightest chance in hell that the DP would suddenly start cracking down on Wall Street, dismantling the Empire, halting foreign wars, granting the public single-payer healthcare, etc etc, they would view the party as being "dangerously radical." They wouldn't tolerate the existence of such a party, any more than they tolerate socialist parties. They wouldn't allow it to be one of the 2 parties which the population is permitted to vote for.
Let's assume the impossible for a moment, & imagine that the DP began to seriously "move to the left." The moment this was noticed, the party would come under savage attack from the corporate media. It would be tarred as being "socialist." And then, either the party would get back in line & return to its usual position (ie, defending the interests of the corporate oligarchy); or it would be quickly marginalized, just as Greens, socialists, & figures like Nader & Chomsky are marginalized.
In other words, the very fact that the Establishment approves of the party enough to continue granting it status as one-half of the official Duopoly -- this fact tells you that they can't be "moved to the left." It's easy to pronounce the fantasy phrase of "moving the Dems to the left," but only in the way that it's easy to speak of "walking on water" or "turning coal into gold." The Establishment relies on suckers like you, who keep dreaming that a party that's corporatist to its core can somehow be magically "moved to the left."
RichM: How can you say that the first option is not an option? Think about this. You have a heater or fridge that breaks down. The repairman can either fix it or replace it. I just realized that I made an error in my initial reply to serious professor when I said the first option costs less. I meant to say that the first option usually costs less but sometimes the second option is necessary when it is determined that the first option is too costly beyond repair.
When I said moving the Democratic Party to the left, I meant hiring more Democrats that act and govern like Kucinich and putting pressure on rank and file Democrats who are prone to acting like Pelosi, Reid, Baucus old guard type. I voted for Kucinich last year in the primaries and I don't forget what the media did to him. They would do the same thing to third parties assuming third parties made it far enough. It costs time, money, resources, patience, reaching out to both Republican and Democratic voters, and a strong PR media just to get the public to pay attention. Even Ross Perot only went so far for his billions worth.
Then, there's maintanence costs and who knows what that will be. True, the corporate establishment has a lock on both the Republican and Democratic parties but what's the guarantee that they won't corrupt and have a lock on any third party that makes it to Washington? Ezeflyer often brings this up and I think he's right. I'm not status quo and I believe that fixing the Democratic Party from within is enough to move past the status quo. Third parties haven't won in past elections and with limited access to ballots in some states, no money, no clout, and no think tanks, how do we know what they will be by the time they make it?
I'm used to putting as much pressure on my Congressman as I can to get them to pass a progressive piece of legislation. If all progressives did the same, the Democratic Party would be the party of Dennis Kucinich instead of Bart Stupak. Don't get me wrong. I am open to voting third parties but there is no guarantee whatsoever that any third party will defeat the establishment. I don't even know if they can defeat the corporate establishment if or when they make it.
> "...How can you say that the first option is not an option?..."
- Because if the Dem Party were not absolutely 100% rock-solid guaranteed to defend the status quo, the Party wouldn't be one of the 2 that the powers-that-be let you vote for. The whole point of forcing you to vote for one of 2 big-business parties is so the business establishment risks nothing by the ritual of "elections." If they thought the Dems posed even the slightest risk of a serious move to the left, it would be (in practical terms) quasi-illegal to vote for Democrats, just as it is for socialists.
> "...When I said moving the Democratic Party to the left, I meant hiring more Democrats that act and govern like Kucinich and putting pressure on rank and file Democrats who are prone to acting like Pelosi, Reid, etc..."
- Kucinich is their token "principled guy." The only reason they keep him around is so they can say, "Hey, we're not complete sellouts -- after all, Kucinich is a Democrat!" They make room for this one seemingly principled guy, only because it's useful for disguising the odor of the rest of the Party.
The problems with this are that 1) they allow space for only one "token principled guy," and 2) the REAL party consists exclusively of the Pelosis & Reids, the Rahm Emanuels, the Obamas, etc. In other words, they're ALL corporate whores, except for Kucinich -- and they even keep him on a somewhat short leash. (And when they tug on his chain, he shuts up quickly, as he did at the Dem Convention in 2004, when the Kerry people told him he couldn't even mention the word "Iraq," and he docilely obeyed.)
1. You dodged his contention that any 3rd party which rises into prominence would be susceptible to corporate fascist influence as well. Perhaps you can explain how this new 3rd party would become bullet proof. He raised an important point and you ignored it.
2. Kucinich is part of the corporate fascist conspiracy. What a whopper that is. Someone should tell that to his voting constituency. Somebody should get me a tin foil hat.
Well said. Sanders, even though he doesn't call himself a democrat is a token allowed in the senate for the same purpose.
This is fallacious party apologist thinking. It does not cost money to open your heart and mind to the issues and actually judge a candidate by what they really stand for and/or a record to show for it. If all you care about is money and blame that for third parties not winning, you are sadly mistaken. Kucinich, himself, has some credibility issues given that he would much rather stay in the Democrat Party and let it abuse him instead of switching to Independent and joining Sanders. Since you argue about winning trends, let's talk about another trend, party trends. Over the last 40 years, the Democrat Party has moved further to the right and often shamelessly so. You are only deluding yourself by continuing to believe that the party can be moved to the left. It cannot and will not happen given those long term trends. Both the Republican and Democrat parties are broken way beyond repair. Even the Tea Party baggers know that although I don't support their rightwing ideology. At this point, trying to move the party to the left is like trying to feed a dead patient his medication. Why not just open your heart and mind and give someone new and/or some progressive third party a chance for what it's worth?
RichM,
Solid post. It's simply amazing to me how many people simply refuse to grasp, or are incapable of grasping, these completely obvious truths.
I second your emotion, Giovanna!
By happenstance, I recently channel-surfed into an episode of Laura Flanders' GritTV; the panelists were discussing the No Insurer Left Behind debacle, although of course they didn't describe it as such.
One of the panelists was Hendrik Hertzberg, who I knew to be the New Yorker's political columnist-- or one of them, anyway. I've probably read some of his work on-line, although nothing leaps out.
For the sake of the point, I'll call him an "A-list" pundit (a euphemism for "infotainwhore"). He's a go-to guy to help us understand the crucial BACK story.
Anyway, during the few minutes I watched, the discussion was all pitched on a pure "inside politics" level. I couldn't reproduce the details accurately, but Hertzberg was supposedly sorting out the horse-trading minutiae: Weiner did X, Pelosi did Y-- but they both knew that this was REALLY just to make sure that the votes for Z didn't drop any lower than W.
Then Schumer agreed to proceed with P, so Reid pulled the plug on R to force Caucus S to back down on T in exchange for a player to be named later. Bearing in mind, of course, that when Committee A reports the bill out to Committee B, Reid will have the option of either C, D, or F-- but not E, of course!
Oh, and everybody knew that Q was never going to happen, so no need to dwell on a might-have-been.
OK, I forgot to work in the term "mark up", which is apparently a crucial function that pops up as often as "eye of newt" in other kinds of spells. But the bottom line is that "realists" believe that all of the above is... the Bottom Line-- the way it WORKS, you know; that's what it's ALL ABOUT, what ultimately MATTERS!
Politically speaking, although there's neither rubber nor road, it's "where the rubber meets the road".*
Everyone, including Laura, was buying into the premise and excitedly offering further elaborations, encouraging Hertzberg to further elucidate them on What's (supposedly) Really Going On.
Had RichM suddenly broken into the set and taken a chair, HIS thoughtful and insightful analyis would've seemed like fantastical gibberish.
There was a payoff, in that I was able to determine that Hertzberg is obviously a Useful Idiot upon whom I need not waste further attention. I wasn't so impressed with Flanders, either.
This reminds me very much of a bit from Vonnegut's masterpiece, "Cat's Cradle". Religious cult leader Bokonon's response to Jesus' admonition to "render unto Caesar" is "Pay no attention to Caesar. Caesar doesn't have the slightest idea what's REALLY going on."
* No damn cat, and no damn cradle!
· Yr Obd't Servant
Greetings RichM & Shawn B , stop buying into the idea that politics is the problem. Politics is a symptom of a very much unused human potential. Politics would most likely not even exist in a higher level of collective creativity. What you are describing is solving the problem on the level of the problem. Step out of , expand beyond, transcend, etc. the symptoms and we enter into a totally different set of natural laws and knowledge. Politics itself is a lie and those that excel in it are consummate liars. Lying can be found at the most refined levels of physical existence and even finer in mental and emotional realms. as i am sure you know, observation of an object at a quantum mechanical level is a lie. The object seems to be there and then the influence of the observer alters that reality. If our senses are lying to us then certainly there is no point in trying to fix something that is run by trained professional liars. Answer -Turn the attention inward and expand and refine the receptacle that is the creator of thinking and action and in doing so discover knowledge that is dormant and waiting anxiously to be expressed. The collective knowledge that we now have in the world has been used, manipulated rearranged and repeated over and over and over, and yet we still believe that there will be a different outcome. Our institutions are the expression of our failed and limited interior, based on denial and heavily invested lies about who and what we are.
I agree that politics is a symptom. No matter who is my representative or senators, I keep contacting them and doing my part to put pressure on them and make them do it. It'd be nice if we had more company on our side pressuring Congress just like the corporate establishment RichM describes. The rest of what you said sounds interesting. I like the idea of thinking from within. I got more into it the more I did repair work for a living before I became a construction worker. For that, some people mistake me as status quo.
- I'm way ahead of you: I already "looked inward" and "transcended." And guess what I learned from doing that: I learned that human society STILL has to be organized in one way or another, even while many middle-class twits waste their time babbling about "looking inward" and "transcending."
The issue is HOW society will be organized: will it continue to be in a way that lop-sidedly favors the corporate rich & endangers the planet; or in a way that's vastly more democratic & equitable? This problem MUST be resolved; the only issue is HOW it will be resolved -- and that is what politics is. There's no escaping from this.
When you say that "Politics itself is a lie," you are confusing the appearance of politics with what it's actually accomplishing. On the surface, of course, it's a mass of lies. But under the surface, it actually works very effectively to maintain ruling class domination of society. It determines how resources are used; how goods are distributed; & issues of war and peace. That is hardly a "lie."
"Im way ahead of you, I already looked inward and transcended." to what, some previously undiscovered level of cosmic arrogance? did you happen to notice while you were in the transcendent, the self organizing aspect of nature? I doubt it, because it has been replaced by the 'superior' mind of man, which has a marvelous record at organizing societies, [that was sarcasm, which you overlooked in our last encounter.] For most, once the power of the transcendent has been experienced, the mind quickly co ops it with " Now i can really be somebody" and in a millionth of a second the experience of expansion is trivialized with thoughts like "I'm way ahead of you." Well, there is a bright side to all of this , none of the middle class twits, who are lagging behind will have to endure the pain of running into you any time soon.
Politics is a lie, because it is created by those that believe, they are separate. Separate form each other, and separate from that which silently holds all of the seemingly unconnected and unorganized beings and objects. Politics is created by minds that are devoid of being self organized. Organizing is fine, but if organizing is done by minds that have no direct and immediate connection to that which is in unity, it is like a ship without a rudder. "How", is not necessary when there is complete emersion of one awareness in the background of natural unity. Unity first and then organization, this a basic and inherent perception that comes with the experience of transcendence, not superiority exclusion and criticism. "This problem MUST be resolved, the only issue is HOW." HOW, as seen as the only issue is indicative of the limitations of mind. Mind is designed/programed to deal with the 'organization' of opposites. it does not contain the ability to create or understand the HOW or direct experience of unity. Opposites including HOW's, are appearing INSIDE of self organized unity, that knows only itself. We are compelled to act, even if what that action appears in as unity, goes unnoticed. Using and abusing your gift of lucidity as a weapon to disarm your detractors in order to protect your heavy investment in the illusory success of politics is hardly what i would call transcendent. Eventually, even lucid thinkers as yourself will come under the influence of exhaustion and dissolution, due to the historically repeated failures of politics, to save society's.
You guys have turned this into some nasty philosophical exercise is solipsism. Reality is, history does exist. We would be wise to understand it. The future does exist and we would be wise to prepare for it. The knowledge we built yesterday can allow us to make the proper decisions both today and tomorrow. Furthermore, we need to continually be aware of those things around us. Situations change and fluctuate and we must adjust accordingly. Rational and disciplined thought can be a crystal ball, whether you like it or not. Our mistakes (actions caused by our ignorance) yesterday, become the foundation of our suffering today.
Collectively, you outline two paths:
1. Ponder your belly button and what comes, comes. Nonsensical and naive at best.
2. Be angry and frustrated. Demand that the whole world think like you. Utopia will follow shortly thereafter. Egotistical to the extreme.
I have asked this numerous times on this board with nary a response. When is the time for right action? There is no doubt in my mind that this American society today represents the nadir of human existence. If things continue as is, we will make nazi Germany look like a walk in the park. I think many people in this country have come to the same conclusion. At what point do we actually do something about it? I struggle daily with these questions and it is my hope that more people in this country do the same.
"I have asked this numerous times on this board with nary a response" " When is the right time for action?" After your wise dismissing of self and 'now', as a naive philosophical non reality, you have to ask that question??? ACT NOW. It appears that you are asking ,how much abuse is enough? At what point should i put my rational and disciplined thought aside [ not permanently ,just for a second] and just act? Act as the first red flag appears. Act when the first signs of greed appear. Act when action is devoid of compassion. Act even if the outcome is not known, the past will prove whether that action was correct or not. If you truly believe that, as i do, that "this american society today represents the NADIR of human existence" then, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR??
I act today. My concern was your focus on the inward direction. I am only trying to point out to you that outward thrusts must be made as well.
Great, then please apply the "as well" to the inward direction. I admittedly go overboard with the inward direction when i probably should state my point as "an addition." Doing so rarely brings attention to the issue of the inward because the ' normal ' dominance of dealing with problems through action alone. mostly what i say gets interpreted as philosophy or meaning alone. I am trying to describe what is appearing/occurring inside of me since childhood. I agree with you, Richm and many others as to the state of the world but often disagree as to only considering action based solutions. We as a species have been trying to resolve the age old dilemma of social unity before recorded history. I am of the belief that if a solution works, then we no longer see the symptoms. example, the polio vaccine. we administer it once and the symptoms do not reappear. on this basis all of the attempts at' lasting' social unity have failed, and yet we continue to apply the same solutions to the same problems with the same non result. That is not intelligent. i am merely suggesting we look in a completely different direction and see what that experience exposes. thats it. I have never intentionally advocated the dropping of action to deal with life's problems. I have suggested that we take a momentary vacation from only identifying with action as who and what we are, see what that uncovers and then resume intellectual and physical activity. the HOW is up for debate.
Sirios, RichM isn't all that bad. Actually, I have to admit that I learned a lot from him too. When it comes to politics, finance, or you name it, it can be tough trying to figure out who is the real culprit. For example, in politics it could be the voters, the leaders, or both. Likewise, in the financial world such as in banks, it can be the customers, top management of the banks, or both. Once, RichM and I had a discussion about the idea of getting all customers to switch over from banks to credit unions and local banks. He correctly reminded me that even if all the regular customers were to withdraw from the banks and join credit unions, the corporate customers with the most money would still keep the banks alive unless we the public knew who those corporations were and boycotted them. As you can see, without a good government, the burden of holding Big Banks accounts is on us and the public would have to be united and cut them off their various sources of revenue, this can be difficult. Plus, the big banks will detect such behavior with Business Intelligence systems and find ways to adjust and appease as many customers to hold on.
I too have had a hard time digesting this complex world of corruption spread like cancer so I do share RichM's frustrations. He is correct that the corporate establishment knows each and every smooth and slick move to keep most of the electorate locked to their side hook, line, and sinker.
Still, I like what both you and RichM have to say. Somewhere and someday we will get these ideas put together and possibly win. :)
Boycott EVERY corporation to the fullest extent that your life permits. If you must buy anything, in many cases it is possible to do it locally.
You probably don't need to hear this...but I think if most Americans finally realized that they don't need the majority of the things they purchase, there would be a whole lot less research to do about which companies you can buy from without supporting the status quo.
Jennifer, thanks for being the mediator and voice of reason. you display a lot of the qualities that i try to give voice to, such as willingness, openness, looking for the common ground etc. I especially liked your last sentence, "Somewhere and someday we will get these ideas put together..." My entire point is that they are already together. i can not say it more clearly. it is the recognition/realization of this that is my central point. i should probably spend more time in definition of terms because i am choosing terms that come as close as possible to describing that which can not be described. for example, when i use the words, realization or experience, i am using them as the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of the word, 'understanding'. example- we receive intellectual information about a movie that is currently playing. if the info intrigues us we may go to the movie and it is at this point where 'experience' is added to the equation and then we understand what the person who was previously describing the movie to us 'meant'. knowledge is now complete, because we have the direct experience and the understanding of the situation. now transfer this to the topic of politics and unity. Politics plays in the field of intellectual understanding of certain realities and self, consciousness, essence, is the direct experience that holds those, realities. As in the movie analogy, the images on the screen are the objects appearing in consciousness and the screen is consciousness. the screen or consciousness allows all manner of opposites to appear on it, but when those objects [humans] see themselves as separate from the screen and each other, then chaos becomes a possibility. when the objects are aware of the screen and themselves [individuals] then unity amongst opposites is the result. all i have ever been suggesting, is to investigate through direct 'experience' whether this is true or not. Again, NOT UNDERSTANDING ALONE, but the experience of the screen with out any movie being projected on to it. just for a moment, let the intellect be still, calm, restful. don't worry it will reassert it self all to soon.
Sirios, glad I can help and thanks for more clarification on politics. A good friend of mine, Photon's Feather, reminded me on Alternet not too long ago that being passionate is fine but only if done in a positive fashion. I realize that I used to be passionate in a negative fashion on both Alternet and here with the result of almost looking like a Republican even though I never was a Republican to begin with. Your post gives me a lot to think about. Thanks. :)
RichM, sirios is one of the good guys. I happen to share his view that we need to look beyond politics and get others to look at the issues with a nonpolitical point of view. We agree that politics is the poison that is ruining society and keeping us all divided but we're just going to have to put our hearts and minds towards getting the electorate out of its political addictions. Politics is why our pols continue the drug wars, wage endless foreign wars, bailout Wall $treet, etc ... I don't know the method of getting people to open their hearts and minds to the issues and convince them to put principle over party. However, pulling them off the political turf can help.
By the way, I still like your posts and analysis and wished more people had the kind of awareness you have. Some of your posts in the past have also convinced me to think outside of politics to over my emotions with politics. Thank you, RichM.
what do we do now?
Preface- I am not being a smart ass, with the following.
We can ask ourselves, what are the origins of our own lies and then question the validity of that answer.
i also think this is an excellent point.
Staying rigorous with our own selves, questioning our own lies and our own answers, keeping at it throughout out lives - this is the basis of trying to be accountable in the world, and for daring to hold others accountable.
If i understood your comment...
Can we just flush this non-functional government and start anew?
Not until we figure out our part in what went wrong and how we will go about correcting ourselves so we won't become a part of another mess replacing the one from which we rid ourselves. Three challenges of any such new reality:
1. How to encourage and maintain political participation of more people in the governance of the nation.
2. How to reduce the pernicious influence of oraganized moneyed interests in the the conduct of business, commerce, governance and education of the nation.
3. How to persuade, convince, and educate the populace to be content to live within its means and make do with materially less.
Poet
I wish I was gonna be around when another kind of war begins. Seems to me the participants of that one are in an all out race to see who can beat whom for the most power and ownership of the American people. Well, that is unless one of them is actually the hidden power behind the other. I don't think so though. Oh, well. Could be I'll return in time to become a participant in the small band of world-wide fighters who'll be fighting with everything they've got to prevent either of them from winning.
Another very thought-provoking article by Professor Green, and as always such a great read. Thank you Professor Green.
NO, That's RECEIPT! No check, no change, no tip, please!!
- The Obamanible Snowman
mr green is in good form here but there is a problem...
he fails to point out the awkward fact that the reason all of his points are relevant relates to the fact that america is over - done and gone
we - the sheeple - continue to talk about how we are supposed to deal with these anomalies on the good ship lollipop - formerly the republic - we continue to talk as if one day and ultimately (green suggests twenty years) implying that things will be right once again - somehow, someway at least by that time - and he is dead wrong about that
our country is gone folks
its gone - dead
now you can put uncle harold's best suit on his dead body for the wake but let's not expect that he is going to jump up and join us for a drink
why not - cause dead is dead
and believe me - this country is dead
and the replacement that is emerging is owned by the banks and the investment class who don't give a shit about freedom, democracy, the constitution or human rights or environmental issues either for that matter
to correct mr green: in twenty years we will be telling our kids things like this: i used to have a job, i used to have a house, i used to have healthcare, i had a tv, a stereo, lots of clothes with commensurate socks and underwear to go with them
i used to be a citizen
man...those were the days
that's what we are going to tell them, alas we will do it in secret and whispers because big brother will be watching every move we make
Presidents don't always influence adults and children. Often times, presidents are simply the by-products of people's combined preferences.
I don't always condone parents lying to their children but there are exceptional cases where it is necessary lest the child be confused or misperceive the truth in the wrong light.
Instead of worrying about what will happen a decade or two from now, how about worrying about what will happen RIGHT NOW?
"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." - George Orwell
I prefer that he/she who controls the now, shapes the future. I do not worry about lying to my daughter about the demise of America. First and foremost she understands she is a citizen of the world. In the span of a day, one can be on the other side of the world, shaping and creating their own reality. 10 or 20 years from now I'll be asking her, "So, where should we go next?"
Great post. The final sentence however, threw me into a 'but' mode. " He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." First we should be asking, "how deep does lying really go? Second, the Orwell statement is a clue as to the depths that lying can be found. You have probably heard my past, future and present rant in the past.It goes something like this. There is no such thing as past and future. They are concepts. There is only now. Any discussion, argument or attempt at proving the validity of past and future must take place now. any retort about this subject will take place in a future now. another way to look at it is by location. think of a past event in your life, and now, try and locate it. likewise make some plans for tomorrow and now, try and locate those future plans as the actual event. this is admittedly concise, and any continued discussion from my side would be along the same lines. Even if this makes sense it won't be ultimately satisfying until ones individual awareness is completely absorbed into the moment/now, dragging with it all mental concepts including past and future.
You raise an excellent point. I was always baffled at the way George Orwell wrote that quote. God knows what he was thinking but especially that past part. I think he meant to say controlling the way the past is presented to people to learn. Nobody can change what actually happened in the past but some leaders can distort the ways it happened such as twisting quotes, coming up with past theories that may or may not have lead to what happened, or just in general some bizarre way of connecting past events. Even the future part is definitely flakey. Any leader can change the direction of its society at anytime. Excellent analysis on future and what actually happens. Nobody will know for certain that it will happen until it actually happens. Even the most certain is just a statistic based on past events. Great reply. I don't know if I saw all of your posts. Have we met by the way? Your name looks familiar. I thought I came across someone with a similar name on Alternet a long time ago but I just can't seem to remember.
Yes, that WAS me on alternet. I had to laugh when i wrote this considering my insistence on the illusory nature of the past.
Ah, the thought hit my mind earlier today and then I looked up in the Alternet archives via google search. So much has changed in one year. You and I held our noses and voted Obama because Bush was too much to bear. I'm still reeling from the abominable performance of the Democratic Party in VA from last week. Who knows what will happen in Nov 2010 or Nov 2012 other than the Lord? I still look up to Alternet but can't find much to comment on either because it's nothing new or it's just another unworthy subject to bother commenting on. Nice to see you again.
Mr. Green almost had the MIC and the corporate fascists in his sights but was distracted, as always, by the cavorting clowns of the right...much easier targets.
i think Green is making slow progress - near the end of this piece, he opens slightly his habitual focus on the cavorting clowns of the right to a more inclusive view - "the predatory political movement pioneered by Reagan and Thatcher, and continued by Bushes, Blairs, Clintons and Obamas alike."
So twice in this article - near the opening and near the close - Green can't help but acknowledge (somewhat sardonically at the top, and by unspecified reference at the bottom, but nonetheless acknowledge) that Obama is doing the same work that Bush did.
FWIW...
I don't think that Mr. Green was distracted; rather, his intention seems to be to distract his readers from focusing their outrage on Obama.
"... as if [Obama] were wrecking the country through disastrous wars based on lies, unprecedented constitutional shredding, or massive fiscal hemorrhaging. Oh, wait - that was the last guy."
Really? Just the last guy?
"One of the most astonishing things about the right in America is the degree and frequency with which they turn out to be precisely the opposite of what they claim to be. It's quite Orwellian, actually, in a charming sort of war-equals-peace kinda way."
In contrast to our completely ingenuous and transparent President and congressional Democrats, of course.
- Arry's comment nails the essentials, & does so with admirable brevity. The article's real target was intended to be (and should have been) the fact that both parties have led the way towards permanent war & increasing corporate tyranny. Early in the article DMG was training his sights on the worthlessness of Obama, who is essentially Bush with better syntax.
But then (surprise, surprise) Green wanders off into another boring recitation of the Right's antics. Though the article is titled " Twenty Years From Now, YOU Will Lie To YOUR Children," by the end of it Green has changed the wording to "Twenty years from now, REGRESSIVES will lie to THEIR children." In other words, the focus has degenerated from an important truth -- the total failure of the US political system -- to the trivial & banal "Aren't Republicans Awful."
Ironically, this targetting of the right-wing clowns is what draws Ooohs and Ahhs of admiration from the liberal simpleton contingent at CD, who think "a great article" is simply one that ridicules Republicans.
Here now. If we want to keep our jobs we have to pretend that truth is fiction and fiction is truth. Specifically, there is NO class struggle between people and elites. The ONLY struggle is between Demoks/Repuks, and my boss will agree with me.
"Let the word go forth that a new generation of American leadership will go anywhere at anytime; make any sacrifice and pay any price in defense of liberty.....
And so my fellow Americans, Ask NOT What Your Country Can Do For You But What You Can Do For Your County....."
Camelot was as big a lie as anything GWB said or did and Barack Obama says or does. The Federal Reserve-Wall Street-Defense oligopoly didn't start there but it became entrenched right there, at Kennedy's round table.
Everything the esteemed Professor wrote in his essay was set in concrete just prior to the Viet Nam War. Now we know what "make any sacrifice and pay any price" really means.
Of course Herr Prof. has a wonderful high paying job with great benefits doesn't he? When he talks about us he doesn't mean himself. He's doin just fine.
congrats sea - this is one of the most pointless and dull attempts at a smear i have read in some time
herr prof indeed
are you really this dumb or are you just another right wing plant
"are you really this dumb or are you just another right wing plant"
________________________________________
You need to rephrase the question, buff. It's not an "either/or".
· Yr Obd't Servant
Professor Green encapsulated a vaguely similar dilemma I saw on display in the summers of my youth (I'm 45).
I spent my summers in my maternal grandparents tourist store just off Brussels' Grand Place. That business required one to be able to speak many languages, which included German.
Whenever younger Germans complimented my Grandfather on his excellent German and asked how he learned it, he always gave this answer, "Adolf und seine Männer unterrichteten mich!"
Of course, Germans of the WW2 generations knew exactly how my grandfather learned their language.
I would sometimes look out my grandfather's store window and see some awkward German multi-generational conversations begin right on the Rue Charles Buls.
The awkward conversations with future generations regarding the myriad sins of this era is one that I am dreading.
I'm glad an increasing number of politically alert observers are seeing through the "Obama-will-save-us" smokescreen and identifying him and the Congress as mere marionettes whose strings are pulled by the likes of Goldman Sachs, transnational corporations, and others of the globalist financial oligarchy. The President's race and rhetoric act as anesthetics while the substance of his predecessor's exploitive and criminal policies are continued and expanded. Neither this president nor the Democratic leadership in Congress can be relied upon to do anything else than work to promote the security and hegemony of their masters.
The brushfire wars on the other side of the planet will continue on behalf of the weapons manufacturers, moneied interests, and their Empire.
In the next election be sure to support and vote for the candidate that is ignored by and derided in the Mainstream Media. Only such a candidate has any chance at reclaiming for the people the government that is said to be theirs.
"In the next election be sure to support and vote for the candidate that is ignored by and derided in the Mainstream Media."
Well, I did. I fought for Dennis 'til the end. But I did it because of his positions on the issues, not because he was an underdog. Ron Paul also qualifies under your criteria. But a Paul presidency would have been a catastrophe.
In the end though, I cast my vote for the Democratic ticket. Sorry, but if you see no difference between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin I have one word for you to chew on:
Sotomayor
"In the next election be sure to support and vote for the candidate that is ignored by and derided in the Mainstream Media."
Such a simple recipe, and so few willing to follow it.
Excellent essay - Prof. David Green's always are, inciteful and to the point!
Obama has thus far only proven one thing: nothing will change during his "presidency" (couldn't bring myself to capitalize that word)!
Wow! That was a powerfully acerbic essay. Thank you, Professor Green. That was awesome.
Gonna send this one out in mass emails.
Why do so many 'progressive' observers (I heard Maddow use it a few days ago) still mindlessly continue to use the phrase "the free world"?
What can this relic of the Cold War possibly mean today?
That's nowhere near the only rightwing catchphrase that allegedly-left pundits use.
And it's not as though it's only the less-bright doing it, or only those who have a tin ear for how words affect people.
I can't explain it to myself in a satisfying way. These are writers who should have a razor-keen appreciation for the power of words, yet they water down every essay by using stale, misleading, or meaningless language. It's like the Marxist ideologs who use terms such as 'petit bourgeoise' just as though they meant something in the everyday lives of their readership.
One could be forgiven for wondering about their motivation.
I concur, Mairead. I flinch when allegedly-left pundits allegedly-carelessly use the term "pro-life".
I was mildly surprised, and microscopically gratifed, when a columnist at SalonFugly recently responded to my written growl at this abuse by apologizing for her slip, and correcting the headline using that agitprop term.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Increasingly, this phrase is meaning less and less everywhere. Multinational corporations are trying to pervert free societies globally from the US through Europe through India. When freedom worldwide is finally reduced only to the freedom to shop, the the corporate victory is won. I would submit the US is already successfully captive to this dictatorship by corporation.
Though I loved the essay, I agree with you on this point. It's a ridiculous term and only feeds into the very mindset that the author rails against.