Yep. All of the current Goldman Saks Alumni pack ought to be furloughed to Michelle Obama's organic garden in the White House and planted as the rotten tomatoes they are. Unless the Changeling-in-Chief makes wholesale changes in his "egonomic staff" Main Street can continue to expect getting hosed by the Casino Capitalists playing a game of Russian Roulette with the gun pointed at our heads.

This is the first post I've made here in a long time, and it's because I got tired of and pissed at being called a GOP operative for warning people that Obama's voting record spoke louder than his rhetoric.

I'm not now, was not then, and cannot see myself EVER being a shill for Big Money, but was accused of being just that by people who were blindly supporting one of Big Money's biggest and most reliable fans. So many people on this board were willing to drop into Republican levels of anti-intellectualism in their defense of this obvious shill that I just couldn't take the rudeness and ignorance being hurled at me from what was supposed to be my own side.

I've still been here watching though, and yes, I've seen the rhetoric change and I've seen that many people that were once enamored with the prospects of "hope and change" realize that the package was actually false hope and regressive change. That's really a good sign. What I haven't seen is any kind of apology to those who were tossed overboard for not sharing in the manufactured zeal. I haven't seen any "I was wrong and overly hostile" revelations, I haven't seen any "come back to us" pleas to the actual progressives (you know, the ones progressive enough to look INTO the electoral rhetoric instead of just chanting it), and I haven't seen anything remotely resembling a realistic level of humility after being fooled so egregiously.

So, yes, some of us DID try to warn the folks around here, but we were laughed at, called names, and made irrelevant because we dared to question the party line... Sounds like a tactic that the Republicans mastered long ago, and the irony wasn't lost on me. It sickened me to the point where withdrew from the community that I identify with, because that community soundly rejected any (fact based, including references) input that I had offered simply because it didn't support the illusion that the community was desperately holding onto.

I'm not here just to rant though (although it does feel good to get something you've been bottling up for over a year off your chest) I'm here to offer a solution. It's simple, but difficult, and it applies to liberals and progressives just as much as it does conservatives and regressives; CHECK YOUR EGO AT THE DOOR. You are not right just because you are you. You are not right just because you've found someone to scream the same inaccuracies as you, even if they scream loudly. You're not right just because you feel some relief at the illusory prospect of your ideas coming to fruition.

I followed those guidelines myself, because I know I'm not perfect, and following those guidelines saved me from making the same mistake many of you did re: hope and change, as I nearly did fall for the rhetoric. THOMAS (the congressional records website) told me what I needed to know, and with more accuracy than any Rham Emmanuel approved speech. I had the knowledge of my own ignorance lead me to revelation, and was persecuted for it by the so-called "progressive" community. Pure egotism at work, that. If a person is honestly progressive then fact, not emotional appeal, is the foundation of their political standing. This was forgotten by many of us, and others of us were driven away by the propaganda torrent because of it.

I came back (I never left from a passive lurker point of view) because many of you now see the lies that many of us fell for for what they actually are, because sometimes I have something to add that people are overlooking or sometimes ignorant of (especially pertaining to technology related subjects), and because I still very much care. I wonder how many true progressives WON'T come back after being treated like a pariah by the community that they identify with. One is too many.

I would suggest toning down the attack rhetoric, most especially when disagreeing with fellow progressives (ideally to the level of discourse and debate instead of derision and name calling, but I'm not optimistic) as calling them neocon shills because they've looked into something more than you're willing to do leaves the actual progressive wondering why he or she is wasting their time trying to inform the willfully ignorant and leaves the attacker, well, willfully ignorant.

And finally, I would like to issue my personal thanks to those like charlesthegreen who have more patience than I for ignorance-born hostility and derision. It takes more strength and patience than I can muster to deal with the level of hostility I had coming at me from my own community, and without you and those like you I can imagine a large part of this community reaching tea-bagger levels of self-delusion and irrelevancy based on nothing more than self-reinforcing rhetoric.

Kudos sir.

When are you going to write articles for the online news? You are literate, well informed and easy to read and understand, unlike so many writers on this site.

Royce

Speaking of Gretchen Morgenson, her column today --

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/business/economy/25gret.html?ref=todayspaper

taken along with Frank Rich's --

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/opinion/25rich.html?ref=opinion

is worth reading.

With glacial speed the pieces of the greatest white collar crime in recent memory are coming together. Rich describes a political climate for change, but Morgenson reports no substantive change in any of the bills presented this past week.

Nevertheless, what is especially worth reading are Rich's quotes from Bill Clinton and Roger Lowenstein. Taken together, they shake axioms of the Reaganomic exaltation of the investor class as economic high priests. Geitner's and Summer's (and many, many others) public comments still reflect a faith in Reaganomics' fundamental sophistry. The public has for too long trusted the fallacy that investors ALWAYS make money and that their good fortune will trickle down to all of us (like suckers who stand at a slot machine that just paid a million, yesterday, last week, or last month).

And if it doesn't kill you to read a third Times feature, read Robert Frank's article that savages Libertarian theory about transfer taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/business/25view.html?ref=business

I believe Obama did not choose to listen to those others as they do not represent the wealthy and powerful in our society.

Irrungen, Wirrungen then and a reader of Fontane?

De Havel, or what ever the editors name is, is a bourgeoisie creep. So we only get the value perspective of that group.

The apple never falls very far from the tree.

Is it fear of marginalization or simply that they cannot cut the umbilical cord from the Dem. Party? So many folks out there are critical of the party's actions but refuse to cut free out of the belief that the only other alternative is the Rep., and somehow, if they critique, or march, or phone or whatever, the party long enough, it will come back to it's "true self".

Greider has been clear eyed with his critiques for a long time; his "Who Will Tell the People" was a great unmasking of the political duopoly ages ago, but still so many cannot bring themselves to make the break. Is it genetics, what's the deal here?

" by failing to "call a spade a spade" (to make a crude pun) or a liar a liar, or a militarist a militarist, or a corporate pawn a corporate pawn -- the Nation et al insure that the American public WON'T listen to them.

Sadly, what this "progressive" failure..."

Is it really a "failure" or is it deliberate misleading?

Ah..the "gag reflex" Is there a slogan or bumper sticker in that concept? I find that the gag reflex does kick in often.

Summers is truly one of the top revolters (revolter: one who causes the gag reflex)

"We can hope, that soon he and other hangovers will be recessed for an indefinite good."

I'm afraid that as long as the DLC is in charge, that hope will be as useful as the "hope" in Obama was.

Geithner and Summers, along with some of their proteges, are personae non gratae in the Russian Federation.

In mainland China they are just laughed at, though no doubt some of the Chinese economists gave passing consideration to cutting off Geithner's balls when he visited.

One suspects their stock is plummeting in Europe and Japan every day as well, though that is still under the radar so far.

In regard to Summers, he was indeed in effect fired as Harvard president ultimately because of his role in protecting another Harvard faculty member in the Russian affair, which was seen as compromising the university.

You know how hard it is to get driven out of the presidency of Harvard?

Do you mean is he lying or stupid? Do you really think he's stupid? The evidence, to me at least, points overwhelmingly toward lying.

Noxious, condescending manner had nothing to do with it. Nor did arrogance.

Ain't that dandy? Poll after poll has shown that 70% of the electorate wants out of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately. And they have since the Democrats were put in during the midterm BEFORE Obama was elected.

So what is Obama's problem again?

And what was Obama's problem in regard to Health Care?

What you say doesn't wash.

Plain and simple.

You're kidding, right?

That must be some potent kool aid! Sorry Dan, you are not "de man" tonight.

Ah yes, a Neo-Con who thinks he has mastered wheels within wheels.

Or just a run of the mill Corporate Fascist Democrat.

"Troll" is Free Republic lingo.

Discuss it at length between yourself.

Laughable and wrong. Nice try Dan. Wanna try double jeopardy?

There may be good tactical reasons to keep an Obama adminstration in 2012, granting that there is even much of a country left and Vladimir Putin is not on the ballot for president.

Third and Fourth Parties running presidential campaigns has always been a sucker punch.

Unless a Third Party has enough votes to broker the result, and that fact is known without any doubt in advance and is negotiable, there is no point.

Voting for Democrats in 2008?

Can't imagine a good tactical reason for that at the moment, and every reason to kick most of them out.

Certainly getting McKinney back in a Congressional seat would be progress. Will she run and in her old district or somewhere else?

At any rate, if this is only the first stage of a long collapse, which it is looking to be, ersatz democratic elections will not be as riveting as blood running in the streets.

Besides compromising the University's reputation in regard to the highway robbery under Yeltsin in the Russian heist, Summers did great damage to the Harvard portfolio.

He is not much of an economist--mainly a wheeler dealer with hints of "Liberal" rhetoric, and a decisive manner in expostulating his schemes, which always impresses the fools.

Incidentally, you are correct--there were good tactical reasons to vote for Obama, even as another Corporatist Fascist Democrat, and there may be again. But next time around Obama should be separated from the Democrats at large.

It is time for a Left United Front that coordinates and gets avowed and open Communists, Socialists, Greens, Left Libertarians and so forth in Congress by selecting districts to concentrate on and foregoing presidential candidates.

Thank you for the welcome.

I agree that the comment threads on CD are some of the higher quality offerings amongst internet political threads, that's why I read them often. If I came across as though I were saying that the majority of posters here at CD were rude and reactionary, I truly apologize, as I did not mean to paint the community with such a wide brush. My missive (rant, actually) was quite emotional, and I was being terse in the areas that deserved more verbosity, such as why I do stick around to at least read the comments. The rant had a level of negativity that overshadowed my point, and I'm a bit ashamed for hitting that send button while I knew I was emotionally charged.

Again, thank you for your welcoming words and I apologize once again, with all sincerity, if I made you (or any other reasonable person) feel like you were being persecuted in any way.

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to keep the personal matter and the general discussion separate for the benefit of anyone who would like to join.

I think I get what you're saying about the sci-fi mentality, and though cliche, I think 1984, Brave New World and Zamyatin's "We" are heavy influences as well. Stultifying order is seen as a virtue by many, which I think you were implying when you talked about prediction algorithms and the general ease with which frightening levels of espionage can be performed in the modern, connected, age.

I see your point about simplification, or at the very least keeping practiced in the ways of a non-technological lifestyle, but I would suggest thinking about where your lines are drawn; I honestly don't see very much difference (other than level of convenience) between the typewriter and a word processing program. The typewriter LOOKS simpler, because it doesn't need electricity, but you do require resources to use it that are beyond your ability to manufacture, the ribbon (at least, it would be harder to make than it would be worth). Now a good ole' pencil, that's pretty reliable.

Personally, one of my areas of interest is in creating / maintaining an electronic communication system functional even during 'hard times'. I think the benefits of computerized communication and organization are enormous, though often grossly misused. There are ways of keeping YOUR information YOURS though, even from the pryingest of prying eyes, and even when communicating over the public internet, though it can get a bit tricky. I honestly believe that it would be a shame to lose the benefits of databases, email and other societal benefits just because times get tough. A decentralized trading system, for one example, would be invaluable in such circumstances.

As to the semantic differences between "going to do something about it" and "not gonna take it anymore", I agree that they are two similar-seeming but different ideas, but I don't quite get the context of what you're saying.

And finally, you speak of the corruption in academia, and the further fact that they know it. I would tend to agree, but in my experience most academics (as opposed to the politicians who DO know) do not view themselves as "corrupt", merely "focused", though many are indeed aware that that "focus" comes at a price that others often must pay.