EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Rise Up or Die
- Rallying Cry: Citizens Worldwide to Unite in 'March Against Monsanto'
- A 'Nonviolent Army of Love' Rises in North Carolina to Face Down Rightwing's Assault on Progress
- The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives
- Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on Your Rights
Popular content
Today's Top News
Grow Up, Ron Paul
Like many other little American kids, all I wanted to do was eat junk food, play video games and goof around with my friends. I didn’t like being made to go to school, going to bed at 9 PM, eating vegetables, doing homework after school, or taking out the garbage. And like most other little kids who don’t like abiding by the rules of their parents, I sometimes fantasized about what it would be like to run away from home. But when I packed my backpack full of clothes and individually-wrapped packs of peanut butter crackers from the pantry, I could never go through with my plan. I knew if I ran away, I’d be hungry, cold, lost, and eventually found by the police and returned home.
Libertarian views of government regulation are very similar to how the 6 year-old views the authority exerted by their parents. Ron Paul’s every-individual-for- themselves rhetoric appeals to young, radical libertarians with simplistic viewpoints of authority, and an ignorance of why government exists in the first place.
In Ron Paul’s ideal America, safety regulations imposed on employers by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration would be a thing of the past. Clean air and water regulations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency would be no more. Taxpayers would save money since Ron Paul would abolish the Department of Education and cut the Food & Drug Administration budget by 40%. Employers would save money by paying workers as little as they wish, since Ron Paul would abolish the Davis-Bacon Act. Corporate giants would be free to monopolize markets, since Ron Paul opposes federal antitrust legislation. And employees would no longer be required to pay into Social Security.
So what would this libertarian utopia look like, if Ron Paul were elected and followed through on his campaign promises?
-Families grieving for loved ones lost due to Massey Energy’s negligence in the Upper Big Branch coal mine explosion would have to accept that their relatives were casualties of the invisible hand of the unfettered free market. And Massey would've gotten off scot-free for polluting Martin County, Kentucky's drinking water supply with 300 million gallons of coal slurry.
-Millions of college students dependent on Pell grants would be forced to move back home and work minimum-wage jobs, no longer financially able to further their education. Oh wait-- what minimum wage?
-Food recalls would be a regular occurrence when tainted meat and vegetables hit supermarket shelves and cause record outbreaks of e-coli. And risky new drugs will avoid FDA tests and hit the express lane to the pharmacy, endangering the health of millions.
-Too-big-to-fail banks like Wells Fargo, Citi, Chase and Bank of America would be allowed to merge and/or buy out their competitors, as would oil giants like ExxonMobil, and Chevron, as would cell service providers like AT&T and Verizon.
-The Social Security trust fund would become insolvent, making retirement that much harder for those who paid into it all their lives.
Ron Paul and his right-libertarian ideology does espouse a new kind of freedom, just as rebellious children who fantasize about running away from home dream of a new kind of freedom. But as much as we may have rebelled against our parents as little kids, we eventually matured and realized that the rules and regulations our parents imposed on us were meant so we’d grow up to be responsible, functioning adults in society.
An unregulated little kid free to eat junk food and play video games all day won’t ever learn the responsibilities of adulthood. And an unregulated society where every individual is out for themselves will quickly collapse.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
273 Comments so far
Show AllThis article could have just as well been titled, "In Defense of Statism." That's basically what it is. 2011 has been a year of anti-statism with civil society groups around the globe trying to grapple with how to bring down states. The fact that this article ends up on a purportedly progressive news site therefore piqued my interest.
First off, I'm not necessarily a Ron Paul supporter. While Ron Paul is anti-authoritarian in many respects, which I like, he's on the conservative side of the spectrum as most libertarians are. I find though that this article seems to be a defense of the state and the status quo in going after Paul, and it is precisely this that I find incongruous with a progressive movement.
States have always been a vehicle through which the ruling class can consolidate power. There is no nanny state as spoken of by conservatives. For every welfare dollar handed out you can be sure that the state doles out plenty more in corporate subsidies and favors for members of the ruling class. You would think with an acute knowledge of these facts gleaned from many a commondreams article, that the majority of readers would be anti-statist, especially considering the brewing dialectical struggle between civil society and the state that has been taking shape around the globe. Nope, oddly enough the majority of posters seem to take the author's misguided pro-state argument and run with it.
Social programs provided through the state apparatus can be replaced by those provided by civil society groups. Many communities around the globe, particularly ones where the state does not provide much in the form of social programs, provide equivalent social services. I question whether the state is even such a great and efficient provider of social services.
To speak of the state as corporate oversight and social programs is to ignore the dark side of statism. That is that the state is a source of centralized authority that can be seized by the rich and powerful to benefit their interests and protect their interests against the desires and wants of the many who want to wrest some of that power and wealth from them. The security apparatus that prevents revolutionary change and allows the wealthy to continue to rule over us is brought to you by the state. I think some people have gotten the idea that the state is somehow a bulwark against the rule of corporations, but the corporations are ruling through the state apparatus and the taxpayers, many of whom are not among the privileged class, are made to foot the bill for it. Removing the state from the equation reduces, not increases the power of corporations to rule over us.
If anyone needs to grow up, it's the author of this article.
Paul is not anti-authoritarian, he is anti-government. The most authoritarian place is the workplace, and that is where we are most controlled and enslaved. Eliminating government increases that authoritarianism, it does not decrease it.
It is utter nonsense to say that because of the fact that the government is bought and paid for by corporations, that therefore eliminating government will decrease corporate power.
Governments in the Confederacy before Emancipation were entirely captured and controlled by the slave plantation owners. Are we to believe that eliminating or crippling those governments would have ended slavery?
TA: Well said.
TA is right to remind us that Paul is more a present-day supporter of the Confederacy than any kind of libertarian. He just hates the feds, like John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, and other apostles of Nullification and Secession.
"Governments in the Confederacy before Emancipation were entirely captured and controlled by the slave plantation owners. Are we to believe that eliminating or crippling those governments would have ended slavery?"
WTF? Lincoln apparently thought so. He bet 650000 lives on it. Seems to have worked, too.
Where did those plantation owners go? Into banking and the MIC where they use the vast power of gov't to steal us blind and murder abroad with gleeful impunity. To kill that monster, you have to kill the horse it's riding on, and that is the US federal gov't.
Huh? Your argument just collapsed. The mechanism Lincoln used was - wait for it - a government. Wealthy and powerful private interests opposed the effort.
"Governments in the Confederacy before Emancipation were entirely captured and controlled by the slave plantation owners. Are we to believe that eliminating or crippling those governments would have ended slavery?"
Maybe not ended slavery, but doing away with the state in the pre-emancipation south certainly would have made it easier to escape. The origin of police forces in the south come from slave patrols that were organized and professionalized over time by the state apparatus. Certainly slave owners made have tried to recover fugitive slaves and organized to do so, but the level of organization achieved through the state apparatus in hunting down fugitive slaves may not have been possible without an organized government.
"The most authoritarian place is the workplace, and that is where we are most controlled and enslaved. Eliminating government increases that authoritarianism, it does not decrease it"
Without state security forces protecting the corporations, they are vulnerable to violence. The masses outnumber the elites by a substantial margin. Absolutely elimination of government decreases that authoritarianism. We don't need a damn state to protect us from the elites. The state is the elites.
The slave owners held the power. What is so difficult to understand about that? Do you really think that if there had been no police that the slave owners would have been unable to chase down and capture escaped slaves? Or that eliminating the police would have meant that slaves could have escaped?
At the Flint sit down strike the federal government sent in troops to protect the strikers FROM the private goons. So much for your "without state security forces protecting the corporations, they are vulnerable to violence" nonsense.
What is so magical about "the level of organization achieved through the state apparatus" that would make it so much superior to a privatized force? In any case, libertarianism calls for privatizing everything, so your argument contradicts itself.
Those are the sort of dead ends that libertarianism will always lead you into.
"So much for your "without state security forces protecting the corporations, they are vulnerable to violence" nonsense. "
In most major incidents of violence in the history of the US labor movement, including the firing on mineworkers at Ludlow Colorado in 1913, and the Matewan massacre, the government sided with the owners of capital. Ludlow was Colorado National Guard troops sent in by the Governor, at taxpayer expense.
There's nothing magical about state apparatus, but it is a hell of a lot bigger because it is paid for by tax monies paid in by citizens like you and I.
I'm not a libertarian, but I think anarchy is great. Like I said before, my comment is not meant as a defense of Ron Paul. I just don't believe the benevolence of the state, and this article is a pro-statist article. It also seems to cut against an anti-statist current throughout the world.
Yes, the government has most often sided with management. Pressure - and bribes - from management cause that. Pressure from Labor can produce and has produced different results. Confusing government with management, and blaming government for the power of management, however, is akin to blaming a hit man for the power of the mob boss who hires him.
Obama had the support of organized labor. What did it get the labor movement? These corporate controlled marionettes only care about civil society groups and organized labor when they're prostituting themselves at election time. The rest of the time , its big money that controls the show.
The fact that Obama betrayed organized Labor, and that too many Labor leaders are in bed with the Dems does not invalidate what I said.
Confusing government with management, and blaming government for the power of management, however, is akin to blaming a hit man for the power of the mob boss who hires him.
I think this time you've framed it correctly. The government is like the hit man for the mob boss, essentially the instrument of violence by which the mob boss accomplishes its objectives, similar to how corporations use states to accomplish their objectives. However, it is not a question of blaming the hit man. Eliminating the hitman hinders the ability of the mob boss to operate on the same level as he was doing before and that precisely is the point.
Eliminating the hit man will reduce the power of the mob boss?
No more than prosecuting private England stopped torture.
Going after those lower down the chain acts to protect the higher ups, not to hinder them.
A better analogy is this: if the crime syndicate was bribing police and judges, would the solution to that be eliminating police and courts since they were being used to accomplish the syndicate's objectives?
Ragavacharyar: So, you aren't against the exposure of RP's positions, you think the author should grow up because he doesn't address revolutionary change and the destruction of the state.
And of course, you've said the same thing on all the other articles that discuss politics and elections, right?
No?
Only on the Ron Paul thread?
My, my. And you say you're "..not necessarily a Ron Paul supporter."
Right.
Weren't enough of his comments contradicting Paul enough for you? No need to be obtuse.
I take Ragavacharyar's comments as sincere, not a pro-Paul fraud. Real anarchism, as opposed to Paul's corporate version, is worthy of respectful consideration.
Ragavacharyar: So, you aren't against the exposure of RP's positions, you think the author should grow up because he doesn't address revolutionary change and the destruction of the state.
That's mostly right, but not completely. I don't give a sh*t about Ron Paul. I just don't think that one attacking Ron Paul should unwittingly rely on pro-statist arguments. That makes me think the author of such articles is just an establishment liberal wanting to protect his beloved status quo.
And of course, you've said the same thing on all the other articles that discuss politics and elections, right?
Yes. WIth regard to elections, I've always felt they're bullshit. I've always felt the system is corrupt down to the core and elections aren't going to fix it. My comments have been consistently in this vein.
Ragavacharyar -- you have a good point, i.e. that the state can be repressive as well as protective. The point of Gibson's article, however, is not to defend the repressive aspects of the state, but its protective aspects, which certainly exist.
In the US, anti-state rhetoric such as Paul's is not really anti-state as such, but anti-federal government. I'm sure that many of Paul's supporters would say that the individual "sovereign" states are free to undertake many of the programs Gibson likes, but it's wrong for the feds to do it because "all powers not explicitly reserved to the federal government are reserved to the states" according to the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
You yourself seem to be an anarchist, which is a respectable ideology as far as I'm concerned. But as a socialist who looks forward to the day when all hierarchy will be gone and humans can live free, I think in the reality in which Americans live right now, many of the protections he mentions are useful and necessary. It would be a shame to see them destroyed so as to install the kind of phony, corporate/military "freedom" that right wing libertarians like Paul espouse.
Yeah, I think you're right about Paul and the confederacy. The states' rights thing is rather disturbing. I don't even know if Paul is a true libertarian. Shouldn't a true libertarian want the elimination of all centralized authority?
Every single example used by Carl Gibson in this article is happening now. Is this writer just blind to what is actually going on in America?
"Ron Paul's Moment of Racial Clarity"
http://www.theroot.com/views/ron-paul-tackles-racism-issue?page=0,2&wpisrc=root_lightbox
This is a lot of fear mongering that assumes Congress is Libertarian and Obama somehow disagrees with these dangerous measures. Both assumptions are wrong.
Ron Paul cannot change the laws without Congressional approval.
The President promises to enforce laws on the books and upholds the Constitution and decides whether to enact legislation passed by Congress on behalf of the people of the United States.
So far Obama has broken the promise to enforce laws against banksters, uphold habeus corpus and promises to violate the clean water act with approving the Keystone Pipeline amongst his other pro-carbon, "clean" coal, nuclear policies.
Obama is a conservative / neo-liberal big government pro-corporate facist.
www.obamatheconservative.com
www.whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com
On the other hand, Congress has a strong "Progressive caucus" that should grow in the next election regardless of who is on top of the ticket.
Obama has made no progressive promises over the next 4 years.
Ron Paul has made a number of progressive promises over the next 4 years:
Ron Paul would end all wars and actually reduce the Pentagon budget and balance the federal budget. This would also prevent future wars that Obama is trying to fight.
Ron Paul would end back door bailouts to the banksters and rein in the Federal Reserve's bubble-nomics. There is a lot of work needed to prevent bank failures in the future and eliminate the ongoing "too big to fail", "too big to jail" status. Ron Paul is the best man for this job.
There is a good chance Ron Paul may kick out some heads of regulatory agencies that have been captured by the same industry they are regulating.
Worst case scenario if Congress suddenly becomes Libertarian in 2013 and agrees with cutting funding for the EPA etc., that is a battle that would need to be won using alternative media to help create a progressive Democratic Party contender (one with experience to back his/her words) against Paul in 2016. We can get all that funding back but remember that only makes sense if the heads of those departments are not "captured" by the industries being regulated like Obama's administration is. Loss of these services would be an educational opportunity for the American public and will come at the expense of the Republican party's future as well as neo-con Democrats.
One other thing people should know about Ron Paul: Some anti-war people think that Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy is a good thing, and that this somehow makes Mr. Paul anti-war. In fact, he is anything but. Mr. Paul is against all forms of international law, he believes that national sovereignty, at least American national sovereignty--is absolute and that there is no higher law or principle. He is dead wrong. The strengthening of international law is our only hope to achieve world peace. It is only through the evolution of law on the global level that we will be able to replace warfare with binding, non-violent conflict resolution mechanisms enforced by a global constitution, a global bill of rights, global courts and global law enforcement. In other words, a global, democratic world government. This is the only way to eventually achieve world peace. In Ron Paul's 16th century view of nationalism, we just pretend the rest of the world, and the conflicts between nations, don't exist. His isolationist ideology may seem attractive to those who are sick and tired of our squandering of lives, dollars, good-will and environmental health on endless war, but the way to end war is through law, not through withdrawing from engaging other countries. Global problems require global solutions and if we cannot form a legitimate, democratic world government, the transnational corporations will continue to rule in quite undemocratic ways, as they do now.
Jerry Gerber
www.jerrygerber.com
JSG: Few bring up this point, and you've done it expertly. Thank you so much. You add a lot to this forum.
There's a lot of speculation and niggling here against Ron Paul. Ya'll fail to even try to understand his position, let alone defeat it. His position is that gov'ts are always seized and controlled by the wealthy elite, a plutocracy. So the more powerful the gov't is, the more it can destroy us doing the bidding of its masters, the financial elite. The more powerful the gov't, the more it extracts the real wealth working people generate with their labor and hands it back to its masters. Can anyone with two eyes dispute the truth of this? No honest person could. Gov't becomes huge and powerful not in our interests but in theirs. If anyone is living in a fantasy world, completely at odds with empirical experience, it's people who think the gov't is a benign entity that seeks to do good when allowed. It's not. It's just a tool, and the more powerful the tool, the more damage it does in the hands of the asshole elite that wield it. Take this tool out of their hands by disempowering gov't, and give up the dream that someday, that tool will be wielded by people of good will and high moral values. It never will and even Chomsky agrees in the sense that his anarcho-syndacalism is also a recognition of this basic truth: powerful gov't is an threat and enemy of working people.
If you re elect Obama or any other GOP candidate, you ensure at least 4 if not 40 more years of this endless war around the world. A war waged on poor brown folks whose only crime was being on top of a place the financial elite want to control, or for objecting to the imperial exploitation of their country. Each year of that war costs literally tens of thousands of innocent people their very lives, and a quantum number higher suffer loss of homes, community, and ways of life.
Ya'll want to keep that going and ya'll don't give a rat's ass about those people and their lives. Yet, you pretend to be the compassionate ones who truly, TRULY care about minorities and workers. You just don't have a probem with their continual slaughter on behalf of the financial elite. SO forgive me for laughing my ass off at your supposed compassion. YOu're bloodthirsty or you're ignorant. Choose.
I understood all of your arguments, and all of Ron Paul's positions, addressed them and thoroughly refuted them.
You are merely repeating the same false claims and illogical arguments you made before. For example, opposing Paul does not mean supporting Obama or another Republican, but here you are making that claim again. For example, eliminating government in the past because it was captured by the slave interests would not have eliminated slavery, nor would eliminating government because it was captured by the bosses have helped organized Labor. You claim otherwise. Upon those two claims your entire argument rests, and they both are weak and unsupported. Repeating them is not supporting them, nor does repeating them make them stronger.
Opposing Paul and his agenda does not mean supporting any Republicans or Democrats. Eliminating government does not, has not, and cannot help the working class.
Your mocking words - "you pretend to be the compassionate ones who truly, TRULY care about minorities and workers" - is standard fare for right wing propagandists, and betrays the fact that your sympathies are in fact with the right wingers.
I am not "pretending to care" about workers and minorities, I am promising that I will fight for those with whom I belong and with whom I stand, and keep fighting with my last breath. You, apparently, are neither working class nor a minority person. Otherwise, you would not speak of either group as a "them" that "we" care about or don't.
Thanks, massa, but no thanks. I don't care which overseer runs the plantation, and I am not impressed with your suggestion that Paul would run the plantation better than others.
Massa? Are you a fucking idiot? Yes, you are.
Why? Because you miss the entire argument being made, for one thing. Paul's argument, to use your incredibly ill-thought out analogy, is to burn down the fucking plantation, and NOT change the overseers. Voting for Obama is just voting for a different overseer.
And if you don't vote for Obama, and presumably not for the other GOPigs, then I can only assume you don't believe in voting at all, or want to vote for somebody like the Socialist candidate who nobody even knows, let alone will elect. And as for that, that's okay. I don't disagree with voting on principle, even if it's deemed "throwing away" a vote. I learned that lesson after getting screwed voting for Obama and not Nader for that same reason. But don't be an idiot and get in the way of leftists who are doing their best to drive the GOP corporate wing into the ground by making Ron Paul their standard bearer. It's a reasonable tactic and decent mid term strategy that beats shilling for Obama any day of the week.
Now run along and play with the other kids.
ROFL. Supporting Paul is some sort of super-duper sophisticated leftist strategy to hurt the Republicans? Thanks for the laugh. How is promoting the right wing agenda a legitimate strategy for the left? Maybe I am incapable of your sort of "deep thinking" about politics, or something. I dunno.
You misunderstood the analogy I made, by the way.
Oh, and by all means, you just keep fighting for justice til your last breath, tiger. And work your bony fingers to the bone, too. Just don't embarrass yourself by getting into political arguments that are way over your head. Hand out soup, cleanup a vacant lot, go occupy something. Leave the deep thinking to others. No shame in that. We all have our talents; thinking just isn't one of yours.
It didn't take long to reduce your argument to nothing but personal insults.
doo-doo man... You are SO out of your league with Two Americas. You have to be quite delusional, as well as deluded to think you won your ad hoc debate with him here. Any thinking person would see the logic and integrity of the points he raised; whereas yours sound like a parrot repeating a script. NO contest...
Watch this interview with Ron Paul on Fox yesterday from New Hampshire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D23EB_Vf4Sw
Then imagine the same interview with Barack Obama and the differences in the answers.
Imagine this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/08/EDU21MK93M.DTL
http://contraryinvesting.com/finance-humor/obamas-re-election-poster/
I will be watching the New Hampshire returns this evening and I HOPE that Ron Paul either wins or comes in a very strong second.
And I voted a straight Democratic ticket since 1968.
Given the chance here in California, I will be voting for Ron Paul in June.
Reason? He is the ONLY candidate who I would trust to take an oath to the Constitution and mean it. Barack Obama has disqualified himself from doing so.
Oh, and BTW. Grow Up, Carl Gibson
Gibson's article is flawed by his use of the "Grown-Up" cliche. Political disagreement, even passionate disagreement, is not "childish".
Political moderation can signify cowardice as well as maturity. Compromise can sometimes be a serious mistake. Refusing to express emotion can be evidence of coldness and detachment.
Passionate concern, outrage, and other strong emotions are often warranted by events. I wish Obama showed passion and outrage more often. About the antics of Gov. Walker in Wisconsin, for one example.
Democratic political life often involves anger and other emotions. That's because it's a mechanism for dealing peacefully (not quietly) with conflict in society. Conflict is natural, not childish.
So I regret Gibson's use of the "grown-up vs. child" cliche or trope to criticize Ron Paul and his supporters, though I agree with his opposition to Paul's flummery and hypocrisy.
I take Paul seriously, because he articulates ideas that are common to many Americans. I don't take him seriously as an economist or political scientist, but he deserves clear and honest responses, not dismissal as some sort of child.
At the same time, I think he is wide open to dismissal as a kook, a crackpot, and a Neo Confederate, complete with a hint of racism.. His ideas, if implemented, would complete the screwing of the American working class (sometimes called "middle class" by the squeamish). His ideas would give a strong impetus to a worldwide screwing of the working people and the poor.
I'm sorry that some progressive folks have become so frustrated and embittered by the succession of political defeats they have had, that they run to the right wing extremism of Ron Paul for relief. I hope they will stop canoodling with him and join those who are building a movement of progressive social change in the US and the world, mostly outside the TV politics that has become America's substitute for democracy.
In my previous postings in this thread and others concerned with Ron Paul, I have wondered whether Ron Paul can be trusted and what evidence can be adduced to decide this question.
I have now come to the conclusion that he cannot be trusted, for the various strands of his program form an incoherent whole (see my previous posts here and the posts by others I there refer to).
In fact, Ron Paul's sizeable inconsistencies are probably the most extreme version of the total moral and political bankruptcy of the Repugnant Party.
I hasten to add, as I have said repeatedly at CD, that the Dimwits are no better, and that Oilbomber is a treasonous, torturing, bullying, war criminal.
Upshot: voting for anyone from our one-party system (with two collapsing right-wings) is a colossal waste of time.
The only reason for putting Ron Paul in the presidential seat is to put an end to Ayn Randism (one of the most nihilistic ideologies littering Amerikkkan consciousness) once and for all. But how can one choose to inflict so much pain on so many people just to destroy an ideology?
Here is another interesting tidbit about Ron Paul. He offers his employees no health insurance at all and then tries to help their families cover a part of the debt after they die! Another shining example of compassionate conservatism and libertarianism at its finest [or worst].
Carl Gibson is, himself, still a child and hardly in a position to question Ron Paul's maturity of vision. While I am no supporter of Ayn Rand Objectivism and fundamentalist libertariansim, it is worth noting that our liberal Founders were authentic libertarians who tried to create a very circumscribed constitutional republic which did not require Big Government because Corporations were highly controlled, time-limited and monitored.
Where Ron Paul's extreme libertarianism breaks down is in his support for the unfettered Free Market, which is the reason we must suffer under the oppression of a countervailing Big Government. But Carl Gibson's argument breaks down when he supports a government that is more abusive parent than necessary boundary setter. The solution to our malaise is not to maintain or expand government but to to restrain and diminish corporate power - first by a constitutional amendment eliminating the myths of Corporate Personhood and Money = Speech.
"The unfettered free market" and libertarianism are one and the same.
"Our founding fathers" were slave owners and land speculators, and sought to restrict and cripple democracy.
THE FOLLOWING WAS A REPLY TO TARA STONE'S POST. WHAT HAPPENED TO IT? DID CD CENSOR THAT EXCELLENT POST? AND IF CD REMOVES A POST, HOW ABOUT SOME KIND OF NOTICE THAT A POST HAS BEEN REMOVED?
----------------------
Excellent post as usual. I'm almost mute these days, contemplating the plight, and blight that has become the American experience, where the raw meat of the dumb and dumber, are tenderized with hatefortainment and anti-reality programming, by those who are sharpening their greed cutlery for yet another feast. But this American raw meat, actually gathers more of itself, multiplies its own rawness, in its blind subservience to those sitting at the ready to eat them alive.
Those of us, not unconscious to this grand tragedy, are left doing our best to keep our own mental laundry as free from blood as possible, as we contemplate old age without insurance, or water.
It is indeed time to fight.
That wasn't the only post she lost. She lost some more and I have bad news. She probably got banned after this
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/09-3
She has great passion and will be missed.
Nice rant, up to the end. With you on most all of your points.
sj
Great comment! You've said all that needs to be said
I would love to see Ron Paul win the Republican nomination. It would really stir up debate, and make the American people face up to some of the idiotic positions both parties stand for. He wouldn't stand a chance of becoming (or staying) president, but if he did, that would mean that our only hope is revolution. But maybe it's our only hope if a Democrat wins, too.
Yeah, we really need the socializing of education. Morph all the kiddies into little group-think zombies...and send out the improved, newly militarized and equiped SWAT team to arrest the ones that get out of line. Exaggeration, yes. However
we see how government agencies are also becoming militarized in their enforcement. See the videos of agency tactics such as those on those evil Amish farmers trafficking in raw milk. See the raids on Gibson Guitar. Even the benign sounding Department of Education sent a SWAT team to engage some loan defaulter.. I think the US could use serious decentralization. Free up a lot of people, money and space for citizens to become creative-self-sustaining... The tendency of big government is to take care of and sustain into eternity it's own people and agencies...and need more, and more, and more money. When you see a city talk about living wages...it is referring to it's own employees. And so it goes. We need a level playing field with good common sense regulation.
Same rules for all.
Yes there is value to decentralization, BUT...your notion of "socializing education", what could THAT mean? REAL Education IS socializing a new generation. It DOES mean connecting with the social Realities and Responsibilities of sharing this planet. Problem IS, that with this corporate-controlled fake democracy too many believe in, we don't have Real Educators involved in Education. If you don't think we have Fox/CNN/AmericanIdol GroupThink already, where are you living? Real Education (learning the Word and the World, according to Paulo Freire) IS about liberating people. It's time for people to see how they're being dumbed down and manipulated almost 24/7/365 by power-hungry, ruthless corporate interests. Proper education combats that.
Is John Stewart a Zionist prick?
Ron Paul is promoting an extreme right wing agenda. People here can support him and promote him if they like, but many of them are trying to deceive people about what he represents.
A few examples from the Ron Paul website:
A PRO-AMERICA FOREIGN POLICY
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." – Ronald Reagan
RIGHT TO WORK
Ron Paul’s exceptional record on Right to Work issues earned him the prestigious Everett Dirksen Award from the National Right to Work Committee.
And he’s been proud to receive the support of the National Right to Work Committee in each and every one of his Congressional elections over the years.
As President, he will continue to lead the fight to free Americans from the shackles of compulsory unionism by working to pass a National Right to Work law.
FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS
The free market – not government – is the solution to America’s energy needs.
As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:
* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.
* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.
* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.
* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.
KEEP MORE OF YOUR MONEY
Capital gains taxes, which punish you for success (and interfere with your efforts to hedge against inflation by purchasing gold and silver coins), should also be immediately repealed.
Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans.
Hey! Ron Paul supporters! Where are you?
I posted some of Paul's actual positions here. No one seems to be defending them, and what people are saying in praise of Paul bears no resemblance to what the man actually says.
Ron Paul is a typical extreme right winger. Support him if you like, but please stop trying to present him as something other than what he is.
If we want a revolution, I can't think of a quicker way than by electing Ron Paul. He's imperfect, but who knows what can happen in a revolution? Will people settle for more of the same, or is any real change welcome at this point? No government, small government, dictatorship, direct democracy? Who can say... ?
Well, let's see:
Obama has turned out to be Dubya on steroids. He claims the right to have you kidnapped, falsely imprisoned, tortured and/or murdered, no due process needed.
Ron Paul's is a constitutionalist who is squarely against that kind of executive power. His voting record corroborates his sincerity about that.
So he's against the wars, and in favor of the Bill of Rights.
Right now, that's worth a LOT of points with me.
Is he my first choice? My "dream" President?
Nope.
My first choice would still be Ralph Nader. I might go for Cynthia McKinney. Or Barbara Lee, if she ran. Mike Gravel, maybe. But, as usual, I don't get to choose whatever I want -- I just get to pick from what's on the menu.
One thing for SURE: Obama has to go.
Any other decent Candidates out there with even a longshot chance to win?
I don't see any.
So it comes down to: Obama who's worse than Bush (and I wouldn't have thought that even possible) or one of the Republican candidates who are practically indistinguishable from Obama -- none of whom say anything that doesn't make me want to vomit.
OR a guy who says SOME major things I agree with 100% and some other things, major and minor, with which I disagree to varying degrees.
Not a great choice, but, to me, an obvious one.
Somebody got a better candidate than Ron Paul?
I'm all ears.
sj
Spartacus
You left out Rocky Anderson who is a far better choice than any Democrat or Republican, including Ron Paul.