Fuck Obama

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:41 am

He's Done It Before!
Will Obama Denounce MLK at Memorial?
by DAVID SWANSON

That sounds like a crazy question, doesn’t it? Why would President Obama denounce Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Well, the reason I ask is that he’s done it before.

Really? But surely he wouldn’t do it on such a solemn occasion?

Well, the time he did it before was in a Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech.

When President Barack Obama joined the ranks of Henry Kissinger and the other gentle souls who have received Nobel Peace Prizes, he did something that I don’t think anyone else had previously done in a Peace Prize acceptance speech. He argued for war. And he opposed the position of a previous Peace Prize Laureate, namely Martin Luther King, Jr.:

“There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: ‘Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.’…But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by [King's and Gandhi's] examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history…. So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.”

But, you know, I’ve never found any opponent of war who didn’t believe there was evil in the world. After all, we oppose war because it is evil.

Did Martin Luther King, Jr., not face the world as it is? Was he delusional? Did he stand idle in the face of threats? This is President Obama’s position.

Did King oppose protecting and defending people? Of course not. He worked for that very goal!

Obama claims that his only choices are war or nothing. But the reason people know the names Gandhi (who was never given a Nobel Peace Prize) and King is that they suggested other options and proved that those other approaches could work. This fundamental disagreement cannot be smoothed over. Either war is the only option or it is not — in which case we must consider the alternatives.

Couldn’t we have halted Hitler’s armies without a world war? To claim otherwise is ridiculous. We could have halted Hitler’s armies by not concluding World War I with an effort seemingly aimed at breeding as much resentment as possible in Germany (punishing a whole people rather than individuals, requiring that Germany admit sole responsibility, taking away its territory, and demanding enormous reparations payments that it would have taken [in fact did take] Germany several decades to pay), or by putting our energies seriously into a League of Nations and International Court as opposed to the victor-justice of dividing the spoils, or by building good relations with Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, or by funding peace studies in Germany rather than eugenics, or by fearing militaristic governments more than leftist ones, or by not funding Hitler and his armies, or by helping the Jews escape, or by maintaining a ban on bombing civilians, or indeed by massive nonviolent resistance which requires greater courage and valor than we’ve ever seen in war.

We have seen such courage in the largely nonviolent eviction of the British rulers from India, in the nonviolent overthrow of the ruler of El Salvador in 1944, in the campaigns that ended Jim Crow in the United States and apartheid in South Africa. We’ve seen it in the popular removal of the ruler of the Philippines in 1986, in the largely nonviolent Iranian Revolution of 1979, in the dismantling of the Soviet Union in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany, as well as in the Ukraine in 2004 and 2005, and in dozens of other examples from all over the world, including Tunisia and Egypt. Why should Germany be the one place where a force more powerful than violence could not possibly have prevailed?

If you can’t accept that World War II could have been avoided, there is still this crucial point to consider: Hitler’s armies have been gone for 65 years but are still being used to justify the scourge of humanity that we outlawed in 1928: war. Most nations do not behave as Nazi Germany did, and one reason is that a lot of them have come to value and understand peace. Those that do make war still appeal to a horrible episode in world history that ended 65 years ago to justify what they are doing — exactly as if nothing has changed, exactly as if King and Gandhi and billions of other people have not come and gone and contributed their bit to our knowledge of what can and should be done.

Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda to lay down its arms? How would President Obama know that? The United States has never tried it. The solution cannot be to meet the demands of terrorists, thereby encouraging terrorism, but the grievances against the United States that attract people to anti-U.S. terrorism seem extremely reasonable:

Get out of our country. Stop bombing us. Stop threatening us. Stop blockading us. Stop raiding our homes. Stop funding the theft of our lands. Stop taking out natural resources. Such grievances are being aggravated rather than alleviated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, and elsewhere.

We ought to satisfy those demands even in the absence of negotiations with anyone. We ought to stop producing and selling most of the weapons we want other people to “lay down.” And if we did so, you would see about as much anti-U.S. terrorism as the Norwegians giving out the prizes see anti-Norwegian terrorism. Norway has neither negotiated with al Qaeda nor murdered all of its members. Norway has just refrained from doing what the United States military does, although sometimes participating.

Martin Luther King, Jr., and Barack Obama disagree, and only one of them can be right. In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, King said:

“Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation. Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.”

Love? I thought it was a big stick, a large Navy, a missile defense shield, and weapons in outerspace. King may in fact have been ahead of us. This portion of King’s 1964 speech anticipated Obama’s speech 45 years later:

“I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality.…I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up.”

Other-centered? How odd it sounds to imagine the United States and its people becoming other-centered. It sounds as outrageous as loving one’s enemies. And yet there may just be something to it. King was a moral man who, if alive today, would be an environmentalist. He might very well be risking arrest at the White House right now to demand clean energy rather than the opening up of enough new dirty fuel use to finish off the planet. He would likely be committed to nonviolent actions of the aort planned for October 2011 at http://october2011.org

A year ago, on October 2, 2010, a broad coalition held a rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. The organizers sought to use the rally both to demand jobs, protect Social Security, and advance a hodgepodge of progressive ideas, and also to cheer for the Democratic Party, whose leadership was not on board with that program. An independent movement would back particular politicians, including Democrats, but they would have to earn it by supporting our positions.

The peace movement was included in the rally, if not given top billing, and many peace organizations took part. We found that, among all of those tens of thousands of union members and civil rights activists who showed up, virtually all of them were eager to carry anti-war posters and stickers. In fact the message “Money for Jobs, Not Wars,” was immensely popular. If anyone at all disagreed, I haven’t heard about it. The theme of the rally was “One Nation Working Together,” a warm message but one so vague we didn’t even offend anyone enough to produce a counter-rally. I suspect more people would have shown up and a stronger message would have been delivered had the headline been “Bring Our War Dollars Home!”

One speech outshone all others that day. The speaker was 83-year-old singer and activist Harry Belafonte, his voice strained, scratchy, and gripping. These were some of his words:

“Martin Luther King, Jr., in his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech 47 years ago, said that America would soon come to realize that the war that we were in at that time that this nation waged in Vietnam was not only unconscionable, but unwinnable. Fifty-eight thousand Americans died in that cruel adventure, and over two million Vietnamese and Cambodians perished. Now today, almost a half-a-century later, as we gather at this place where Dr. King prayed for the soul of this great nation, tens of thousands of citizens from all walks of life have come here today to rekindle his dream and once again hope that all America will soon come to the realization that the wars that we wage today in far away lands are immoral, unconscionable and unwinnable.

“The Central Intelligence Agency, in its official report, tells us that the enemy we pursue in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, the al- Qaeda, they number less than 50 — I say 50 — people. Do we really think that sending 100,000 young American men and women to kill innocent civilians, women, and children, and antagonizing the tens of millions of people in the whole region somehow makes us secure?

“Does this make any sense?

“The President’s decision to escalate the war in that region alone costs the nation $33 billion. That sum of money could not only create 600,000 jobs here in America, but would even leave us a few billion to start rebuilding our schools, our roads, our hospitals and affordable housing. It could also help to rebuild the lives of the thousands of our returning wounded veterans.”

In November 1943, six residents of Coventry, England, which had been bombed by Germany, wrote to the New Statesman to condemn the bombing of German cities, asserting that the “general feeling” in Coventry was the “desire that no other people shall suffer as they have done.”

In 1997, on the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Guernica, the president of Germany wrote a letter to the Basque people apologizing for the Nazi-era bombing. The Mayor of Guernica wrote back and accepted the apology.

Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights is an international organization, based in the United States, of family members of victims of criminal murder, state execution, extra-judicial assassinations, and “disappearances” who oppose the death penalty in all cases.

Peaceful Tomorrows is an organization founded by family members of those killed on September 11, 2001, who say they have, “united to turn our grief into action for peace. By developing and advocating nonviolent options and actions in the pursuit of justice, we hope to break the cycles of violence engendered by war and terrorism. Acknowledging our common experience with all people affected by violence throughout the world, we work to create a safer and more peaceful world for everyone.”

So must we all.

A memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr., should be a celebration of nonviolent resistance to habits of thought that allow and promote cruelty, inlcuding the worst cruelty of all: war. Candidate Obama said ”I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.” One way to help end that mindset would be to cease defending it in the most inappropriate manner imaginable.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby StarmanSkye » Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:31 pm

I utterly despise Obama, even moreso than I do Bush, because Obama claimed to have the moral conviction to oppose Bush's single-minded preoccupation with promoting warfare as a key feature of American diplomacy. He has allowed himself to be dissuaded against disengaging from the wars in iraq and Afghanistan, BOTH instituted on the most specious, illusory and contrived pretexts -- continuing a despicable, narrowly self-serving agenda of intimidation, coercion, threats and actual use of military violence in pursuit of corporate loot and more territory for expanded military basing.

Its horrible enough that the US has continued its atrocious occupation of Iraq that has resulted in indescribable horrors, over one million casualties, 2 million refugees, the decimation of civil society ripped-apart by provocateured tribal & ethnic conflicts despite the complete absence of ANY basis to justify a pre-emptive attack -- especially because as we now know that Iraq's leaders were urgently communicating their unequivocal agreement to ALL conditions required as terms to avoid war. This is so unconscionable, and that the main architects of this dastardly war who did everything to bring it about have not been universally condemned and brought before a war crimes tribunal like the ICC to stand trial but rather shielded and protected by the nation's political establishment is a measure of how completely America's 'leadership' lacks decency and moral legitimacy. And now, by eagerly promoting, supporting and defending NATO's criminal war in Libya, Obama has given himself over to championing America's venal, treacherous hypocrisy.

What a monumental fraud and moral coward. But then I guess America deserves him.
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:50 pm

Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal
August 24, 11:17 AM ET
Matt Taibbi


A power play is underway in the foreclosure arena, according to the New York Times.

On the one side is Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General, who is conducting his own investigation into the era of securitizations – the practice of chopping up assets like mortgages and converting them into saleable securities – that led up to the financial crisis of 2007-2008.

On the other side is the Obama administration, the banks, and all the other state attorneys general.

This second camp has cooked up a deal that would allow the banks to walk away with just a seriously discounted fine from a generation of fraud that led to millions of people losing their homes.

The idea behind this federally-guided “settlement” is to concentrate and centralize all the legal exposure accrued by this generation of grotesque banker corruption in one place, put one single price tag on it that everyone can live with, and then stuff the details into a titanium canister before shooting it into deep space.

This is all about protecting the banks from future enforcement actions on both the civil and criminal sides. The plan is to provide year-after-year, repeat-offending banks like Bank of America with cost certainty, so that they know exactly how much they’ll have to pay in fines (trust me, it will end up being a tiny fraction of what they made off the fraudulent practices) and will also get to know for sure that there are no more criminal investigations in the pipeline.

This deal will also submarine efforts by both defrauded investors in MBS and unfairly foreclosed-upon homeowners and borrowers to obtain any kind of relief in the civil court system. The AGs initially talked about $20 billion as a settlement number, money that would “toward loan modifications and possibly counseling for homeowners,” as Gretchen Morgenson reported the other day.

The banks, however, apparently “balked” at paying that sum, and no doubt it will end up being a lesser amount when the deal is finally done.

To give you an indication of how absurdly small a number even $20 billion is relative to the sums of money the banks made unloading worthless crap subprime assets on foreigners, pension funds and other unsuspecting suckers around the world, consider this: in 2008 alone, the state pension fund of Florida, all by itself, lost more than three times that amount ($62 billion) thanks in significant part to investments in these deadly MBS.

So this deal being cooked up is the ultimate Papal indulgence. By the time that $20 billion (if it even ends up being that high) gets divvied up between all the major players, the broadest and most destructive fraud scheme in American history, one that makes the S&L crisis look like a cheap liquor store holdup, will be safely reduced to a single painful but eminently survivable one-time line item for all the major perpetrators.

But Schneiderman, who earlier this year launched an investigation into the securitization practices of Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and other companies, is screwing up this whole arrangement. Until he lies down, the banks don’t have a deal. They need the certainty of having all 50 states and the federal government on board, or else it’s not worth paying anybody off. To quote the immortal Tony Montana, “How do I know you’re the last cop I’m gonna have to grease?” They need all the dirty cops on board, or else the whole enterprise is FUBAR.

In addition to the global settlement, Schneiderman is also blocking an individual $8.5 billion settlement for Countrywide investors. He has sued to stop that deal, claiming it could “compromise investors’ claims in exchange for a payment representing a fraction of the losses.”

If Schneiderman thinks $8.5 billion is an insufficient, fractional payoff just for defrauded Countrywide investors, then you can imagine how bad a $20 billion settlement for the entire industry would be for the victims.

In that particular Countrywide settlement deal, it looks like Bank of New York Mellon, the New York Fed, Pimco and other players negotiated on behalf of defrauded investors. They told the Times they were happy with the deal, but investors outside the talks told Gretchen they weren’t happy with the settlement.

Schneiderman apparently listened to those voices instead of the Mellon-Fed-BofA crowd, which infuriated the insiders who struck the actual deal. In a remarkable quote given to the Times, Kathryn Wylde, the Fed board member who ostensibly represents the public, said the following about Schneiderman:

It is of concern to the industry that instead of trying to facilitate resolving these issues, you seem to be throwing a wrench into it. Wall Street is our Main Street — love ’em or hate ’em. They are important and we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to support them unless they are doing something indefensible.


This, again, is coming not from a Bank of America attorney, but from the person on the Fed board who is supposedly representing the public!

This quote leads one to wonder just what Wylde would consider “indefensible,” given that stealing is pretty much the worst thing that a bank can do — and these banks just finished the longest and most orgiastic campaign of stealing in the history of money. Is Wylde waiting for Goldman and Citi to blow up a skyscraper? Dump dioxin into an orphanage? It’s really an incredible quote.

The banks are going to claim that all they’re guilty of is bad paperwork. But while the banks are indeed being investigated for "paperwork" offenses like mass tax evasion (by failing to pay fees associated with mortgage registrations and deed transfers) and mass perjury (a la the “robo-signing” practices), their real crime, the one Schneiderman is interested in, is even more serious.

The issue goes beyond fraudulent paperwork to an intentional, far-reaching theft scheme designed to take junk subprime loans and disguise them as AAA-rated investments. The banks lent money to corrupt companies like Countrywide, who made masses of bad loans and immediately sold them back to the banks.

The banks in turn hid the crappiness of these loans via certain poorly-understood nuances in the securitization process – this is almost certainly where Scheniderman’s investigators are doing their digging – before hawking the resultant securities as AAA-rated gold to fools in places like the Florida state pension fund.

They did this for years, systematically, working hand in hand in a wink-nudge arrangement with clearly criminal enterprises like Countrywide and New Century. The victims were millions of investors worldwide (like the pensioners who saw their funds drop in value) and hundreds of thousands of individual homeowners, who were often sold trick loans and hustled into foreclosure when unexpected rate hikes kicked in.


In a larger sense, even the (often irresponsible) people who simply bought more house than they could afford were victims of this scam. That's because in many of these cases, credit simply would not have been available to those people had the banks not first discovered a way to raise vast sums of money dumping crap loans on an unsuspecting market.

In other words: if Bank of America hadn’t found a way to sell worthless subprime loans as AAA paper to the Chinese and the Scandavians in May, you can be sure that it wouldn’t be going back to Countrywide in June to lend out more money for more subprime loans.

And Countrywide, in turn, wouldn’t then have been sending masses of reps out into the ghettoes to offer juicy home loans to undocumented immigrants and refis to confused old ladies on social security.

This is as bad as white-collar crime gets. But to Wylde, it doesn’t rise to the level of being “indefensible.” Until they do something worse than this, we apparently should support the banks, and make sure they don’t have to pay more than a fraction of what they made off of this kind of crime.

What is most amazing about Wylde’s quote is the clear implication that even a law enforcement official like Schneiderman should view it as his job to “do everything we can to support” Wall Street. That would be astonishing interpretation of what a prosecutor's duties are, were it not for the fact that 49 other Attorneys General apparently agree with her.

In Schneiderman we have at least one honest investigator who doesn’t agree, which is to his great credit. But everyone else is on Wylde’s side now. The Times story claims that HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan and various Justice Department officials have been leaning on the New York AG to cave, which tells you that reining in this last rogue cop is now an urgent priority for Barack Obama.

Why? My theory is that the Obama administration is trying to secure its 2012 campaign war chest with this settlement deal. If Barry can make this foreclosure thing go away for the banks, you can bet he’ll win the contributions battle against the Republicans next summer.

Which is good for him, I guess. But it seems to me that it might be time to wonder if is this the most disappointing president we’ve ever had.

"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby Elihu » Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:28 pm

has allowed himself to be dissuaded


is that even realistic anymore? shouldn't we be on "manchurian candidate" ground by now?

it might be time to wonder if is this the most disappointing? president we’ve ever had.


oh that's rich. keep ooo-n votin people!
But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
Elihu
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:58 pm

Elihu wrote:
has allowed himself to be dissuaded


is that even realistic anymore? shouldn't we be on "manchurian candidate" ground by now?


Of course, but Taibbi needs to tread the line of "respectability" so that he can continue to get his ass on network news programs and edumicate the 95% of self-proclaimed liberals who, beyond any rational explanation, still desperately cling to the notion that Obama is a totally awesome guy who's being hamstrung by those evil, nasty Republicans.

THOSE people run away screaming with their hands over their ears at the mere mention that Obama might even occasionally, inadvertently be serving corporate interests.

Suggesting to THOSE people that Obama is a Manchurian candidate working exclusively for corporate interests while only pretending to be a totally awesome guy, hamstrung by those evil, nasty Republicans, is tantamount to birtherism.

Taibbi understands this and pushes his criticism as far as he can, which, compared to others who have similar access to mainstream outlets, is pretty far.

Elihu wrote:
it might be time to wonder if is this the most disappointing? president we’ve ever had.


oh that's rich. keep ooo-n votin people!


See above.
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:43 pm

George McGovern's Open Letter to President Obama
bydizzydean

I'm just getting around to digging through this month's Harpers and was very pleasantly surprised to see George McGovern--perhaps the most liberal candidate for the presidency from a major party--sitting in for Thomas Frank this month. Despite actually getting chances to meet with President Obama one-on-one (McGovern mentions to this in his article), he sets forth what his suggestions are for the president in the rest of this term and the next.

Harpers is subscription-only, so, unless you purchase a copy (which I wholeheartedly suggest--the education article is worth the price of admission), you will not be able to read this. However, what McGovern says is too important IMHO to let slip by, so I will attempt a summary below.

[NOTE: sine I am hand-jamming the quotes, any typos or spelling errors are mine. Feel free to correct in the comments.]

McGovern opens his letter by recognizing some facts of our current situation. He says that only FDR and Obama have inherited serious economic crises within the past 100 years. He notes that FDR got through Congress most of the New Deal programs with little opposition. However, he notes:

Like Roosevelt, President Barack Obama has inherited a serious economic crisis, but in his first two years in office he has met with an even worse problem: the rigid opposition of the rival party leaders to national health care and nearly every other proposal he has made...Neither during my four years in the House of Representatives, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was in the White House, nor through eighteen years in the U.S. Senate, under John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, have I witnessed any president thwarted by the kind of narrow partisanship that has beset Obama...What has happened, one is compelled to ask, to the love of nation?
I think that this is important for us to hear, for as much as we've seen the political system evolve to where the GOP is the most obstructionist opposition in the post-Reconstruction era, it did not used to be this way within living memory. McGovern probably has the likes of Everett Dirksen, who helped usher through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, despite the protests of the Southern Democrats. Consider this: 13 Republicans voted FOR the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. That would be impossible today.

In explaining this, McGovern takes the high road and suggests its about resistance to change by voters, "strengthened by powerful interests."

McGovern's main interest in this article is essentially to make a "guns v. butter" argument. He spends some time discussing the inflation of the defense budget, pointing to Ike's "military-industrial complex" speech in 1960 and his own efforts to try to rein in defense spending. In his day, as it is in our, the defense industry is one of the main "powerful interests" which influence politics. One need only see what James Clyburn (D-SC) said recently regarding the preservation of defense jobs in his district...and who can blame him?

But then, McGovern pivots on this wonderful point:

We need a new definition of "defense" that takes into account the quality of our education, the health of our people, the preservation of the environment, the strength of our transportation, the development of alternative fuels, the vigor of our democracy. These were the concerns expressed by the people who stood in Cairo's Tahir Square...


McGovern then covers the war costs, and that, while happy with the fact that Obama intends to withdraw 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2012, he does not think this is enough and has told the president so.


Image
Image
While not mentioning the withdrawal from Iraq, he points to the strategy of General Petraeus, which pushes for an even longer term commitment. He states:

The president may be reluctant to follow the advice of a presidential candidate who in 1972 lost forty-nine states to Richard Nixon. I can appreciate that concern. On the other hand, shortly after the 1972 election, two bipartisan commissions--one by the House and one by the Senate--forced the incumbent who beat me to resign in disgrace....The late Sargent Shriver, my running mate in 1972, came to me the day after the election and said, "George, we may have lost the election, but we never lost our souls."
McGovern is letting President Obama know that, while he very much supports him now--as he did in 2008--there are some long-term issues that he needs to work on in order to help the country come back from the mess created since Reagan won in 1980. I would say at this point that while I love George McGovern and the Democratic Party he represented in the 1960s and 70s, what he recommends will be difficult if not impossible, so long as this version of the GOP holds the power to block the president's initiatives, as he pointed out in his opening paragraphs.

Be that as it may, here are McGovern's proposals for the president:

1. Bring the troops home from Afghanistan this year.

(I agree with the idea, but think that, as we did in Iraq, the time-frame needs to be longer so as to reduce force of the power vacuum which will ensue.)


2. Close all US bases in the Arab world.

I would also agree to this. McGovern believes that these just promote anger and incite rather than establish stability.

3. Evaluate the necessity of maintaining a US military presence in Europe and South Korea.

(I agree with this regarding S. Korea. The European commitments need to be evaluated in terms of our force projection requirements and our commitments to NATO).

4. Reduce the Pentagon's budget from $700 billion to $500 billion by the end of next year. Reduce to $200 billion by the end of 5 years.

(My opinion is that this is a laudable goal, however, I would not reduce defense spending until the jobs situation improves. As much as everyone at DK, including myself, would like to see defense cut, the current spending means jobs. If we cut spending by these numbers in the short term, we cut thousands of jobs--many of which are good paying union jobs. For example, the newest class of aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, had construction initiated in 2009 and will not be completed until 2015. The construction job for this one ship, not including the aircraft and the bells and whistles inside, provides 19,000 jobs to the Hampton Roads area of Virginia. However, once the labor market has picked back up, I would say that we should try to meet these goals while also helping communities which have benefited from military spending to transition to other work.)

5. Not only end the Bush tax cuts, but increase the tax rates for the top brackets.

('nuff said!).

6. Use savings from the military cuts to invest in infrastructure spending, especially high speed rail.

(I'd recommend doing this now, regardless of defense cuts. I'd also go to work fixing the bridges and roads around the country that are in disrepair.)


7. Revive the full provisions of the WWII era GI Bill.

(The original GI Bill passed in 1944 (barely--the House vote was by a majority of one) paid full tuition for veterans, and had home loan guarantees and unemployment insurance. The GI Bill was revised in 1984, reducing benefits and providing for a scheme where money was taken out of a soldier's paycheck and matched by the government. Servicemembers could opt out. The current version, enacted in 2008 added benefits, but did not provide the full tuition credit.

McGovern believes that this will help many middle class people with tuition payments, but at what cost? Would this drive working and middle class young people to join the military? As a veteran, I am sympathetic with this, but think we could do better by extending the benefits to a public service corps.)

8. Expand Medicare to all Americans in two year increments, starting with children.

(I think we would mostly agree on this goal here at DK, but know that this will not happen with this Congress. That's what makes 2012 so important!)

Much to chew on here, and many things that all Kossacks would probably have argue over whether this president is the one to get these things rolling. Be that as it may, I would urge all of us to follow McGovern's example as he ends his essay:

None of this is intended as a criticism of Barack Obama, who had my support when he was a candidate for the United States presidency and who has my support today. I hope that some of the ideas here might help him on the road to greatness. I wish him well on the journey ahead.


Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby StarmanSkye » Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:45 pm

I keep returning to the idea that the solution to humanity's biggest dilemna (misrule) is as simple as realizing that only about 100,000 people are actively waging war on 5 billion, and that those 5 billion need to act like their lives are on the line -- because they are.

A big problem is that those 5 billion people can't agree among themselves long enough to identify who their common enemy are and organize to wage an effective counter-defense.

Of course, what's to prevent another est. 100,000 from assuming control and effectively waging war on the 5 billion again?


A house -- or planet -- divided among itself cannot stand.
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby eyeno » Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:55 pm

StarmanSkye wrote:I keep returning to the idea that the solution to humanity's biggest dilemna (misrule) is as simple as realizing that only about 100,000 people are actively waging war on 5 billion, and that those 5 billion need to act like their lives are on the line -- because they are.

A big problem is that those 5 billion people can't agree among themselves long enough to identify who their common enemy are and organize to wage an effective counter-defense.

Of course, what's to prevent another est. 100,000 from assuming control and effectively waging war on the 5 billion again?


A house -- or planet -- divided among itself cannot stand.



very astute observation.

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2010-09-11 ... 560166.jpg

Image
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby ninakat » Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:17 am

StarmanSkye wrote:I keep returning to the idea that the solution to humanity's biggest dilemna (misrule) is as simple as realizing that only about 100,000 people are actively waging war on 5 billion, and that those 5 billion need to act like their lives are on the line -- because they are.

A big problem is that those 5 billion people can't agree among themselves long enough to identify who their common enemy are and organize to wage an effective counter-defense.

Of course, what's to prevent another est. 100,000 from assuming control and effectively waging war on the 5 billion again?


A house -- or planet -- divided among itself cannot stand.




Bob Marley & The Wailers- Top Rankin'

They don't want to see us unite:
All they want us to do is keep on fussing and fighting.
They don't want to see us live together:
All they want us to do is keep on killing one another.

Top rankin', top rankin':
Are you skankin' (skankin', skankin')?
Are you skankin' (skankin', skankin')?
Wo-ho, top rankin' (top rankin'), 'Ow,
did you mean what you say now?
Are you - 'ow are you (rankin', rankin') -
are ya - Lord, Lord, Lord! (skankin', skankin')?

They say the blood runs;
And it runs through our line,
And our hearts, heart of hearts divine, eh!
And John saw them comin', ooh! - a-with the truth
From an ancient time.

The brotherly love (brotherly love), the
sisterly love (sisterly love)
I feel this morning; I feel this morning:
Brotherly love (brotherly love), the
sisterly love (sisterly love)
I feel this morning, this morning. Hey!

They don't want us to unite:
All they want us to do is keep on fussing and fighting.
They don't want to see us live together;
All they want us to do is keep on killing one another.

Top rankin' (top rankin')!
Did ya mean what you say now (top rankin')?
Are you skankin' (skankin', skankin')?
Are you skankin' (skankin', skankin')?
Top rankin' (top ranking),
Did you (top rankin') mean what you say (top rankin')?
Are you (rankin', rankin)?
Are you (skankin', skankin')?
Top rankin' (top rankin');
Top rankin' (top rankin');
Are you (skankin', skankin')?
'Ow are you (skankin', skankin')?
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby ninakat » Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:19 am

Glenn Greenwald: Obama upheld ‘evisceration of the rule of law for political elites’
Posted on 08.25.11
By Eric W. Dolan

Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald on Thursday blasted President Barack Obama’s mantra that the nation should “look forward, not backward” regarding alleged crimes committed by the Bush administration.

“Imagine if, for example, we decided to announce tomorrow that we were no longer going to prosecute murder or rape or child abductions because we didn’t want to ‘keep looking backwards,’” he said on MSNBC’s The Last Word. “What do you think would happen? Obviously there would be a lot more people engaging in murder, rape, and child abduction.”

Greenwald added that American political culture had “decided our highest political officials are free to break the law without consequences” and Obama had continued the “evisceration of the rule of law for political elites.”

“So political elites like Dick Cheney know that they can commit crimes with total impunity, and that is why he goes around proudly boasting about the crimes he has committed.”

(VIDEO at link)
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby Simulist » Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:30 am

"Manchurian Candidate"? Maybe, but probably not. More likely I think, Obama is just another whore.

(With apologies to real whores who actually work for a living.)
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby ninakat » Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:27 am

Oh, The Pain of The Believer: Barack’s Betrayals Offer Lessons We Can’t Deny

By Danny Schechter

August 30, 2011 "Information Clearing House"
-- Journalists are not supposed to have political opinions, and yet we all do. Our “biases” are usually disguised, not blatant or overtly partisan, and can be divined in what stories we cover and how we cover them,

Even ‘just the facts, ma'am,’ journos for big Media have to decide which facts to include and which to ignore.

Our outlooks are always shaped by our worldviews, values and experience, not to mention the outlets we work for.

Which brings me to the challenge of seeking truth and recognizing it when you see it.

I have to admit that I was seduced by the idea of Barack Obama.

The idea of a black President, the idea of a young President, the idea of an articulate President, and the idea of a man married to such a stand up woman from a working class family was hard to resist.

Here’s a guy who seemed really smart, not just because he went to Harvard but because professors there I liked were impressed with him. (I taught at Harvard, and know very well how not so smart many students there can be!)

In the end, it doesn’t mean much, but in that period he lived about a block away from the house I once shared on Dartmouth Street in Somerville.

Was that a degree of separation?

He had also been a community organizer, starting in politics at the grassroots in Chicago. I also worked at Saul Alinsky-style organizing and even knew the iconic organizer personally.

Was that another degree?

He’s invoked the spirit of the civil rights movement but was not part of it. He treated Dr. King as a monument before the new memorial was conceived, embracing him as a symbol of the past, not a guide to the future.

He took an anti-war stance on pragmatic grounds only, preferring Afghanistan to Iraq. He hasn’t extricated us from either battlefield.

His strategy borrowed heavily from the Bush Doctrine. What’s the difference, really, as US troops now intervene worldwide and Guantanamo remains open for business?

There was a lot I didn’t know. I didn’t know the backgrounds of those that groomed him and funded him. His relationship with the centrist DLC was murky as were the details on the services he performed for a shadowy firm, Business International, said to have CIA links.

There were those who warned, but I guess I didn’t want to listen.

Why? I didn’t want to reinforce my own skepticism and sense of despair. I feigned at being hopeful even as I took quite a few critical whacks at his positions in my blog. His deviations from a liberal agenda and his paens to the “free market” were considered necessary for his “electability.”

I was also influenced by the euphoria for him overseas that had become infectious but has since soured.

To be honest, I was so disgusted with eight years of George Bush for all the right reasons that I wanted him gone full stop, as did millions of Americans.

Hillary didn’t appeal to me, not because she’s a woman but because of her slavish affinity for the Israel lobby and middle of the road Democrats. (Yes, Obama, did his mea-culpa to AIPAC too!)

I was denounced as a super sexist by a few for not buying into her centrist Clintonista crusade.

She had gone from a student advocate to part of a ruling family; he went from bottom-up activism to top-down elitism.

When she joined his “team,” you knew they were always in the same league.

When the right bashed him for associating with radical Bill Ayers, who I knew, it made me suspect he might even be cooler than I thought, even as he raced to distance himself. His membership in Reverend Wright’s church hinted at a deeper consciousness until he buckled in the media heat and threw the man that married him under the bus.

And yet, I wanted to believe because I needed to believe, needed to believe it was possible to change the American behemoth, to believe that, as he kept saying, “it could be different this time.”

As the late writer David Foster Wallace put it, “In the day-to-day trenches of adult life…there is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship… else (what) you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things - if they are where you tap real meaning in life - then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough.”

So, in a sense, I became a worshipper like so many, not of the man or the dance he was doing in an infected political environment, but because I convinced myself that I worshipped possibility, that there are times when the unexpected, even the unbelievable occurs. I had seen Mandela go from prison to the presidency of South Africa.

After all, how does a progressive blast a candidate who has Bruce Springsteen and Pete Seeger singing the uncensored version of “This Land Is Your Land” at his inaugural?

Yet, there was always a nagging question: was he with us or just co-opting us?

Yes We Can?

Slowly, despite the glow and the aura, deeper truths surfaced, realities I had winked away. Its not surprising that his mantra has gone, as the Washington Post reports, from the “fierce urgency of now,” to “Be patient, democracy is big and tough and messy.”

Yes, I knew, I may have been rationalizing a false god, who was only another, if more attractive, politician who says one thing and does another in a political system where power, not personalities prevail.

Like many of his predecessors he would be “captured” by the power structures, by the military men and contractors at the Pentagon and the money men on Wall Street.

He was in office but never really in charge. Clearly, he didn’t have the votes to enact a real change agenda. But that was because his own party was long ago bought and paid for.

He never had a chance, even if as I wanted to believe, he wanted one. He said he wanted to be transformational figure but the system transformed him—and quickly.

Everyone runs “against Washington,” even a Senator, who was part of it.

And so I held my nose and voted, hoping against my wiser instincts. I even made a positive film about the campaign that showed how he used social media and texting to mobilize new voters. When I tried to get a copy to the White House, through an insider there, I found they couldn’t be less interested.

By then, he had gone from playing the “outside game” to opting into the “inside game” built around compromise in the name of “pragmatism," or "getting it done,” in his words. In the end he was a rookie who may have outsmarted himself or just served the interests who put him there.

He couldn’t dump his most passionate and issue-oriented followers fast enough.

While his backers were still hot to trot, he became cooler toward them, and, in effect, repudiated them with few progressive appointments. He put on his flag pin and relished the symbolism of the “office.” He became the master of the uplifting speech disguising a quite different policy agenda.

He spoke for the people but served the power. His wanted the other side to love him too, even as his stabs at “bi-partisanship” proved non-starters.

When you lie down with those “lambs,” (or is it snakes?) you betray not only supporters, but their hopes. FDR was soon spinning in his grave.

I am not surprised that knowledgeable critics of his economic policies not only consider him bull-headed and wrong, but actually corrupt, aligned and complicit, with the banksters who are still ripping us off. No wonder he’s "bundled” more donations from the greedsters and financiers this year than in 2008! No wonder he turned his back on consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren and is trying to kill prosecutions of bank fraud in high places.

Christopher Whalen who writes for Reuters say there will be a cost for his doing nothing: “The path of least resistance politically has been to temporize and talk. But by following the advice of Rubin and Summers, and avoiding tough decisions about banks and solvency, President Obama has only made the crisis more serious and steadily eroded public confidence. In political terms, Obama is morphing into Herbert Hoover.”

Yet, at the same time, many of us who now know how we have been used, will vote for him again, because, as he rightly calculates, there is no one else, and the alternative is even worse. Watch and weep as today’s rebels become next year’s rationalizers.

It reminds me of when activists were asked to vote for Lyndon Johnson in 1964 with the slogan “Part of the Way with LBJ.” That way ended with an endless escalation of war in Vietnam, and guns trumping butter. Sound familiar?

The search for truth and reality has hit a wall but has to continue. The lessons need to be learned. We have to say we were wrong, when we were, not in our beliefs, but in pinning our hopes on a shrewd, ambitious, and double-faced political performance artist.

While people who still back him dismiss the accusation that’s he’s a hidden socialist, Kenyan, or space alien, all too many suspect he may be a secret Republican. He is who he is, aloof, cautious, and a man in the middle. He’s staying there.

Let’s give David Foster the last word.

“The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day. That is real freedom. The alternative is unconscioussness,…

… It is about simple awareness - awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, that we have to keep reminding ourselves, over and over…”

News Dissector Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel.org. His new film is Plunder The Crime of our time on the financial crisis as a crime story. (Plunderthecrimeofourtime.com) Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby StarmanSkye » Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:50 am

^^^^
Pretty right-on, hard-hitting article by Danny Schechter. Hard to admit for many that they've been suckered, their hopeful hero has morphed into a despicable, loathsome & manipulative traitor to the cause.

I esp. like the closing thought -- (to paraphrase): the opposite of freedom isn't tyranny, its uncaring unconsciousness.

IMO, Tyranny is the natural state of 'managing' uncaring unconsciousness. That aspect of liberty as focused attaention and action, responsibility to our ideals and each other is SO far from the fraudulent caricature of democracy provided to us by our 'leaders'.
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:47 am

This guy pretty much hits every nail on the head and then some...how the PTB put in Obama to lull people to sleep from 8 years of Bush, the rising wars and police state, the fake two party/controlled system, etc

"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Obama

Postby thurnundtaxis » Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:02 am

8bitagent wrote:This guy pretty much hits every nail on the head and then some...how the PTB put in Obama to lull people to sleep from 8 years of Bush, the rising wars and police state, the fake two party/controlled system, etc



Interesting, thanks 8bit!

You know I've been wondering why Immortal Technique has been so quiet about these same issues lately...
User avatar
thurnundtaxis
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 158 guests