OK this is getting bizarre. This mother breaks into tears when she thinks of the President of the United States speaking to her children in school. We are less than two days away from Obama’s brain-washing, soul-crushing, communist-loving subliminal-laced speech to our children. By Wednesday, our schools will be little more than communes with kids calling for redistribution of wealth and reeducation of parents.
There was a time when the lunch lady was the scariest thing at school.
I am honored to speak to the Kent Gardens Elementary School on Constitution Day and I have been looking for tips on the brainwashing techniques. (I would like my car washed everyday by zombie elementary students). I assume that the subliminal messages work something like this: “Hello children, I am the President of the United States (undervoice: “vote Democratic”). I want to speak with you about education (undervoice: “Republicans shot Bambi”) . . .”
Even some Chicago schools are refusing to air the speech. While some schools have banned the speech on the ground that they would not be able to read it, the White House always promised to release it on Monday — the day before. The speech was actually released on Sunday and it proved every bit as indoctrinating as feared. Among other things, Obama asks the children to wash their hands. What totalitarian hogwash. Then there is this frightening bit:
Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide.
Everyone knows that “opportunity” is doublespeak for enslaving your parents and sacrificing them to gay socialist feminist union overlords. What is even more frightening is that Obama has already brainwashed Laura Bush, who has come out in favor of the subliminally laden speech, here.
In one Fox story, a parent explains how a president speaking to school kids is “very socialistic.” What they do not realize is that there is little to worry about. To be sent to a re-education camp, you first have to be educated. According to recent data, the schools in many of the states opposing the President’s speech have already protected against that danger.
However, as this clip shows, even our classic movies were used to shape us unconsciously through subliminal messages:
For the story, click here.
Very interesting editorial,the reporter takes both sides to task.
Stir created by Obama’s speech to students is ‘a sad time for America’
Posted by Mark Di Ionno/Star-Ledger Columnist September 04, 2009 6:40PM
Categories: Must-see stories, Real-Time News.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/
Stupidity is often indistinguishable from insanity.
Who are these morons that believe the brain washing, birther, deather, etc. crap? Do I need to buy a truck load of blackmarket assault weapons in order to protect my family from them?
I am currently husbanding canned goods and bottled water, and survivalist magazines as I dig the Man Cave, twenty feet under my house, getting ready for the apocalypse that will come with the 2010 State Of The Union address.
Mr. Turley,
I would like to say I cannot believe the false information being circulated on (Fox) “News” and other outlets re the President’s speech, but sadly I can believe it.
I voted for President Obama and am the parent of a middle-schooler in North Carolina. What is the legal or constitutional precedent for schools — and entire states — being allowed to “opt out” of televising the President’s speech on education?
Even though our daughter knows that we did not agree with former President Bushes’ policies, we would never prevent her from hearing him speak. In fact, we would be in favor of it. How can you become educated if you cannot listen to and try to understand various points of view?
I find it hard to imagine that if John McCain had become President, we would have the option of “keeping our kids away from hearing the President.”
Please advise me as to the legality and/or constitutionality of what is taking places in the public school system and states, as I am preparing to contact our school system, but need as much information as possible before doing so.
I thought the role of the president was to execute the laws enacted by the legislative branch and to protect the Constitution through the use of the veto. Based on what I see around me, I’m not sure Obama has much time to spare completing just his minimum job requirements… a job made a lot more extensive after his predecessor.
The underlying message of a president speaking to the nation’s students is that children should look up to government and government leaders, and perhaps even think about how they can support the so-called goals of government. Quite the opposite is true: children should be wary and highly skeptical of government.
Considering how much science fiction writes have gotten right over the recent century, I’ll quote Robert Heinlein: “Love your country, but never trust its government.”
Having the government direct schools to carry messages of its choosing is a slippery slope. Considering how close we are to the chasm, I am surprised by how much support this action is getting in society.
When you consider everything that has come before, from appointments, Sotomayor and foreign policy, Republicans have succeeded dramatically to “marginalize” a black-Muslim-terrorists-socialist man who is president.
What is even stranger is that it took something as insignificant as a presidential speech to public school kids.
To the right wing, marginalization equals second class citizen status. Mission accomplished.
Well is it time to go to the lobby and buy a Coke? How about a link to subliminal advertising:
http://www.poleshift.org/sublim/
This is “off-topic”. Has the following story already been posted If so, I missed it…
Ashcroft Can Be Held Accountable For Post-9/11 Wrongful Detention, Court Rules (9/4/2009)
http://aclu.org/safefree/detention/40928prs20090904.html
Time for a deep cleansing breath. I knew people who didn’t want their kids subjected to Bush talk. These parents don’t want their kids subjected to Obama talk. In each case I believe a parent has a right to make that decision.
As to the underlying crap. I feel the public is being whipped up by our corporate governement. People are terrified right now. They are losing their jobs, their homes, food, medical care. It is a scary time. These fears are real. We also have real racial hatred in this nation. We have the well honed link between “capitalism” aka, socialism for the rich, linked into religion and “patriotism. People who aren’t in the ruling elite are getting screwed. So that makes this a good time to play on people’s fears, the real ones, and the made up ones.
I think everyone needs to step back and stop being manipulated. The right wing is turning against the left wing, but the left wing is turning on the right as well. Who benefits? Not us. When I see this happening I suspect foul play by this govt. I ask again that no one turn on their neighbor.
Where I live, the fear and rage is palpable. When that happens it’s time to difuse this as best as possible by reaching out to others–not agreeing with them, but offering help and kindness. It’s the only way out of being manipulated into distrusting one’s neighbor. I take this very seriously because this govt. is destroying the poor and the middle class. We should fight this govt., not each other.
These people aren’t stupid or crazy. They just keep stirring up the mud and keep this administration from getting any traction anywhere. Unfortunately the media loves the contriversy so no matter how far fetched they lend credability to these folks. Instead of refusing to report the idiocy they cover it like there’s a large percentage of people who have a problem with the “issue” and not with just having a Black President. There were 4,000 people who came out in support of health care refform this week, has anyone seen it covered by the MSM?
Jill,
Very well said on all points.
I especially share your concern that we find race relations regressing — in my view significantly so. For a president elected to transcend race I see quite the opposite happening, and I think the Gates incident was much more fundamental and somehow polarizing than many understand. I have worked in a reserved corporate environment for quite some time and hear people talking about issues of race and class in a way that is quite surprising and unusually conspicuous. Something is changing when I hear comments from people that haven’t said a word in fifteen years.
I have not thought through what this means for the political and social landscape over time, but it’s not encouraging if this energy becomes focused on destroying neighbors instead of on correcting government itself.
Over at Volohk they have a great post on this topic examining George H.W. Bush’s similar address to school children. Which was almost on all fours with Obama’s proposed address including the creepy request that school children write “Dear Leader” letters to Bush to pledge their assistance.
And you know what? Democrats were pissed about it.
—
Anyhow, if you send your kids to school, they will get brainwashed. That’s just the way it is. Speaking from my own experience in the late 80s, I know I sat through countless “lessons” on the evils of pesticides and the virtues of organic farming (among whatever other environmental issue was hot at the moment).
In the 50s children were brainwashed about the evils of commies and Russians.
Since the 30s school children have been brainwashed about the horrors of pot, booze, and sex.
And on, and on.
So it’s not “bizarre” that parents are worried that their kids are getting brainwashed at school. It’s “bizarre” that any parents are under the illusion that their kids aren’t getting brainwashed every single day whether they hear Obama at school or not.
The only solution is homeschool, but we are too busy earning a living as an Evil Capitalist Bastards. So we just dare the school system to try to brainwash our kids and have enough faith that our children are total flakes that will believe everything they hear at school. Plus, we talk to our kids. So there’s that, too.
See if you can locate the missing “not” in my previous post.
Imagine the nerve of the President to want to address kids about the importance of education, personal responsibility, volunteerism, community, country. Just because Reagan did it, doesn’t make it right for a Democrat to speak to the children. Why, it could unduly influence them toward actually caring about other people undoing 30 years of me-first-me-last-me-always indoctrination by the failed philosophies of conservatism. They can’t allow that.
Wayne: “and have enough faith that our children are total flakes that will believe everything they hear at school.” Next posting: “See if you can locate the missing “not” in my previous post.”
I kind of like it reading “and have enough faith that our children are total flakes that will NOT believe everything they hear at school.”
Srsly, a little old-fashioned non-conformity on the part of a child goes a long way toward warding off an institution’s ability to influence a child toward the herd mentality.
Wayne:
“Since the 30s school children have been brainwashed about the horrors of pot, booze, and sex.”
**************
Look how ell that worked out. Brainwashing of that ilk may make us the most inquisitive society on the planet. You seem to have survived just fine too. Bet you don’t buy organic milk.
Jill:
Only you could take a talk by the President to school kids about the value of hardwork and staying in school, and turn it into some government conspiracy that parents should protect their kids from. Right to keep their kids from listening-sure just like they have the right to name their kid “Hitler.” Fully legal, but incredibly stupid and shortsighted along with insensitivity on galactic scale. Must we tolerate every fool racist hiding their invidious views under some cloak of parental rights, or must we, as in your case, forsake every principle we have out of respect for some misguided appeal for societal harmony?
Just caught this little article from Wisconsin’s Madison Catholic Diocese:
“Catholic schools in Madison should not broadcast President Barack Obama’s back-to-school address Tuesday, the Catholic Diocese of Madison instructed principals in a letter this week.
“It would be irresponsible of any teacher to introduce to her/his students material that the teacher has not screened, evaluated, found to be educationally sound and then integrated into the lesson plan as a means of meeting the standards of the curriculum,” according to the letter from Michael Lancaster, superintendent of Catholic schools in the Madison diocese. The letter goes on to say it appears the message will only reiterate messages already delivered every day such as “work hard, be responsible, set goals and don’t give up.”
Officials with the Madison School District have said teachers will decide whether to tune their classrooms in to the back-to-school address. Students who don’t want to listen can leave class without penalty.”
*************
Well by the “screened, evaluated, and found educationally sound, standard” I guess catechism class is right out the window. The “hardwork pays off message” probably has the same impact on an African-American child coming from a robed 50′ish white guy as from the first African-American President.
Smart group those RCC’ers in Wisconsin — Cheeseheads, indeed.
Mespo: I think you are reading the letter the wrong way. How I read it, it sounds like the diocese is saying “the speech is probably okay because it seems the President is only going to talk about the stuff we talk about every day” but we need more information before we give clearance.
I don’t see what’s wrong with that position unless you are actively looking for reasons to assume people who don’t fall in line are are just ignoramuses.
The bottom line of this alleged hullaboo over Obama’s speech to the schoolchildren is Race. Jill, in light of how the right has spewed the lies over Obama’s birthplace, the lies on the proposed health care plan, the Tenther’s nonsense, there is now way the left can work with the right. The Right has been taken over by religious wingnuts who do not live the tenets of their religion because this nonsense would not be happening if Obama was not a an African American man. Reagan, Daddy Bush and other Presidents have talked to school children. Why wasn’t there a tremor through the land then?
“Reagan, Daddy Bush and other Presidents have talked to school children. Why wasn’t there a tremor through the land then?”
There WAS. Except the epicenter of the tremor was Dick Gephardt.
D’Oh!
Wayne:
It seems lost on you that the encouragement of one who has achieved great things and overcome the same incredible hardships also borne by some of these children will have a greater impact, than the same message coming from someone just mouthing the words or with whom you these kids can barely relate.
You always need more information when you don’t want to do something. It gives you a plausible reason to avoid it later. Remember the last beautiful woman that asked you out, did you ask for her IQ or bank statement? Now think about the last plain girl. I bet you needed references.
It seems to me your nation has two problems:-
1/ The party now in power is only slightly less right wing than that previously in power, it just lacks the overt misogyny and fetus-fetishism.
2/ The party that is out of power still thinks the right wing Democrats are too left wing and is determined to prevent them doing anything effective, even if it still serves the kleptocratic ruling elite.
JT, I have to ask you to stop this blog. You’re making me lose all hope in mankind here. There’s just no way I can keep my spirits up with daily items like these, pointing out the cheer madness in some people’s heads… It is incomprehensible so why even post it. Life is useless enough without this nonsense damnit.
There’s just not enough money in the world to buy these conservatives straight…
As for Jill: ‘I take this very seriously because this govt. is destroying the poor and the middle class. We should fight this govt., not each other.’
- It’s a scary time indeed, with people like you walking free outside of mental institutions… Go buy a brain and a book, and whatever you do, please do NOT procreate.
Carlyle:
The problem with our nation is that greed and love of money and power have robbed our politicians of any moral courage they otherwise would have. The citizenry, seeing the corruption so evident, have become largely apathetic, worrying about their own quest for money and power. It’s a general type of capitalistic deterioration compounded by a pervasive stupidness that seems air borne. We can turn it around, but a lot of people are going to have to get a lot smarter and a lot more courageous in a hurry. We run this gamut about every 30 years or so (1890′s, 1920′s, 1950′s. 1990′s) and then wake from our lethargy to right the ship just before the rocks appear. Some call it crisis management; I call it fear focusing our attention.
“Fear is the mother of morality”
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Rafflaw.
“The Right has been taken over by religious wingnuts who do not live the tenets of their religion”.
Actually you are confusing Christians with followers of Joshua Ben Joseph of Nazareth (aka Jesus). This person was very wicked, a pinko lefty who consorted with all the wrong people he thought poor people and outsiders should have rights. The authorities of the day quite rightly nailed him to a piece of wood. In death almighty God punished him further by converting him into Jesus Kerist, a figure of impeccable respectability who stand for everything opposite to what Joshua Ben Joseph preached. It is true that there are some followers of Joshua Ben Joseph who mistakenly call themselves Christians, but as the vast majority who claim the term Christian are more like George W Bush it is the misogynist fetus fetishists of the insane right that are the true owners of the term.
To Carlyle Moulton:
I would put it this way:
The party currently in power “serves the kleptocratic ruling elite” slightly less well than the party out of power whose ONLY reason for existence is to serve “the kleptocratic ruling elite.”
Rafflaw.
I am not an an American and I pity you poor folks who are. The US has regressed to the 18th century and a klepocratic elite holds complete power. The only question about any US politician is whether he is a paid agent of the kleptarchy or a full member. I incline to the view that most of them including Barak Obama are full members and are doing what they do because they perceive it is in their interests. I think there is a morality involved but it is one where maintaining the correct privilege hierarchy is the moral purpose.
American voters other than the seriously rich have long been deluded that the Democratic party is a true alternative to the Republicans, it is not. It is as Gore Vidal said, there is one party with two right wings called Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats are the backup party for when the Republicans lose, but their appeal to ordinary Americans is bogus.
John Puma.
I think the amount that Democrat service to the kleptarchy is less than that by the Republicans is much smaller than you think.
When out of power the Democrats pretend to be concerned about workers, the poor and the middle class but it is a pretense whose only purpose is to prevent the advent of other parties or politicians who truly represent the non-rich.
It amuses me that so many parents are worried about Obama brainwashing their children. I wonder if they let their children watch TV. I wonder if they know that US TV stations must give a certain amount of airtime to advertisements against illegal drugs but are allowed to reduce the time given to advertisements if anti drug messages are included in program content. If this is not brainwashing, what is?
I know I have seen at least one movie about a hit man with a heart of gold, but I have never seen one about a drug trafficker with a heart of gold.
I sure hope stupid isn’t contagious with all these kids being kept at home by these “parents”.
Mespo: so you think educating children is the same as asking ladies out? That’s pretty damn kinky of you and highly illegal in most places.
And know, I don’t think Obama is such a life-affirming inspirational figure (maybe we just have to agree to disagree on that one) that the Madison diocese should throw its education mission out the window.
In full disclosure: I am NOT one of the countless African American students attending Catholic school in MADISON WISCONSIN. So there’s that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_wisconsin#Demographics
Carlyle: I completely agree. After eight years of abstinence-only education are we really going to pretend that children AREN’T being brainwashed at school?
But keeping kids home for a single day isn’t going to solve anything, because they will be inundated with propaganda and indoctrination every other day. The only viable solution is for parents to teach their children to be skeptics and to have fine-tuned bullshit detectors.
rafflaw,
The left wing can work with the right wing because we must. Everyone on the right is not evil, insane, racist and stupid. Everyone on the left is not peaceful, intelligent, cult resistant and without character flaws.
We are in a situation where our only chance of making it through the economic apocolypse is to turn towards our neighbors, not away from them. Of course there are people we cannot work with. For example, I would say Obama has proven that he should not be trusted by people who want and end to the wars/empire building, torture, who are for civil liberties and want a just economic system. There are people on both the left and the right I do not trust because they are following their leaders instead of thinking for themselves. But there are still ways to reach out to people we disagree with on philosophical issues. It will be up to us to build community with anyone who wants to do so. We are facing really bad times. We must work together to provide the basics for each other–by basics I mean food, housing, medical care, clothing and friendship. This president and most of this congress care nothing about the basica welfare of our citizens. We should not look to them to care, they don’t. We need to turn to each other and say I will help you out and I need your help. This is a profoundly subversive act in a society whose highest values are closer to those of a corporation than of an actual human community.
You cannot write off all right leaning people, nor blindly believe in all left wingers. The left has shown a current and historical ability to be just as authoritarian as the right. Look for people who aren’t authoritarian or at least those who are practical and work with them.
Every president has been using phony backdrops and well honed psy-ops when they speak to the public. They use these things because they work. Until adults and children understand the techniques being used against us, why are we required to submit? I try not to watch or listen to any political speeches until I have read them without all the outer props designed to evoke specific reactions from me. Even the words are carefully crafted to evoke certain emotions. This was true of Bush. It is true of Obama. I did know parents who didn’t want their kids hearing GWB. Those parents were villified as “unpatriotic”. The left wing should counter the racism and stupid ideas, but after that, it is a parent’s choice to keep their children out of school that day.
Yes there is terrible racism against Obama which is motivating many of the people who don’t want their kids to hear him speak. That should never be excused or denied. But you can’t deny the manipulation the political class is subjecting our populace to. Both are dangerous. Both are turning citizen against citizen. That will be are biggest mistake. If we begin to turn away from other citizens we will all lose. Our only hope is to reject both the racism and the manipulation of our ruling elites and reach out to others at the most fundamental level–offering help, seeking help, trying to reform a community.
mespo and jericho.
Before you name call I think you both need to look into media criticism. You both seem unaware of the level of manipulation that our political class engages in. You both seem unaware that every word, ever single aspect of the speech you hear from Obama has been thoroughly focus grouped, run by people under an fMRI, vetted to create exactly the feelings desired by the speaker. You don’t need to believe me, you can research this for yourself. I hope you both will do so. You can’t break out of manipulation by thinking: 1. there’s no manipulation going on and/or 2. even if it’s going on it doesn’t effect people, especially people like me. Do the research, then see if you still want to call me such bad names!
Jill,
With all due respect, the Right has refused to work with the left consistently and in Congress the Republicans are purposely refusing to work with the Democrats and they have stated in writing that their intention is for Obama to fail on everything and anything. How can you work with people who have that intention? The answer is that you can’t and the only way is to work without them.
Wayne:
“Mespo: so you think educating children is the same as asking ladies out? That’s pretty damn kinky of you and highly illegal in most places.
And know, I don’t think Obama is such a life-affirming inspirational figure (maybe we just have to agree to disagree on that one) that the Madison diocese should throw its education mission out the window.
In full disclosure: I am NOT one of the countless African American students attending Catholic school in MADISON WISCONSIN. So there’s that.”
***********************
It seems you are still hopelessly lost.
By the way, one uses illustrations to explain to those who can’t fathom abstract ideas, and n, I did not equate educating children with asking someone out. Twisting words won’t help your measly debating skills.
When your ready to address my point that the President of the United States is more inspirational than some crinkled up clergy to white as well as African-American students we’ll talk. And, by the way, I was absolutely certain that were never a student of any kind whatsoever.
Jill:
You are fast becoming one of the tin foil hat crowd. Every public message is scrutinized by the author for its impact on the audience. From detergent commercials to declarations of war, this has always been the rule. Churchill even discussed his speeches with his personal physician, Lord Moran, reading him whole passages for his consideration. An elite focus group indeed. JT reviews his comments as we all know, and I am sure his editorial pieces are likewise written for “impact.” That is the nature of writing and oratory–it is meant to “manipulate” if you must use that word. So please, spare us the Chicken Little approach to ever government activity undertaken. Most of us know when we are being manipulated. We are,after all, the world’s largest consumer society of everything from detergent to news. Give us some credit–and our kids some too.
Mespo:
“…must we, as in your case, forsake every principle we have out of respect for some misguided appeal for societal harmony?”
I think you’re missing Jill’s larger point: politics as we know it, the politics of Right & Left, Democrat & Republican is largely a shell game. It aims at distracting the citizenry with phony controversies & preys upon fear & prejudice to obscure the the reality of our current situation.
Democrat & Republican are nothing more than corporate brands, marginally differentiated –at most– from each other. They fill up the political space & by so doing prevent people from seeing through the illusion of politics as usual & from making common cause against it.
As I read Jill’s remarks, only a truly communitarian movement can break us out of this trap. This isn’t a call for group hugs. A real community must work out differences of principle & interest among it’s members –rather than strike deals between factions of a ruling elite.
FlowerChild,
The idea of the whole community working and striving together for a commone goal is an inspirational goal, but as has been said already, when one portion or faction of that society will not work with the other, what can the other side do? They can just give up or they can give in or better yet, they can work for the common good as they see it. That is what the Democrats should do since the Republicans are not bargaining in good faith.
rafflaw:
Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are working for the common good. Take the health care issue: with the exception of only a few national players, both parties are working for the health care industry.
So we’ve got a bunch of people claiming the speech is going to be brainwashing, no proof, just a claim…
We’ve also got the text of the speech.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/
Looks like brain washing to me.
I have no doubt that this is a manufacture controversy, but to go from “This is manufactured” to “this is a tool by those on BOTH sides to keep us from looking at our real problems” is a huge stretch, and one lacking any proof.
Flower:
Everything you said is true (save your conclusion) and has ever been true. All a communitarian movement does is make the participants feel better, and accomplish some laudable, though incidental, good works. Real power is wrested away at the ballot box in this country, thank God.
The Democrats & the Republicans are running down a “good cop/bad cop” routine on the citizenry. You have to keep your eye on the ball: both the “good cop” & the “bad cop” are on the same police force.
Flowerchild,
There are Dems who are in the health care industry’s pocket, but you have read about them and the Left has “outed” them. The Republicans are in their pocket and they will work to stop any bill the Dems propose. Not just the health care bill. Look at the the “holds” the Republican Senators have on Obama nominations, like Dawn Johnsen for OLC.
are these parents racist? acting from racial fear? afraid their children will really be brainwashed?
are these the same parents who don’t want their children educated on human growth and development? evolution? a woman’s right to choose? gays in the military? who want christian prayer in public schools? from something i saw on Fox early this morning, a barely literate mother and daughter, I have to think that these are the same people who don’t get that there is a remedy to all their complaints:
if they don’t like what public education has to offer they are welcome to enroll their children in christian schools or educate them at home.
I wish they would. I think they need to be reminded that these options are available to them and they might consider them seriously instead of wasting their time bitching on the tv news machine. either way, their children will not be prepared to lead, excel or accomplish much and will have little to contribute to society in general.
this is sad. it is a waste. but someone has to be on the bottom if others are to be on the top and why not these kids? it seems that this is the road their parents are choosing for them.
Mespo:
“Real power is wrested away at the ballot box in this country, thank God.” And delivered into the hands of the Men of Gold, I suppose? C’mon, Mespo.
GWMOm,
You are right, but it is sad that these parents can’t see beyond their nose for what is best for their children. The children will suffer, but what the heck, their pastor can’t be wrong.
rafflaw:
“There are Dems who are in the health care industry’s pocket, but you have read about them and the Left has “outed” them.” Does this mean That Max Bacchus will lose his chairmanship?
Concerning Dawn Johnsen: Obama could have put her in as a recess appointment, but didn’t.
My “good cop/bad cop” analogy stands.
rafflaw writes: You are right, but it is sad that these parents can’t see beyond their nose for what is best for their children. The children will suffer, but what the heck, their pastor can’t be wrong.
these parents really believe they are right. they believe that blacks and jews and asians and hispanics are not really, fully human. they believe that men are the heads of households and women should not wear pants (literally) or seek high paying careers, think for themselves or use birth control.
they believe that only christian prayer is valid and their brand of prayer is what god loves and wants most.
this is what happens when religion promises superiority. that’s what I think and these kids? they are being inculcated too and the way they see it? what’s wrong with something that makes them feel superior to others?
Flower:
““Real power is wrested away at the ballot box in this country, thank God.” And delivered into the hands of the Men of Gold, I suppose? C’mon, Mespo.”
****************
Really think your local stock broker or industrialist voted for Obama? Come on, indeed.
mespo,
I have friends in those quarters and believe me, they not only voted for Obama, they helped finance his campaign. I believe GS was his single largest donor.
gyges,
Read this and see what you think:
“Soon after the election, the Administration began corralling the big liberal DC interest groups into a variety of organizations and communication networks through which they telegraphed their wishes — into a virtual veal pen. The 8:45 am morning call co-hosted by the “liberal” Center for American Progress, Unity 09, and Common Purpose are just a few of the overt ways that the White House controls its left flank and maintains discipline.
My own experience with the Veal Pen came indirectly, when some of them had the temerity to launch a campaign against Blue Dogs. They were rebuked and humiliated in front of their peers as a lesson to them all at a Common Purpose meeting, which is run by lobbyist Erik Smith. White House communications director Ellen Moran attends. It isn’t an arms-length relationship between these groups and the administration.
A few weeks ago, Rahm Emanuel showed up at a Common Purpose meeting and called these liberal groups “fucking stupid” for going after Blue Dogs on health care and ordered them not to do so any more. Since that time, to the best of my knowledge, none of them have.
These organizations may kid themselves that they’re doing no harm, but that’s not true. They are the institutional liberal validators who telegraph to liberals that there are problems, that things are happening that are not good for them. They are trusted to decode the byzantine rituals of government and let the public know when their interests are not being served, that it’s time to pay attention and start making a racket. When they fail to perform that task, the public is left with a vague feeling of anxiety, intuitively understanding that something is wrong but not knowing who or what to blame.
When the White House met with bankers after the AIG scandal and they said they didn’t want to be criticized for getting huge bonuses paid for by taxpayers, the White House complied and “cooled their rhetoric.” The President told the public that Timothy Geithner had been instructed to do everything in his power to claw back those bonuses, and the House passed a bill doing just that. But it died in the Senate.
You remember all those campaigns by the unions, by the online groups, by liberal economics and finance organizations pushing the Senate to take it up?
Yeah, me either.
Which means that the teabaggers were in perfect position to harvest all of the discontent over the bank bailout, and no coherent liberal critique was offered. I heard it over and over again — if you wanted to criticize the White House on financial issues, your institutional funding would dry up instantly. The Obama campaign successfully telegraphed to donors that they should cut off Fund for America, which famously led to its demise. It wasn’t the last time something like that happened — just ask those who were receiving institutional money who criticized the White House and saw their funding cut, at the specific request of liberal institutional leaders who now principally occupy their time by brown nosing friends and former co-workers in the White House.
And so the groups in the DC veal pen stay silent. They leadership gets gets bought off by cocktail parties at the White House while the interests of their members get sold out. How many have openly pushed back against the Administration on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or DOMA? Well, not many. Most tried to satisfy their LGBT members by outsourcing activism to other organizations, or proving their bona fides by getting involved in the Prop 8 battle that is not directly toxic to the White House. It’s a chickenshit sidestep that betrays their members in the interest of personal gain, which they justify with feeble self-serving palliatives about the importance of “maintaining a seat at the table.”
Where are they on health care? Why aren’t they running ads against the AMA, the hospitals, the insurance industry barons who have $700 million in stock options, PhRMA, the device manufacturers and the White House for doing back room deals with all of the above?
Why are they not calling for the White House to release the details of those secret deals?
Because they are participating in those deals, instead of trying to destroy them. Well, that and funneling millions of dollars in pass-throughs to their consultant friends that they are supposed to be spending on the health care fight.”
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/06/van-jones-a-moment-of-truth-for-liberal-institutions-in-the-veal-pen/
Mespo: Lighten up, Francis. I get that you were trying to draw an analogy, it’s just that your choice analogy was sort of humorous (for those of us that have a sense of humor) in the context of this thread.
And we still seem to be talking past each other. There is no battle of “who is more inspirational.” (But for the record people who find **politicians** “inspirational” scare the living shit out of me.)
The whole point of diocese stating that the speech’s topics were in line with the things that the schools already teach was not to imply that therefore Obama’s speech had no added value to the students. The point was to imply that because the children hear these messages every day there was probably no problem showing the speech.
I just don’t get what the big deal is. The diocese hasn’t forbidden the speech. They just want to take a deeper dive. What’s wrong with that?
Are you really advocating that every student must sit captive in class and be INSPIRED by our DEAR LEADER. And any schools that don’t immediately fall in line without any further investigation are fanatics?
If so, you have a point.
(It’s just not a very persuasive point.)
Jill,
You’re ignoring one simple part of the equation: the two parties both want to be in power.
Look at it this way, you’ve got two powerful noble families vying for the King’s favor. Sometimes it is in both families interest to “play nice” and work towards a common goal. The occasional cooperation doesn’t mean they’re not both trying everything they can to discredit and obliterate the rival family.
Wayne,
You mean you’re scared that people who’s careers are based on their ability to communicate effectively and inspire an emotional response in others can be successful in inspiring others?
I get very afraid when somebody finds a Monet painting beautiful.
excuse me: “People whose”
Gyges,
I’m not ignoring that, I don’t agree with it. There is one party with two names. Individuals within the one family definitely try to knock each other out, or even poison each other. That’s interesting, but continued focus on it keeps the commoners occupied with what is essentially palace gossip/breads and circuses. Instead we should be banding together to bring about a common good.
This is a difficult, messy job. Chomsky used this quote;, “…The conversion of democracy to a performance in which the public are only spectators…” I don’t believe everything he says by any means but I think that is what has happened and is happening. We can’t be spectators. We have to act together for a common good.
Nope.
I am scared shitless of sheep who are “inspired” by politicians, orthodontists, and pervy clowns with wandering hands. But mainly politicians.
You should be somewhat skeptical of politicians, all politicians, but especially those that tell you they have your best interest at heart and then feel the need to emphasize that they “really mean it.”
I think Obama has tried to play too “nice” with the right wing republicans. There are many issues the two parties don’t agree on. One issue that comes to me is “reproductive freedom”. The republicans clearly oppose it while the dems support it for the most part. Go to one of those town hall meetings on health care and try to form a coaltion with the anti-Obama people who are angrily shouting down people with illnesses who need national health care. See how well that works.
Swarthmore,
I agree with you that Obama has to stop trying to include the Republicans who refuse to bargain in good faith on any issue. It is time for the Dems to push their agenda and pressure the semi-Democrats to come along for the ride or they may have a lonely ride to reelection.
WayneJ,
I have no problem when someone is inspired by anyone. If the result is good for the party being inspired, does it really matter who did the inspiring?
Raffy: really? You don’t have a problem with “anyone” being inspired by “anyone”?
Here’s a thought experiment. Would you be scared of people who are inspired by Hitler? Of course. That’s an easy one. As the old joke goes, now we are just negotiating the price.
How about David Duke? Still pretty easy. Pat Buchanan? Now we are starting to get closer.
How about George Bush? You are not a little scared of sheep who find George Bush to be an inspirational figure?
I am.
Swarthmore mom,
You’ll have as much luck getting Obama to support national health care as you will the people shouting at the rallies. He has made his intentions on “insurance reform” clear. I am suggesting that people work with others who will actually work with them. This isn’t a pro and anti Obama problem. It is a real problem and Obama as well as the shouters are standing in the way of single payer, universal health coverage. I’m suggesting that we are being taught to turn on each other instead of trying to reach out to each other. Not everyone is unreachable. But if we keep believing it’s impossible while unquestioningly turning to Obama to solve this problem, I promise you it will not be solved. He’s made his deal with Pharma and he’s made his deal with insurance companies. So why should any progressive work with Obama to benefit, not people, but corporations? It makes no sense. Of course you’re not going to get far with screamers, but they are a small percentage of people. Move around them, move around Obama and reach out with good ideas, good arguments to other people. You’d be suprised who might listen and it might even be a good idea to listen to them.
r
WJ,
Are you intentionally leaving out part of my statement? I said, “If the result is good for the party being inspired, does it really matter who did the inspiring?” I don’t include Hitler’s influence as being good for the people and the same can be said about David Duke. However, I am not a fan of Pat Buchanon, but I don’t believe he should be included in the same group as Hitler and David Duke, no matter what he has said recently. If someone was helped by listening to JFK, Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King, for example, it is all good. Even if I do not agree with everything each of them has said or done. As to George W.’s influence, if he inspired someone to do good works, I am all in favor of that. Even if he is a war criminal.
I don’t understand “who” is teaching us to turn on each other. I don’t think it is Obama that is standing in the way of the public option, but rather 95 percent of the republicans in congress along with the conservative democrats.
Today is a good day to be having this kind of discussion, Labor Day is the USA’s version of May Day without the nod to history and context so I’m just going to jump in with a rant.
The ‘two names, one party’ point of view is correct IMO and we have come up with a lot of contemporary names (corporatist) and allusions to old results of it on both sides (fascist, socialist) but what this is is the very public face of class war. It has never been as stark or public as it is today but that’s what it is. It’s them that work and them that don’t and all of the permutations out current technology and forms allow. Short selling isn’t new, the first law against it was in the 17 hundreds after a crafty Dutchman screwed the British and brought both countries to a diplomatic showdown. Derivatives are new but it’s the same old shell game with the same class getting rich off of it while paid political lackeys look the other way. Extend that to the ongoing loot of the national treasury called the bailout while the too-big-to-fail investment banks set aside billions (of taxpayer dollars) to enrich themselves. Congress still has not placed any meaningful restrictions on these practices.
On another thread regarding the History Channel there is a sentence about an A&E merger with Disney and others to form a new group of channel selections, new channels but the same old safe, sensationalist crap no doubt. Popular media nurtures the ownership class because it offers nothing of value to the rest of us, the 95% of the country making do on 50% of the wealth – and most of that wealth is false; it’s credit based. 3000 people demonstrated in Times Square FOR health care reform and a public option on the 29th of August, how much air time did that get? I didn’t even see that on the national news shows. People are being starved of the information they need to make good decisions by an unregulated media industry controlled by fewer corporations than we have fingers.
The health care industry and the media have conspired, overtly or as a matter of unspoken, institutional behavior, to use the very people most in need of reform to deep-six any chance of reform. I hold them in particular contempt because they are using people that IMO are clinically mentally ill. I dealt with mentally ill people for many years. People that were paranoid, passive-aggressive, low intelligence to the point of being developmentally disabled but high functioning enough to work and lead independent lives and the downright delusional when they were off their meds. I got to be very good at spotting them and I have to say much of the Republican base – especially the evangelicals – are not sane. Anyone here seen first hand an evangelical christian touched by the spirit? Talking in tongues and rolling on the floor? I have, and if anyone did that outside of a ‘church’ a decent passer-by would call 911. Those people and their brethren that welcome the end of days, the love of God through Jihad against abortion and medical providers, the rejection of science, the fear of women and the wearing of majik underwear are just plain ill and dangerous. The flat-out racists seem to be comfortable with the Republicans also. Unfortunately, they have gained a prominent place at the table as the heart and soul of the Republican Party’s base. They account for about 26% of the electorate. Ghod only knows where the old militia and survivalists are or if they vote.
So I disagree that seeking common ground with these people is of value. You can’t reason with crazy people. You can deal with them in narrow ways and you can use them as the Republican Party and the ownership class has shown, but you can’t convert them and you can’t reason with them – they’re crazy; appeals to reason is an oxymoron when you’re dealing with crazy people.
The common ground that people need to understand in order to reach the consensus that some have advocated is IMO class based. Obama needs to make a strictly economic, class based argument for health care legislation and hope to reach sane people and use the power of the presidency against anyone in his own party or the Republican party that stands in opposition. More a**-kicking and way less conciliation. If he’s serious about it. And he really needs to stop giving those fools Jindal and Perry my tax money, I’m going to hold that against him.
Rant, rant, rant.
In solidarity from an old Wobbly, Happy Labor Day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World
Swarthmore mom,
You are correct, except the percentage of Republicans is 99%+. I have not seen any evidence of a single Republican who will consider the public option.
Okay. I read the speech online. It’s the same old “be cool, stay in school” speech that they commonly have well known sucessful individuals give.
It’s boring and if I was a highschooler, I would probably pass notes to my friends during the speech. Nothing about it stands out as shocking or amazingly inspiring. Yeah the parts about the three kids having struggles in life is great and I’m glad things worked out for them. But I just don’t really see what the big deal is about it all.
Rafflaw I guess the few rational house members that were left lost in 2008. I really don’t see how we reach out to these people as Jill says. Obama tried it in the beginning and got the door slammed in his face.
What a mess….I’m speaking of the comments as much I am about Faux News. There was nothing even approaching the hysteria about GWB’s address to school children. there was no network devoted to claiming this was “socialism”. Much of the rhetoric here has had little to do with whether the President addresses a particular segment of the population. Instead, it’s been more of a Rorschach of pet political points. principals, teachers, and parents all have the option of not having children listen. If I’d had kids during the GWB speech’s time, I would have wanted them to hear him–it would not have been difficult to notice what an uninspiring dim bulb he was. Ditto–listening to Obama means being able to talk about the substance of the speech. Race or at least an overriding need to identify Obama as “the other” underlies a lot of this. In general, the Right has sought to undermine his credibility on everything. They know they cannot win on substance, but they can weaken faith in the President.
Swarthmore mom, rafflaw and lottakatz,
I must not be making myself clear, so sorry and I’ll try again. I agree with you that there are people it makes no sense to reach out to. Where I differ from you is that I include Obama in the group that I will not bother with, whereas you all feel he’s on the side of the people. If he’s on the side of the people why did he make a secret deal with Pharma against the people and why has he taken national health care off the table should he feel it’s necessary? He’s not working for the poor and the middle class of this nation. He works for the “have mores”, just as Bush did.
So I guess we will have to agree to disagree about Obama’s concern for the poor and middle class. But here’s my point. Let’s take the issue of abortion. There’s no sense in speaking to anyone who opposes abortion because, whether they will admit it or not, they hate women and want to control women. This group exists, they are not a insignificant group and they can all go to hell as far as I’m concerned. But there are other people who are against abortion in the sense that they would never consider having one because they feel it is immoral. However they also feel it is immoral to stop another woman from gettin an abortion. Those people exist and their is a common cause between us. There are also people who wish to ban all abortions but will talk with those of us who are pro-choice to get moving on accurate information about birth control and having easy access to birth control. There’s a common goal there, and I for one, will work on that common goal, even though I completely abhor the banning of abortion. So that is what I mean about working with people who you can work with and moving around those you cannot.
This is a true story about hippies and survivalists in Oregon. These groups viewed each other as evil and insane for a very long time. Then they started smoking pot together and decided that maybe them hippies and those weird folk was O.K., just a little. And then they got to know each other a little better and some of them even interbred. If pot weren’t illegal I’d say, Pot All Around! but since it is I’d say start bringing cookies and good food and sit down and start to know “the other” and see if you get somewhere. You don’t start with people you already know you won’t get anywhere with but they won’t sit down to eat with you anyway. So take the openings that come.
It’s in the ruling elite’s interest that you never do this. It will undo their power.
Rich: there was no hysteria about GWB’s speech to school children because, well, GWB never gave a speech to school children. GWHB did. And while the Democrats did make a big fuss about it, people were obviously not as fired up about it then as they are now.
NOW, if GWB actually would have given a similar address you can bet your ass the moonbats would have kept their kids home from school.
Anyone who sees this in a political context is part of the problem. This is not about politics from any perspective you come from. This is shear racism and hatred of the fact that a black man is President. I don’t care whether you like President Obama or not, that is irrelevant to what is happening here. This represents a strategy by the Racist segment of our population to deligitimize the President and to possibly foment assassination or even revolution. To blithely ascribe this to politics, is to be totally unaware of the world around us and not capable of seeing any path towards a better world. I say this not in defense of the President’s policies, but in the fear that racial hatred will lead to chaos.
Exhibit 1.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/07/faithful-rally-around-paster-anderson-as-caring-human-being-as-anderson-reaffirms-his-desire-to-see-obama-die/
Wayne:
“I am scared shitless of sheep who are “inspired” by politicians, orthodontists, and pervy clowns with wandering hands. But mainly politicians.”
************
Personally, I pity those who aren’t inspired by Madison or Jefferson or Lincoln or Churchill or Cicero or Aurelius–politicians all.
Wayne you are correctg that George the First spoke to the school children, but you forgot about Ronald Reagan’s speech via C-SPAN in 1988 that did include political aspects. Here is a link to both GWHB’s and RR’s speeches: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/57308457.html. I am a bit confused about your claim that the Dems made a big fuss about Daddy Bush’s speech. The only fuss that I could find or remember was Dick Gephardt complaining about the cost. I could not find a single claim that Bush was a Socialist or was indoctrinating students. I also could not find any widespread call to allow School children and districts to opt out of the speech. By the way, you may want to actually read the transcript of the speech and check out his allegedly non-political speech. http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450. Have a nice night.
rafflaw:
Surely, you recall that inspirational reading by “W” to the kids at Booker Elementary on that bright September day. I believe the seminal work, “My Pet Goat,” was discussed until the President was notified of the tragic day’s events:
I actually do resent the implication by many here that opponents of Obama’s speech are necessarily racist.
Sometimes I cringe when I hear this argument because it demeans very real and deeply motivated racist processes in our society. It is meant to put people on the defensive through some innate sense of shame, but doesn’t address the underlying issues. By extension it implies that any opposition to Obama’s policies is racist! How can that be?
I say this to supporters of Obama’s speech to children: calling opponents racist is like like calling them Nazis… it’s an innately weak and off-putting style of argument. Let’s debate the role of government, or the role of the presidency, or the influence of media and propaganda in our society.
Opposition to the president (or any other government official) mandating media coverage to children need not be political or racist. It is not the role of government to motivate children.
Should congressmen be able to mandate that schools in their district carry their speeches? Can senators require their whole state to watch? What if Obama wanted to make a similar address every week, on a motivational topic of his choice? What if cabinet members want to make an address, or the Speaker of the House? Where does it end?
“I actually do resent the implication by many here that opponents of Obama’s speech are necessarily racist.”
Resent it all you want but that doesn’t dismiss the innate racism. Any white President would make the speech with little public notice. I resent those who would deny the fact of the racism inherent in the various attacks on President Obama. This in itself has become a common racist tactic, to deny the right to call racists racist. It allows Rush, Billo, glen and Sean to stay on the air.
puzzling
It’s the walk, talk, and look like a duck rule. You can make any pretext you like, but do you really think it coincidence that red states are flocking to avoid this speech when it passed without incident or even a peep there twice before when white Republican Presidents did it? No one said “all” opponents are racists, some are enablers or fools who buy the racist’s drivel that there “good reasons” not to “disrupt” the first day of school. Oh, really, tell us every one that wasn’t also true when Reagan and Bush I did the talking.
Mespo,
I was going to include the “Goat” speech, but I didn’t think the blank stare into space can be defined as a speech!
Mike,
Let me first say that I agree with you that part of the opposition to Obama is, in fact, motivated by racism. I am certainly no apologist for the right wing, and I somewhat enjoy the hand-wringing exasperation and outrage that comes when the executive power abused under Bush II was taken over and applied by Obama to different ends. As far as I’m concerned, the right has no standing to argue that Obama is abusing his authority. Bush abused a lot more than just his authority for virtually all of his eight years, and we’ll be paying for it for generations, both in terms of debt and risks to our long-term national security. The right cheered him on all the way.
However, I disagree that any white president would have been able to make this same speech without complaint. People are afraid of the sheer pace of change in their lives as the economy continues to go south, and the pace of change that Obama is offering in many policy areas has people genuinely fearful that we’re exceeding the airspeed limits of whatever craft we’re flying in. I am sympathetic to that argument.
If there were a President Hillary Clinton who had proposed policy changes with the depth and scale that President Obama has, the opposition to her national address to school children would have been identical. That wouldn’t have made the opposition to her proposal sexist.
rafflaw:
“…I didn’t think the blank stare into space can be defined as a speech!”
**************
No, but it was a “teachable moment” to use the latest cliche’.
Jill and Mike S, Mike, I in major part agree that racism plays a prominent role in this controversy (as well as the birthers, 10ers and all those loony ‘ers’) but I see the racism that is inherent in many people being fostered or unleashed (with no condemnation from the Republicans, Democrats or media) as a tool. To deligitimize Obama is to deligitimize his stated goals. Who benefits from that? Follow the money.
Jill, I don’t think I misunderstood what you were saying; dealing with the devil on issues (or parts of issues) in common is not something I ever hesitated or would hesitate to do in the interest of maintaining the ‘purity’ of a cause. I’d rather win than be pure
I was just pointing out that there are a bunch of people that can’t be dealt with and IF, IF Obama is serious, he needs to adopt different tactics.
One of the most virulently and overtly racist people I know voted for Obama and hoped his vote would help to elect a President. His only motivation was money. He works in a trade that hasn’t been and still isn’t doing well and Obama’s stated goals of green jobs and economic stimulus would help him meet his major survival need- a job that pays decent money. After working for 40 years his future at the most basic level is seriously threatened and Obama had the platform that made sense on that level. He knows it’s us and them economically and he’s angry about it. He’s a racist but he’s not delusional or stupid – he knew his racism was a luxury he couldn’t indulge at the ballot box this time.
Obama needs to speak to his economic fear and anger because the majority of us (aside from that crazy 26% many of whom are racist) are just as angry and fearful and not as terminally stupid as we may on occasion look to be.
Mespo,
It was a teachable moment on how not to act when your country is under attack and you knew that you had screwed up!
Make fun of this all you want, but ever since reading Obama’s speech, I cannot stop washing my hands and muttering “yes, I can; yes I can” over and over.
I agree with you puzzling. And if we’re going to condemn racism then doesn’t it have to be condemned even when praciticed by a black man who is president? Obama’s economic policies have resulted in a disproportionate number of black children going hungry and of black families losing their homes. By far the largest numbers of civilians killed because of Obama’s insisitence on empire are brown. Racist is as racist does. And here is where I must reiterate my main point. This is a president who skillfully uses the media to manipulate the population of this nation.
Obama has sanctioned torture, rendition, the bombing of civilians, the escalation of our wars, the illegality of the past administration, the illegality that is taking place among high placed financial firms and regulators and is about to “legally” imprison the innocent and what are we talking about? Those crazy right wing nuts. Yes, it’s meaningful to argue with the ideas of the crazy right wing nuts but it’s just as imporatant to not forget all of the above concerning Obama. Is this the person you want giving a pious, feel good message about how kids should live their life? If so, why? Does is make sense to ask people who sanction and engage in the above to be motivational speakers to children?
If Obama quit bombing children that same age. If he quit letting them starve, quite letting them be forced from their homes, quit failing to stand up and got moving on getting them and their parents health care–that would be a true feel good moment for me. Taking inspiration and feeling good about someone who engages in some very bad actions is odd. But the fact that many people ignore what Obama is doing and are swept away by his speeches, that’s manipulation, pure and simple. We need to open our eyes, quit falling for the manipulation and turn this country around.
It’s a matter of relative scale in re the composition of those objecting to Obama’s speech. The bottom line is that both are true. While there are many who would take Jill’s stance on principle, I’m willing to bet they are far outnumbered by the simple racist elements Mike points toward. Many of the detractors are indeed doing so based on simple racism, but this does not negate that Obama is proving just another bad actor vis a vis the Constitution and the rule of law or that a certain percentage of parents would object on those perfectly legitimate grounds.
Yes, Jill, Obama is as entitled to give the message to the school children as Reagan and Bush Sr were. Many of these people do not want a black president addressing their children, period.
Swarthmore mom,
I agree. Obama is entitled to give the message to the school children as Reagan and Bush Sr. were. I also agree that many of these people do not want a black president addressing their children, period. We are in complete agreement on these points. The misunderstanding is, I am not arguing with these points. I am talking about something very different.
“However, I disagree that any white president would have been able to make this same speech without complaint. People are afraid of the sheer pace of change in their lives as the economy continues to go south, and the pace of change that Obama is offering in many policy areas has people genuinely fearful that we’re exceeding the airspeed limits of whatever craft we’re flying in. I am sympathetic to that argument.”
The President has proven to be rather moderate. Your feeling that “people are afraid the sheer pace of change” has no basis in reality. What pace of change are you referring to? Health Care reform?
I think not most people (per legitimate polls)still want it. The economy? I think not also. This economy has been tanking since the Reagan years made “Investment Banking” and the Stock Market our chief industries. This administration’s reforms thus far have been rather timid and wholly approved by the Financial Establishment. The negative “chatter” has come from a well financed and wholly racist, fundamentalist Right Wing and from those on the Left who would think that somehow Dennis Kucinich, or Ralph Nader could have made a real difference.
What we are seeing is the propaganda thrusts of a minority (20%?)who can’t stand the idea of a Black President. This is obvious in things like the “birther” movement and the claim that he is a secret Muslim.
One of the things that has changed racially in this country since the 50′s is that even racists feel they must hide their venom in code, though with Rush, Billo, Glenn and Sean this is even breaking down. To ignore the meaning behind the code that denotes racism is to hide one’s head in the sand. To me this is all too familiar
What astonishes me is actually those on the Left, who are hyper critical of this Administration’s pace of change, while having the insight to understand how close to Fascism this Country really was when he took office. Ventillating certainly helps dissipate one’s anxiety, however, it rarely works at the cause of the anxiety unless it follows the insights of the facts available. In plainer terms: When you’ve got a corrupt cash driven system, with few heroes rising above it, one’s political purity is a luxury of ignorance.
My generation might have ended the Viet Nam War a lot earlier, if it hadn’t spent all of its’ time and energy castigating those whose support was necessary for the task. My radical friends hated the liberals and centrists more than they did the Nixonian Fascists and unfortunately untold thousands of Vietnamese and American troops had to pay the ultimate price of these “purists” smug ignorance.
Jill,
I’m sorry, but having the same master doesn’t make two things the same entity. Neither does working for common goals.
Why would you assume that a group capable of creating this enormous and convincing of a farce would go to all the trouble of faking a division when there was a pre-existing one? One that they can exploit for their own gain.
It’s like Employee of the Month awards. I’m not going to work harder to become Employee of the Month if I know that the only other person that could get it is me wearing an eyepatch and calling myself “The Pirate Captain.” If there’s somebody else competing for the prize then I have motivation to actually compete.
The corporate Aristocracy might own the souls of both parties, but it’s in their interest to make sure they stay two separate parties competing for power.
“The corporate Aristocracy might own the souls of both parties, but it’s in their interest to make sure they stay two separate parties competing for power.”
The illusion of control requires the creation of a false dichotomy. The dynamic of false struggle, the appearance of choice, is a prime tool for both propagandists and tyrants. It’s a distraction. You need bullies or there will be no fights to fix. That’s language even Don King could easily understand. But also like all distractions, it is ultimately doomed to failure when the desires of the tyrannical meets the cold hard reality that the governors only rule at the consent of the governed in ANY type of political system. There are limits to how many times one can cross We the People without consequence. It’s true for the individual and the corporation. There is no denying the math behind it. There is also the fact not every coin turns up heads unless you are Rosencrantz. In their arrogance, corporate America thinks they can rig the game in toto and unbalance society at their whim without fear of retribution. In their greed, myopia and short memories they are too stupid to realize that’s simply not possible. The needs of the many do indeed outweigh the desires of the few. Whether one party realizes this in time to do something about it or has the will to do something about it before it’s too late remains to be seen.
Gyges,
I’ll let Buddha’s argument speak for me. I’m obviously not getting my own points across. Here’s what you write:
“Why would you assume that a group capable of creating this enormous and convincing of a farce would go to all the trouble of faking a division when there was a pre-existing one? One that they can exploit for their own gain.”
There is no need to create a fake division. In fact it works much better to amplify and misdirect the ones that already exist. So I agree with you. What I am trying to say is that we the people must reach out to each other when that is possible. We must resist the divide and conquor strategy that the govt. puts forth.
Gyges,
This is a really interesting post by Jeremy Scahill:
“Sarah Palin, the Neocons & Howard Dean Love the War in Afghanistan”
http://rebelreports.com/
Isn’t it really strange that this group and these people would all agree with Obama that we should spend more money, kill more civilians and kill/wound more of our own people on this goal? And it isn’t the only thing the far right, a large number of Congressional Democrats and Obama agree on. We have the same people in charge of the financial mess who caused it. We have their general agreement on not enforcing the Constitution. That’s too many major policies, crucial to life and death, to keep ignoring they virtually all agree on the same policy.
Buddha,
I just don’t see why the dichotomy has to be false for your scenario. It’s a much more effective and simpler strategy to just manipulate the two parties into your control and then playing them off each other than it is to manipulate the two parties until there is only one party, the whole time instructing the leadership of both parties to keep pretending there is a difference.
I’m not saying that the two parties don’t work together sometimes. I’m not saying that the leadership isn’t owned by the same people. I’m saying that the differences between the two are real and not (as far as they are concerned) “just for show.” Use Ockham’s razor. Which is simpler and more likely: Two parties competing for the same money trying to out please their master, while highlighting the differences that remain so as to give the voters a reason to choose one over the other, or one party engaged in an elaborate act (think of everything that would have to be faked on all sorts of different levels) to pretend that it’s two different parties?
Gyges,
It doesn’t have to be false, but if it is false, then the creators have greater control over the content of the lie than they would controlling any “naturally” occurring division that can be exploited. I suspect both are in play as a practical matter.
Why I chose to use the modifier “false” was for that reason and this one: at it’s core, it is false that rules the day. The reason it’s false is because of the lobbying/graft issue. Neither side is working for We the People anymore. The illusion that they are is a false dichotomy. Obama’s waffling and non-action proved that one quite nicely. One parties masters are outright evil, but the other party is too spineless to do anything about the criminals because they can’t without also biting the hand that feeds them too. The false dichotomy of difference between R and D is merely a distraction from the fact that there is no material difference, only different corporate masters.
Buddha and Jill,
I’ve reread this discussion about 4 times now. I still have no idea why people kept bringing up how “the left is part of this theater too.”
President Obama did something I wish more politicians and influential people would do; he encouraged children to get the most out of their education. Some fire-breathers leaped on this as an excuse to rouse some rabble.
How exactly does that mean that both the right and the left manipulate public opinion?
Why not just say “this behavior is wrong” and leave it at that. The obsession with blaming both sides is just as wrong in some situations as only blaming one side is in others.
The simple fact that this topic has generated almost 100 responses convinces me that the right has succeeded in politicizing virtually every aspect of discourse in this country. After following the debate here and in other media, I have been alternately amused, bewildered and annoyed. The president is speaking to school children. A few will be genuinely inspired to imagine things they have never imagined. A few will be curious about what the president has to say. A few will regard this as a welcome respite from the rest of the school day. The vast majority will half-listen, half-daydream and remember virtually nothing that is said. There is nothing more to it than that.
MIke A writes: The president is speaking to school children. A few will be genuinely inspired to imagine things they have never imagined. A few will be curious about what the president has to say. A few will regard this as a welcome respite from the rest of the school day. The vast majority will half-listen, half-daydream and remember virtually nothing that is said. There is nothing more to it than that.
yeah but its a black president and so there you are. parents who object do so because they don’t want their kids to think for themselves and see that this is not a commie fire-breather Kenyan illegal alien who took over the country for his own nefarious purposes but a stand up guy who spoke reasonably.
I heard this woman on Fox about 15 minutes ago give a very politicized rationale for keeping her 13 year old out of school. instead she directed her to the internet machine and had her calculate ( ! ) how much her share of Obama’s national debt will be her responsibility. It came to “over” $600,000 and this women thinks it will take her kid 12 years to pay it off. I don’;t know what kind of calculator she was using or what kind of financial future she believes her kid will have.
the fox guy actually accused her of being more political than the President and this woman caved in and said that she resented the President’s adenga being “shoved down her throat”
my question for her and others like her is this: how exactly has her life changed for the worse since Obama’s inauguration and which agenda items are responsible for her being worse off….. if she really is.
GWLawSchoolMom, I agree that the objections raised are really part of the continuing effort to attack the president’s legitimacy. The mentality of the objectors is identical to that of gun-toting attendees at town hall meetings.
BTW, does anyone think we could make money selling t-shirts with the following slogan?: “My dog just watered your Tree of Liberty.”
Mike,
If I had any sort of pocket money, I’d buy one.
Gyges,
I think I may have not been clear. I don’t feel one way or the other about the speech. It’s not out of line with tradition. I meant more in general.
“I’ve reread this discussion about 4 times now. I still have no idea why people kept bringing up how “the left is part of this theater too.”
Gyges,
While I agree with your take perhaps the “Left” gets involved in the discussion because of statements like this:
“And if we’re going to condemn racism then doesn’t it have to be condemned even when praciticed by a black man who is president?”
As far as the concept of a Corporatocracy I’ve been there for years. The problem is it is not a unified entity, but a collection of rivals with sometimes similar interests. Think the Court of Louis XIV.
Gyges,
What Mike said strikes to the essence of the problem. It’s a hydra. If it were just Big Oil, or just Big Pharma, or just Big Ag, it would be easier. I sole enemy to focus our attention upon. The problem is even bigger than having multiple lines of graft. The problem is itself systemic. You’ll never totally eliminate graft by process improvements. It won’t happen as a matter of human nature. But you can mitigate and minimize the damage and access to the system by corporate actors. You can do a helluva lot better than they are in D.C. right now. Now our lobbying system really is just graft called something else to keep pols from being hung from tress like Xmas ornaments. There’s not any other way to characterize the lobby industry other than graft if one is honest about it. There’s no attempt to seriously curtail corporate influence from either party. That’s why the left is as big a problem as the right since Obama showed he’s all talk and no walk. Obstructionists are obstructionists whether they do it purposefully, out of sheer stupidity or spinelessness. The change we all wanted and voted for is being obstructed by BOTH sides. To me? That just means both side have to go.
I agree with Buddha and Mike S. on the problem of corporatism. But I don’t think it can be handled by weakening the First Amendment. Since corporations are purely creatures of statute, the best course would be significant revisions to the laws relating to corporate formation and governance.
And see? Here’s members of both parties showing EXACTLY why they need to go one way or the other. Here’s the Gang of Six, just begging to end their careers by wanting to charge individuals fines for not having health insurance. Or to get desperate poor people to shoot at them. Either one is fine with me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32733321/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
Guess which finger I’m holding up, Gang?
You’d collect that fine from me when Hell freezes solid. Got that? S-O-L-I-D. Why not just bring a gun to the hold up, you bought and paid for fascist scumbag graft weasel jackass criminals. Steal their video games and tennis shoes while you’re at it. Or here’s an idea . . . get the insurance industry that’s been bankrolling you clowns for years to pay the fines out of their ill-gotten profits BEFORE you go to a single citizen for payment. Otherwise? I hope you idiots don’t need to go outside very often. You are literally doing something so stupid that YOU (no one else but YOU) are putting yourselves in actual personal physical danger. Good show. And if you don’t believe that? Try and levy that fine on some poor guy who’s being bankrupted by his ailing wife’s condition not covered by your corporate insurance masters, some poor desperate guy who you are helping dismantle his life so you and your masters can make money and keep your lot at the graft trough. Odds are, eventually you’ll piss off someone crazy enough to take out the one(s) they perceive as having destroyed their life. He’s got hurt and anger and guns. He’s got lots of life insurance that will pay off if your security detail kills him. Just to take care of his wife because you insisted on adding insult to injury. All because you lot were so stupid and short sighted that fining someone for not having health insurance seemed even REMOTELY like a good idea. If they could pay for a ridiculous fine you propose, Senatorial Dumbasses, they could pay for the damn insurance. Duh. You are a bunch of simple creatures. Greedy, vicious and stupid, but simple.
Natural selection at work.
Gang of Six, your grade for natural selection is “F-”.
You better not flunk the mid-term if you don’t want to see exactly how poorly you understand the psychology of the sick and the desperate. Because I promise you fines are only going to cause trouble. Some of it for you personally. And lots of it.
Enjoy the fruits of your labors.
Mike A.,
Oh yeah, come in here and make a sensible suggestion why don’t you! That’s the only problem there. You’re preaching common sense to Congress! Now that’s a rock and a hill . . .
I wanted to say a little more on this but had to get dinner for my grandchildren and that takes precedence.
Whenever we see our world and the nations that comprise it strictly in political terms, we miss the point of what is really going on. All of human history has been the story of people struggling for power over others, but using either religion, or politics, or both as the justification. The concepts of Liberal/Conservative/Progressive/Left Wing/Right Wing are just made up dichotomies to justify the individual human lust for power and the rewards power brings. This is just as true with religions be they Christianity/Islam/Judaism/LDS/Scientology/Hinduism/Buddhism, etc., etc. Also forgotten in this mix is the various economic theories that merely serve as justification for those seeking to rule, control and get all the attractive members of the sex that turns them on.
Our current American Corporatism is yet another version of the feudal system. CEO’s equal Dukes and Counts for instance.
If this is to ever change we must redefine our politics into desired outcomes, rather than theoretical policy positions.
For instance:
I believe in the maximum amount of freedom for the individual
human being. Business entities don’t count.
I believe that all humans should have certain inalienable rights: Food, shelter, health care, clothing.
I believe that the above is apolitical because the truth is that the resources of the planet belong to all of us and for too long they have been monopolized by selfish entities intent on maximization of power.
I believe in the total equality of the sexes, all races and all forms of non-exploitative sexual preference.
I think our founding Fathers made a start towards the above, or at least were heading in the right direction. From the beginning though,our Constitution was poisoned by the slavery issue and by chattel status for women.
By getting hung up in various political/religious ideologies we miss the greater picture, which is that this is all really driven psychologically and genetically. We organize ourselves like the Great Apes and everywhere see nations run by strict hierarchy. However, just as with the Great Apes, where the setup is supposed to ensure only the top ape gets all the females, there are others in the hierarchy trying to get to the top. This is what happens in today’s Corporate World, which is mixed in with “Patrician” Family Dynasties.
All of these people (factions) are far too greedy and selfishly inclined to truly work together and in that fact lays our opportunity. They are hierarchical, but not monolithic. There are differences between the parties and within the parties as various factions compete for power. This is a structure that can be destabilized to our advantage.
However, within the opportunity also lies the danger. The French Revolution, The Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution were all necessary to end evil, exploitative systems. The problem was that those who took power, while mouthing “Liberte, Fraternite and Egalitie,” actually decided that they liked and deserved to be in charge.
The task in the end is trying to evolve the human race and free ourselves from the control of our “Lizard Brains.” Until then, the best we can do is achieve small victories to stave off the possibility of complete totalitarian control that lies within the grasp of our technological advances. To accomplish anything we must not only organize ourselves, but build alliances with those who have somewhat common interests.
Besides the elite, the only “solid” group in this country are the 20%, or so who are fundamentalist freaks. They achieve power because their presence allows the elite to keep us fighting among ourselves and so they have the support of the elite. “We” on the other hand are more interested in politicians passing tests of political purity, than staving off the wolves at our doors.
Mike A writes: GWLawSchoolMom, I agree that the objections raised are really part of the continuing effort to attack the president’s legitimacy. The mentality of the objectors is identical to that of gun-toting attendees at town hall meetings.
BTW, does anyone think we could make money selling t-shirts with the following slogan?: “My dog just watered your Tree of Liberty.”
clearly its time for the First Annual Top Ten Jonathan Turley Blog T-shirt contest.
your suggestion will be collected with all others and an independent panel of say, 2L’s will judge them and we will publish the top ten.
of course we will sell them.
there is no underestimating what the average american will choose to advertize across his/her chest just for the hell of it.
Mike,
Vacationing with the grandchildren agrees with you. Good show.
I think I may be being unclear. Most of my complaint is that people are taking what is a great example of the extreme right manufacturing an issue and using it to say “Both parties
manufacture issues.”
I also object to any theory or rhetoric that acts as if both parties are a single unit. Both parties can be corrupt to the core, but they are two distinct parties. Treating them as a single unit is counterproductive.
That’s the whole of what I was trying to say.
gyges,
But is it? Counterproductive seems a bit harsh. I don’t think I was treating the parties as a single unit, but rather two similar units suffering from a similar malaise. In fact, I suspect this is crosstalk and hair splitting. I think what you are saying is difference without distinction at this point. The problem is corporate corruption of electoral and legislative process – graft for short. That both parties suffer from the same problem and it’s treatment resistant by it’s very nature. You said it yourself. Both parties are corrupt to the core. In that sense, it does not hurt to discuss them as a single unit as both are, pardon the lapse into abstraction, both are Big Style Political Parties (models A & B) and both suffer from a common design flaw – graft and corporatism. We’ve been trying to change the design of a faulty tool by using it on itself. We’ll never get it fixed that way. It’s time to start over. Obama removed any hope I had that the graft problem was fixable with the current players when he bent over for Big Pharma on price negotiations. Both parties and the corporatist swine on K Street need to go for the good of the nation. Corporations need to be removed from process or corporations need to start having “accidents”. Whether they go voluntarily or by force is remains to be seen but if they are not part of the solution, then they are part of the problem. Obama was right in saying change comes from the outside. If the goons in D.C. keep ignoring that repeated and ever more urgent cry, then when the crap hits the fan, they did it to themselves. I’ll shed nary a tear for them from either party. As far as I’m concerned going with the lesser of two evils just isn’t an option anymore. Is it?
Buddha,
There is a very basic distinction: the individuals that make up the two parties are different people.
I ask you to consider for a moment why political parties exist. As near as I can tell the answer is “to get it’s members elected.” That means the goal of the Republican party is to get Republicans elected, and the goal of the Democratic is to get Democrats elected. What gets you identified as either of those is incidental to that basic fact. The two parties could be identical in ever sense except membership, and they would still work to get THEIR members elected. That’s why I keep harping on the point that there are TWO parties, not one party pretending to be two.
Here’s where it gets counterproductive to act as though the two parties are one: You’re focusing only on the effects and not the cause. The cause of our problems isn’t that both parties bow their heads to the same Nobles. That’s just one of the problems. The cause is that the current system makes it so that the easiest way for the parties to fulfill their function is to bow their heads. If you ignore the motivation for their selling out, you’ll never solve anything.
A third party is going to have the same inherent weaknesses as the existing parties now, because of the nature of political parties. It may take 2 or 3 generations, but at some point that party would be just as in bed with money as the current party. It has to get it’s members elected, and the best way to do that is to make deals.
Motive is meaningless. The issue is capacity. Prevention of corruption is key. That’s systemic. By eliminating the current lobby and campaign finance laws and ensuring that corruption is nearly impossible to hide, you are addressing the cause. There will always be votes for sale. A certain percentage of humans are vile greedy vermin. So addressing motive is not effective either. The best one can do is minimize and mitigate. Since we can’t edit people’s minds just yet (soon, soon they keep whispering to Cheney) our best method of reducing corruption is to remove the mechanisms of corruption. That’s again a systemic fix. The problem is who we are depending on to deliver the fix. Since we are telling the very same people responsible for promoting said culture of corruption to fix it and they aren’t, why isn’t it appropriate to treat both parties as if they are acting against the interests of We the People? They are. Their reasons for doing so are meaningless other than the varied degrees they deserve to be punished.
GWMom,
Here is my T-shirt suggestion: “Let Texas secede so the USA can Succeed. “
Gyges,
To try to address both your points:
Why is this speech an example of right wing and left wing leaders whipping up their populace. I think many people above have well addressed the racism that exists in this nation and how it doesn’t take much to set it off by “leaders” who take a boilerplate speech and make it sound like it’s SOCIALISM. The log has been taken out of the right wing’s eye here. Now it’s time to take the log out of the left wing eye and I’m just going to repete something from above:
Obama has sanctioned torture, rendition, the bombing of civilians, the escalation of our wars, the illegality of the past administration, the illegality that is taking place among high placed financial firms and regulators and is about to “legally” imprison the innocent and what are we talking about? Those crazy right wing nuts. Yes, it’s meaningful to argue with the ideas of the crazy right wing nuts but it’s just as imporatant to not forget all of the above concerning Obama. Is this the person you want giving a pious, feel good message about how kids should live their life? If so, why? Does is make sense to ask people who sanction and engage in the above to be motivational speakers to children?
If Obama quit bombing children that same age. If he quit letting them starve, quite letting them be forced from their homes, quit failing to stand up and got moving on getting them and their parents health care–that would be a true feel good moment for me. Taking inspiration and feeling good about someone who engages in some very bad actions is odd. But the fact that many people ignore what Obama is doing and are swept away by his speeches, that’s manipulation, pure and simple. It’s not what’s in the speech it’s the speech creating a vision of Obama as a great, caring guy who loves children, just so long as they aren’t in the U.S. or if in the U.S. not poor or middle class. The left wing is falling for the image of Obama not the reality. Actions are what should inspire us or at the very least words that are equal to those actions. In Obama’s case the left sees only the flowery words and blinds itself to some truly rotton actions. This is like Bush having the aircraft carrier turned with the sun. It’s a ploy to get people to focus on the “visuals” while ignoring the reality–in this case children who are homeless and starving are going to have a hard time getting good marks and doing their best. The dead children in Afghanistan aren’t going to be doing that at all. So in the left’s case it is spectacle over substance. The substance is ignored at the peril of these very children who are to be inspired.
I am struck that the far right and the left wing believe the exact same myths about Obama. They both believe he is a socialist, a peacenik and weak on surveillance. No amount of actual evidence will penetrate this mindset on either side. When I see that evidence simply has no place in a discussion with two completely different groups–that’s simply astounding. Worse, it’s dangerous.
As to the two or one parties. At one time their were two distinct parties, Both of them have become some corrupt and work against the common welfare that they work as one party. If you want to call them two parties I would say they are in name only. But along with Buddha, I’m not really concerned that much over how it’s described, only that people see that no one in the leadership of either party gives a damn for the common welfare of this nation or the world. Their actions speak to this reality, loud and clear.
Buddha,
I’m fine with saying both parties are corrupt. I’m simply disagreeing about your rhetorical language. I feel your strategy has the inherent danger of covering up a fundamental truth, which I expounded on.
I think we should clarify that when I was talking about motivation, I’m talking about the motivation of the parties, not individuals.
Jill,
First off, we’ll just have to agree to disagree that there’s only one party. In my opinion having two groups of people with mutually exclusive membership means that there are TWO groups, no matter how similarly they may act. The 49ers and the Chiefs may both play football, but they aren’t the same team.
Please explain why you think the left should share the blame for THIS instance. All you have done is say “well they should because in OTHER cases they do bad things.”
I’m am outspoken critic of ANY politician I feel is in the wrong, but I’m also willing to support any action that I feel is right.
gyges,
“I think we should clarify that when I was talking about motivation, I’m talking about the motivation of the parties, not individuals.”
I still think we are suffering from a bit of crosstalk.
Again, I think it’s semantic. It’s not possible to totally divorce the abstraction of an organization’s goals from the motives of the individual actors. A body politic is after all composed of it’s constituent parts. In the sense that both organizations have different goals, yes, there are two parties. What I’m saying is that neither party is working for citizens anymore and their motivation as individuals is irrelevant as long as the parties continue to act against public interest. And just like the insurance industry fighting to refuse claims, it’s not in a politicians interest (of either party) to act in the public’s interests when it’s the corporations footing their campaign and living expenses. That one side is more blatantly and openly evil than the other is a matter of degree and given the importance of their jobs not acceptable no matter what corporate master they bend for. Their differing goals are meaningless when both are corrupted in the same fashion. If you have a rusted out hammer and a rusted out screwdriver, both tools are crap. In that sense, there is only one party and that’s the K St. Graft & Greed Cotillion. The Rust Party. And you know what Neil Young said about rust . . .
Obama ‘No’, Bush ‘Yes’ in Texas school districts:
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/school-refuses-obama-speech-but-will-bus-kids-to-see-bush/
rafflaw writes: “Let Texas secede so the USA can Succeed. ”
excellent. this will make the top ten for sure.