Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Those who’ve read my comments here through the last two Presidential elections, know that I supported and voted for Barack Obama twice. Yet President Obama has been a disappointment to me throughout his Administration. His continuing support of what I consider extra-Constitutional intelligence gathering is a terrible thing. That Guantanamo Bay is still functioning is a continuing human rights violation. The continued American troop presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan is as disgraceful as the reasons that caused us to be there in the first place. Bradley Manning is an American hero that this country is illegally torturing with this President’s approval. The entire issue of the rising deficit and of a mythical “Fiscal Cliff” is one the President gives credit to, thus making it seem real to the public, while those decrying it merely are using it as a means of destroying America’s already frayed “social safety net”. The escape from criminal prosecution of the Bush Administration for War Crimes time has passed. The financial titans who collapsed our economy with their fraudulent manipulations will not be brought to justice, only become wealthier. The continuance of prosecuting the “War on Drugs” after we’ve seen marvelous public initiatives legalizing marijuana at State Levels, is a cruel hoax that destroys the lives of people in the name of protecting the citizenry. Need I go on to make the point of how disappointing this Administration has been? It would take tens of thousands of more words to do so, but then in this erudite group of those readers of this blog, it would be unnecessary, because so many here could do it on their own and perhaps better than I can.
Where I get confused at times here is in the continuing surprise that is expressed with each new violation of our rights, with each new foreign incursion and with the continued militarization of this country as it “goosesteps” towards the creation of an Empire. I get confused because I fail to understand why people who know better, would think that someone else as President could prevent all of these atrocious occurrences. This confusion is re-enforced by the fact that this blog has continually presented evidence that this country is no longer, if indeed it has been, under the aegis of our beloved Constitution. Leading the evidence presented here was Jonathan Turley’s blog post ”10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free”. http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/ As our esteemed proprietor followed up this post was selected as one of the top ten articles in the Washington Post’s Outlook Section for 2012. At the end of this piece I will give links to my own guest blogs which have also reinforced the idea that we are no longer the country of freedom that our establishment claims we represent. Thus comes my somewhat confused question as to why would we the denizens of this blog think that barring action by the people, that our President, or any other governmental officials could single-highhandedly return us to the ideals of our constitution.
My working for and voting for President Obama had nothing to do with a belief that he could effect anywhere near the change that is needed to make this country free, to level the economic playing field, or finally end our march for world hegemony. I firmly believe that this country is ruled by a Plutocratic Corporatocracy and this has at least been the case since the assassination of JFK. http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/17/a-real-history-of-the-last-sixty-two-years/
What I wrote about in that guest blog was the JFK murder represented a turning point where the Corporate Military/Industrial Complex assumed control of U.S. foreign affairs and sent the chilling message to all future Presidents that they ought not to interfere with the will of this group in foreign matters. Richard Nixon believed himself to be a foreign policy expert par excellence and demanded to run his own foreign policy and he too was removed from office, albeit less violently, but in my opinion with the same complicity from those who disposed of JFK. As I wrote succinctly about Richard Nixon in the guest blog linked above:
“Nixon further escalates Viet Nam War. He names Poppy Bush Ambassador to China despite lack of qualification. Nixon/Kissinger cut “Experts” out of Foreign Policy and negotiate détente with China, decried by Defense/CIA/”Experts who are all “Cold Warriors”. “Plumbers” unit formed in White House, members all tied to CIA and Poppy Bush. Amateurishly bungled Watergate Burglary performed by intelligence professionals. Nixon reelected but Watergate becomes big deal. Bob Woodward, with past CIA ties, begins investigation with Carl Bernstein. Woodward gains information from “Deep Throat” that is damning. John Dean, who also has ties to Poppy Bush blabs to Congress. Andrew Jaworski, an old friend of Poppy Bush, becomes Special Prosecutor after Cox fired. Poppy Bush becomes head of Republican Party. Poppy Bush advises Nixon to resign for the good of the Party. Gerald Ford becomes President and surprises Poppy Bush by not naming Poppy Bush Vice President. Ford pardons Nixon before full charges are brought and so many details lost as the investigation stops.”
I believe the full story is that Nixon overstepped the foreign policy limits of the Presidency, drawn in the sand by JFK’s murder and was removed as punishment. President Obama when he ran in 2008 mad the promise that he would abolish Guantanamo Bay, via Presidential Decree, during his first day in office. I have no reason to doubt he believed this, but I think that after the election when he was being briefed by the Foreign Policy/Military/Intelligence establishment he was given the message as to just how far he could go and today Guantanamo still thrives, we still have troops in Iraq and are still prosecuting a war in Afghanistan. We also see a steady barrage of pressure to attack Iran and intervene in Syria. As we already have done in Libya. Our defense budget is already larger than the defense budgets of all the countries in the rest of the world combined and with all our supposed economic woes nobody with any power dares to question it remaining so high.
Prior to Obama’s 2008 election our economic system was trashed and a hasty bi-partisan coalition backed the moves of our Federal Reserve head, our Treasury Secretary and our putative President to bail out these huge Investment Banks with a blank check. Pro forma efforts at investigation were made, enough details coming out to show that the crisis was the result of their own mismanagement and of indeed outright fraud. Not only were there no major prosecutions, but in fact many responsible for the crisis received even larger bonuses the following years. It’s true that Bernie Madoff was sent to jail for what will be his life, but then Bernie Madoff preyed upon the same class of people who caused the banking crisis. The plain truth is we are powerless when it comes to the Plutocrats of the world and only those who attempt to take from them are the ones who suffer.
While I’ve only scratched the surface above of the President’s impotency in the face of the interlocking power of the Plutocratic class intertwined with the Corporate Military/Industrial Complex, almost all who will read this are already there with their own insights. This devolves into two questions then which I will attempt to answer. The first is of course why did I even bother to support President Obama if I think he lacks the power to change anything substantive?
My answer is simply that I refuse to give up hope that we the people can rise up and make a difference. While I believe we are ruled by a Plutocracy, I also believe that this Plutocracy is not a homogeneous group. There are insatiable egos in play and there is disagreement in how to manage us “the people”. For purposes of ease let me break that up into two groups, although the reality I think is far more diverse. The first group can be called the “let them eat cake” group and they could care less about the lives of us peasants as long as we continue to serve them well. The second group are those that believe in “noblesse oblige” and believe in their power, yet feel that they owe something, though not that much, to the teeming masses yearning to breathe free. Each National election is a reflection between these two theories of social control. In the election past Romney represented the “eat cake” group, while Obama represented the “noblesse oblige” group. Since I refuse to give up hope that we can find a way to overthrow this Plutocracy, for now I must support the “noblesse oblige” group to minimize the effects of the pain being inflicted upon the people.
The second question is what I think can be done to change things. The answer in my mind is so broad that I would have to write a manifesto, which I’m not yet prepared to do. Here then are my ten suggestions for how we can regain our freedom done schematically and in random order.
- Organize opposition to both parties from the ground up by forming a third party willing to build over the span of years and not needing the immediate gratification of instant success.
- Understand that ideology is the enemy of equitable solutions and that humanity’s ills are those of a psychological rather than political basis.
- Do everything in our power to maintain internet freedom, since it has become the only remaining source of information untainted by propaganda (if you look diligently enough).
- Educate people as to the reality of their desperate situations.
- Educate people about how they have been manipulated by mythology and propaganda.
- Stop believing in leaders no matter how attractive and start believing in our own competence.
- Protest injustice wherever you encounter it.
- Understand that you must convince people of your cause, before you can advance your cause.
- Examine your own prejudices and expunge them
- Treat other human beings as you would have yourself treated.
Those are my ten as counter point to the ten ways we are no longer free. What are yours? First though let me give my own “political” views succinctly:
Every human being shall have the right to adequate: Food; Water; Shelter; Clothing; Free Education and the means to find meaningful occupations. They should have freedom of speech, thought and movement. This is what needs to be accomplished for the Human Race to evolve to its full potential. The mechanisms for this should be developed pragmatically, not through political philosophy. The sociopaths, the psychopaths and the narcissists must somehow be segregated from the rest of humanity, or at least denied meaningful power.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/11/17/democracy-in-america-what-does-it-mean/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/11/10/selling-out-middle-class-america/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/27/murder-at-kent-state/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/13/manipulated-america-one-theory-of-how-they-control-us/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/06/american-dream-not-american-reality/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/09/30/portents-of-the-new-feudalism/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/07/07/mythology-and-the-new-feudalism/
@Gene: The Golden Rule […] is an attempt to define equity
In your mind, how does “equity” differ from “fairness?”
As I peruse Webster’s, the first definition of Equity is: “fairness or justice, esp. the common fairness that follows the spirit rather than the letter of justice.”
I use the word “fairness” because as a rule I like to use the most commonly understood words that will suffice without me having to explain what it means. That served me well in business, and it has served me even better in science, especially among colleagues that speak every variety of broken English imaginable. I think everybody understands what “fair” means. It occurred to me to use “equitable,” but I decided “fair” was more pithy.
I think equity or equitable is synonymous with fair when talking about something as vague as human feelings, so sure, if you like it better, use “equity” or “equitable” where I use “fairness.” If you think there is a distinct difference, please elaborate.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/glenn_beck_plans_to_build_libertarian_commune_inspired_by_ayn_rand_20130113/ Glenn Beck plans to build a 2 billion dollar libertarian compound in Texas based on the teachings of Ayn Rand. I think I will stick with the Texas democrats while I am still here.
I’m sorry if this comes off as objectionable, but this author is suffering from cognitive dissonance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
(“In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel “disequilibrium”: frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc.”).
The “noblesse oblige” group is identical to the “let them eat cake” group. Their differences are merely illusions created by propaganda. The litany of events the author laments about at the article’s beginning bear testimony to this fact. Yet, in the face of insurmountable, undeniable, evidence the author cannot bring himself to see the irrationality in voting for the “noblesse oblige” group.
There is another way. End the two-party system, one vote at a time. Stop voting on the basis of an irrational belief. If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Vote libertarian or just-plain independent. Maybe never vote for an incumbent as a matter of principle, no matter how good he/she may seem, because power corrupts even the best of us.
I say that we start an occupy Washington movement.
How would we get the whole dogpac to Washington DC on May Day? It would take a bus.
BarkinDog: You waited until almost two in the morning to put out a call to the fellow bloggers to go to Washington DC to protest the War. They are all done and will just go to the next topic tomorrow and it will all be for naught. I am disappointed in you and surprized. Besides, these people on this blog are not going to protest the War. This is not 1971. We complain but we dont act. Now be a good dog.
Government: shut down the war or we will shut down the government. May Day 2013.
Bloggers: Be there. Washington DC on May Day. If the government wont shut down the war, we will shut down the government. I will be disappointed and surprized if you do not show up.
Forty plus years ago I am arguing about bringing the boys home from Vietnam and now the grandkids of the boys are in Afghanistan. I am disappointed. But not suprized. Had Obama been in Nam we would not be in Afghanistan. Which is why I am for Hagel at dept of Defense.
If the torture of Bradley Manning is intolerable to you HumpinDog then why are you not disappointed with Obama? After all, he is Commander in Chief. I am surprized that a dog of your caliber would be not disappointed.
I am not a bit disappointed with Obama. I am not surprized that I am not disappointed. I am surprized that some are disappointed. But, I am not disappointed that they are disappointed. Nor should they be surprized. Nothing in politics really surprizes or dissapoints me. some things bore me and some things are intolerable. Like the fact that Romney got away with crating that dog across country. The torture of Bradley Manning is intolerable.
“The Golden Rule is an attempt to define fairness, and IMO it does not always work.”
Actually, no, it’s not. The Golden Rule as an expression of the Ethic of Reciprocity is an attempt to define equity (an integral but not sole component of justice) and the reciprocal nature of interaction in a society. Fairness and our sense of it is it’s own creature in the formulation of what constitutes justice. As is revenge. The question of “what is justice” is deceptively complicated, but at it’s heart it relies upon two key principles – equity (basically mathematical ideal) and fairness (basically an emotive response) to achieve outcomes that are as just as possible while maintaining the peace that third party dispute resolution creates in the place of self-help remedies. This is in part why a justice system will never be perfectly just – some outcomes please no one even though they are considered societally adequate to maintain peace and limit self-help (which inherently has no constraint but the will of those pursuing it which may or may not be equitable or even reasonable). Learned Hand once said that the law was the pale shadow of justice and he was right. Justice in the karmic or poetic sense is a moving target and the goal of a working and optimized justice system is as just an outcome as practically possible and permissible by the mores as expressed by the laws of the society in which it operates. Poetic and karmic justice have to be left to chance as a matter of practical application. Sometimes the systems provide that, sometimes they don’t, just like outcomes nature provides, but perfection is a reasonable aspiration to assure maximum and maximal good outcomes despite being an unreachable destination.
That being said, I also don’t disagree with W=^..^ that our current justice system is broken. Not completely perhaps but substantively enough to be a legitimate concern for all citizens.
I’m not sure I believe in the vast conspiracy you put forward. But the facts as you lay them out sure make me wonder.
My problem with you is that you violated your principal #1
“Organize opposition to both parties from the ground up by forming a third party willing to build over the span of years and not needing the immediate gratification of instant success.”
In this past election there were several parties to choose from as well as writing in the name of a person of your choice.
There are more than 2 choices. I believe the choice between McCain and Obama was about a 10% difference, between Mitt and Obama was less than a 5% difference. Policy (especially foreign policy) is identical.
Please people, look at the other parties, Sure not everything they propose I agree with. However, fewer and fewer of the policies put forward by the Rs and Ds are policies I can live with.
Thanks for explaining this in more detail Darren.
In reading the subsequent articles about shano’s link a few posts above it is my agreement to trigger Miranda warnings as being both Custody AND Interrogation. Miranda warnings do not apply if the person is not being detained or under arrest. However, I have to agree with the 9th Circuit’s decision that declining to make a statement is not admissable as evidence against the defendant (unlike other courts of appeal circuits)
When looking at polygraph evidence in our state at least the defendant has a right to decline a polygraph test and the refusal to use a polygraph test cannot be used in court against the defendant. In fact, if the defendant takes a polygraph and the interpretation goes against them, the defendant can supress the polygraph evidence and it cannot be admitted into court.
So it would seem inconsistent to me that a defenant’s refusal to submit to a polygraph exam is not admissable but refusing to answer police questioning is. Both are rooted in 5th amendment self incrimination protections.
I believe (with experimental evidence) that rationality is always a servant of the emotions. The emotions signal to us something is unfair or unbalanced, and then rationality is used to analyze the situation and discover if the unfairness actually exists, and if so, precisely what is unfair about it. I think we have all had the experience, for example, of thinking “That’s not fair!” but not being able to articulate exactly why we feel that way: Unfair is not a conclusion, it is a feeling, like anger or fear, and sometimes we need to think to understand exactly what is causing such feelings.~ Tony C.
—————
not sure I buy this….would love to see the evidence. I don’t believe that rationality is ‘always’ a servant of the emotions. In fact, it is often rationality that helps to mollify the emotional self when unfairness is forced. But then again, it helps to have a clear application when talking about such things…
Unfair is not a conclusion, it is a feeling? No, I don’t think that at all. Upsetness is a feeling in the face of an unfairness….I know this for a fact, someone stole my cookies and that was both unfair AND upsetting…. 😉
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/dobson-obama-reelection-everything-stood-for-past-years-went-down-defeat James Dobson says Obama is the worst president in american history.
Shano,
One of the oldest police interrogation tricks in the book is to try and elicit a statement before telling the subject they are under arrest. The smart person tells the police at first contact they are not comfortable talking or answering questions without counsel present. Most folks are not that assertive or knowledgeable. Best thing to do is question the officer non-stop using the broken record technique: “Am I under arrest? If I am not under arrest, am I free to go?” This places the officer in a conundrum. Don’t give the officer time to ask questions, just keep repeating yourself, or respond to every question with those 15 words.
A big decision coming up?
http://www.worldwidehippies.com/2013/01/13/lawless-america-can-police-use-your-silence-against-you-supreme-court-to-decide/
@tony
> I do not think polarization is the problem, I think it is a symptom
That’s a reasonable enough position
> losers are instantly forgotten by the winners
There have been academic treatments of Perot’s effects on the major parties. Here’s a chapter that’s relevant to the point at hand:
http://books.google.com/books?id=G2vGosWs1dYC&pg=PA61&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
The chapter discusses efforts by both Democrats and Republicans to modify their positions in order to assimilate Perot’s constituency.
Cheers!
@Woosty: the “Golden Rule’ forces us to look at fairness from the ‘other’ persons perspective.
Which is almost always a good thing, but as I pointed out, not always the right way to look at a situation.
I believe (with experimental evidence) that rationality is always a servant of the emotions. The emotions signal to us something is unfair or unbalanced, and then rationality is used to analyze the situation and discover if the unfairness actually exists, and if so, precisely what is unfair about it. I think we have all had the experience, for example, of thinking “That’s not fair!” but not being able to articulate exactly why we feel that way: Unfair is not a conclusion, it is a feeling, like anger or fear, and sometimes we need to think to understand exactly what is causing such feelings.
I am not saying the Golden Rule is a bad rule. I am saying it is not a universally applicable rule, because it would not always result in a fair decision. The only universally applicable rule is, in fact, what is “fair.”