goedel's Comments (30)

“To billw8017:

Medicare for all is not possible so long as we insist on wasting our resources in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wars cost big bucks, besides all the bloodshed.”

“The assumption is common that the ruling-class in American does not act with urgency to push for control of greenhouse emissions because it is not really convinced that the science is correct. They are in denial, some say.

I am reminded of what a chemical company exec in Niagara Falls, N.Y. told me years ago, after his tongue was lubricated by a third martini: We should not worry about pollution because people are living too long anyway.

A parallel belief is probably widely held among our corporate rulers, today: We should not worry about climate change because the earth's population is too large anyway.”

“If there is any mission for Veterans Day, it would be to end the militarization of the US that has taken place since the start of the Cold War.

That mission could be best fostered by restoring the significance of the day, calling it again, Armistice Day, that day in 1918 when the first world-wide hostilities ended. We can look back to the promises of that day, how empty they were, and realize how greatly we failed since, repeatedly. Stop the parades! Stop the speeches! Disband those veterans' organizations that lead the cheers for our misguided Presidents who return a military salute but never shouldered a military weapon.

Yes, let's celebrate Armistice Day and the end of the war to end all wars, if we can!”

“I am sympathetic to the unemployed, but - please - no more stimulus out of my pocket, Sir. I have seen my life's savings eroded to half their purchasing power since the turn of the century. A good part of that erosion is still to occur from the bailouts of big finance by both Bush and Obama. Want to help the unemployed? Do it by raising taxes on the wealthy and not by selling more Treasury Bonds or by creating deposits from which to write Treasury checks.

Tie the US$ down, if not to gold, then to a basket of commodities or other currencies. Stop depreciating my savings!”

“In the Saint Petersburg area of Florida, we are not worried. I did not see or hear of a single 350ppm event here, yesterday, when the whole world was having an unprecedented turnout of demonstrations. Why are we in St Pete not worried? Because we know that science is busily at work to engineer a genetic transformation. In a decade or two, when the tides begin to sweep over our downtown area and suck our pretty houses into Tampa Bay or the Gulf of Mexico, we shall be ready. We shall have grown gills and webbed feet and, since we love shrimp and other shellfish, shall swim happily alongside the dophins (whom we also love) and live happily ever after - underwater.”

“People think of Barack Obama as if they know him, but what they know are projections of him, projections he casts by appealing rhetoric and projections cast by the media. These are dangerous because they are so successful: Mr "Nice Guy" even lovable, as Ms Brawley expressed, after bad guy Bush is the minimal summation in many minds. The truth is we do not know him, and he has reneged on many significant positions he took as Senator and as candidate. Not only has this former Constituti­on-profess­or adopted the positions of GWB on withdrawing due process and state secrecy, but he has continued the imperial presidency and its dominance over the other branches of our government. He has continued the threat of further usurpation of power through presidential signings and by refusing to do the investigations of lawlessness by Bush and his top administrators with regard to our laws on torture. We don't know Barack Obama and what we do know from what we have seen is very bad. He follows GWB on projections of military power, subservience to the corporate elite and neglect of ordinary Americans (including health-care).

In understanding Barack Obama, the best technique is to avoid his imagery and rhetoric and pay attention to who is advising him - as far as we know - and what he does and does not do.”

“The best way for the AFL-CiO to help its members and end the domination of our country by the corporate elite would be for it to cease its allegiance to the Democratic Party and help to form a new party, a progressive party. The AFL-CIO has become gentrified. It has forgotten the class struggle, pretending it does not exist. Stop being Democrats, and start representing your workers by forming them into a new party - even if it costs elections!”

“There is altogether too much military in our lives. We spend so much on so-called "defense" that we do not have enough of the money we borrow for domestic needs.

President Obama, in matters of constitutional rights, imperialism, socialism for the capitalists, has not been much better than GWB. He is more dangerous than GWB, because he has a more affable, polished style. Occasionally, he even throws a bone to the Left (medical marijuana, most recently). At the same time, he refuses to demand single-payer or even the public option (which Nancy Pelosi now is pushing without BO's help). He has been, in the past 9 months, a terrible disappointment to progressives who supported his candidacy (I did not!) Progressive had better cease supporting the least-worse candidate and organize a party of their own.”

“The declaration by Pres. Obama that "This (Af-stan) is a war of necessity" is not supported by any reasonable analysis by him of our eight-year occupation of that benighted country. Similarly, Obama's statement in 2002 that Af-stan is the "right" war also was not based on any knowledge or experience of his own in such matters. Obama takes his views from a very narrow spectrum of opinion. At this time, those advising him are military people, either active or in civvies. As with the health-care issue, he does not seek the opinions of those outside the political establishment. Whatever problems he has, they are now more of his making than inherited, be they the financial, health-care or the war issues. Feel sorry not for Obama, but for the American people who will for many decades pay the price for his bad judgment and political cowardice. Obama? The sooner he goes back to Chicago the better!”

“Mr Maher, have you not seen the Ralph Nader interview by Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now"? Don't you know what the theme of his new book, "'Only the Super-rich Can Save Us'" is? It's that progressive columnists and progressive comics can no longer help us. Only billions of dollars from well motivated, multi-bllionaires can arouse the pluribus and make them unum in taking back control of the government. Why have so few of you mentioned Nader's thesis?

I'll tell you why. Progressive journalists and entertainers, like you, Jon Stewart, the progressive bloggers, all make a decent living from pretending that their reports, documentaries, exposés make a dent in the armor of corruption that surrounds our Congress and W-H. None of you wants to admit that you are accomplishing nothing. All the Centers for this and that, all the funny guys with wry wit like you, the investigative reporters, whistleblowers, film-makers like Michael Moore cannot overcome the control by the corporations of the media and therefore the government.

An observation of my own: the super-rich, many of them, became super-rich by playing our system. They are surely fond of it and not of a mind to place power, really, in the hands of the many - no matter how humanitarian and progressive they are perceived to be (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al.)

Conclusion: It's all over, Baby Blue!”

“Race, though an issue in the US, is not by any means high on a list of critical issues: climate disaster, nuclear weapons and power-plants, US militarism, corporate corruption of governments (national, state and local) and media, health-care failure, educational inadequacy. All these problems are far more serious, more threatening than the racism that persists covertly and, less often, openly. It's time to turn our attention to the issues that threaten our existence and are destroying what remains of government by consent (informed consent) in the US.”

“Absolutely right, Mr Hutchinson! Congressional Democrats are Democrats first, then progressives (maybe!)

They are not the only ones. Katrina vanden Heuvel of the Nation has never expressed regret for her support for BO. She wrote that she has hopes that he will be the president you write of, who opposed the Iraq War, etc. But they are just forlorn hopes that she clings to, because she does not wish to admit her blindness.

Michael Moore is another who is living in hope and for similar reasons. If I kept up with all these hypocrites, I could name many others. Oh! Let's not forget the union leaders for their support of Obama, when it was clear that he was a right winger with a smooth tongue.

What can we do? Nothing, I regret to write. The country is in the hands of the corporate and imperial plutocracy, and the voices of reason can't be heard.”

“Pres. Obama's fall in popularity, though not a plunge, is giving some Republicans hope for 2013. They are considering Gen. Petraeus as their candidate. The last general we had as president was Dwight Eisenhower, and he was a disaster! He authorized the CIA to topple Pres. Abenz's democractically elected government in Guatemala. A military regime followed that killed and disappeared tens of thousands of Guatemalens and oppressed the nation for several decades. In Iran, Eisenhower did similarly, resulting in the murder of PM Mossadegh and the installation of Shah Pahlevi, until ousted by the popular revolution of 1979. Many Iranians, also a very large number, suffered executions, torture and imprisonment. We are now in a very bad relationship with the Iranian government. Save us from another general in the WH.”

“Is Obama a "waffler" with a gift for gab, or is he simply lacking in integrity and seeking only to please those with power. After all, he would still be relatively young after even eight years of the W-H, if he lasts that long. He would need to be appointed to boards of directors of corporations in the "defense", financial or health-care industries. He would need invitations to speak at prestigious resorts where the elites gather. Appointments to think tanks, professorships would be welcomed offers.

We really don't know what lies (good pun!) behind the words and actions (or inactions) of BHO. Could be a wimp AND a liar!”

“Economists have some sympathy from me, because they are linking several fields of study: politics, sociology and psychology. Perhaps we should also include criminality - just kidding!

They are limited in their studies in many ways: like medical doctors, they can't (or ought not experiment on their subjects). They should not advocate policies that would cause inflation or a recession in order to try a new remedy for efficacy.

It is not an easy subject. There is so much mathematics to master in order to do something impressive with the data. There is so little time and so much money in the balance.

John Kenneth Galbraith wrote amusingly, economists do not make it easy to read their works - even the non-mathematical stuff. After you have invested yourself in the works of Marx, as an example, you are not likely to write off all of those years by falling away from the master. You become a Marxist or, otherwise, a disciple of Milton Friedman. The latter master is even more tenacious, because the Chicago School is where the money is.

So, Jane Smiley, it's easy to be contemptuous of most economists when one is a student of literature and not subject to all of the temptations faced by economists. As G.B. Shaw wrote for the exchange between the unemployed socialist and the arms manufacturer, Andrew Undershaft:

Socialist: I would not have your conscience for all your money.
Undershaft: And I would not have your poverty for all your conscience!”

“I love Jane Smiley's comments and her impressive literary scholarship, but a minor correction of her French: the noun for "thing" in French is feminine: la chose as in la même chose, "the same thing".”

“True, but the Left did its own ignoring. They continued to ostracize Nader for having had the audacity to be a candidate for the White House, which he was one or two presidential elections before Al Gore's lame campaign against GWB.

Now, the Left has no one to back in 2012. Nader will be deemed too old. Rep, Kucinich does not wish, I am sure, to risk his House seat by leaving the Democratic Party (that would never nominate him for president). Who else is there?”

“My two offerings to this comment forum are critical of Left for having abandoned Ralph Nader, whom you mentioned in a positive way. The moderator seems to be sensitive to my criticism, which referred to Eugene V. Debs' admonition against voting for a winner who will betray, as has Obama.

Moderator, if the shoe fits wear it. It may pinch you a bit, but you'll get used to it as you will have to get used to Obama!”

“Kucinich would have been a fine choice, I agree. When it became clear that the choice would not be he, a decision had to be made on the Left whom to support. The choice was seemingly automatic: it would be the Democrat because only a Democrat could defeat a Republican. Years ago, Eugene V. Debs warned: it is better to vote for a loser than for a winner who will betray you. That is exactly what we now have, as Jane Smiley imparts. What other choice was there for the Left. It could have supported Ralph Nader, the best choice though not a winning choice. A strong turnout for Nader would have demonstrated strong support, even if minority support, for his policies: end the war, single-payer healthcare, strengthening union organization, regulation of the financial industry, etc. Instead we have the winner, Obama, not much different from his predecessor or even from his opponent, McCain. The best man is still largely ignored by the Left, much to their disgrace!”

“This replies to the Jane Smiley article rather than to another comment:

What was most unfortunate about the 2008 campaign was the Left's decision to back the Democrat, Obama. He was not the best of the Dems, but he seemed like a winner and the others did not. Rep. Kucinich, a fine choice, was excluded early in the debates. Eugene Debs has been quoted as saying that it is better to vote for a loser than for a winner who will betray you. Could any warning have been more apt?

Once Obama or Hillary became the front runners for the Dem nomination, there was no choice but to vote for a loser outside the Dem Party. There were the usual fears: McCain would be elected if the Left defected from the Dems. From what we have seen, McCain would have not been much different from Obama. True, the Republicans would have been in the W-H. But what could McCain have done that Obama has not done?

On the other hand, if a united Left (an oxymoron!) had backed Ralph Nader to achieve a greater than 5% vote, his policies would have had far greater influence on the Congress and on the Democratic Party. Instead, that Party is now under the thumb of the blue-dogs, like Baucus.

The Left cannot be influential within the Democratic Party. The Left's refusal to leave the Democratic Party has been its undoing and the nation's as well.”

“Nancy Kanwisher's comparison fails for the following reason: Israel does not target civilians; it targets only Hamas terrorists. The truce only applies to the targeting of civilians, which Israel in any case does not do. Israel had not agreed to cease-fire against known Hamas leaders and their terrorist following. When Israel has good intelligence that a Hamas leader may be found at a given place, it strikes. If there are civilians with the target, then they may also be killed or wounded. Civilians should not voluntarily associate with Hamas militants. If they do, then they expose themselves to danger. More significantly, Hamas ought not embed their terrorists and leaders in the civilian population as they do. Finally, the casualties among Gaza civilians are many times the Israeli casualties, because Hamas does not provide shelters for its population as do the Israelis. On the contrary, Hamas endangers its own civilians by taking refuge among them.”

“Ms Huffington should remember that governments are institutied in a democracy to serve the people; not people the government. She may call it serving the "country", but that is a propaganda word very useful for the ruling class to use to influence the masses.

We have one of the most corrupt governments in the world. One must look in Africa, central Asia and southeast Asia to find more corrupt politics than in the USA. Our elections are bought by huge sums of money. PE Obama gathered over $700 billion dollars for his campaigns. More that half of it came from big corporations. He reneged on his pledge to work within the federal limits for presidential campaigns. Congress voted itself a large cost-of-living increase just when most of us are suffering the consequences of congress's deregulations of the financial industry.

Our state is an imperial, military state, much like the Roman Empire under Augustus Caesar. Young people should be looking out for themselves just as the ruling class does. Let the rulers, the big corporate executive send their children to Iraq and Afghanistan. Let them do the volunteering that Arianna Huffington recommends.

Is this class warfare? You better believe it!”

“When the tobacco companies individually and severally deceived the public by hiding research that showed the cancerous consequences of cigarette smoking, the companies ultimately had to face the victims of smoking in civil court and pay billions of dollars in damages.

Now we have the financial rating companies, Standard & Poors, Moody, Fitch, exposed as having given AAA and AA ratings to the collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) for which there were no historical data on which to base such ratings of their financial soundness. According to interviws made public of key analysts and executives of these rating organizations in a report by PBS's "NOW", the ratings were contrived in order to satisfy the wishes of the clients of the rating companies willing to pay high fees to have their CDOs so approved.

There have been trillions of dollars lost by investors, large and small, since the collapse of the stock and bond markets owing to the bursting of the bubble that these AAA and AA rated CDOs inflated.

My understanding of criminal fraud is that there must be misrepresentations made for financially gain and those misrepresentations were relied upon by the victims. It seems to me that the AAA and AA ratings made by the above named firms were misrepresentations made in conspiracy with the bundlers of the CDOs in order to deceive investors, public and private, and they succeeded in depriving the latter of billions of dollars.

Why are there no class action against or criminal prosecutions of the”

“Dr Corso, if you see any spiritual significance to the installation of another 4-year king, Obama or McCain, then you would also see it the victory of the Phillies in the World Series. The latter was just a game, but this coronation of another imperial president is high tragedy for our country. Both candidates are committed to more war in Iraq and especially in Afghanistan (and Pakistan, too!) Obama is tied by more than $300 million to corporate America, a big part of which is the finance industry. Obama reneged on three issues, at least: FISA, oil drillling, federal campaign funding. His word is no-good. McCain is a militarist by family tradition. He thinks Vietnam was a just war.

We are in for another 4-year bleed. God will not help us any more in the next four than in the last eight.”

“You call me moronic and hypocritical. You are angry. That is not a mood nor a disposition that is conducive to reason.

My summation of life is not really mine. It is called epicureanism. It is not self-centered, because it recognizes that my own happiness is related to the happiness of people in society, generally.

Judge others? Of course! If they promulgate beliefs (where intelligible) or attiturdes (where unintelligible) that cause widespread unhappiness (the birth of unwanted children), I condemn them for it.

I have not claimed my beliefs are superior to others'; only that mine are founded in reason and reality, whereas the author's (Wallis's) are Faith-based, blind to observation.

I don't think I shall have gotten through to you with this reply, because you do seem to be highly overwrought, but others will read my reply and may profit from it.”