PING & PONG: you are the ball

Confession: I watch TV.

I've been watching MSNBC for some time now, just to say I have kept track of the corporate televised news. Every night I get the chance. Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann. Fox is like watching bad slapstick, only more offensive, and CNN alternates between being the Pentagon's Public Affairs Office and and featuring that fascist puke-maggot, Lou Dobbs.

Actually, I had to give up on Tucker after a fashion, too. All I can think of is slapping him when I hear him talk; and I'm trying to leave that part of me behind. He's one of those pampered racist boarding school dickheads who was told by fawning parents that because he made good scores on standardized tests he is bright... and believes it with all his heart, even though he couldn't find his ass with a ground surveillance radar. When he compared Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez with Kim Il Sung, I was done... so now I watch Rachael Ray do 30-Minute Meals on the Food Channel. The food looks good; and she is smarter than Tucker by orders of magnitude.

Which sort of leaves me with Matthews and Olberman... gets pared down pretty quickly, eh?

At any rate, now I watch Chris Matthews, who I believe is being himself more than most TV personalities, even if that is cluelessly sexist and nationalist with a whiteboy tendency to talk all over the top of his guests. And Keith Olbermann, a former sportscaster who is essentially a Democratic satirist... kind of an Air America for television. One reason I've stuck with these guys is that MSNBC tolerates them even as both are incessantly and openly critical of the Bush administration. This, I think, is significant. I mean, MSNBC is owned by Microsoft -- a Bush campaign contributor -- and NBC -- the property of General Electric... yes, the defense contractor. This is not exactly the Indymedia crowd, and commercial sponsors are more drug companies than anything else (someone, please do a Cialis-commercial spoof!). They fired Phil Donahue in 2003 for opposing the war. Why are these conservative ruling-class entities tolerating this kind of dissent?

Unless it's not. Dissent.

And it isn't.

Matthews and Olbermann have been featuring Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden so often, I'm surprised other candidates haven't sued for equal time. So what is Biden saying, and how does that fit with the way Matthews and Olbermann frame their subjects?

Matthews and Olberman are pretty much on record as anti-Bush. Matthews was a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, and Olbermann has called for Bush and Cheney to resign. When they have Biden on, Biden is very good... in a sly kind of way. He displays emotion, including grief and anger, about the American military occupation of Iraq (even though he endorsed it). He seems centered -- like a good method actor -- when he mirrors the frustration and impatience of many of us. He uses what in Washington is sharp language (we could give 'em lessons down here), saying that this comment was "disgraceful," that remark "tragically flawed," and this action was "unconscionable"... and he is very circumspect about his candidacy, avoiding the redolence of narcissism that seems to cling to most presidential candidates like the odor of a wet fart.

But what is he saying? What are they saying?

First, they are saying that the war is a "failure."

Second, they are saying that "the American people" elected Democrats to "change course in Iraq."

Third, Biden is saying that his plan is the "third way."

First response: Would the war be okay if it weren't failing?

Second response: Wanting to get the US troops out of Iraq is far more specific than "changing course."

Third response: This talk of a "third way" is a way to foreclose that specific option of withdrawing US forces from Iraq... right by God now.

Let's unpack this a bit further, starting with this "failure"-meme.

What does not get said when we say the war is bad because we are losing? Or not winning?

(1) What goes unsaid is that the United States of America is a nation that has reserved to itself the right to invade other countries.

(2) What goes unsaid is that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law; and the reason the Democrats endorsed it was that they had already violated the same laws when they endorsed Bill Clinton's military actions against Yugoslavia. My own Congressman unabashedly told me this in front of witnesses.

(3) What goes unsaid is that the war is immoral (Is this more important than "failure"?).

(4) What goes unsaid is that our troops are killing more civilians than combatants.

(5) What goes unsaid is that Iraqis have a right to attack foreign invaders, just as we would claim that same right for ourselves. (And I say that as someone who has had two sons deployed there.) The Iraqis believe this, too; a majority approves of attacks against American soldiers.

(6) And what goes unsaid is that the Democratic Party was in the front ranks when the nation was stampeded to war, supported by virtually every major media outlet in the country.

What gets left unsaid when we substitute "changing course" for "bring them home now"?

(1) What goes unsaid is that the Democratic Party doesn't want to bring the troops home. They want to continue a permanent troop presence in the region. This will be part of whatever new "course" they chart. They are beholden to war profiteers and so-called defense contractors. They are beholden to the big business interests that require access to fossil energy that is not theirs. They are fully in support of maintaining the imperial rule of the US, which includes the post-Cold War redispostion of the imperial military (or esle that military would stay its ass at home) into strategic Southwest Asia.

(2) What goes unsaid is that the elected representatives of the Democratic Party -- the many who are too ill-informed and stupid to comprehend this big picture, even as they serve it -- will follow their dicks, as we say, and do anything to avoid being called the people who "backed down" in the face of "terrorists" (a male thang).

(3) What goes unsaid is that the Democratic Party is more interested in appealing to some mythical and static "center" to win elections than it is in preventing more mass death, disfigurement, and dislocation in Iraq. If there is a secular definition for "sin," this surely fits it. Ambition that literally walks over bodies... human bodies, all ages, ethnicities, nationalities, and sexes. It is also the aforementioned narcissism, symptoms listed here:

A. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
B. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
C. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
D. requires excessive admiration
E. strong sense of entitlement
F. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
G. lacks empathy
H. is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
I. arrogant affect.

(4) What goes unsaid is that the Democratic Party operatives believe, or want us to believe, that the US military presence in Iraq is preventing even worse violence than already prevails there (It is not. The US military presence there is the key catalyst for the violence. This is a tale that was trotted out for years about Vietnam, too, and it turned out to be wrong.)

(5) What goes unsaid is anything substantive about the "hydrocarbon law," which guarantees US companies access to Iraqi oil. They know what is in this law, and they intend to "stay the course" until they get it (it is a "benchmark"), but they never say it to us. Instead, they characterize this law as one that compels Iraqis to "revenue-share" among themselves. The latter is not the main sticking point for this law among the non-governing Iraqi government. The guarantee of access to US private firms is.

(6) And what goes unsaid is that a powerful foreign lobby from the State of Israel insists that the US treat Iran as an enemy, and therefore to prevent any increase in Iran's influence on the situation in Iraq. Iran is not a threat to the US, and has consistently sought better relations with the US. Iran is a more appropriate partner for any future Iraq or federal division thereof than the United States. They are neighbors. The demonized President Ahmadenijad is held up as a bogeyman, but he has no power to make foreign policy for Iran (This goes unsaid by Democrats, too.). Iran is not being demonized for its theocracy. Israel calls itself a Jewish state; and it practices Apartheid against many of its inhabitants; and it has violated more international laws with impunity than any other country in the world today (hiding behind a US veto in the UN Security Council). Pakistan was founded in the same year as Israel, as "a Muslim state" (breaking away from India), and is run by a petty military dictator, yet it is an American ally in the region. Saudi Arabia is a more closed society by far than Iran, and more repressive, yet it is seen as an American ally. Iran's crime is insistence on political independence from the US; and it would stand down its nuclear program today, if Israel gave up its nuclear weapons.

What does the Democratic Party apparatus leave unsaid when they craft a phrase-for-repetition (Rove-style) like "third way"?

(1) What it leaves unsaid is that many if not most Americans did not elect Democrats out of a wish for a "third way," but the "second way" that the Democratic Party apparatus has ruled out: Bring them home now.

(2) What it leaves unsaid is that they can -- contrary to what they would have us believe (with talk of veto-proof majorities) -- cut the funding for the war and stop it.

(3) What it leaves unsaid is that they can impeach (and won't, even though there is ample and conrete evidence to do so).

(4) What it leaves unsaid is that they could force one Constitutional crisis after another, but when the Republicans themselves threaten to do this, the Democratic Party goes to ground like prairie dogs in a twister. The very basis of what this administration has gotten away with -- aside from Democrat capitulation at every turn and the able assistance of the commercial media -- is the consolidation of Executive power.

(5) What it leaves unsaid is the apparatus of the Democratic Party is trying to marginalize those within its own party who demand an immediate end to this imperial occupation.

(6) What it leaves unsaid is that the Democratic Party background story for this "third way" is dressed-up Islamophobia and Orientalism, two species of plain imperial racism that are based on the assumption that the "advanced development of the US" is meritocratic (no account for the theft of a continent or a slave economy or imperial expansion or global financial hegemony to build up and hold together this vast entropic entity); and the "failure" in Iraq is our failure to understand how backward and primitive and venal and violent those awful Arabs (and Persians) are... so they can't possibly find their own way without our tutelage (and a Hydrocarbon Law of course).

What do all of these things together leave unsaid?

The intentional bewilderment of the population and the mystification of reality that accomplishes that bewilderment are like a plant in a garden. Ten percent of the mystification resides in the seed, in what is things-said-directly. 90 percent of the mystification resides in the composition of the soil, the analog being what remains unsaid.

What goes unsaid is that there are two parties of the dominators that play bad-cop/good-cop with all of us. One is the Ping Party, and the other is the Pong Party, and we are the ball, batted back and forth perennially. When the population just begins to become radicalized, as it is doing in the face of this criminal war that has exposed so much of the system itself, threatening to bounce off the table so to speak, the Pong Party will reach way out to the side to keep the ball in play. They will allow Matthews and Olbermann to say the things that got Donahue canned four years ago by the same network, MSNBC; and Joe Biden will come aboard as the fine Pong Party method actor he is, reflecting our frustration and our grief and our anger back to us, and make soothing noises that leave so much unsaid, and tap us back across the net.

Here are some other things that are not being said:

The average consumption lifestyle of the United States, which keeps politicians in office, is based on extortion, violence, and plunder in places we don't see, and from activities the media seldom mention. To maintain that lifestyle, which is an imperial political payoff for a quiescent home base, requires ever expanding inputs of finite resources -- many from abroad -- and the continued ability to back up financial extortion with military force where necessary. The pivotal resource that makes it possible to make all the other consumer goods, be they cars, clothes, computers, or whatever, is fossil energy. The United States, with five percent of the world's population, used 26% of the word's energy supplies. Our domestic production has been falling since 1973, even as our aggregate demand has continued to rise steeply. The United States has allowed car companies and developers to establish an economic infrastructure that depends absolutely on private automobiles. This massive fleet of around 250 million automobiles runs on oil. This oil cannot be replaced by biofuels, contrary to the bullshit being propogated to support a fresh new vote-buying-and-corporate-welfare scheme for Cargill, Monsanto, and Archer-Daniels-Midland.

Follow the logic.

The US economy cannot continue to operate as it is without guaranteeing its access to fossil fuel that comes from abroad. The establishment wants this to be our dirty little secret, and that's why we twist ourselves in knots talking about it, including deluding ourselves that we can continue our energy profligacy and ignoring the wet work that gets done to maintain control over a region as strategically vital to this end as Southwest Asia. This, of course, means that when Republicrats use coded language about "vital American security interests in the Middle East," they are really talking about maintaining secondary political control over the human beings who live on top of those energy lakes. If you accept that maintaining the American way of life is the highest priority, then you have to accept that the US has to intervene with force when necessary to get the energy supplies, and even that this force be maintained through a constant threat, i.e., a permanent US military presence in the region and support of unsavory regimes to act as our surrogates.

If you believe that people in that part of the world should have the right to decide when, where, and how to use their own resources, then you have to accept that this might result in a dramatic and painful change in the "American way of life."

It's that simple, that stark.

The powerful interests behind both the Republican and Democratic Parties know it; and the smarter members of the Congress know it, too. And they won't say it directly, because they know that raising the issue this way puts the public morally on the spot. If you want to go on this way, we have to be willing to invade countries, kill people, and support surrogates who beat down their own populations. If you are unwilling to support invasion, murder, and surrogate-despotism, then you have to accept that your way of life may be dramatically and painfully changed.

This bitter choice is concealed by shifting the premises to that old political stand-by, the external threat... the Dark Other from which we must protect ourselves.

Note, if you will, that neither Democrats nor Republicans will question the concept of a Global War on Terror, even though it is one of the most illogical and cynical constructions within living memory. Find the limits of discourse, and you will find the wall that conceals the determining-unsaid.

The war in Iraq was not merely taken up for oil. This is a simplistic idea.

It was taken up to establish permanent bases in the region; and now in 2007, the President of the United States has acknowledged this. Many of us pointed this out in 2003. The disposition of the military after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1990 was obsolete. The imperial armed forces had to be re-positioned, and the question has always (for Republicans and Democrats) been "How?" The "peace dividend" of standing down the imperial armed forces was never an option; and the Dark Other of the World Communist Conspiracy (TM) required a replacement.

Energy demand is rising worldwide and in the US, but worldwide per capita energy consumption has been falling for decades; and world production is at its final peak. Establishing control throughout Southwest then Central Asia, doesn't merely guarantee access for the US, it gives the US leverage in the new Great Game against other potential competitors (Europe, China, India).

This redispostion of the imperial armed forces also positions bases on the doorsteps of Russia and China.

This is strategic synergy... at least, in theory. In the real world, real people live in these places, and they do not see their land and homes as pieces on someone else's chessboard.

This is the "oops principle" in operation. Someone doesn't get the script.

The attack on Iraq itself, originally seen as a "cakewalk" by the game-theory academics advising the Bush administration, was also valued for its "demonstration effect." This would be the Shock and Awe that would cow anyone else who dared to defy the imperial master. The Democratic Party establishment supported this, as well. Ask yourself why the Democratic response to the war the DP supported -- now that the war has lost its original xenophobic popularity -- has been crafted as "failure."

What failed? The bases are there. Saddam Hussein is dead. There was no threat to the US. Couldn't the Democrats just as easily say, "We were wrong, and this war is immoral."?

What failed is Shock and Awe. The imperial armed forces are bogged down in an unwinnable war amidst an ever more unpredictable milieu, giving up ground in Iraq while US allies Turkey and Pakistan are thrown into political crisis and Iran -- anathema to the independence-averse US establishment -- grows in influence at the heart of this strategic region, and talks with Chinese and Russian "multipolarity" advocates.

Monetary hegemony and military power are the twin pillars of US imperial power; and the latter has been called into question in Iraq.

The US domestic economy itself is thoroughly dependent on war spending and military "research and development." With the US running record trade deficits, the Department of Defense (a purely polemical title if ever there was one) serves as a surrogate export market for US manufactured goods. And, of course, one can never underestimate the power of Pentagon pork in Congress.

This is an additional Unsaid that Democrats conceal with their excusatory blather about "changing course" now that the Iraq Adventure has turned into Friday the 13th.

So what can we do?

On the political front, we have to see politics for what it is -- power, not elections. Elections are just a piece of it.

When we relate to elections, we have to think out how we relate in ways that exercise the strengths we have against the weaknesses of the system. The disaffected left wing that has heretofore voted Democrat has now come up against an existential dilemma. We cannot not be responsible, and so we are faced with a choice.

Re-re-re-re-surrender that power to the Pong Party Democrats (and therefore the system), or actualize our latent power by calling the Democratic Party bluff. Withdraw support for Democrats (unless they have called for immediate withdrawal and pledge to de-fund the war now), then organize an extra-electoral fight against whomever gets elected in 2008. Democrat Johnson ran against war hawk Goldwater in 1964, won, then escalated the war. The Vietnam invasion and occupation was ended on a Republican's watch. Think about that.

The most basic element of that "relating" to elections is losing our fear of Republicans.

We can know what Republicans do, and what they will do, and that it will have bad consequences. But to fight the system, we need to accept these realities -- decrying them where we must -- without trans-substantiating them into perpetual fear. Evading the contingent evils of Republican power by perpetuating the power of the imperial forces they represent through self-containment is perpetuation of the systemic evils of imperial (and need I say, patriarchal) exterminism.

I know this is a very "tactical" mindset. But the people that both those parties represent most consistently are consciously and aggressively at war against humanity. We didn't choose a war (against imperial exterminism); but we are in it. They made this war, not just in Iraq, but against the majority of the world and our very biosphere, and the stakes have never been higher. Our failure to recognize this is the first failure that then leads to the others... like clinging to the pantlegs of the Democratic Party.

There are no "ways out" for humanity that are not through a lot of bad consequences. That's just the circumstance we have been born into. Evading them reflexively is a recipe for inaction; and this is a crime of omission against future generations.

If we want to exercise real popular power in the US, it doesn't get done by trying to build toy Parties, by organizing more mass actions at huge expense that can be dutifully ignored by media and exploited by a few slick Democrats, or by continuing the slow hemorrhage of the lesser evil in 2008. It happens by showing our teeth to those who are in range of those teeth: Democrats. Any Democrat who fails to (1) call for impeachment, (2) calls for an immediate withdrawal of all forces from Iraq, and (3) refuses to vote for another dime in support of the war, has to be informed right now that we will show up at the polls in 2008, and we will leave their line on the ballot blank, and hold press conferences to that effect.

That is our choice. Exercise our power and be prepared to follow through extra-electorally (this means taking disruptive actions against the system when it is necessary, and even threatening general stability), or surrender that power once again to the Pong Party and leave our grandchildren to ask why our courage failed.

Comments

[Mercedes]

Now all we need is for the TRUTH of the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law to be told by the Main Stream Media--that Iraq will only share the 20% of proven OIL reserves amongst themselves (Sunni and Shi'ite only; the Kurds have already made their own Hydrocarbon Laws and are now in charge of their own OIL reserves; as they have the right to be--good for them!). The other 80% of the Iraq OIL is going to be practically given away to the major global OIL companies (Exxon-Mobil, British Petroleum, Shell and Chevron the main players) by way of Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) that will allow those companies to pump the Iraqi OIL (that is just under the ground--no need for expensive deep-drilling equipment) for the next 25 years--NO MATTER WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT! The Agreements also state that the OIL companies will NOT have to hire Iraqi workers, due to threats of sabotage; and that the OIL companies will get a break on the taxes they will have to pay Iraq on the profits they make. What a WIN-WIN situation this will be for the haves and the have mores! This is Bush's payback to his OIL buddies and rich corporate owners that supported his fraudulent wins for the presidency. He promised them the Iraqi OIL and now he wants to start delivering. (What do you think all those US Energy policy meetings behind closed doors in Spring 2001 were all about? High level OIL corporate shills--buddies of both Bush and Cheney were there; detailed maps showing where all the OIL reserves were in Iraq; and diverse plans to come up with an excuse of how to get into Iraq to get their OIL--that's why the Bush/Cheney administration did not want the public to know what was going on in those meetings!)

This is Bush's ultimate goal; but I pray that the Democrats get their act together and STOP it before it's too late!

[panchovilla]

Thank you, Stan! Keep it up.

[Dap]

Dear Stan,

Great essay/post, you knocked that one out of the park.

Without question you have the Democrats pegged to a tee. You covered the ground well and concisely.

You broke it down to simple truth in fact. Agape.

[JoDeeVa]

Excellent, Stan..
Thought-provoking for all who would seek to view the world condition, our place in it and why we do what we do as a nation. Wake-up to the reality that the way you choose to live your lives impacts and is impacted by geo-politics.

People did not blink an eye, in the aftermath of 911, when told to consume, strengthen the economy in the face of the enemy. The "sale-of-the-century" americans fell for..lock, stock and gas-guzzling SUVs. A clever ploy to distract..pride in pumping up the economy, while the megalomaniacal neo-cons, salivating at the thought of all that foreign oil $$, pondered the plunder of "over there" to pump up our oil reserves, along with the economy! The proletarian masses just followed like lemmings off the precipice into the abyss of the hysteria to get "them." (and their oil) Not that the SUV guzzlers ever made that leap..all they had to do was go to the station, pump the gas! No, they did it for national pride and that oft bandied about "bringing democracy to the world"..let's call that one by it's rightful "manifest destiny!"..or, just plain ole imperialism.

People get their milk from the store, their gas from the pump. Most don't even consider the source or resources required to get those commodoties to market. When we are this dependent to live our lives, we are dependent on those who will make it so.
To cast votes that will ensure we maintain that status-quo, means taking the path of least resistance by accepting capitulations of the democrats, guised in their rhetoric; those busily living their lives ignore the complete ineffectiveness/ inaction of those elected in 2006 to end this Iraqi occupation. It's just the democrats' turn to take power and all will be well with their world.

People..BLINK THIS TIME!! Educate yourselves! Some resources: Stan's books; The War on Freedom/Nafeez Ahmed; Derrick Jensen's books; The 100-Mile Diet.
http://www.insurgentamerican.net/

[dryfactoidobotanoid]

you are entirely correct, but your points will not be broadcast, because about half the population are like children who watch Sesame Street -- they don't pay attention when something confuses them (as research has shown).

anything off the "we're the good guys" script, and they turn the channel. they don't want to think about confusing issues like "what is right for America, what is good for America," they just want their emotional needs fulfilled, for safety and success and self-love.

it's a diabolical marriage between narcissistic sociopathic Washington Swamp culture and Madison Avenue hucksterism expertise, as they lob their sticky messages to Sesame Street America.

the anti-war movement needs marketing experts -- not like the well-meaning sophisticates in Adbusters magazine, but people who can carve out simple, unconfusing, unforgettable messages to spread critical-thinking like an epidemic.

critical-thinking can be made into a kind of game, and interactive blogs might be the place to start ...

[LeoMarvin]

"that fascist puke-maggot, Lou Dobbs"

Stan,

What's your position on civility in public discourse? That's not meant to be sarcastic. The question is sincere.

STAN: Sometimes, invective is appropriate. During the commission of terrible crimes, civility is often inappropriate.

[oldpotsmuggler]

I must say that I'm not aware of any other way to describe Lou Dobbs.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Stan:

It"s interesting to me that you advocate organizing but don"t advocate organizing for the one goal that can create the changes that you consider to be critical. It takes approximately the same level of popular support to create The Second American Constitutional Convention as it does to actually get the attention of one or both of the national parties, but a constitutional convention can be used to restructure government immediately, and in any and every way imaginable, while working within the current system has no potential to create the same amount of change as quickly.

If politicians, under the weight of public compulsion, can be trusted to give us the government we want by voting directly for it (and, often, against their own self interest), is it reasonable to say that the same level of public activism will not result in our being able to create the constitutional convention of our own design? This is democracy at work in a much more pure form than any other way that we can collectivize of political efforts. Some, I know, fear the outcome of harnessing this much sheer social/political power. But the outcome, if we have structured our convention correctly, would have to reflect the collective will of the population, making the final document, whatever it might consist of, per se correct. If we can"t trust ourselves to do a constitutional convention correctly, how can we trust ourselves to handle any real political power well?

The challenge, as in all of the ways that we might approach "revolutionary" societal change, comes down to how to get the organizing done. I, being a convicted Oldpotsmuggler, am going to have problems accomplishing this that most anyone else would not. However, having been bitten by "THE REVOLUTION" bug in the sixties, and having spent the ensuing forty years pondering the matter, the conclusion is inescapable that we are facing challenges for which appropriate answers can be found only in The Second American Constitutional Convention.

[Think82]

This is way over the top. You make Democrats out to be power-hungry warmongers if they voted to authorize the use of force six months before Bush invaded WHILE inspectors were in the country. I know you are angry, and we need to withdraw from iraq immediately, but a withdrawal that is not careful and planned will cause huge ethnic cleansing. And Biden's plan IS the best option on the table at this point, and he is an expert on foreign affais... why NOT have him educate the public if he is willing to do so. This view of the political system goes past healthy cynicism and borders on mass conspiracy theory. You're not one of those people who believe 9/11 was staged, are you?

[oolie]

Stan, Have you ever spent any time in Arabia or are you just quoting other insta-pundits?

[BufoAmericanus]

"This is strategic synergy... at least, in theory. In the real world, real people live in these places, and they do not see their land and homes as pieces on someone Else's chessboard."

I think that people in urban areas do, Stan. It has something to do with the housing market. People who grow-up here either learn how to do just that, and get in on the property game somehow (which generally means parasitizing good neighborhoods with bad rental properties), or you get evicted to living in the poor part of the city, where there is no ownership potential.
You could try going into something that mega corps do, like a market or a soda shop or something... But you know that fighting them in America means fighting the law, eventually, and the law will win, and the corp will win, and you will learn your lesson and your place.

Stan, we could really use an urban movement. Our communities have been diced along every line, from roads and races, to traffic funneling to "De-funding" public schools and eminent domain... It's what goes unsaid:

The Democrats have sold us down the river ever since Reagan. We could sure use a guy like yourself to say the things that we can't seem to articulate or understand.

Thank you for another fantastic read.

[762X39mm]

Thanks Stan. Everybody reading this should get a copy of FULL SPECTRUM DISORDER, by Stan Goff--- ASAP.

I am In the middle of reading his, Energy War, right now (lulu press).

[JWakkaJane]

(2) [...] the elected representatives of the Democratic Party [...] follow their dicks, as we say, and do anything to avoid being called the people who "backed down" in the face of "terrorists" (a male thang).

I think even this 'excuse' is a 'handy' and flattering superficial diversion from the underlying motivation that more believably explains such baffling 'seeming' ineffectuality. This 'boys will be boys' bullshit obscures and keeps unspoken the rather un-macho covetousness motivating and truly defining these in-"security" issues. Which you're right on about.

Remember the insistent cry from the Whitehouse immediately after 9-11 'they are attacking our "FREEDOM"? What cockamamie, but containing that key twisted filament of truth that creates potent Bullshit.

And yeah, pious separatism is doom.
It continually amazes me that I am continually amazed at what humans -all humans- are capable of.

[ag7]

Great Essay Stan,

Phenomenal and articulate presentation of our current state of affairs. A concise Chomskyesqe indictment of the current dilemma.

that said, I tend to agree with Billzbubb about what we can do now. Our current predicament seems to be paradoxical in case of national presidential elections and that if we (progressive non-imperialist non-hypocritical people who know some of The Truth) simply withhold our votes for Democratic candidate who is merely the left wing of The War Party, we could end up with another 2000 election, where those who deferred their votes from the Democratic candidate helped tip the balance(which does not excuse the massively fraudulent and undemocratic proceedings that followed).

It's maddening to say the least that we are stuck voting for the lesser evil but I don't see how there's any way around it without opening up the possibility of "electing" another Republican monster.

How do we avoid such a calamity?

[Annisee]

There's a lot to take in there, but it's well worth several reads.

"There are no "ways out" for humanity that are not through a lot of bad consequences. That's just the circumstance we have been born into. Evading them reflexively is a recipe for inaction; and this is a crime of omission against future generations."

We should all have that as a tattoo on our forearms to be read once a day, every day.

Thanks, Mr. Goff.

[bethinCary]

Lobbyists seem to have the biggest influence on thoses in politics.
If this factor were eliminated-it would go a long way to putting our country back on track.

As for some of the proposed bills-Sen. Obama has put forth legislation to make lobbying more transparent.
I would go a step further.
Obviously lawmakers are not willing to give up lobby $$$.
I would put ALL lobby money into one central bank account and divide it up evenly between both parties to disperse among themselves for campaigns.
I would set caps on the $$ sectors from a given industry can give. Once that cap is met-no more contributions can be taken by them-or anyone else in the same industry.
It would be illegal for lobbyist to write legislation, instead an independent panel would hear lobbyists requests-another panel would be set up to argue the cons, to look out for unions and workers, another to look out for environment, another to do cost-analysis and other stats.
Together this agency would work with lobbyists to and write the legislation.
there should be points covered in this group:
environment, safety, cost to consumers,rights of workers.
It's not perfect. But perhaps other readers would have suggestions on how to wrestle the lobby power away to make better for the country and less corrupt.