Latest lame Obama excuse: “Geithner blew me off”
Obama says he feared coup in 2008 so couldn’t prosecute Bush war crimes
Obama blames others for problems, remains curiously and endlessly passive, as if to say, golly he’d sure like to do something but just can’t. This disguises his complicity in all of it.
“I am a tail dragger
I wipe out my track
When I get what I want
I don’t come sneaking back.”
These claims about fear of a “coup” are complete and utter crap in my opinion. The ruling class is hardly in need of a “coup” against itself.
I agree. It’s a smokescreen, a red herring, to divert from Obama’s goal, which was to not prosecute Bush for war crimes.
Can we really expect the elite to be cruel to the elite, unless of course, one bunch of elite are really screwing the othe bunch of elite, then their will be a fight back. Where do the people come in on this game. It is an illusion that politics now have anything to do with the people. You play into their hands by continuingly calling for a new leader with better policies. A leader who will say loud and clear, Please capitalism, don’t make so much money and gave a little more to the people. http://draft.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3186608697830229050#editor/target=post;postID=3366725497305417089
So I should point out nothing and simply wait for the Glorious Uprising of the People to arise out of nowhere and smite the capitalists, then?
History shows that leaders of revolution and major uprisings generally are upper middle and above, often upper class.
Abraham Lincoln: I wanted to use the Army to win the war, but McClellan blew me off.
Harry Truman: I wanted to avoid getting bogged down in a war in mainland China, but MacArthur blew me off.
Ronald Reagan: I wanted to cut taxes, but the IRS blew me off and kept collecting taxes at the old rates.
Slight sarcasm there, however your statement may be true, but what happened yesterday is no guarantee that it will happen tomorrow. Though I do believe that waiting for the “Glorious Uprising of the People” will have just about as much success as expecting a moral capitalism to come to the rescue of the people. Or working for a great all seeing, all powerful leader to solve our problems with his ingenious plans, with the blessing of the billionaires of course. You either accept that the system is fine, it just needs a little adjusting here and there and we will all be happy across the globe, or you believe that the system is an unjust system that works for the few at the expense of the many and as such has to be completely removed to the dustbin of history. I personally am of the later grouping and I do believe we are growing, and it is to that end I work.
But regardless of the system there will be leaders, natural or otherwise. Also, my comments on Obama were meant to be mild rabble-rousing not implying a new Improved leader (in the same mold) would be better.
Not necessarily so, that point is debatable I’m sure you have been involved in human groupings where there was no LEADER. On a very small scale there organisations such as chess clubs etc. where people come together to organise what they want to do but don’t have a leader. it functions well if the people involved want a chess club but will collapse if there is not enough interest. A chess club is not a nation, but the existence of nations is also debatable. There are a myriad of computations for human activity that don’t necessary involve a leader. Is it beyond our imagination to create a society based around that principle. As I have said before, the next revolution will have to be a revolution of consciousness, we have to rethink the way we interact, perhaps based on mutual aid instead of profit and competition.
Toffler postulated in the late 90s that the era of the nation-state was coming to an end. It would be torn apart, he said, by the dual forces of globalization and localization. He appears to have been right, as the nation-state struggles to remain relevant, grasps for power, and sells its favors to the highest bidder.
After the free-trade boom, the national economy has become an illusion. We have no jobs, not because our national economy needs a boost, but because we are competing with workers who make $2 a day. The same economic theory that makes cheap Chinese goods available to us also depresses both wages and job availability. That was foreseeable, even unavoidable, but we drank the kool-aid.
What remains in the absence of the national economy are two other economies that are only marginally related: the global economy, and the local economy. The global economy wants us to believe that the local economy cannot exist without it. That’s crap. Local economies have existed for millenia, and always will.
I’m not so sure we need a Glorious Uprising – we just need to quit showing up to get mugged.