The Angry Left Needs Hugs and Kisses
Thursday 29 July 2010
by: Jules Siegel, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
(Image: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: Tony Eccles, david_cory)
The angry left is angry with Barack Obama. It's lying on the floor kicking and screaming and holding its breath. Goodness is not being accomplished. Injustice continues sort of unabated. Bad people are doing bad things. This is obviously all the president's fault. I wish. The angry left presumes that the president is in full control of the government, when he's obviously not. Even George W. Bush learned that and he was a Republican.
Obama won the election. Lincoln won the Civil War. But the South won the peace because the North was unable to consolidate its victory. Reconstruction was a failure. Yes, slavery was gone, but the rest of the Jim Crow way of life remained, and in some ways got worse. The red states are an almost perfect match for the slave states and territories. The government and media are infested with unreconstructed rebels who faithfully represent the interests of their corporate masters. The rats haven't abandoned ship. To the contrary they are mutating so desperately they will soon have fangs like tigers.
All government serves the interests of the owning class to the detriment of the people. Revolutions occasionally occur and just plain folks soon become the new weaponized ruling class. All governments use repression, torture, injustice as a means of maintaining power. A reporter asked former Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari why he made a certain annoying policy decision. "Because you govern by governing," he answered.
The United States has gone off the deep end and created a state of permanent war in order to increase the wealth of the ruling class. It isn't something that can be corrected easily.
Imagine that you are a businessman instead of a social activist. You discover that key employees have abused your trust and run the ship on the rocks behind your back, ruined your credit, stolen your trade secrets, changed the locks and passwords. They are so deeply embedded in your infrastructure that some of your own board is in on the scam, and others are so deluded that they think you're a bit daft. The stockholders are being enriched through some kind of Ponzi scheme, so they don't want to know what's going on as long as those dividends keep on trucking.
Now, let us suppose that your employees are armed and dangerous and have a lot more firepower than you do. Do your criminal employees simply hand over the new passwords on being notified that the jig's up? What if the only way you can get them out is with flamethrowers, thereby destroying whatever's left?
The United States is a plutocracy. This is frankly acknowledged by the business sector, as in the Citibank report on plutonomy.
In "The Rich and the Super-Rich," (New York: Lyle Stuart, 1968), Ferdinand Lundberg argued very convincingly that that one-half of one percent of the United States population then owned or controlled 95 percent of its assets. Since then, things have gotten much worse. The more charitable - but grotesquely skewed - benchmarks conceal the real ratio by omitting control of capital and only considering income (totally fake figures from known tax evaders) and directly owned assets. The United States government is their administrative agency. The president is CEO. Although he has a big role in shaping the agenda, he ultimately carries out the orders of this inner ring of power. How could it be any other way?
Now this plutocracy selects a new business manager to replace a total frat boy goon ball with the reverse Midas touch. The new business manager attempts to steer the brand away from a generalized economic and social Kristallnacht. He does not immediately reform the security sector because they have guns (read that in the broadest sense of weapons while repeating after me "JFK, RFK, MLK") and they do not especially want to be reformed by outsiders, thank you. Despite this, he does make significant progress in other areas.
"This is harder than it looks," Van Jones (who resigned from the White House after being linked with 9/11 doubts) told Netroots Nation.
"President Obama volunteered to be the captain of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg," Jones reminded his progressive audience. He might have also pointed out that the Titanic sank because the owners changed the safety specifications of the steel and rivets in order to make the ship go faster. That's exactly what's going on now.
Whether you are passenger or crew, you better hope it gets fixed, because they also reduced the recommended number of lifeboats (chilling fact, but true in both the Titanic and the ship of state). Democrats want to lay on more lifeboats by stripping some of the materials from the lounges. Republicans are blocking that because they think that the worse it gets, the better for them. What?
I'm not disappointed in President Obama in terms of what he's accomplished, but in his utter lack of political good sense in allowing Rahm Emanuel to purge Howard Dean and then to insult the liberals who worked so hard and contributed so much money to assure the 2008 victory.
Although I'm known as a writer, most of my income comes from graphic design, giving me the freedom to write whatever I please instead of whatever some publisher pleases. I once had a client in a corner. I set a price that made the color drain from his face. I was the only one who could deliver the job. He said, "Jeez, if you're going to fuck me, could you at least give me a kiss first." I said, "The kiss is that I am not going to double it because you are being insolent. Just make out the check." And I laughed. And he laughed, too. He also increased his fortune considerably as a result of my work, so I'm sure he laughed all the way to the bank, too.
President Obama needs to hand out some real kisses between now and November. Addressing the Netroots Nation is not enough. He won't get rid of Emanuel (who is surely too useful in crucial ways), but he can rehabilitate Dean and use his executive powers to make highly visible moves that will re-energize the liberals. I do not recommend total fasting while praying for that. Let's just hope he orders Timothy Geithner to endorse Consumer Protection Agency nominee Elizabeth Warren enthusiastically with a big smile and a hug so hearty it will make his special other jealous. The president can then do whatever is necessary to make sure she's immediately dispatching highly visible orders smiting those who would do evil to consumers. If a recess appointment enrages the angry right, so much the better. They aren't going to vote for Democrats, are they?
I'm not angry, so I won't need any kisses from the president, which will surely be in very short supply. But I've always been a sucker for blonds, so if Warren is going to be handing out any kisses, you can be sure that I will be first in line.
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
We don't need a glad hand
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 19:43 β Anonymous (not verified)We don't need a glad hand from this empty suit. We need a credible challenge to him in 2012.
An angry progressive
Far out, man.
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 19:51 β radline9 (not verified)Far out, man.
Obama is nothing more than
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 19:59 β Anonymous (not verified)Obama is nothing more than the "Manchurian Candidate" of the corporate and banking interests. Progressives have been had!
What a tacky, tacky message
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 20:05 β Liced-christ (not verified)What a tacky, tacky message in this piece.
The sinking ship he inherited was also a fundamentalist Christian one and he's still funding abstinence only "sex education." His first middle fingered gesture to the folks that cried and screamed over his victory that evening was his left wing base. In gratitude, eager to show his appreciation, was the unbelievable choice of Rick Warren to swear this quickly turned as$hole President. He had any number of wonderful, tolerant, open-hearted. liberal ministers who would have relished the opportunity to swear him in - not merely as an act of religion, but as a major political statement to the still stinking political corpse of George W. Bush. But, alas, no; with absolute freedom to name his own man or woman to swear him in, Obama went with a right wing, arrogant, anti-gay, misogynist pig - Rick Warren.
Then there is GITMO.
And the abuse of women's reproductive rights under his rule.
There are the two centrist/right judges he's put on the Supreme Court.
Let me count the ways this President has shone a shiny middle finger to the Left.
That stinking health plan and the deliberate exclusion of all those physicians that were arrested for simply holding SINGLE PAYER SIGNS and wanting to be included in Baucus' committee debate.
And DADT. Obama commanded his attorneys to use bestiality arguments in court against an eternally battered gay community. Isn't that f@cking nice?
I could go on, the four f(cking wars, the Afghanistan debacle, which is going to make Iraq look not merely justified because he accepted the a priori world view of Bush, but like a picnic.
Obama is a war mongering, neo-conservative as)hole from the right side of things.
What a sh#t of an article, you clever ba*tard.
The bitter truth: Obama is no liberal, no left winger, suppressed by Reid and Emmanuel and Feinstein. He's trained and manufactured by hardcore neoliberals.
Obama has to deal with
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 20:23 β mike munk (not verified)Obama has to deal with Congressional dems on domestic policy, but he can call the shots on foreign policy as Bush did.
Much of our anger is about that
Welcome! Welcome, ladies and
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 20:40 β Anonymous (not verified)Welcome! Welcome, ladies and gentleman,
to the first annual Realist Wise-Ass Awards
gala. And the winner is .... suspense ... suspense.
..NOT! ... the winner is Jules Siegel !!!
(Jules):" Thanks for the bronze thingy, it's okay,
I'm not angry, look, I work on contract to Disney,
one full color poster deal for the "Lion Crook"
nets me plenty so I'm not angry, man, no I'm not angry at all ... suckers!"
I'm not angry that he hasn't
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 20:59 β Cliff (not verified)I'm not angry that he hasn't succeeded but that he hasn't even tried. He accepted Bush's defense secretary, a man whose only qualification for office is his loyalty to the Bush dynasty. He caved on health reform before the first words were out of his mouth. Most recently, he took the word of the right that one of his own people is a bad 'un, without even asking her.
Siegel is a shill for the
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 21:02 β David (not verified)Siegel is a shill for the oligarchy. Obama is a shill for the corporate elite, militarists, bankers, oil companies, etc. This article is propaganda, and does not belong on a progressive website.
B.T.W. if T.O. is going to
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 21:06 β Anonymous (not verified)B.T.W. if T.O. is going to just be a
peanut gallery for the plutocracy with
Jules Siegel "practical reality" shows brandished
above the virtual fold, well then hell's bells,
maybe T.O. should accept the offer made
by murdoch in the W.S.J. to buy T.O. and
move its operations to a back room of
"The Australian".
Siegel--you've set up a
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 21:35 β urdog (not verified)Siegel--you've set up a straw leftist. The leftists I know are certainly angry, but they aren't lying on the floor kicking and screaming. And they certainly aren't holding their breath. They are organizing as best they can outside and inside the two party duopoly. We don't count on Obama for anything. I didn't count on Obama even though I voted for him. More interesting: why didn't you tell us what you will do if Elizabeth Warren is passed over?
Of course you're not angry,
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 21:43 β Uncle Ernie (not verified)Of course you're not angry, you're a fascist!
Oh, wow, like these
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 21:47 β Anonymous (not verified)Oh, wow, like these responses weren't predictable . . .
Many of the commenters on
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 21:51 β radline9 (not verified)Many of the commenters on this article have a misperception of what the truth is. The truth cannot be pigenholed into one website or or one article written by a person. Each person has his own truth. I liked the article because I defend and respect our president even though he is not ending the wars which is in fact the most important thing to me. So who thinks the republicans are going to end the wars, if they get in? IN FACT the president doesn't have the power to end the wars. The power remains in the hands of the ruling elite. The idea of a commander in chief is not plausible unless he agrees with the ruling elite.
Not a very clever straw man.
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 21:52 β Anonymous (not verified)Not a very clever straw man. I'm at least as angry at weak-kneed Democrats in the house and senate.
But the key thing is, Obama won largely because a lot of people who usually don't vote actually came out to support him. Why? The promise of Medicare for all and an end to our wars in the Middle East. Neither of these things has happened. Our health insurance rates are still going up and our soldiers are still dying overseas for no good reason.
So guess who's going to sit at home during the next election?
Thank you Cliff! The left
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 21:53 β billy bob (not verified)Thank you Cliff!
The left isn't angry because our elected officials can't fix everything.
The left is angry because our elected officials WON'T fix anything.
The left is angry because the elected right-wing is bold and fearless, whereas the elected left and squishy middle are spineless and unwilling to fight for anything.
The REAL irony here is that if the left actually grew a pair, you'd find many of the moron teabaggers joining the bandwagon.
Most of them have only one conviction, and that is that they respect politicians whom they think are tough and disrespect those whom they don't. That's why they use all the militaristic imagery. The right knows how to push their buttons. The left could easily win them over as well. Instead, through spinelessness is actually reinforcing the right-wing's manipulations.
Many in the left elected President Obama because we thought he actually understood this fact.
Apparently, he doesn't.
This has got to be the most
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 22:01 β Michael (not verified)This has got to be the most pathetic clap trap Truthout has ever put up! What a freaking insult!
Jules, do you think we are all so stupid that we can't see what has really happened here? If anybody still believes that Obama secretly wants to do the "right thing", they are either woefully ignorant or hopelessly simpleminded. Which are you?
Obama is a shill, a plant a co-conspirator and there is nothing he is going to do to set this ship's course right. Just look at his cabinate for god's sake! His "board of directors" were picked by him!!
A coup has occurred and the only way out, short of revolution (which may in fact be necessary) will be to vote him out and write in a better candidate. He fooled us all once, shame on him. He's not going to fool me again.
And Jules, stick to graphic design, would ya?
"Support Truthout's work
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 22:02 β Anonymous (not verified)"Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!"
why in the world would I want to support the work of shilling for the plutocracy?
Oh, I'm just so ANGRY! Obama
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 22:05 β Anonymous (not verified)Oh, I'm just so ANGRY!
Obama hasn't done everything I've wanted!
The corporations and the rich and religion didn't vanish in a puff of smoke when he was inaugurated!
The world didn't suddenly become Utopia!
He actually has to deal with Congress and vested power interests instead of just doing all the things I want done!
I've got a long list of gripes here against Obama . . . and I'm simply ignoring anything good he does or how much better than the Republicans he is or how he compares to his predecessors!
Mind you, I'm not interested in REALISM only in being ANGRY!
Say, won't it be great when my useless bellyaching and support for absolutely unelectable Third Party Candidates helps bring the Republicans back to power!
Won't we all be so happy then?
Never mind: I'm just so ANGRY!
The responses to this
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 22:12 β Anonymous (not verified)The responses to this article seem to prove one of the contentions of the Right: Elements of the Left really did believe that Obama was some kind of Messiah.
Welcome to the real world, folks.
I suggest y'all cultivate a sense of humor. Constant anger will shorten your lives.
I don't need hugs and kisses
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 22:16 β Straight-Ahead (not verified)I don't need hugs and kisses from Obama. I need an alternative. On the most important issues facing the country, Obama has proven to be just another Reagan Republican. I for one feel like he has been pissing in my face for a year and a half.
He has failed to bring the war against Iraq to an end, continuing the Bush-Cheney crime against humanity.
He has done nothing to bring to justice the sociopaths, human and corporate, who wrecked the economy of the country with Reaganomics -- an accumulation of interlocking and mutually supporting scams that robbed millions and enriched a small few.
He has done nothing to cause the release of the many "detainees" in the hell-hole of Guantanamo who were put there based on no credible evidence of any involvement in attacks against against the US.
He foisted off on the people who elected him a ridiculous health reform bill written by and for the health insurance industry, after first holding a Cheneyesque secret meeting with those companies and sending out a smirking Rahm Emanuel to tell us smugly that single-payer was off the table (in spite of SP's support from ~60% of the people). He allowed the Repugnicans to define the public image of health-care reform until it almost lost public support and failed.
He has resumed the Bush-Cheney rabid attacks against Iran for maintaining a Uranium-enrichment program, in spite of the National Intelligence estimate (Dec 2007?) that said Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons development several years earlier and would t be unable to re-start with less than several years effort.
Now the Democrats are running scared and coming around hat in hand, looking for money and work in the upcoming elections, and all they can offer us is "We're not as bad as the Republicans." Can someone explain to me just how the Dems are any different from the fascist Repugs?
Obama would have gotten a
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 22:30 β MOTAMANX (not verified)Obama would have gotten a lot mode done already if he had had Cheney investigated and censured. Instead he preferred to "look forward"--which is a facile way of saying he won't prosecute capital crimes, thereby making himself complicit and intrinsically weak.
Whoever advised him to do this should not be his advisor.
I'm shocked at peoples
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 22:38 β Betty Dodson (not verified)I'm shocked at peoples responses to this article. As I was reading it I was aware that my anger toward Obama was softening with Siegal's perspective. The man did sign on to be the captain of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg, And the kicker was as Jules said, "He does not immediately reform the security sector because they have guns (read that in the broadest sense of weapons while repeating after me "JFK, RFK, MLK") and they do not especially want to be reformed by outsiders, thank you. Despite this, he does make significant progress in other areas."
So I'm one liberal who is cooling her heels with a bigger picture of politics, money and power. I think we are going to have to outsmart the plutocracy when we overwhelm them by moving into a new area of being an informed electorate thanks to the Internet.
I thank Jules for putting all of this into perspective and cooling my anger that benefited no one, least of all me.
Well, Keep ME from any more
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 22:49 β Vic Anderson (not verified)Well, Keep ME from any more of Obummer's ghastly hugs and Bush-Hog lipstick-ups!
All those who support or
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 22:56 β Liced-christ (not verified)All those who support or tolerate Obama believe he is different than how he has legislated thus far. "Beauty Fades, Dumb is Forever."
He is a slimy, creepy mega-
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 23:02 β Anonymous (not verified)He is a slimy, creepy mega- warmonger!
He needs to go, along with the numerous non progressive, corporate friendly right wing Dems!
The lesser of two evils is
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 23:05 β Bad Mojo (not verified)The lesser of two evils is still evil. Obama has not done a single positive thing since he took office; at best, he has been "less bad" than his predecessor, and not always.
A response to
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 23:16 β saneleft (not verified)A response to "Liced-christ":
You mention Rick Warren, as if that's some big deal, but then ignore Obama's historic speech in Cairo. Your take here seems about as nuanced as that of those who try to associate Obama with a few statements, taken out of context, made by Jeremiah Wright.
As for Guantanamo, it was Congress that denied the funding necessary for the closure. It's clear that if Obama could have his way, it would be closed.
Obama gets no credit from you for having appointed two women to SCOTUS. You characterize them only as "center-right," even before they have track records. I say wait and see. Whatever their ideological stance turns out to be over time will no doubt be a thousand times better than that of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.
The health care plan is not simply, as the Right would have it, "Obamacare"; but you seem to buy into that. It's what came out of the sausage grinder of the legislative branch. You seem intent on ignoring the good provisions within it--and the fact that the Republicans would never have done anywhere near this much. If it's simply some kind of "gift" to the insurance industry, as the Far Left caricatures it, why didn't the Republicans support it?
And you of course avoid mentioning all the positive, progressive things Obama has done, like:
* reversing the "global gag" rule
* funding stem cell research
* signing the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act
* covering an additional 4 million children who lacked health insurance
* forcing BP to set aside $20 billion for the Gulf cleanup (while the Republicans were apologizing to BP!! there's your difference . . .)
Just a few examples of some things that should be mentioned in a balanced portrait. Obama deserves a fair bit of credit. In fact, realistically speaking, I think he's the best and most progressive president we've had since FDR (by no means a "perfect" guy either). It's easy to criticize, hard to get things done.
Lastly, your "cute" foul language brings discourse here down to the level of a tea party.
screw this article. could
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 23:33 β are jay (not verified)screw this article. could anyone point me to a better news site? truthout has been a let-down lately.
concerning comment: "What a
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 23:35 β Anonymous (not verified)concerning comment: "What a tacky, tacky message"
Wow ! That was perfectly communicated ! I agree with every word.
Do a search on Google:
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 23:54 β Anonymous (not verified)Do a search on Google: gallup ideological groups. There's the real problem. If Obama seems overly conservative to you, you need look no further for an explanation.
The only lesson you will teach Democrats by sitting out on the next couple of elections is this: ignore the liberals and they will eventually go away.
The tone of this article has
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 00:04 β Anonymous (not verified)The tone of this article has "asshole" written all over it.
To 23:16 Are you really that
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 00:52 β Liced-christ (not verified)To 23:16
Are you really that uninformed about the tone of my post to not realize that I could never succumb to any right wing talk, esp. that offered by the Tea Party?
I mentioned specifically that SINGLE PAYER PEOPLE were omitted from the debate -- so how I could possibly sympathize with the Tea Party viewpoint, not just on health care, but on ANYTHING?!
As for the rest of your post, like the Black Community of the fifties and sixties that tried to talk Martin Luther King out of his outrage and urge to protest, because the more wealthy group in the Black Community were finally being thrown some BONES by the U.S. government, you, similarly, have become adept at swallowing those carefully tossed bones of Obama the Master Manipulator; and by smilingly ingesting those meager watch it accomplish exactly THE effect it's had on you and other centrists, quenching all the real outrage that should be spilling out of YOU from head to toe. But, clearly you are not MLK material, nor are you a real progressive. You're an Obama apologist, standing by that good for nothing, Market Solutions Strategist who really a member of the Republican Party; certainly is nothing resembling a liberal Democrat.
I "like" your approach. Swallow the bait and be happy. Stop complaining. It's all to big for Obama, who crafted his health care solutions behind closed doors with CEO's from Blue Cross, Blue Shield, CIGNA and the others. You disgust me with you excuses.
And as for your absolutely incredible comment about the Rick Warren issue, you simply lack perspective about what happened the eight years previous under the Bush regime with the Christian fascists gaining the upper and lower hands of all forms of the U.S. government (including the Pentagon, FBI and CIA, because Bush, UNLIKE OBAMA, HAD the f@cking balls to replace all those crucial positions with his fascist-Bushite buddies).
Obama is conservative, neoliberal, shit, my friend, and you've grown accustomed to the smell.You may actually like it, at this point, based on your superficial, but well written, post.
To 00:04 You've grasped the
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 00:58 β Liced-christ (not verified)To 00:04 You've grasped the tone precisely. This author is another well paid rat of the system and offers us more hope for change we can believe in.
The writer is an ass.
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 01:40 β anonymous (not verified)The writer is an ass.
As my grandfather might say:
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 01:44 β Anonymous (not verified)As my grandfather might say: Horseshit!
nice try
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 01:51 β Anonymous (not verified)nice try
Less than one percent of the
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 02:04 β Steve Moyer (not verified)Less than one percent of the people control over 95 percent of the assets.
Money is the tyranny of our lives. Why do we tolerate it? Anger is insufficient to correct this situation. We need to invent a new economic system, one that frees us from the "tyranny of money."
Expediency is the name of
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 02:19 β sliderossian (not verified)Expediency is the name of the game in the Obama administration. Why change a good thing?
The loyalty to the people thing is passe, old hat, button-up shoes.
Like Deep Throat said, follow the money.
Most of these comments
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 02:43 β Anonymous (not verified)Most of these comments simply prove the author's point.
Really, it's amusing (but terrifying) to imagine a world with all these clueless armchair QBs in charge.
I'm not angry, I'm
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 02:52 β inL.A (not verified)I'm not angry, I'm pissed!
The sycophants are fine with the way Barack Obama has governed. It's fawning all over a president who's kept none of the promises he made. No change has been accomplished, injustices continue, corporations continue to rain havoc down on the people, bush policies are still in place and being expanded on under this president as the cheerleaders cheer his greatness. All hail the mighty Barack Obama! May he survive to run a second term!
Writer is paranoid of
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 04:10 β Sargam (not verified)Writer is paranoid of criticism of Obama. A typical true-believer. Cannot see objectively.
If Bush had done half the things Obama has, he would be very angry.
He's calling. Who You know
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 05:08 β Anonymous (not verified)He's calling.
Who
You know who.
Rupert?
Yes, he wants to know how it is that people
have noticed that we just took over the TO website.
Is he mad?
Who f'n cares , we're joining the antifa !
Yeah, we just need a hug and
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 05:30 β Keep your hugs, I want drugs. (not verified)Yeah, we just need a hug and some kisses. How about we get what we voted for? Oh, sorry I forgot Obama is a corporate whore, just like every President before him.
Vote 3rd party in 2012.
Clueless, clueless is the
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 06:14 β Anonymous (not verified)Clueless, clueless is the commentator in
the back of the barrel as it goes over the Niagara
Falls. Who's clueless? yous are clueless if
you think that incremental, marginalistic
methods are "viable".
I think all of us have
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 07:51 β Joe 6 Pack (not verified)I think all of us have misinterpreted what has happened.
All those youth that came out and voted for Obama... They have just now figured out, that they live in a corporate controlled world.
Democracy is a myth. What is our Democracy? Once every 2 or 4 or 6 years, we go into a polling station where they place a piece of paper in front of you (If you're lucky) and you get to punch a hole into one of two boxes.
And the American people are supposed to have control of their destiny? Do you know how contemptuous of democracy, that is?
This revelation has CRUSHED the youth on the left.
Ah yes, I see, and I am
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 08:08 β Anonymous (not verified)Ah yes, I see, and I am beginning to understand. None of what has happened since Obama's election is his fault. And those on the left who voted him in to office are being immature brats throwing a temper tantrum for not understanding. His life is constantly under threat by the plutocrats that really run things. His veto pen has been locked away and his use of the bully pulpit where he could talk directly to the people who elected him has been curtailed. Therefore we should all be grateful that he signed into law a health care bill that requires all of us to buy health insurance and does nothing to control costs from the same companies that have caused our health care crisis. Besides, as the author so eloquently explains he has us over a barrel and his kiss for us is not passing even more legislation that will be detrimental to our well being for being insolent. The difference of course being that we will not trundle off into the sunset more wealthy than before. And the author although recommending to Obama that he throw us a few left over bones warns us to not hold our breath waiting for it to happen. The bottom line recommendation. That we should accept our lot, suck it up, and rush to the polls to support Democrats in November. The question is if everything in the article is true, why? What possible difference could it make if we elect Democrats or Republicans if both are controlled by the plutocrats? Maybe that the Democrats will drive us to the gates of hell a tad slower than the Republicans would? Scant comfort in that. Throw all the bums out and start over
amen brother
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 10:27 β Anonymous (not verified)amen brother
What I feel most dismayed
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 11:23 β Anonymous (not verified)What I feel most dismayed about is that my revulsion toward Mr. Obama is playing out exactly according to the Republican plan. They want us to feel betrayed and disenchanted. And that's exactly how I feel.
I tried to be faithful to my belief that Mr. Obama is a brilliant, well-educated person who would not choose the wrong people and then let them take over his policy-making responsibilities.
It's good, I thought, to consider opposing views from other intelligent people and wrest conclusions out of the conflict.
Unlike Mr. Bush who, because of his very limited personal abilities--a president of shreds and patches--demanded absolute loyalty, Mr. Obama, because of his much greater personal abilities, could surround himself with other strong-minded people and forge coherent policy out of the chaos of argument.
This article, without much wit, points out that refrain "Meet the new boss; Same as the old boss" is fully displayed in our grousing about Mr. Obama. It's the same old bifurcation of the symbolic world into binaries of good vs. evil or us vs. them both encourages citizens to assume a powerful righteousness and, as Nietzsche said, βpresuppose their neighborβs bad disposition and their own good disposition.β
Mr. Bush and Ms. Condoleeza Rice, Mr. Dick Cheney, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, Mr. Powell, Mr. Karl Rove and Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, and their minions, I Lewis Libby, Ari Fleischer, John Ashcroft, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad, Douglas Feith and James Woolsey, and Bill Pryor.
Some names changed: But Rahm Emanuel, Timothy Geithner, Shirley Sherrod, Robert Gates, Tom Vilsack, Arne Duncan, Gary Locke, Steven Chu, Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Shaun Donovan, Ken Salazar, Eric Holder, Hilda Solis, Ray LaHood, Eric Shinseki, and Hillary Clinton? These are horrible human beings, they are cut from the same cloth as the terrorists we call our enemies. Their ideologies and methods are mirror images of one another which include, religious intolerance, lies, propaganda, war, and torture.
Some names hardly changed with the spoils of victory. I've literally observed Mr. Bush make the obscene gesture Mr. Siegal refers to. I've not literally observed Mr. Obama; however, I feel just as bad as if I had.
And I'm not willing to elbow my way into a lifeboat that the majority decided should be for the salvage of our future survival.
Mr. Siegel's article is very depressing. There's no hope. No change. The future is doomed.
What happened to
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 12:47 β Anonymous (not verified)What happened to truthout?
If one reads the majority of the comments here, one gets the sense that the "angry left" would be more comfortable in a world where their point of view is not challenged, ie. they would like a "news" site of their choice to be like freerepublic.
I used to read truthout religiously during the Bush era in order to balance out the corporate media, but the knee-jerk anti-Obama stance of so many commenters and some contributors, despite lots of good things being achieved, has become a big turn-off.
Thank you for this nuanced op-ed, Jules Siegel.
There's some good points in
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 12:58 β Anonymous (not verified)There's some good points in the articleβ¦some.
But if the author realistically expects "the Left" to place their trust in Howard Dean, corporate shill who recently endorsed a Newt Gingrich candidacy for President, (he ays Newt will bring "intellectual leadership" to the GOP/TeaPartyβ¦Newt Gingrichβ¦Contract On Americaβ¦think about itβ¦), he's seriously deluded.
What the Left in this country needs to realize and act upon is the fact there is no functional difference between Republikan and Demokrat, other than who gets first shot at the corporate trough. That's all they compete forβ¦corporate dollars.
Unfortunately, most of the participants in NetRoots have been doing the same thing. Promulgating propaganda from corporate sources in order to get a smile from The First Black President of the United States. Now their leader has revealed himself as the unprincipled opportunist he really is, they struggle to find a way to sustain whatever credibility they may still have with their respective followers and still get the Presidential smiles and big donations capitalist demagoguery supplies.
Substitute the words Angry
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 14:27 β Eternity (not verified)Substitute the words Angry Left for "Angry Women" or "Angry Blacks" or "Angry with Disabilities" or "Angry Latinos" or "Angry Arabs" or "Angry Gays" and it becomes abundantly apparent how flawed the thematics of the article are destined to be. And surely they are.
If this piece of political
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 14:51 β gregorywri (not verified)If this piece of political whoredom, which puts down those of us who expected an allegedly progressive man to do at least a FEW progressive things such as restoring habeas corpus and ending torture and rendition (there are MANY more examples, read the WIKILEAKS documents)--if this piece of spineless whoredom makes a few more lefties realize that no Democrat will EVER be worth voting for again and that "democracy" in the USA is a carefully-crafted, lying facade--if a few more realize that no Democrat or "liberal" will do ANYTHING about the myriad impending catastrophes that are already at the door--then it will have done them an important service.
To 14:27 Thank you for
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 16:33 β Liced-christ (not verified)To 14:27
Thank you for pointing out the inherently condescending nature of this article and what its REAL INTENTION is.
TO 8:08 This is perhaps the
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 16:46 β Liced-christ (not verified)TO 8:08
This is perhaps the finest comment among these all these posts. Everyone should read it several times, especially the defenders of this neutered president.I also wish to point out that someday Obama will be outed as a racist of his own people and heritage. Just let history unfold, my friends. It just so happens that those most deeply in need of reproductive services are, unfortunately, the darker colored people of our culture, who also happen to be the poorest in our nation. When Obama curtailed abortion rights, he struck a huge blow to poor communities around this nation. Now add abstinence-only "education" to no reproductive services so as to terminate unwanted pregnancies and you have the recipe for thousands of destroyed and truly unrecoverable lives.
The "angry left" needs a
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 16:49 β notclueless (not verified)The "angry left" needs a swift kick in the rear end. It is helping to elect the next Republican administration.
Thank you "notclueless". The
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 18:10 β radline9 (not verified)Thank you "notclueless". The angry left sounds more and more like the angry right. Just angry and not really thinking or looking at the big picture. I feel lucky to have Obama as president and believe he is turning things around. This ocean liner of a country doesn't turn on a dime. And what are the alternatives to Obama? I trust Obama more than any other candidate that could actually win the presidency. I'm backing Obama because he is the best chance we have.
So, what is the difference
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 18:39 β Don (not verified)So, what is the difference between the "angry left" and the Teabaggers? Not much! Both seem to have irrational expectations and fantasies.
I don't know which is worse -- the nasty paranoid rantings of the Limbaugh-Beck-Teabag crowd against Obama or the nasty paranoid rantings of the "angry left" (like some on this page) who fantasized that Obama would be the messiah to instantly solve all our problems. I guess they just can't accept that we didn't elect --- and will never elect --- a leftist or a socialist.
Siegel's premise is much too intelligent (and spot-on) for the "angry left" to appreciate.
Gee, Don, what is Siegel's
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 20:14 β Anonymous (not verified)Gee, Don, what is Siegel's premise, stated in a single sentence? I'd like to see that superior intellect at work.
To 16:49 Obama's
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 20:26 β Liced-christ (not verified)To 16:49
Obama's administration IS "the next Republican administration." Wake up, jacka@@.
Obama in violation of the
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 20:57 β fusion (not verified)Obama in violation of the Constitution
Art I Sec 9...Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended
Obama has not restored it
Art VI...treaties...supreme law of the land...
`[18 U.S.C. 2340;
UN convention against torture]
Obama: failure to prosecute torturers
Amend V...no person to be deprived of life or liberty without due process
Obama: Indefinite detention without trial
Assassination of citizens by fiat
I am a sworn defendant of the Constitution ...against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC
I'm not angry. I am implacable.
USAF Retd...SWPA, WWII; ARDC, Korean War
"So, what is the difference
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 21:03 β Liced-christ (not verified)"So, what is the difference between the "angry left" and the Tea-baggers?"
The answer given by 18:39: "Not much."
Really, I ask. Not much?
Anger is the common feeling, but within that category are distinctly different types of anger. There is the anger born of the mental/emotional lucidity of recognizing & reacting to bail outs/a failed health plan/four wars breaking our nation morally and financially/and the continued repression of gays throughout society. The continued use of torture and signing statements. The continued neoliberal talk about "getting South America back"
Then there is the anger of the Tea Bagging, gun waving, Bible-touting racists; these are two very different birds indeed; they are day and night.
Of course, this is the unique characteristic of Democratic Centrists who support Obama, the ability to fold all distinctions into morosely political distininction-less-ness, in which Republican law making can no longer be differentiated from Democrats' law making -- the birth of the 'new" species of the Corporate Democrat, who simply make the peace by caving to conservative law making, repeatedly, ad nauseam.
Obama is the second Blue Dog President, following his IDOL, Bill Clinton before him. The Blue Dogs abide by "the real," the "practical," which of course can never be pushed any faster than it's already going (so stop complaining!).
Obama said everything his administration ever needed to say, or would say to the LEFT with his choice of Rick Warren to swear him in and theologically represent his administration, a man who's fighting daily to make homoerotic loving a crime in every state and overturn the authority of the Federal Constitution with the insanity and inanity of the messages contained in the Judeo-Christian Bible.
There should be a new psychiatric disorder modeled after Obama's "bisexual" political personality.
"Obama's administration IS
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 22:51 β Anonymous (not verified)"Obama's administration IS 'the next Republican administration.''"
Which is why the actual Republicans oppose him 100% of the time.
Makes perfect sense, I suppose, to you Alice in Wonderland types.
The "angry left"--to judge
Sat, 07/31/2010 - 22:54 β Anonymous (not verified)The "angry left"--to judge by the drivel posted here--has all the intelligence and manners of a tea party rally.
The only reason Republicans
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 02:29 β Liced-christ (not verified)The only reason Republicans oppose Obama is because of his label. That's it. The same policies offered by a Republican would have been acceptable to most of the extremist conservative nutcases in that party. But to me, the real issue is why the Democrats are not united around liberal policy making, the way Republicans are united around a conservative agenda. The answer: half assed, right wing Democrats, epitomized by Obama, who want a bipartisan vote on things.
Obama could have adopted a BULLY PULPIT and appeal to support from the millions of left wingers who voted him in. But no, he's of a different cloth. He's a Republican of about fifteen years ago. Real trash, IMO.
Right, we're not fond of "manner "when a president win elections using the words "hope" and "change" prolifically but not delivering the fulfillment of those various promises as outlined in 20:57.
Notice the gripe the right wing Democrats on this forum have with us angry left wingers. It's all about manners and the fact that we're angry. Anger is bad. Compliance and hollow justifications are good. Obama bargains with Republicans who'd throw a party if he died tomorrow and this makes sense to these Right Wing Democrats.
Obama should be shoving his verbal fist down Republicans' throats day after day. But what we get is: let's sit down and talk. Let's negotiate. Then what does he do? He moves to the right as much as is needed to get two or three Republican votes to pass some half assed piece of legislation that is really, in substance, conservative in its essence.
I have yet to see any
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 15:13 β leftwingobamasupporter (not verified)I have yet to see any pro-Obama comments on this forum that voice support for "right-wing" policies or politicians or commentators of any type. Trying to label Obama supporters here "right wing" is just dishonest, self-serving rhetoric/labeling.
What I see is Obama trying to get things done but often blocked or stalled by Republican legislators and by people in his own party such as Nelson (or by Lieberman). Still, Obama is amassing a large record of victories and is slowly but surely moving the country further to the left, much to the chagrin of Reagan worshipers.
Really, I don't think what's going on is Obama's fault. More than anything the fault lies with the American people themselves, who select such poor representatives in the legislative branch, tolerate and even reward Republican obstructionism, and allow Faux News and other sources of disinformation to thrive.
I do think that initially Obama really did believe he could drum up more bipartisan support. He certainly knows better now. Just this past week the GOP blocked even the modest DISCLOSE Act. They should be punished--by the American people--for such disgusting behavior!
In any event, though, "anger" is no solution. As Thich Nhat Hanh writes:
"When a person's speech is full of anger, it is because he or she suffers deeply. Because he has so much suffering, he becomes full of bitterness. He is always ready to complain and blame others for his problems."
We don't need anger and blaming; we need clear-sightedness and organization.
Buddhists are among the most
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 19:26 β Liced-christ (not verified)Buddhists are among the most sanctimonious bunch of self-righteous, morally superior assho@es I've encountered in all my studies.
Your notion of suffering in relationship to anger is just another moral diatribe. Save it for the faithful.
When people have no food, that's when people suffer. When the President, as revealed today on T.O., makes way for more U.S. export and sales of high tech weaponry and bombs, to create MORE F@CKING JOBS, that's when people suffer. When BP is left to clean up their own stinking oil mess, while the President refuses to get the gov't involved, that's suffering for ALL F$CKING BEINGS
I see what's going on here. Anger is bad. Why? Because the Tibetan and Hinayana Buddhists say so. Yet even in Tibetan Buddhism there is the acknowledgment of the relationship between the root emotions of anger and hate that become TRANSFORMED into brilliant clarity and compassion.
Stop turning this into a moral discussion that anger is bad that anger is wrong.
All leftists are angry and because that's the point of departure for their perceptions and arguments, you say, they are not worth listening to.
The last thing we need here are religious apologists coming in on this already out of control discussion and insulting article.
Marx was a man who transmuted, not dismissed, not repressed, not evaded or tried to correct, his rage. Look at Obama out of the eyes of Marx and you have just another compromised, ass-kissing capitalist pig.
The anger that generates in me is sacred.
From the article: "All
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 20:26 β Erich Von Freemason (not verified)From the article: "All government serves the interests of the owning class to the detriment of the people."
Despite this obvious fact, this web site and most of its readers are constantly calling for the government to assume more power and more control over our lives and our money.
To: 20:26 But is that
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 20:47 β Anonymous (not verified)To: 20:26
But is that quotation a fact?
What, if not government, at this point in U.S. history, could possibly act as an antagonist to industrial and corporate globalization?
What, if not regulation to put a STOP to the corporate monsters responsible for this oil gusher?
What if not government to REPRESENT the PUBLIC and PUBLIC INTERESTS?
A good and viable government could in fact be created. Look at France, despite its flaws, providing single payer/privatized hybrid insurance to every one of its citizens.
That is laudable, is it not? That insurance covers homeopathic and naturopathic and herbal forms of self-healing.It has public values embedded in it and it has not chosen to define healing as one thing or another.
I had ended by mentioning
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 21:22 β leftwingobamasupporter (not verified)I had ended by mentioning "clear-sightedness". Yes, transformed anger. That's not "religion" but wisdom.
You assault Buddhists and embrace Marxism? Marxists certainly have inflicted an incredible amount of suffering on Buddhists, among others, in the East.
The political spectrum is not linear--it's more like a globe. Far left and far right eventually meet. Nazis and Stalinists. The angry right and the angry left.
I will always distance myself from rage, extremism, ideological rigidity, and lice.
That bit about "all
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 21:29 β leftwingobamasupporter (not verified)That bit about "all government" is a grotesquely misleading simplification. Government regulation often curbs the abuses of robber barons. Study a little American history. It's a matter of electing representatives who actually work for the people, not the special interests.
Yes, I see! You must always
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 22:54 β Liced-christ (not verified)Yes, I see! You must always find something unclean - something to "distance" yourself "from" to continue on your sanitary Buddhist path to "enlightenment": lice, women's rights, gay rights. I bet in your view the call for gay rights is "extremist" left wing rhetoric.
The horrible truth is that your Dalai Lama still pokes fun at the gay community and opposes gay marriage and gay adoption (see his videos on YouTube) - and for a very good reason: he's a narrow minded religious bigot whose only concern is a strictly Tibetan one, or at least one in which heterosexuals are considered the "normals" in such a society of rich monks.
He wants to re-own the land he once lived on, experiences a kind of victimhood over (the loss of) that (land), but cannot identify with people (of other cultures, like gays) who are restricted in their own society for various other reasons: and often murdered for political reasons (dubbed "hate crimes") as Tibetan monks have been murdered by the insane Chinese government.
I am sure that as a Buddhist you could give a shit about gay rights, because in your tradition, like the Catholic tradition, you believe sex is only allowed for reproduction; an entitlement, privilege and treat only meant to help to spawn more children to create a working class to keep those monks meditating in their ornate, golden palaces.
Don't get me wrong. I love Buddhist iconography, except when it's at the cost of feeding the people.
You have an eye for gross examples of political monstrosity -- Stalin, Hitler, Mao -- but are totally blind to the religious ideologues that you follow, the Buddhist propagandists who, as reflected in the vision of the Tibetan governmental structure, cary their own form of brutal, religiously-feudalistic aristocracy that condemns ordinary village people to an unending existence of poverty and lower class vilification.
While the common people starve, whose infants are stolen from their parents and brought up in golden monasteries as Tulkus-to-be, the monks live rich like Super Kings, decorating their palaces with golden idols, and filling their bellies with ample food - while the villagers suffer from rotting teeth and live in abject poverty. With the gold in those monasteries, food and other boons could be incorporated in what has come to be seen as a poverty stricken culture.
I'm not a Marxist, but I know a genius when I read one. Buddha also happens to be a genius, but Marx too is one; yet, for completely different reasons.
I am sorry you cannot differentiate Marx from Stalin. You are quite ignorant to try to forge that connection.
You didn't tell me: how much Marx have you read?
22:54 is a response to 21:22.
Sun, 08/01/2010 - 23:48 β Liced-christ (not verified)22:54 is a response to 21:22.
These assumptions
Mon, 08/02/2010 - 14:23 β leftwingobamasupporter (not verified)These assumptions extrapolated virtually from thin air are, well, rather amusing.
For the record I'm not a Vajrayana Buddhist, but I am a supporter of the Human Rights Campaign.
But this isn't FaceBook, now is it?
No Marx, no Stalin: that simple, so no need for me to "forge" anything. I do perfectly understand the differences between them.
The bottom line, though, to get back on topic, is that Obama will have my support when he is reelected in 2012. I'm not looking for the "angry" left's notion of a "saint" but for the best available candidate who can actually win.
Ditto
Mon, 08/02/2010 - 19:43 β radline9 (not verified)Ditto
To 14:23 No Jesus, no Roman
Mon, 08/02/2010 - 20:54 β Liced-christ (not verified)To 14:23
No Jesus, no Roman Church, no Hitler.
I like this game!
Shall we go on?
I think not. It's a game for idiots.
The real problem is the
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 01:28 β elkojohn (not verified)The real problem is the leadership of the Democratic Party and the power brokers behind the scenes of the Democratic Party. They want a piece of the Big Money from those that fund elections. So they become Republican Lite, still advocating for the ''tinkle-down'' economics of whats good for the too-big-too-fail corporations is good for the USA. Have you seen anybody push for campaign finance reform to take the Big Money out of winning elections? Do you see the leadership of the Democratic Party ever support anyone but ''Blue Dog'' incumbents?
If the Democratic Party REALLY was the party of, by and for the people, it would never loose and election.
Bah, humbug, our 2-Party Dictatorship will ruin the country.
I'm so glad I didn't vote
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 14:52 β Anonymous (not verified)I'm so glad I didn't vote for Obama. I voted for McKinney. wonder how many of the liberals who are complaining now were too afraid to vote for a true liberal in 2008. Probably most.
Actually, if I had been in a swing state, I would have voted for Obama, just to be sure someone worse didn't get in. But most states were not in question, and every liberal in those states who voted for Obama threw their vote away. He would have won anyway, so what did voting for him get you? Nothing. Voting for someone who really stands for what you believe in would have at least slowed the rightward shift of this country that has been going on since Clinton decided he had to be half-Republican in order to win. Next time I hope you all think about it and make your vote count instead of throwing it away. But most of you will probably be too afraid. Well, it's that fear that is the root of many of the things you complain about. It starts in the voting booth and ends up in Washington.
Obama is far better than McCain would have been. But he's also afraid to take responsibility and actually lead, just like most liberals are afraid to vote their values. It's true that it is mainly the fault of Congress for much of the worst that has happened, but Obama could have much greater influence over the legislation by simply pushing for what he campaigned on and using his veto power. He keeps appointing moderate to conservative people to court positions, presumably so that they will have a chance of being passed. He lets Congress dictate who he appoints, yet he has just as much influence over the legislation Congress passes. They don't want to pass something he will veto any more than he wants to appoint someone they won't pass. But he is so submissive, so afraid to use the power he has, that he gives all his power to others, to Congress, to his moderate and right-wing appointees, to corporate interests. Never to liberals. Why? Liberals are too afraid to stand up for what they believe in, just like he is, so he never has to worry about them. Give him something to worry about! Don't give your power away like he has done.
To 20:47 β
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 19:34 β Erich Von Freemason (not verified)To 20:47 β Anonymous
Regulation exists primarily to bankrupt small businesses, forcing us to work for/buy from the big corporations. Of course, they promote it as something to benefit the little guy and protect him from evil corporate America. And it doesn't matter what form of government you have... all tend towards dictatorship (and all use "helping the little guy" as their excuse). The only way to really protect the little guy is to get rid of most regulations (all we really need are laws against fraud and theft), get rid of limited liability, and get rid of the complex, expensive legal system that guarantees that only those with lots of money to spend receive justice.
Wrong, Erich. Regulation is
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 02:12 β Anonymous (not verified)Wrong, Erich. Regulation is the only thing that keeps all but the rich from being complete slaves of the big corporations. It's the only thing that allows small businesses to exist at all. What you are asking for is what was there before we had democratic governments, when the rich owned everything and the vast majority were serfs, basically slaves.
The problem is that big corporations now influence regulations to their advantage. We just need to get corporations completely out of politics, and then we can create regulations that really work.
Oh! I get it now! Erich
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 19:46 β Frances in California (not verified)Oh! I get it now! Erich von Freemason isn't getting paid by Pete Petersen! He's getting paid by GOLDMAN SACHS! How'd you do on that Magnetar thing, huh, Erich?
Dear leftwingobamasupporter:
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 19:54 β Frances in California Again (not verified)Dear leftwingobamasupporter: I, too, am a Progressive who supports Obama (I still have nightmares that McCain won and we're already at war with Iran). I must aver: there ARE right-wing Democrats; they're called BLUE DOGS and Rahm Emanuel holds their leash. Yeah, I have nightmares about them, too.
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 02:12 β
Tue, 08/10/2010 - 09:13 β Erich Von Freemason (not verified)Wed, 08/04/2010 - 02:12 β Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 19:46 β Frances in California (not verified)
No... I own my own small business. Regulations always have and always will serve big business. There is no other option... regulations cost money, and in every industry there are those who have high profits and those that just scrape by. Every new regulation pushes some of the bottom tier into bankruptcy. But, I understand. The two of you obviously went to public school and had the "evils" of capitalism pounded into your head for twelve years, and have lost the critical thinking skills required to understand the difference between capitalism and mercantilism. Just know that when you vote for big government, nanny-state politicians, you are voting to erode more of your freedom and voting to have someone else control more of your money. But, I'm sure you'll just blame the other side (which doesn't even exist... it's just one party pretending to be two parties).