I sat on the steps of the Supreme Court on a hot, humid day in Washington
D.C. this past summer, staring in disbelief at the protest developing around me.
The most putrid character participating had to be the tax-exempt televangelist
who had arrived in a new-model Mercedes blasting the godless liberals who "have
brought ruin to
our great country, murdering our babies, inviting God’s terrible
judgment." I took a look at the hate-filled faces of the people gathering in
anger and volume, and I thought: This is how a Republic falls.
Americans like to think of Washington D.C. as a city that does not represent the
"heartland" of America, but in reality it exemplifies exactly what America is,
and what it has become. Washington is a city whose geography invites corruption:
the eastern boroughs are filled with office buildings that are hard to see from
the main roads making it the ideal place for business of a sordid nature to be
conducted. Congressmen gather with the lobbyists of defence firms, oil
companies, investment banking operations, and media organizations to discuss
exactly in what orifice these Congressmen will be willing to take the shaft in
exchange for campaign dollars. In return, these cartels have extorted billions
more dollars of taxpayer funds from the public coffers, or have killed the
progress of legislation meant to reform a system that has long ago surpassed the
corrupt and has now entered the obscene. This is how a Republic falls.
As Matt Taibbi recently wrote, the United States is a massive militarized
oligarchy patrolling half the world on borrowed money. Most of the country is
dead broke but voting for candidates who campaign on keeping those uppity women
in the kitchen, gays in the closet, and Arabs in Guantanamo. Once elected, these
people serve their real masters by voting to massively subsidize an American war
machine that long ago bought and paid for the federal political system,
promising to continue massive tax loopholes that let millions of financial
industry types avoid paying any taxes at all, and working to spread
disinformation to kill the development of any alternatives to the multi-trillion
dollar oil industry. For any candidate to get elected into any federal office,
he has to swear by these machines or risk himself be targeted by these forces.
Mounting any campaign for a Congressional or Senatorial district requires
millions of dollars that can only be raised by cozying up to the aforementioned
industries, or risk being destroyed by million dollar ad campaigns. This is how
a Republic falls.
The numbers are staggering: $800 billion a year for the defence budget, and the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. $9 trillion dollars in debt, mostly to foreign
investors. Personal consumers, normal individuals, corporations and families,
borrowing almost $1 trillion a year to buy consumer goods that they desperately
need to keep up an appearance of affluence. A population that tells pollsters
that illegal immigration is their most important concern, yet an open border
with Mexico remains, for an open border is needed by the Captains of Industry to
recruit cheap labour and keep wages down. This is how a Republic falls.
All of these problems can be fixed, for they are problems of legislation and
habit, and these can be surmounted by a population that is determined for
reform. That will not happen, because the corruption is in the bone marrow now,
spreading to the vital organs even if it remains undetected on the surface by a
country that remembers brighter days that they once experienced. Days when they
were strong, and proud, and honourable, and free. The days before an entire
generation of sociopaths rose to seize control over the levers of power in the
most important country that the world has ever known.
This tragedy has to come to a climax, eventually. It may begin with
international investors demanding higher interest on the massive loans currently
keeping the United States afloat triggering a run on the banks and a collapse of
the dollar. Two things will then happen: either the people will turn to genuine
reformers who pledge the hard but necessary work to rebuild the country into
what it was always meant to be, or a clever political leader will manipulate the
fears of the people, manipulate their anger at what has transpired, and turn
what was a beautiful Republic into a despotic Empire, with terrible consequences
for the entire world. These are the days that we are living in, this is the fate
of the Rome of our time. This is how a Republic falls.
Dear (Formerly-Enthusiastic) Bush Supporters:
By
NanceGreggs
Dear Former Bush Supporters:
Please forgive me for not having written in a while, but with all of the
brouhaha surrounding the primaries, I’m afraid I have been remiss in keeping in
touch with my friends on the other side of the aisle.
I know that you and I have had our differences over the past seven-plus years,
but that’s all blood under the bridge now, so I just wanted to drop a line and
catch up on things.
So ... here we all are, as a citizenry, a nation, a people. Whadda ya think?
The economy is tanking, and people are losing their homes, their health
insurance, their jobs – you know, the jobs that you insisted would be plentiful
once Georgie got going, the old ones that have disappeared and the new ones that
never materialized.
The price of filling-up at the pump has skyrocketed, along with the cost of
food, heating your home, sending your kids to college, and just about everything
else.
Hey, remember when we all used to talk about giving our kids a better life than
we had? Those were the days, huh? That was before your fiscally-responsible
Republican president plunged the country into a debt that not only our kids, but
our great-grandkids will be saddled with for decades. At this rate, they won’t
even be able to afford a one-way ticket to India or China in order to find what
used to be a good ol’ American job.
One thing I can’t argue with is your assertions about the phony War on Terror
– I admit it; you were right all along. Georgie’s policies have been wildly
successful in encouraging more anti-American sentiment than even I could have
imagined, not to mention the upsurge in recruitment to “organizations” like Al
Qadea. I don’t know how I could have missed his obvious efforts to ensure we
won’t be running out of terrorists any time soon.
I must say I am surprised that after your initial rallying around the War in
Iraq, so many of you are now singing a completely different tune. Makes me
harken back to the days when I was a traitor because I said it would all
end badly, and you were the patriot because you knew victory was just
around that next corner. Last poll I checked, the majority of Americans think
Iraq is a disaster and want out NOW. Have you changed your mind – or are you
just lying to the pollsters as a goof? If those WMDs hadn’t been found, this
whole misadventure would have been a total disaster, wouldn’t you say?
I know I’m waxing nostalgic here, but remember when you were telling me how
great things were going to be under the fine Christian leadership of W? Good
God, that’s one we can all chuckle about now. Man o man, who knew he’d
turn out to be such a lying, warmongering, murdering torturer! So funny how
things come out in the end, huh?
But ya gotta give right when it comes to the bucks. Sure there’s the billions
spent in Iraq, and the billions gone missin’ on W’s watch, the millions
wasted on the embassy in Baghdad, yadda yadda. But the CEOs of our fine American
corporations are earning up to ten times what they were before this
administration got into office, so it’s not all bad news. Some people
are doing great, no doubt about it. It’s just too bad you aren’t one of
them.
But all in all, I’m sure you don’t regret your enthusiasm for lil’ George. Yeah,
yeah, so he didn’t bring dignity back to Washington, his buffoonery is legendary
in a world that no longer respects our country, his ignorance is only matched by
his inability to speak coherently, our country is locked in a quagmire in Iraq
that has led to increased volatility in the ME, we have thousands of dead troops
and over a million Iraqi casualties, our military is broken, our country is flat
broke and more polluted than ever, our manufacturing sector is all but gone, and
we are inundated with products from other countries that are cheap due to slave
labour and child labour – and the fact that those products are poisoning our
kids and killing our pets is of no concern to the administration that promised
to Keep America Safe.
So, like I said, I just wanted to check in with all of you, and ask the big
question with respect to that Bush guy who you loved so much, you voted
for him not once, but twice: How’s that working out for you?
After the first forty minutes of last night's Democratic debate, it was
clear we were watching something historic. Not historic in a good way, mind
you, but historic in the sense of being something so deeply embarrassing to
the nation that it will be pointed to, in future books and doentary works,
as a prime example of the collapse of the American media into utter and
complete substanceless, into self-celebrated vapidity, and into a now-complete
inability or unwillingness to cover the most important affairs of the nation
to any but the most shallow of depths.
Congratulations are clearly in order. ABC had two hours of access to two of
the three remaining candidates vying to lead the most powerful nation in the
world, and spent the decided majority of that time mining what the press
considers the true issues facing the republic. Bittergate; Rev.
Wright; Bosnia; American flag lapel pins. That's what's important to the
future of the country.
What a contrast. Only a few weeks ago, we were presented with what was
considered by many to be a historic speech by a presidential candidate on race
in America -- historic for its substance, tone, delivery, and stark candor.
Last night, we had an opposing, equally historic example -- and I sincerely
mean that, I consider it to be every bit as significant as that word implies
-- of the collapse of the political press into self-willed incompetence. You
might as well pull any half-intelligent person off the street, and they would
unquestionably have more difficult and significant questions for the two
candidates. It was not merely a momentarily bad performance, by ABC, it was a
debate explicitly designed to be what it was, which is far more
telling.
It is certainly true that a case could be made that the
moderators explicitly set out to frame even the supposedly "substantive"
questions according to GOP designs. The implicit presumption of success in
Iraq when, nearly an hour into the debate, the moderators finally deigned to
mention the defining current event of this campaign. Gibson, as moderator,
lied outright about the supposed effects of capital gains tax cuts, and dogged
the candidates over it to a greater extent than any other economic issue: does
he really believe that of all the economic challenges facing this nation, the
most pressing of them is supplication towards a decade-long Republican
bugaboo? Gun control? Affirmative action? These are the issues that are most
compellingly on the minds of Democratic primary voters, in 2008? Or were the
questions taken from a 1992 time capsule, insightful probes gathering dust for
a decade and a half until they could find network moderators desperate enough
to dig them up again?
But even slanted questions could be forgiven, of the press; what was more
inexplicable was the intentional wallowing in substanceless, meaningless
"gaffe" politics. It says something truly impressive about the press that a
few statements by a presidential candidate's preacher bear far more weight to
the future of our nation than the challenges of terrorism or war. It is truly
a celebration of our own national collapse into idiocracy that we can furrow
our brows and question the patriotism of a candidate, deeply probe
their patriotism based on whether or not they regularly don a made-in-China
American flag pin, but a substantive discussion of energy policy, or
healthcare, or the deficit, or the housing crisis, or global climate change,
or the government approval of torture, or trade issues, or the plight of
one-industry small American towns, or the fight over domestic espionage and
FISA, or the makeup of the Supreme Court -- those were of no significance, in
comparison.
If a media organization set out to intentionally demonstrate themselves to
be self absorbed and ignorant, they could not have accomplished it better. It
was not just a tabloid debate, but the tittering of political kindergarteners
making and lobbing mud pies. It was politics as game show. The moderators
demonstrated that to them and their supposed "news" organization, the
presidency of the United States of America is about the trivialities
of politics, which were obsessed over ravenously, not about the challenges of
American governance which were fully ignored.
Certainly, as mere citizens we could ask little of the
network that unapologetically brought us The Path to 9/11, a
fabricated conservative pseudo-doentary laying the blame for terrorism at
the feet of everyone loathed by the far right. But it is not simply ABC that
bears the blame: surely, one could expect similar drivel from any of the other
networks or cable channels who have so successfully and self-importantly
dimmed the national discourse, these past ten years. For his part, the
chairman of the written intellectual wisp, the New York Times' David Brooks,
marveled at the "excellent" questions:
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the
Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush
toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how
the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.
Indeed, how dare his peon readers whine about these things: this
is how the political game is expected to be played by the grand masters of our
discourse. Symbolic tours of flag factories! Checkmate! That is the elite
idea of "issues" in our national debate. Piss on the war, and screw the
economy -- somebody find a goddamn flag factory to tour! That is how our most
elite media figures like to see political opponents "exposed" as... well, what
exactly? What does touring a flag factory prove, other than the media in this
country is so astonishingly gullible, tin-headed and shallow that you can
actually tour a damn flag factory and get praised for it by our idiot
press as being a bold, disarming move against your opponent?
Truly, we have become a nation led by the most lazy and ignorant. It seems
impossible to mock or satirize just how shallowly the media considers the
actual world ramifications of each election, how glancingly they explore the
actual truth behind political assertion or rhetoric, or how gleefully they
molest our discourse while praising themselves for those selfsame acts. And
that, in turn, is precisely how we elected our current Idiot Boy King, a man
who has the eloquent demeanor of a month-old Christmas tree and the nuance of
a Saturday morning cartoon.
It seems impossible, but we may yet have an election season in which we can
be in a slogging, five-year-long war, and mention the fact only in glancing
asides. We may yet have a series of Republican-Democratic debates in which the
most pressing issues of the economy are entirely ignored, so that we can more
adequately explore the "patriotism" of the candidates as expressed by their
clothing. We may have yet another campaign season carefully orchestrated to
leave all but the most glancing and hollow of themes untouched, while our
press achieves multiple orgasms at every botched line, every refused cup of
coffee, every peddled character assassination or character
assassination-by-proxy peddled by the sleaziest of paid dregs. A campaign, in
other words, perfectly suited to the bereft, rudderless, and substanceless
self-pronounced guardians of our democracy.
Perhaps, if nothing else, it is time to take back the
debate process and insist once again on moderators chosen for competence,
expertise and neutrality, rather than network or cable network fame. The
elites of our press have managed to botch the task time and time again;
perhaps it should be left to someone with an actual interest in doing the job.
Does the Constitution Require Impeaching Bush and Cheney? Presented at George Mason University on April 14, 2008
Dedicated to Betty Hall and the New Hampshire State Legislature
By
David Swanson
John Adams, who was later the second president of the United States, wrote
some words in the Constitution of Massachusetts that have been quoted
approvingly by the U.S. Supreme Court and every state supreme court in the
United States. He described a separation of powers among three branches of
government and said that this would be done
"to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."
Thomas Paine in his "Common Sense" pamphlets that helped launch the American
war for independence, wrote that,
"so far as we approve of monarchy, ... in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in
absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law OUGHT to be
King; and there ought to be no other."
I raise this point in order to suggest that the question of whether the US
Constitution requires impeaching Bush and Cheney is not an academic one and is
very closely tied to the straightforward question of whether we should impeach
Bush and Cheney. The Constitution is the highest law of this land. If it
requires that something be done, then a failure to do it amounts to moving the
country in the direction of lawlessness, and possibly in the direction of the
rule of men and women, not of laws.
This is the case unless, of course, we amend the Constitution to fit our
chosen behavior. The Constitution is not infallible. There are sections of the
original text that I'm pleased have been removed through the amendment
process. There are other sections that I think should be changed, things that
should be added that are not there, etc. But there is a great danger in
sidestepping the democratic process of amending the law and proceeding to
simply violate it.
There are cases in which we do that. For example, for over 50 years the United
States has fought wars without Congress ever declaring war, as required by the
Constitution. But these are policies that should, in fact, be reversed and be
brought back under the rule of law. If you believe a president should have the
power to declare wars, then you should work to amend the Constitution to
provide that power. Otherwise some president you disapprove of may decide to
grant him or herself the power to do something else not found in the
Constitution, and it may be something you don't like, but there won't be much
you can say about it.
The Constitution, of course, gives the three branches of the national
government different powers, and provides each with checks on abuses of power
by the others.
The president is to execute the laws created by Congress. He, or she, serves
as commander in chief of the military. He can pardon crimes (but not
impeachments). If he consults with and gets the support of the Senate, the
president can negotiate treaties and appoint officials, ambassadors, and
judges. That's about it. There is no constitutional presidential power to
write or alter or violate laws, to act in secret, to abridge the judicial
system, to violate the Bill of Rights, to violate existing treaties, to build
an empire, or to launch a war. Oh, and the Vice President under the
Constitution has no particular powers at all, other than serving as the
president of the Senate, where he or she only gets to vote if there's a tie.
In contrast, the legislative branch of our government, historically and even
today in the version students are still taught in schools, has much greater
power. The Congress, to which the first half of the entire Constitution is
devoted, has the exclusive power to enact laws. Congress also has the sole
power to raise and spend money. It has the power to declare war and to fund
and oversee the military. It has the power to regulate international and
interstate trade. Congress handles immigration, bankruptcies, the printing and
valuing of money, the post offices, copyrights. Congress has the power to
"constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court," and "to define and
punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against
the law of nations." But the first power that the Constitution grants the
House of Representatives is the power of impeachment. The first power it
grants the Senate is the power to try all impeachments.
In school we learn about the "Separation of Powers" and about something called
"Checks and Balances." Our three branches of government are supposed to be
separately elected, none of them created by any other. The Supreme Court is
constituted by both the executive and legislative branches, not one alone. And
the power to run the nation is supposed to be divided. Congress has certain
powers. The courts have other powers. The president has others. Congress, as
the most powerful branch, is further divided into two houses with somewhat
separate powers. It's important to understand that Congress is more powerful
than the other branches, which is one reason the phrases "balance of power"
and "checks and balances" can be misleading. There is not supposed to be
anything evenly balanced about it.
Under the U.S. system, the executive branch is understood to have the
following checks on legislative power, and it still has them, plus some:
1. The veto. Bush does still have this power, but it is overshadowed by his
newly created signing-statement power. No longer must he choose between
signing a bill and vetoing it. Now, he can choose to sign it and rewrite it.
While signing statements are not new, this use of them is, and twice studies
by the GAO have found that in a significant percentage of cases the laws Bush
announces the power to violate he has proceeded to violate. 2. Commanding the military. Bush does still have this power, but he has added
to it the power to declare war in violation of Article I of the Constitution
and in violation of the UN Charter which under Article VI is the law of the
land, plus the power to misappropriate funds for wars that were not approved
for them, and the power to take state militias (also known as the National
Guard) away from the states to join the US military in fighting foreign wars. 3. The vice president's vote in the Senate. He does still have this power. 4. Recess appointments. Bush makes use of this power. 5. Calling Congress into session in emergencies and determining adjournments
when the two houses cannot agree. This is less relevant now that Congress
hardly ever goes home.
And the President is understood to have these checks on the judicial branch,
which he indeed still has:
sentence of a White House staffer convicted of obstructing justice in a case
Bush himself is involved in (an act that James Madison and George Mason deemed
an impeachable offense). Bush also has taken unto himself the power to order
former staffers to obstruct justice, the power to refuse subpoenas, and the
power to refuse to testify under oath or without the vice president at his
side.
The executive branch also has a check on itself. The vice president and
cabinet can vote that the president is unable to discharge his duties.
The judicial branch has an important check on Congress and the president in
that it can rule laws to be unconstitutional. The chief justice of the supreme
court also serves as president of the Senate during a presidential
impeachment. But that power depends on the House of Representatives first
impeaching.
The legislative branch is supposed to have an array of checks on the president
and vice president, including various minor powers of oversight. Congress can
override a presidential veto, but that power is rendered meaningless by the
new presidential power of the signing statement. The Senate has the power to
approve or reject appointments and treaties. Both houses of Congress can
approve or reject a new vice president, but that power depends on removing the
current one.
Congress has the power to put a halt to any activity of the executive branch
by defunding it, but the current president has misappropriated funds to engage
in activities never approved by Congress, such as the secret initial steps in
the invasion of Iraq or the secret warrantless spying programs, as well as
activities for which Congress has banned the use of funds, such as the
construction of permanent military bases in Iraq. (In the president's defense
he says the bases are not permanent, but only enduring, but no one has
successfully explained what that means or how it gets around the language in
the various congressional bans signed into law by Bush.) The Democrats in
Congress claim to oppose continuing the occupation of Iraq, but they're about
to throw another $102 billion at it. They will do so, (unless the public rises
up and stops them), in part out of fear of the media calling them silly names,
but in part out of fear of Bush misappropriating funds and continuing the
occupation anyway. In that situation, they would be obliged to impeach the
president or look even more foolish than usual. Last September during General
David Petraeus's first round of testimony, Congressman Brad Sherman asked him
what he would do if Congress stopped funding the occupation and Bush ordered
him to continue it anyway. Petraeus said he could not answer without checking
with his lawyer.
Congress has the power to request or subpoena witnesses or doents, to file
Freedom of Information Act requests, and to issue contempt citations to
desired witnesses who fail to comply with subpoenas. But those are all powers
that evaporate if the power of impeachment is removed. In the current
Congress, the Speaker of the House has promised never to impeach. As a result,
the executive branch simply ignores FOIA requests, subpoenas, and contempt
citations. Condoleezza Rice gave the most straightforward explanation of this
practice when she refused to comply with a subpoena last year. She said that
she would not comply because she was "not inclined to do so."
Impeachment is not just the power on which all the other intra-governmental
powers of the legislative branch depend. It is the central power through which
the framers of the Constitution expected the legislative branch to be able to
hold the other two branches in check. Impeachment was given to the House as
the part of our government closest to the people. Unlike almost anything else,
impeachment is mentioned in six separate places in the Constitution. The
Constitution is considerably shorter than this paper I'm reading you today. It
is a very concise doent that tells us nothing about how to run elections,
that makes no mention of political parties or primaries, that has not one word
about corporations, that describes the process of impeachment in some detail
and gives it prominence and central importance in every way. The initial
discussion of the House of Representatives in Article I Section 2 is
one-sentence:
"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers and
shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
In Article I, Section 3, the role of the Senate is discussed purely in terms
of impeachment trials, and six sentences are devoted to explaining the
process.
Article II, which covers the executive branch, has four sections, and the
fourth consists of this one sentence:
"The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States,
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
George Mason remarked that: "No point is of more importance than that the
right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice?
Above all shall that man be above it, who can commit the most extensive
injustice?"
That is to say, if we are going to give anyone leeway to act above the law,
the last person it should be is the person to whom we have entrusted the
greatest power.
To the extent that I've looked at the discussions of impeachment at the
Constitutional Convention and the states' ratifying conventions and in later
remarks of the founders, one thing becomes clear:
They considered impeachment of the utmost importance. They had risked their
lives in a bloody struggle to overthrow a king. The last thing they wanted was
a new one. And the fact that any new king might be voted out after four years
did not alter their insistence that what they called "an elected despot" be
subject to premature removal. Jefferson in particular, but others as well,
expected and hoped that impeachment would be used at least once a generation.
They did not believe that the threat of it would be sufficient to hold
presidents or justices in check without its routine use.
Only Criminal Indictments Can Save This Country
By clammyc
I know all the arguments against impeachment. It’s too late. The process
is cheapened. "We can’t win". Whatever else. Blah. Blah. Blah.
But at this point, all of that is moot - even though technically a
Democratic president, a Democratic Attorney General, and a larger
Democratic Congress can step up and at least mark some of the criminals
that infested this Executive Branch over the past 8 years tagged with the
stain of their heinous behaviors.
At this point, "we" have already lost in the court of public opinion.
"We" most certainly do torture. "We" certainly knew that a hurricane was
about to devastate an entire region of the country. "We" manufacture
evidence to invade other countries on false pretenses. "We" are arrogant,
belligerent and stubborn.
But there is a difference between "we" and "they". At this point, "they"
have already lost even more in the court of public opinion. "They" knew.
"They" outed a CIA operative and an entire network of covert operations.
"They" tried to find a justification for their sadistic tendencies and be
able to torture others. And then "they" destroyed the evidence.
The list of known criminal activity is really
endless. Illegal spying. Criminal negligence in so many areas - Katrina,
9/11 are the two most obvious. Ignoring subpoenas. Stealing not one, not
two but three elections (Georgia 2002, anyone?). Attorneys General lying to
Congress. Attorneys General tacitly approving of torture. "Fixing the
facts around the policy". Illegally declassifying information. Obstructing
justice with respect to the Plame investigation. Obstructing justice with
the destroyed emails. Obstructing justice with the destroyed CIA torture
tapes.
And that is merely the tip of the iceberg.
If we were to expand this to things that are so morally reprehensible,
even a "not guilty" verdict could not even begin to negate the absolute
necessity of holding criminals accountable for their criminal activity. It
is morally imperative if this democracy (little and big "d") is to survive.
It is mandatory if our Constitution is to have any further meaning. It is
a required step in order for us to have any semblance of credibility or
voice, or even to participate in world affairs.
One’s world standing, coupled with militaristic leaders and an aggressive
foreign policy are a toxic mix. Nobody survives - at least not in the same
shape and with the same standing as they were before such actions. The
Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, Germany, even Saddam in 1991 are all good
examples. And there are many, many others. To think that the United States
- with its arrogant, hypocritical, belligerent and reckless foreign policy
(both historically and more importantly, recently) could not befall the same
fate is both arrogant and foolish. In fact,
it is already happening on the global economic scale, and it is
bankrupting this country at home.
If the illegal behavior is not confronted in a meaningful way, then that
only shows approval and complicity. There is no "moral standing" when the
President of the United States admits that he approved of torture -
especially when he is not held accountable. There is no "moral
standing" when private contractors murder innocent Iraqis and threaten our
own Armed Forces - especially when it is known throughout
the world and nothing is done to hold anyone accountable. There is no
"moral standing" when hundreds of thousands of innocent people are
displaced, left with broken lives and are murdered based on lies. There is
no "moral standing" when bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban are allowed to
reconstitute, strengthen and attack our troops and allies in Pakistan and
Afghanistan - especially when we talk about fighting
terrorism while we ignore it.
"They" did all of this. Willfully. Purposely. For their own personal
gain, or own sick twisted jollies. "They" did it all in our
names. "They" even did it in not one (Reagan), not two (HW
Bush) not three (Ford) but in four prior administrations (Nixon).
"Their" actions over the past 40 years, and especially the past 8, are a
reflection on this country’s standing in the world. The fact that we are in
such economic peril makes it even worse.
And everybody disapproves of it. What is the
approval rating, 20%? This country finds their actions despicable. The
entire world finds their actions despicable. The entire world knows they
committed crimes - war crimes, lying to the world community, illegal use of
chemical weapons, murdering innocent people. Most of this country knows
that torture is illegal. Most of this country knows that illegal spying is,
well, illegal. Most of this country knows that obstructing justice,
destroying evidence and stealing elections is illegal. And most of this
country (I still hope) thinks that this type of behavior should not be
ignored.
It is a long road back to respectability - both here in the US in terms
of the "rule of law" and around the world in the eyes of the global
community. There is too much at stake to be held in such low regard. There
is too much at stake to be pushed aside. And there is too much at stake to
put ourselves at such a disadvantage when it comes to foreign relations.
The world knows that top level "leaders" of this country broke numerous
laws - some very heinous laws, and committed atrocities on many levels. And
that they admitted to not only doing so, but making a premeditated decision
to do so. We will never be taken seriously and will be at a
substantial disadvantage if we don’t repair our image and hold criminals
accountable.
Hell, let Attorney General John Edwards appoint one of the US attorneys
that was fired as a special prosecutor. A "not guilty" verdict will not be
looked at as vindication. The process will be looked at as a spotlight on
the criminal behaviors that have permeated this Government over the past few
years. It will show that we still care about what is right and what is
wrong.
I’m a Yankee Doodle Dandy.
I have stood with my hand over my heart for the flag.
I have had a tear in my eye for those who have died for me.
I have prayed that those that lead my country know what’s best.
I went to the schools and was taught that we were the greatest country.
I was taught that our judicial system was fair to everyone. And I should never worry.
I was taught that I was free, when others were not.
And, I was taught that our constitution would protect me forever.
Now, I am an adult and disillusioned.
I may be considered to be an enemy of the state.
When I look at the flag, the red stands for blood and the white for bandages.
I have run out of tears, for those who die have died in vain.
I no longer pray as I’ve seen the leaders of my country fail.
The schools have changed history by teaching our children that we’ve never done anything wrong.
Our judicial makes its decisions based on the Presidents whims, and I should be worried.
I am no longer free as my phone is tapped, emails read, and cameras are everywhere.
And the constitution, that would protect me, has been torn in half.
Yes, I am a Yankee Doodle Dandy, but now I am just another tired old song.
How Reagan Created "The Homeless," & Why Charity Can't Fix It
By
Hannah Bell
In 2008, an estimated 2.3 to 3.5 million people will be homeless for some
part of the year - & the numbers have been growing. Americans have grown
accustomed to seeing people sleeping in the streets of their big cities: the
"homeless" seem to be a fact of nature, like the weather.
Yet I remember a time when it wasn't so. Pre-Reagan, in downtown Seattle. Sure,
there were poor people downtown - mostly older men. They hung out on the streets
around the market, but they didn't sleep there, they didn't even panhandle. They
slept in SRO's - single-room occupancy hotels - on 1st & 2nd aves. It was a
seedy area, but I was a young girl at the time, & I wasn't afraid to go there.
I left the US at the beginning of the Reagan years & returned in 1985; suddenly
we had "homelessness". I was young. The papers said it was "mental patients" &
"recession," so I accepted that explanation.
It was only when I got involved with a homeless shelter that I learned how the
homeless problem grew from near-invisible to omnipresent in the space of 5
years. Here's the short version, from the "Without Housing" Coalition.
In 1978, HUD’s budget was over $83 billion.
In 1983, HUD’s budget was only $18 billion.
In 1983, general public emergency shelters began opening in cities nationwide.
In 1987, Congress passed the Stewart B. McKinney Act, providing $880 million in
homeless assistance funding (2004 constant dollars).
In short, Reagan deliberately created "homelessness" by cutting 65 billion of
housing money & replacing it with $880 million in shelter funding.
The lost funding has never been replaced, & the percentage of low-cost housing &
subsidized housing has been dropping ever since. 100,000 units of low-cost
housing have been lost since 1996 alone.
Other factors that have exacerbated homelessness:
Thirty-five years of wage stagnation, achieved through a variety of means.
The Volker recession, deliberately prolonged & deepened to push back labor
activism & organizing & drive down wages.
Increasing income inequality achieved though tax cuts at the top & other means.
More money to the top drives up the price of land & housing & concentrates
ownership of these assets - just like an influx of rich outsiders drives up the
price of housing in a small town.
Increased competition for lower-wage jobs from immigrants (LEGAL immigration,
which since the 80's has been set at turn-of-the-century levels for unskilled
labor, precisely to drive down wages.)
Rises in the cost of medical care & higher education, far above the inflation
rate.
The decline in the percentage of the population with medical insurance &
guaranteed pensions.
The substitution of credit for income as people struggle to maintain "normal"
lifestyles (& business struggles to maintain "normal" levels of commerce).
Homelessness isn't a fact of nature; it's been deliberately created by public
policy.
Before I learned how homelessness was deliberately created, I'd been proud that
the little community I live in now had pulled together in the 80's to create a
homeless shelter.
According to the local feel-good story, a coalition of locals recognized the
"growing problem." "With some government money that happened to be available &
lots of local donations & volunteer hours," people worked together for the
common good.
In reality, what most likely happened was this: Local government leaders got
notice of HUD cuts & the availability of shelter funding. They talked to their
local private sector friends, asked them to put their influence behind a shelter
effort to solicity donations & volunteers. Then they applied for the federal
shelter grant money - voila.
The local leadership knew there were going to be more homeless people, & they
knew why. But they didn't tell their constituents. They pretended it was just
some accident our town had "homelessness," where it didn't before. Everyone
patted themselves on the back for being so "caring," & life went on - but now
there was this "problem," & it kept growing. And since it kept growing, despite
the generous help, more people began to resent the homeless, blame them, &
despise them for their failure. Particularly when some of the helpers were close
to the edge themselves, & others were doing so very well for themselves.
In the 2 years I was associated with the shelter, federal funding was cut, &
struggles to raise more money from other sources intensified.
Almost all the churches in town participated in feeding programs. Community
groups came in regularly to do service work. High school students volunteered
for senior projects. Kindergarten kids sent pennies & canned foods. Artists did
art projects, people sponsored raffles, gardeners & restaurants donated food.
The state & local gov's freed up more money. Massive amounts of volunteer energy
were expended.
Not only that, there was another, smaller shelter in town. And several other
meals programs, Bible studies, donations of free medical & eye care, a big
mental health establishment which largely served the indigent, teaching them to
believe they had "chemical imbalances" which caused them to be depressed,
addicted, or to "act out".
All this money (several million dollars), all these caring people.
The number of homeless the shelter served just increased, & the same faces
rotated through over & over. This is a small town; many of the "homeless" had
been there before. They'd get a job, get a place - something would go wrong, &
they'd be back.
In short, lots of activity, lots of energy & caring people, but things just got
worse.
The root problem is not that homeless folks don't have "skills". The problem is
not that they're "crazy". The problem is not that they "lack self-esteem," or
are addicts, or criminals, or come from broken families, or need cell-phones or
jogging clubs, or lessons on budgeting & nutrition.
Some homeless may find these things useful sometimes, but the lack of these
things isn't what creates homelessness - because folks WITH homes often have
similar problems & deficits.
But the lack of stable housing & work will certainly exacerbate & CREATE
depression & mental illness, substance abuse, family break-up, crime, & hard to
eradicate declines in self-respect & hope. Multi-generational.
I am tired of being chided for "killing hope" because I remind people that it's
housing & jobs that are needed, & a cease-fire in the 35-year war on the working
class - not feel-good projects aimed at making "losers" "more competitive" in a
system where 20% of the population NECESSARILY exist one step away from
homelessness because the structure of the economy demands it.
If people can get together to build homeless shelters, they can get together to
change the way the system creates the homeless, and yes - anything less serves
the do-gooders more than the done-to. Reagan created homelessness in 5 years. It
can be ended in 5 years as well, if we stop cheering for cell phones & jogging
lessons & start pushing for economic change.
I Believe It’s Time To Consider Who Benefits From The Federal Reserve
System
By
Time for change
As I write the title to this post I imagine some corporate “journalist”
reading it and a tape starting to play in his or her mind, saying “Uh oh,
conspiracy theorist alert!”
The term “conspiracy theorist” is what the gatekeepers of the status quo use to
connect in people’s minds those who are skeptical of so-called “conventional
wisdom” with “left wing lunatics”. Here is the formula that everyone must be
made to understand:
Skepticism of conventional wisdom = conspiracy theorist = left wing lunatic.
I wouldn’t ordinarily consider the term “conspiracy theorist” to be offensive,
if it wasn’t uttered with such contempt and used to imply that I am a lunatic.
By the plain English meaning of the phrase, all it refers to is someone who
thinks seriously about conspiracies. Anyone who doesn’t recognize that the
history of the world is filled with conspiracies of major importance hasn’t read
much history. Any American who doesn’t recognize that U.S. history
is filled with conspiracies of major importance simply isn’t paying much
attention.
Consider just our overthrow of the governments of sovereign nations, for
example. Beginning in 1893, we overthrew, helped to overthrow, or went to war
against the legitimate governments of dozens of sovereign nations, including
Hawaii
(1893),
Cuba (1898),
Puerto
Rico (1898), the
Philippines (1899-1902),
Nicaragua (1909),
Honduras
(1912),
Iran (1953),
Guatemala (1954),
Indonesia (1965),
Vietnam (1961-73),
Chile
(1973),
Panama (1989), and Iraq (2003-???). And
William Blum
writes in “A Concise History of US Global Interventions, 1945 to the Present”,
about United States intervention in 11 different Latin American countries during
the Cold War.
I note the above as an introduction to this discussion of the Federal Reserve
because I want to explain why I am skeptical of “conventional wisdom”. Each of
the above noted events were either secret at the time they were carried out, or
they were justified with lies. Though they are now so well doented by
historians that they cannot be refuted, anyone who would have tried to discuss
them at the time they were carried out would have been castigated for lack of
patriotism and branded a “conspiracy theorist”.
My point then is that people who are skeptical of “conventional wisdom” are
generally not lunatics – they are usually simply independent minded people who
have been around long enough and who have paid enough attention to know that
“conventional wisdom” should not be automatically accepted as reality.
What is the Purpose of the Federal Reserve?
I’m not an economist, I don’t know much about economics, and I’ve generally
found reading on the subject to be dry, boring and very difficult to understand.
Nevertheless I recently started reading “The
Creature from Jekyll Island – A Second Look at the Federal Reserve”, by
Edward Griffin, because it was highly recommended to me by a fellow DUer, Larry
Ogg.
Griffin describes the Federal Reserve as a cartel of private banks – meaning a
group of banks joined together in order to maximize profits by reducing
competition through the creation of a monopoly. In the case of the Federal
Reserve, that particular cartel was legalized in 1913 with the enactment of the
Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Of course the U.S. public wouldn’t consciously
enable the creation of a legalized cartel. So the real purpose of the
Federal Reserve System had to be disguised with a purported purpose.
Griffin explains the concept like this:
To cover the fact that a central bank is merely a cartel which has been
legalized, its proponents had to lay down a thick smoke screen of technical
jargon focusing always on how it would supposedly benefit commerce, the
public, and the nation; how it would lower interest rates, provide funding for
needed industrial projects, and prevent panics in the economy. There was not
the slightest glimmer that, underneath it all, was a master plan which was
designed from top to bottom to serve private interests at the expense of the
public.
The Origins of the Federal Reserve System
Griffin describes the idea for the Federal Reserve System as originating in a
highly secret meeting of seven of the wealthiest men in the world, taking place
at Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia in 1910. The seven men included one
of our nation’s most powerful U.S. Senators,
Nelson Aldrich, and six bankers. He uses several sources to doent the
highly secret nature of the meeting, including
an article
written by one of its participants, Frank Vanderlip, 22 years after the passage
of the Federal Reserve Act:
I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to
Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually
became the Federal Reserve System… We were told to leave our last names behind
us… We were instructed to come one at a time… where Senator Aldrich’s private
rail car would be in readiness…
It was the names of all printed together that would have made our mysterious
journey significant in Washington, in Wall Street, even in London. Discovery,
we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be
wasted. If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had got
together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever
of passage in Congress.
A Brief Summary of how the System Works
Griffin goes into great detail as to how the system works, and I’ll skip the
great majority of that. This is how he summarizes the plan that emerged from the
Jekyll Island meeting:
What emerged was a cartel agreement with five objectives: 1) stop the growing
competition from the nation’s newer banks; 2) obtain a franchise to create
money out of nothing for the purpose of lending; 3) get control of the
reserves of all banks so that the more reckless ones would not be exposed to
currency drains and bank runs; 4) get the taxpayer to pick up the cartel’s
inevitable losses; 5) and convince Congress that the purpose was to protect
the public.
Griffin explains objective # 4 in a chapter titled “The Name of the Game is
Bailout”:
A primary objective of that cartel was to involve the federal government as an
agent for shifting the inevitable losses from the owners of those banks to the
taxpayers. That of course is one of the more controversial assertions made in
this book. Yet, there is little room for any other interpretation when one
confronts the massive evidence of history since the System was created.
He provides numerous examples of how this has worked. One of the most striking
examples was the failure of Continental Illinois, our nation’s 7th largest bank,
when it failed in 1982. Griffin describes how its irresponsible policies led
to huge profits even as the stage was being set for a massive failure. He
describes the details of the failure, and then:
This was the golden moment… Without government intervention, Continental would
have collapsed, its stockholders would have been wiped out, depositors would
have been badly damaged, and the financial world would have learned that banks
not only have to talk about prudent management, they actually have to
adopt it. Future banking practices would have been severely altered,
and the long-term economic benefit to the nation would have been enormous. But
with government intervention, the discipline of a free market is
suspended, and the cost of failure or fraud is passed to the taxpayers… Banks
can operate recklessly and fraudulently with the knowledge that their
political partners in government will come to their rescue when they get in
trouble…
The final bailout package was a whopper. Basically, the government took over
Continental Illinois and assumed all of its losses ($4.5 billion).
Even as the Bush administration insists it won't risk public funds in a
bailout, American taxpayers may already be liable for billions of dollars
stemming from Federal Reserve and Treasury efforts to quell a financial
crisis.
History suggests the Fed may not recover some of the almost $30 billion
investment in illiquid mortgage securities it received from Bear Stearns Cos.,
said Joe Mason, a Drexel University professor who has written on banking
crises….
The Record of the Federal Reserve System
If the Federal Reserve System really does serve the purpose of stabilizing our
economy then one should be able to point to evidence of that. At least that’s
what a “conspiracy theorist”… I mean a skeptic would say.
Griffin summarizes the record of the Federal Reserve System in stabilizing our
economy:
Since its inception, it has presided over the
crashes of 1921 and
1929;
the
Great Depression of ’29 to ‘39; recessions in
’53,
’57, ’69,
’75,
and
’81; a stock market “Black
Monday” in ’87 (Is it just a coincidence that all those depressions and
recessions began during Republican presidencies?); and a 1000% inflation….
The consequences of wealth confiscation by the Federal-Reserve mechanism are
now upon us. In the current decade (the book was copyrighted in 1994),
corporate debt is soaring; personal debt is greater than ever; both business
and personal bankruptcies are at an all-time high; banks and savings and loan
associations are failing in larger numbers than ever before; interest on the
national debt is consuming half of our tax dollars…
Griffin concludes from this:
That is the scorecard 80 years after Federal Reserve was created supposedly to
stabilize our economy! There can be no argument that the System has failed in
its stated objectives… There has been more than ample opportunity to work out
mere procedural flaws. It is not unreasonable to conclude, therefore, that the
System has failed, not because it needs a new set of rules or more intelligent
directors, but because it is incapable of achieving its stated objectives….
That leads to the question: why is the System incapable of achieving
its stated objectives? The painful answer is: those were never its true
objectives… It becomes obvious that the System is merely a cartel with a
government façade… When there is a conflict between the public interest and
the private needs of the cartel – a conflict that arises almost daily – the
public will be sacrificed. That is the nature of the beast. It is foolish to
expect a cartel to act in any other way….
This view is not encouraged by Establishment institutions and publishers. It
has become their apparent mission to convince the American people that the
system in not intrinsically flawed.
At the time, the conventional wisdom… was that a government institution would
finally harness the “money trust,” disarm its powers, and establish broad
democratic control over money and credit… The results were nearly the
opposite. The money reforms enacted in 1913, in fact, helped to preserve the
status quo… Once the Fed was in operation, the steady diffusion of financial
power halted. Wall Street maintained its dominant position – and even enhanced
it.
My Assessment
As I said above, I’m not an economist, so I am certainly less qualified to
evaluate Griffin’s arguments than a lot of other people.
What about the record of Federal Reserve System failures that Griffin speaks of?
Well, I presume that those who defend the Federal Reserve System would say that
our economic history would have been worse without the System, and that
it was worse before the System was initiated in 1913. I have no way of
evaluating that. So I can’t prove to myself that Griffin is right. But as for
those who would claim that we would be worse off without the Federal Reserve
Act, I would expect them to be able to offer some proof of that, or at least
some strong evidence in favor of that statement. In the absence of such evidence
why should we have a system that requires our federal government to bail out
wealthy banks when they get into trouble?
When large wealthy banks are on the verge of failure, they generally lobby the
federal government to bail them out by claiming that if they fail our economy
will suffer grave damage, there will be millions of unemployed, etc. etc. etc.
Does it seem reasonable that banks would make such claims if they weren’t true?
…. Ok, forget I said that.
The main reason I’m inclined to believe that Griffin’s account is right on the
money for the most part, other than the fact that his book is extremely well
written and meticulously doented with relatively easy to understand examples,
is this: The idea that our government giving billions of dollars to super
wealthy corporations because of their failures somehow serves to
stabilize our economy is…. well…. It sounds so similar to Reagan’s theory of
“trickle down economics” or John McCain’s
economic stimulus plan of cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%,
claiming that such a tax cut is “essential to U.S. competitiveness”, “will
expand the U.S. economy, creating jobs and opportunities for prosperity”, and
“lead to higher wages”. To believe that kind of stuff is almost in the same
category as believing the Republican assertion that taxing inheritances even
beyond $2 million is necessary to prevent ordinary families from going bankrupt.
To believe that we as a nation have to protect the wealthy from their failures
in order to enjoy a stable economy just seems to me like the epitome of
foolishness. How much extreme income inequality, joblessness and poverty does
our nation have to experience before we wake up and realize what’s going on?
Sunday, March 23 2008 @ 11:13 AM PDT
Contributed by: damspot
Christ was watching down from heaven one day and didn’t like what he saw going on in America.
So, he decided to make a trip to New York as its people had suffered greatly on 9-11.
He appeared in Times Square since it seemed to be the most populist place in the city.
As he looked around him, he saw the people bustling about, being rude to each other, and staring at someone named the Naked Cowboy.
Christ proceeded to cross the street to get to the elevated traffic standard where he could speak to the most people. As he crossed the street, he was stopped by a cop who threatened to site him for jay-walking and attempting to climb a traffic standard.
Christ proceeded to bless the officer and laid his hands on him to cure his unknown lung cancer. The officer, feeling threatened spun Christ around and slapped the handcuffs on him for attacking an officer.
At the precinct Christ was placed in a cell with a group of drunks and addicts. As he slowly made his way around the cell, he touched each one and forgave them of their sins. He also healed them all of their addictions.
Realizing what had happened to them; they all kneeled before Jesus and praised his name.
About that time, the sergeant on duty happened to pass by the cell and see this unusual sight. He immediately reported this to the Watch Commander who went back to see for himself.
Taking a perennial drug user out of the cell, he noticed that the man looked somehow different. He looked healthy, the needle marks were gone and he was praying.
The Watch commander pulled several more of his regulars out and they were all the same. Sober, healthy and praying.
This, of course, upset the Commander who knew something was going on, but didn’t understand the significance.
He then called the Central lockup, and they decided to move Christ to Bellevue for further examination.
Sadly, he was chained at the hands and ankles and carried into the police van.
On arrival he was stripped searched where it was noted that he had scares on both hands and feet. This cause him to be placed on suicide watch for what they felt, was his own protection. Then he was placed in solitary.
Every time they came to bring his meals, they would find him missing and wandering around the regular patients praying and laying his hands on them. Each time, they would put him in a straight jacket and back in solitary he would turn up out in the general population again.
Suddenly the doctors were noticing that the patients were no longer sitting silently, needing medicines, and their wounds from their attempted suicides were gone. And they were kneeling and praying to the escaping prisoner.
The doctors were obviously mystified as this defied all they had been taught in medical school.
They decided that this Christ person was clearly a menace and called in the Cardinal of the Catholic Church of the state of New York to further investigate the situation.
The Cardinal met with Jesus in a closed room and asked him why, if he were Jesus, why he had chosen this moment to return to earth.
Jesus in turn told the Cardinal that he was displeased with the condition of his church, with the molestations, Nazi pope, and the fact that his words were being used in vain to start wars and kill in his name.
The Cardinal rocked back in his chair for a second and asked Jesus if this was the end of times.
Jesus said that he had come in hopes of bringing peace and understanding in the world now so that the inevitable could be delayed as Satan was currently busy enough with all the people arriving in hell that he had no time to bother with the rest of the world.
Having heard this, the Cardinal quickly rang for the attendants who quickly removed Christ from the room and back to solitary, this time with a guard inside and out.
The next morning at shift change, the next group of guards came to solitary, opened the door only to find Jesus gone and the 2 guards kneeling and praying silently.
When they were questioned by their commander, they affirmed that the man had indeed been Christ, and that he had told them that he was returning to heaven as mankind was not ready to accept his words of peace.
The 2 guards were subsequently given psychological exams and dismissed from the force.
This is only a story, but it is to prove that due to everyone’s different interpretation of who Christ should be and what he should represent, he could never return at this time, and be accepted in this day and age.
George W., Hillary, And McCain, And The Last Gasp Of "The Me Generation"
By
Jeff Goldsmith
Many Democrats feel dismayed, even betrayed at the unwillingness of Hillary
Clinton and her supporters to step aside for the good of the party, and to
better our chances of beating McCain. Clinton and her supporters, on the other
hand, feel dismayed and betrayed by the lack of deference that Obama and his
supporters have shown towards what they regard as Clinton's long-and-hard-earned
right to lead our party. This intra-party death match is a classic generational
succession struggle, akin to countless others through history. The fight is not
about gender or race. At stake is a new "Generation Gap", this one coming on the
trailing edge of the Baby Boomers.
The boomers are arguably the most idealistic and innovative generation since the
founding of our nation. They brought us Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, Sexual
Freedom, a revolutionary love for the planet as a whole - the Environmental
Movement - and an entire culture of caring. These are profound contributions to
the destiny of humanity.
As the boomers aged, America aged. When they were young and horny, America got
"free love". When they were seeking their fortune, America got "yuppies" and
gentrification. And when they were old and rich, and worried about staying that
way, America got "welfare reform", and tax breaks for the wealthy.
Their massive influence upon, and dominance of American life is enabled by a
single, simple fact: sheer numbers. Regardless of ideology, Americans born
during the Boom share one trait in common - throughout their whole lives there
have always been more of them than of their parents, or children. Thus they are
in all things self-ratified.
Self-ratification has led to many, many excesses, including violent rioting,
mass drug addiction, sex in the streets in some cities, rampant divorce, Rovian
politics, and above any and all particulars, a culture suffused in a powerful
sense of personal entitlement. They are "The Me Generation”. They’re not
embarrassed at this because they feel entitled to their entitlement. Not
surprisingly, the central ethic of a self-ratifying generation turns out to be
greed. The Me’s turned a nation of citizens into a nation of "consumers".
Their ambitions have been hampered only by their own incessant sibling rivalry:
between their Young Republicans, and their Vietnam War protesters. That
in-focused hostility has mounted as they have aged. The Me's are fixated on
their Me siblings, and are impervious to the claims of other generations.
The oft commented upon “Bush/Clinton dynasty” has an important asymmetry to it
that is always brushed over. The two Bush presidents are cross-generational in
the most explicit terms possible – George Sr. and George Jr. – whereas (if
Hillary is elected) the two Clinton presidents will be intra-generational, again
in the most explicit terms possible – husband and wife. There is no better
definition of a generation than those examples provide.
So despite ideological differences, Bill, Hillary, George Jr., and John McCain,
are generational “siblings” - the “Me Dynasty” – and they pushed the generation
of Bush Sr. to the side.
Recall, if you can, the televised debate between George H. Bush, the father, and
Bill Clinton – then at his prime at age 46 – in which the candidates were
deprived of podiums, and given tall stools on which to sit. Bush, in his stiff,
straight, presidential suit was obviously horribly ill at ease. Clinton, in
contrast, slouched on his stool like he was at a bar, and frequently rose up
deftly and reached out to individuals in the near-at-hand audience. He moved
like he owned the place. When Bill was elected, much was made of the ascendency
to power of the baby boomers. He was our third youngest president, knew nothing
about foreign policy, but he was smart, and sexy, played sax on Saturday Night
Live, and had a gift with words.
And if that sounds almost like a description of Barack, it should not surprise
us. As Bill was then, Barack Obama is 46 now.
That was 1992. Eight years later, in 2000, when George W., the son, became
President, W. was 54; exactly eight years older than Bill was when Bill became
President. And eight years after that, in 2008, if Hillary becomes president,
she will be 61; exactly 7 years older than W. was when W. became President. In
short, the age at which a politician may be elected President has, miraculously,
perfectly tracked with the aging of the Me Generation.
Until Obama.
Observing this, we can now more fully understand what Hillary meant by her
infamous remarks that “I bring a lifetime of experience to the White House. I
know Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the White House. And
Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2004.”
George W.’s invasion of Iraq - with it’s unutterable rational, “God damit,
that’s our oil” - was the penultimate criminal excess of Me-ism. Which is why it
is significant that Hillary and McCain both signed on to Bush’s war, with it’s
incomprehensible toll of lives, damage to our economy, and lost international
good will. And why it is significant that Obama did not. Obama staked his
political future to oppose that war - yes, by making “a speech in 2004”.
Hillary comments amount to a summary dismissal the claims of any generation but
her own. It appears that she would prefer any Me-Generation President, rather
than cede power to Obama.
All of which explains why Hillary’s supporters have sought to demean, rather
than to embrace the younger voters whom Obama has brought into the Democratic
Party in such large numbers. They deride Obama supporters as “cult” members and
“Kool-aid drinkers” who mindlessly follow their “rock-star super-guru”
candidate. This critique is particularly rich, coming from the generation which
invented the concepts of rock star and super guru. Remember them screaming
non-stop all the way through the Beatles’ concerts?
Hillary’s supporters complain that younger voters, who are engaged in the
electoral process in numbers never before seen, cannot be relied upon to vote in
the fall. So the Me’s have turned on it’s head that old maxim which they coined
to justify themselves, and now we must never trust anybody under 30. How
convenient. And the only demographic group among which Hillary consistently
polls ahead is those over 60.
In contrast, inclusivity, rather than identity, marks the generation that
followed the Me’s. Obama’s generation rejected both bigotry and identity
politics, and chose instead to “celebrate diversity.” Who cares if we have a
black President, or a woman President ? We just want a great President. Part
white, part black, Christian with Muslim roots, Obama physically embodies
multiculturalism. Inclusivity is also reflected in Obama’s extraordinarily broad
base of small donors.
Moreover, the two campaigns are each rallied by directly contrary ideas
regarding the proper locus of political action. Hillary promises “I’ll fight for
you”, which casts both herself and the citizenry in the singular form: “I” and
“you”. For it’s lack of inclusiveness, this stands in marked contrast to
Barack’s assurance to us that “Yes we can”.
In Hillary’s refusal to step aside, despite the impossible math, despite the
destruction of our party, despite risk to our country, we see again the exemplar
of Me-ism. Let’s face it. The Me Generation has never had to concede anything.
So they are not likely to cede control of the body politic before their physical
bodies give way to decrepitude.
Freedom Press Handbills Help spread the word about George W. Bush and his band of robber barons intent on destroying Democracy in America! Use our growing collection of handbills as a grocery list, then leave it in the shopping cart when you are finished!
our great country, murdering our babies, inviting God’s terrible
judgment." I took a look at the hate-filled faces of the people gathering in
anger and volume, and I thought: This is how a Republic falls.
John Adams, who was later the second president of the United States, wrote
some words in the Constitution of Massachusetts that have been quoted
approvingly by the U.S. Supreme Court and every state supreme court in the
United States. He described a separation of powers among three branches of
government and said that this would be done 
I’m a Yankee Doodle Dandy.
