Author
|
Topic: Same shit, different figurehead (Read 613 times) |
|
letheomaniac
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 267
Reputation: 8.52
Rate letheomaniac
 
|
 |
Same shit, different figurehead
« on: 2008-11-05 09:35:40 » |
 |
[letheomaniac] I know that it may seem that I am raining on B.O's parade, but out here in the rest of the world (AKA the US's backyard), not everyone is caught up in the delirium that is surrounding the election of the US's first black president. While the voters of the United States deserve a pat on the back for finally being able to see past the colour of someone's skin, having a guy who is on the darker end of the tan scale running the place doesn't necessarily make things better. Ask a Zimbabwean. The citizenry of the wider world are also not buying into his vague promises for 'change'. What are you guys going to change? Are you all going to start wearing your underwear on the outside of your pants? I haven't managed to decipher what changes he is planning to make at all. All I hear is 'yes, we can'. We can what?! We can vote? (we knew that already, and for the record you've been suckered into voting for another member of the establishment that you are all so pissed off with. You fell for the weasel with the slickest, most expensive ad campaign ever seen in the already excessive presidential campaign system, which treats the governance of a country like an episode of American Idol). I somehow don't see him turning on the corporations who paid for his presidency, and as far as I'm concerned the dominance of corporations in American society seem to be the root of all your (and our) problems. And with that said, allow me to present some opinions from folks that are themselves on the darker end of the tan scale - Egyptians.
Source: Al Jazeera English
Author: Firas Al-Atraqchi
Dated: 5/11/2008
Even though Barack Obama has been elected the 44th president of the United States, there are some in the Middle East who believe his policies towards the region will differ little from those of his defeated Republican rival, John McCain.
Al Jazeera asked a number of people in Egypt, the Arab world's most populous country, whether Obama would bring change to the US presidency.
Omar Kamel, musician
"In terms of actual policy, I do not think there is much difference at all when it comes to Obama or McCain's Middle Eastern viewpoints.
They have both committed themselves publicly and explicitly to the Zionist cause, with Obama promising Aipac an 'undivided Israeli Jerusalem' as a goal.
More so, they have both said that 'nothing is off the table' when dealing with Iran, which implicitly means they both consider a military attack on Iran a strategic option.
That Obama has implied he would not want to use nuclear weapons is a small consolation when we consider the devastation wrought on Iraq by 'conventional' warfare.
Obama has also made it quite clear that he is a subscriber to the whole 'war on terror' notion – which to the rest of the world simply means he will continue the march of Empire Amerika.
Unfortunately, there is a geist of optimistic negative-racism that chooses to see Obama as an actual opportunity for change – when in fact he offers absolutely nothing new save for his skin colour and relative eloquence.
Obama reminds me far too much of Clinton. Clinton, quite literally, got away with murder simply because the world found him charismatic and charming.
Clinton helped destroy Iraq with sanctions and was an accomplice to the murder of over 500,000 Iraqi children and yet most people in the Middle East still like the murderer, still believe that, somehow, he was a good man.
That is my fear with Obama, that he will pacify the world as he rapes it.
At least with McCain, like Bush, the world would have been acutely aware of its rape."
Abdel-Rahman Hussein, journalist
"There is an apathy among Egyptians regarding the US election because many say it makes no difference who wins. The US will always pursue the same policies in the region.
Even with a Democratic win in the White house, it is American - and almost by default Israeli - interests which will always come first.
The fulcrum of American policy in the region is support for Israel above all else, and both parties unequivocally adhere to that.
Additionally, as opposed to Great Britain where the divide between left and right has become less pronounced in recent years, the American political spectrum has always been more centrist.
One position both candidates straddled quite comfortably is their staunch support for Israel.
Obama's promise to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) that Jerusalem will remain the "undivided" capital of Israel does not bode well for the future of the peace process which is currently proposing East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.
Nevertheless, Jewish and pro-Israel groups remain sceptical about Obama and feel he is merely paying lip service to secure the election, so again it is difficult to surmise exactly how it will pan out."
Jen Zaki Hanna, university professor
"Unfortunately, I do not believe that Obama will have significantly different foreign and financial policies.
I considered the one person who could have brought about real change in the Middle East, to be Ralph Nader.
Nader dissected the real problem with America's financial policies - that being the unfettered control of the transnational corporations and their lack of respect for human rights and environmental rights at home and globally.
Unfortunately, every time Nader tries to enter the presidential race he is called a spoiler for the Democrats. This just goes to shows me, and I believe others around the world and in the Middle East, that the Democrats and Republicans are one and the same.
Perhaps Hillary Clinton was the lesser of the two evils than Obama who has changed his mind multiple times on issues such as Iraqi troop withdrawal.
Both parties will always be loyal first and foremost to Israel as a necessary ingredient to US foreign policy and according to most Middle Easterners it has always meant one thing: there will be no progress on Israeli-Palestinian peace.
There has yet to be a Democratic or Republican party in the US which has demonstrated a real significant move on a two-state solution.
I do not think things will change now."
Yousef Gamal il Din, broadcast journalist with NileTV
"There is also ... a belief that the foreign policies of both candidates do not really vary much.
The debates did not highlight key differences that will help regional problems in the Arab World, Afghanistan, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine.
My impression from talking to Egyptians who are well-read in international affairs and business is that they perceive McCain to be hawkish (more so than Obama) and that his policies would have been less-suitable for Arab interests.
Obama appears to be better for our region, but the key word here is appears.
The Middle East would look different under Obama but it will be difficult to judge because the rhetoric during the campaign does not necessarily translate into decisions or policies once the candidate reaches the White House.
Once candidates are confronted with certain realities in the White House or realities that emerge later on, they may have to adapt their policies. The international arena is very dynamic, things change very quickly.
It is difficult to accurately predict US foreign policy."
Ahmed Samy, marketing analyst
"Israel won't be that happy that Obama won because they might not trust that he would fully back them, even though he has said before that he would fully support them.
As for the Middle East, not much would change with Obama in office.
The situation in the region might stay the same or get a bit better or put on hold till the following elections.
The American people are the only ones to benefit if Obama wins.
Now Obama being the first black president in America is a history-making event; if he stays in office the full term, that is good. But if he gets assassinated or something like that, then it will be a tragedy."
Ahmed Kafafi, author
"An Obama win doesn't mean so much to me because whoever comes to power will never dare to change certain basics in the US foreign policy and assuming there will be any, those will be slight changes that would never reverse the situation in the Middle East.
I do not think Egypt and the Middle East will look any different; there is a fear that things will move from bad to worse. The financial crisis has peaked and the wealth of the Middle East is the only way out for the US.
Egyptians see the US as working for its own interests and is a big supporter of Israel. For them the US is a big power that will never ever work for their interest, so it doesn't matter if Obama or McCain is in power."
|
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
DJ dAndroid
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 206
Reputation: 8.22
Rate DJ dAndroid
Ballet Mechanique
|
|
Re:Same shit, different figurehead
« Reply #1 on: 2008-11-05 10:32:19 » |
|
I try to stay away from all things political, I am simply not informed enough. And on this subject well, I'm not even American. But like lots of the rest of the world I'm optimistic about the Obama win!
Even if nothing else he is a symbol of so many things, including (or especially) decisive American desire for a change from the last 8 years. Symbols are powerful things that I don't believe should be needlessly discounted. Back in 2002, 2003 as America geared up for vernichtung against Iraq, Obama spoke out against the war at gigantic anti-war rallies. And in later years called for diplomacy in other torn areas including Iraq.
In other areas he has spoken out against California's (currently upcoming) Proposition 8, even if for no other reason than he is against any attempts to amend federal and state constitutions. I mean I could go on, I'm only going by memory mainly from a casual glance at Wikipedia some time ago.
Seriously, if he came across as some "pussy" who was scared of the "war on terror" or doing what needs to be done in the event of threatened American interests, he never would have gotten in. The hope though is that being able to play that game doesn't make him a war-mongering glory-hound?
No matter who is elected they will be prey to vested interest, partisanship, one-million hidden agendas and the whims of Congress, wheels already turned & all the necessary ass-kissery. But still from all I've seen he seems to be a good man, who will work with what he's got to do some... good? The damage America has done herself isn't hidden to anybody, and even if not "fixable" in the next 4 years I trust him over McCain & company. And even if he is a multi-millionaire himself & not the kinda streetwise poor man done awesome the media half present him as. And even if it took a huge advertising campaign to get him there - I'm glad (cautiously but still happily) that he's there. At least he was honest enough to thank his campaign manager & his publicist in his acceptance speech.
|
Shouldn't robots have the same right as humans to have gender and express their sexuality?
_Clayton Bailey_
http://www.claytonbailey.com/monrobot.htm
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.77
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Same shit, different figurehead
« Reply #2 on: 2008-11-05 11:36:00 » |
|
I agree with DJ_dAndroid. Right now I'm feeling optimistic and not up to pissing on the parade. I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities to bemoan how Obama is really just another corrupt American politician, but right now I'm pleased that he won.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.93
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Same shit, different figurehead
« Reply #3 on: 2008-11-05 12:33:16 » |
|
Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2008-11-05 11:36:00
I agree with DJ_dAndroid. Right now I'm feeling optimistic and not up to pissing on the parade. I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities to bemoan how Obama is really just another corrupt American politician, but right now I'm pleased that he won.
|
I don't have any delusions about Obama being able to fix the mess that he inherits, that will take more than 4 years. My source of optimism comes from interpreting his election as a giant collective "fuck you!" to the Bush regime. Better late than never.
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:Same shit, different figurehead
« Reply #4 on: 2008-11-05 15:35:13 » |
|
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2008-11-05 12:33:16
Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2008-11-05 11:36:00
I agree with DJ_dAndroid. Right now I'm feeling optimistic and not up to pissing on the parade. I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities to bemoan how Obama is really just another corrupt American politician, but right now I'm pleased that he won.
|
I don't have any delusions about Obama being able to fix the mess that he inherits, that will take more than 4 years. My source of optimism comes from interpreting his election as a giant collective "fuck you!" to the Bush regime. Better late than never.
|
Agreed.
It is nice for once to wake up and have just a little more pride in my country than I've had in at least 8 years.
Obama has a job I sure as hell wouldn't want in these times.
Walter
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.77
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Same shit, different figurehead
« Reply #5 on: 2008-11-05 15:55:58 » |
|
Quote from: Walter Watts on 2008-11-05 15:35:13
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2008-11-05 12:33:16
Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2008-11-05 11:36:00
I agree with DJ_dAndroid. Right now I'm feeling optimistic and not up to pissing on the parade. I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities to bemoan how Obama is really just another corrupt American politician, but right now I'm pleased that he won.
|
I don't have any delusions about Obama being able to fix the mess that he inherits, that will take more than 4 years. My source of optimism comes from interpreting his election as a giant collective "fuck you!" to the Bush regime. Better late than never.
|
Agreed.
It is nice for once to wake up and have just a little more pride in my country than I've had in at least 8 years.
Obama has a job I sure as hell wouldn't want in these times.
Walter
|
funny you should say that 
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/black_man_given_nations
Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job
WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable
job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States
of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with
such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing
the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million
Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties,
the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other
people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee
of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar
and activist Mark L. Denton, "It just goes to show you that, in this country,
a black man still can't catch a break."
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
letheomaniac
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 267
Reputation: 8.52
Rate letheomaniac
|
|
Re:Same shit, different figurehead
« Reply #6 on: 2008-11-06 02:29:05 » |
|
[letheomaniac] I agree that Obama has a Herculean task in front of him, but my question is, is he actually going to do it? The politicians of South Africa have been promising our citizens a 'better life for all', jobs and houses for years now, and yet 47% of us are still unemployed and living in corrugated iron shacks with no sanitation or electricity. Our government spends our tax money on multi-billion rand arms deals, buying submarines for which we have no use at all. Talk is cheap. Really cheap. And its a good thing it is because there's not going to be much in the kitty for B.O. to use to initiate this 'change' of his. More like small change. So while I wish him and the American people the best of luck, I don't think that his election is going to make that much difference to those of us who are affected by, but have no control over US government policy. I saw an American woman on the news saying something along the lines of 'now that we have elected Barack Obama, the world will forgive us the sins of the Bush administration'. I hope that this is not a prevailing delusion, because it's going to take a lot more than voting in some slick politico to mollify the world that America has burned. I found this interesting article that provides some analysis as to exactly why the American voting public thinks that Obama will bring them the change that they so obviously crave:
Source: Counterpunch.com
Athour: Chuck Spinney
Dated: 5/11/2008
The M & M Strategy
How Obama Won
By CHUCK SPINNEY
The M&M or Motherhood and Mismatch Strategy was conceived by the American strategist, Col. John R. Boyd. The basic goal of an M&M strategy is to build support for and attract the uncommitted to your cause by framing a "motherhood" position -- i.e., a position no one can object to, like the mythical "motherhood, apple pie, and the American way" -- and then inviting your opponent in to repeatedly attack it and, in so doing, smash himself to pieces at the mental and the even more decisive moral level of conflict. Self-destruction will happen inevitably, if you can successfully induce your adversary into attacking your motherhood position in a way that exposes mismatches among the three poles of his moral triangle, defined by (1) What your opponent says he is; (2) What he really is as defined by his actions; and (3) the World he has to deal with. Whether consciously or not, I believe Obama has an intuitive feel for the moral leverage inherent in the M&M strategy and this enabled him to outmaneuver McCain and his campaign and bring them to the verge of mental and moral collapse. That Obama also did this to Hillary Clinton suggests it is no accident.
The key to setting up a successful M&M strategy is building the Motherhood position, then making it into a moral fortress. This is easier said than done, because it involves defining your cause nontrivially in self-evidently positive terms and then shaping the environment as well as your self-definition in a way that always reinforces that motherhood position. Mr. Obama defined himself initially as a unifier and a change agent for a divided country in which a clear majority of people believed their nation was on the wrong pathway into the future. Who can argue with that definition? To be sure, it is an empty vessel, but it is pure motherhood, and it works like a charm if you can maneuver your adversary into playing by your rules.
Obama skillfully used passionate, uplifting oratory to energize mass demonstrations to set the initial self-definition in the public mind and to build enthusiasm and momentum, and then he demonstrated coolness under pressure and carefully crafted oratory to reinforce that motherhood position with his self definition. Sometimes he did this subliminally, as in his speech at Cooper Union, which led historian Gary Wills to dutifully compare Obama's speech to Lincoln's speech at Cooper Union. And sometimes Obama was more direct, as in his thoughtful Philadelphia speech which converted the Wright affair into a larger discussion of how racism affects whites as well as blacks.
Obama put the final touches on this self definition in the debates and capped it off in a brilliantly produced "infomercial." But while he was making subliminal appeals to Lincoln and direct appeals to man's better angels, Obama also baited McCain to attack him, usually subtly with the political equivalent of a rope-a-dope jabbing operation. He constantly compared McCain's votes in the Senate to Bush's record and made fun of the contradictions implicit in McCain's positions. Occasionally Obama's jabs were brazen, e.g., when he publicly dared McCain to bring up the Ayers connection before the third debate. McCain foolishly went for that red cape and in so doing diminished himself in front of millions.
A key aspect of Obama's tactical jabs is that they were never hateful and almost never personal, unless legitimated as tit for tat by McCain's personal guilt-by-association attacks on Obama. Instead, Obama's tactical jabs were usually focused on contradictions implicit in McCain's actions and campaign speeches, which McCain, being of a belligerent nature, obligingly took personally. In retrospect, it is now clear that Obama's actions never deviated from his motherhood image of being a coolly competent unifier intent on changing the status quo. He reinforced that definition with disciplined behaviour that was always consistent with the three poles of his own moral triangle, even when exogenous events intervened in the world he had to deal with, which became especially clear during the financial panic, which he exploited simply by stepping back and keeping his cool.
The contrast between Obama's M&M strategy and McCain's behavior was stunning. Obama, a newcomer and virtual outsider, used uplifting, albeit vague, oratory to shape the popular environment in a way that reinforced his own self-definition. In contrast, McCain, like Hillary before him, is a creature of the Washington status quo, a known quantity. And like Hillary, he chose to echo Obama's call for change. So, he fell into the same trap and signed on to Obama's definition of Motherhood -- unity and change. It was a trap, because McCain's definition of motherhood, like Hillary's, was illogical at its core -- McCain's argument implicitly asked voters to buy the following gibberish: 'I am an experienced creature of the status quo in a country where a large majority of you believe it to be dangerously divided and on the wrong pathway into the future, but my experience (in helping to create this status quo?) makes me the better qualified to achieve the Motherhood goal (which the inexperienced outsider had the temerity to establish?).'
Borrowing your adversary's motherhood position is not the best way to kick off your own M&M strategy.
It is now clear that an M&M strategy was not McCain's intention, even though he signed up for Obama's game. To see why, let us examine McCain's strategic triangle in the context of his fundamentally weak starting point. Bear in mind, the triangle is a clean abstraction; reality is of course messier, categories overlap and sharp distinctions always fade into penumbras in the real world. Nevertheless, I think applying this abstraction can be a useful analytical tool to clarify our appreciation of why the M&M strategy can be so powerful in Obama's case and so destructive in McCain's case:
(1) What McCain says he is: McCain, being a well-known creature of the establishment, had less maneuver room in which to define himself than Obama. He chose to expand the myth he had assiduously created for himself by defining himself as a man of honor with the wisdom born of hard experience, as an independent maverick, and as a super patriot whose most basic moral value was to put country ahead of self interest no matter what the cost. Indeed "Country First" was the bumper-sticker of his campaign.
(2) What McCain Really Is: McCain's own actions, which define who the man he really is, contradicted his own self-definition over and over again, and to an increasingly sharp degree. Consider, please, the following: (a) By going negative with personal attacks that increasingly relied on McCarthyesque, guilt-by-association oratory, McCain and especially his running mate, Sarah Palin, tried to destroy Obama's character by attacking his motives, patriotism, and even making oblique references to Obama's otherness (code for race). In effect, McCain shouted to the world that he was just another Rovian attack dog, that he was more of the same, and not the change agent he claimed to be.
Moreover, while McCain violated his own claim of being a change agent, his smarmy attacks left Obama's definition of motherhood entirely intact, unquestioned, and probably reinforced. (b) By sowing division in the country, pitting region against region, town against city, real Americans against not-real Americans, and even inciting violent mob-like attitudes in the minds of supporters, McCain and especially Sarah Palin contradicted McCain's own self definition of putting country before self interest. (c) By picking Sara Palin as his running mate, he chose a person who is manifestly not ready to become president, should McCain die in office. This decision not only reinforced the violation of his self definition of putting country before self, it also contradicted his self definition of being an independent maverick, because the choice of Palin was obviously a sop to the right wing base of the Republican party. And, to make matters worse, the choice of Palin contradicted his self definition of wisdom under pressure forged in the fires of experience, because even though he had from March until August to choose a running mate, he converted that important decision into an impulsive crapshoot at the last minute, in effect betting on snake eyes, without considering the mathematical odds shaping that outcome.
(3) Now let's look at the world McCain had to deal with: i.e., coping with the strategic maneuvers of Obama as well as the exogenous events that always intervene from time to time, most important being the financial meltdown. As noted above, like Hillary Clinton, McCain fell into Obama's trap by defining motherhood in Obama's terms. The strategic consequence was profound: To win, McCain, like Hillary before him, had two options: He could take the high road and play the game on Obama's terms in the hope that he could beat an obviously intelligent Obama intellectually, or that Obama would loose his cool and destroy himself by attacking McCain in a way that contradicted the three legs of Obama's own strategic triangle. Or ... McCain could take the low road, and willfully violate the terms of his own strategic triangle in the hope that he could destroy Obama in a brutal head-on personal attack, before the consequences of the violation came back to haunt him.
The first option held little promise of success for McCain, because Obama had been carefully reinforcing the legs of his own strategic triangle for at least a year and a half, and he had honed his defenses against his own self-destructive temptations during his epic struggle with Hillary Clinton. There is no evidence that McCain ever understood the nature of the strategic choice Obama had maneuvered him into facing. Whether McCain realized it or not, he chose the second strategic option which, in military terms, turned out to be the antithesis of Sun Tzu's advice to always focus your strength against your adversary's weakness. McCain, like Hillary, chose to risk weakening his own strategic triangle with a welter of unfocused tactical assaults, which played directly into Obama's strength. In effect, what passed for "strategy" in the McCain campaign was to mindlessly throw everything at Obama in the hope of landing a lucky punch.
But a welter of Hail Mary attack thrusts is not a strategy in any real sense; it is merely an unfocused jumble of disconnected tactics. And if one's opponent is clever at playing the M&M game, these lunges become a prescription for self-immolation. As the futility of each assault became apparent, McCain switched tactics in what became a mess of increasingly desperate attempts to connect with something that worked -- Ayers, Joe the Plumber, Obama is a socialist, Obama is a wealth spreader, back to Joe the Plumber, etc -- all conveying the impression of flailing around in a futile search to find some combination, any combination, of lucky punches that would score.
McCain's mindless desperation came into especially sharp relief when the exogenous effect of the financial meltdown intruded and tempted McCain into committing a grandstanding stunt that quickly became an embarrassing debacle. McCain first made a big deal of publicly postponing his participation in the third debate for the "sake of the country," then he sowed confusion by rushing to Washington to build a bipartisan consensus, but while in Washington, he did nothing to fix the problem or build a consensus. Then he reversed course saying things were fixed enough, so he could participate in the debate. So much for his claim of wisdom born of hard experience. Meanwhile, Obama stood by coolly while the flailing McCain flung himself off the cliff.
While there are many other examples I could cite, I think it is clear that McCain's decision to emulate Hillary and take the low road fit into Obama's M&M strategy like a hand fits into a glove: McCain used his own energy to bash his own moral triangle to pieces. Not surprisingly, his mental game degenerated into confusion and disorder, but more importantly, he destroyed himself morally. And in so doing, it was McCain who made the best case demonstrating why he was unfit to be President: Like most fighter pilots -- Boyd being a stunning exception -- McCain could not or would not think beyond tactics. Notwithstanding any personal bravery he may have demonstrated earlier as a naval officer, his ineptitude in the strategic game, which became clearly evident in his duel with the wily Obama, proved that he is morally and mentally unfit to be a successful Commander in Chief.
Obama, on the other hand, proved again that he is a master of the strategy game, and being an effective leader -- President as well as Commander in Chief -- is all about strategy.
In terms of Colonel Boyd's Moral Design for Grand Strategy -- his M&M strategy, McCain strove to benefit himself by violating codes of conduct and standards of behavior he professed to uphold and others expected him to uphold, and in so doing he destroyed himself at the mental level of competition by corrupting his own decision-making process. At the moral level of competition, McCain dishonored himself by letting his ambition destroy the very identity he had so assiduously built since the early 1980s. Only in his concession speech did he seek to recover that identity.
But a larger question remains: Does Obama really intend to deliver on his twin promise of unity and change. Neither of his main adversaries in the race for President had the strategic sense or the ability to smoke out how Obama actually intends to fulfill the soaring hopes and dreams that his M&M strategy unleashed. An early indicator of his real intentions will become clear when he name his Treasury Secretary and Defense Secretary. If he picks one of the democratic apparatchiks or ex-Clintonites who magnified existing problems that Bush made worse, Obama's presidency will become just another step down the slippery slope that got its first real greasing by the guns and butter decision-making style of the Vietnam War.
Franklin "Chuck" Spinney is a former military analyst for the Pentagon who became famous in the early 1980s for what became known as the "Spinney Report", criticizing what he described as the reckless pursuit of costly complex weapon systems by the Pentagon, with disregard to budgetary consequences. Despite attempts by the his superiors to bury the controversial report, it eventually was exposed during a United States Senate Budget Committee on Defense hearing, which though scheduled to go unnoticed, made the cover of Time Magazine March 7, 1983. When Chuck Spinney retired from the Pentagon after 33 years, his retirement interview with Bill Moyers won an Emmy for being the best news magazine show of 2003. He currently lives on a sailboat in the Mediterranean. He can be reached at chuck_spinney@mac.com
|
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
DJ dAndroid
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 206
Reputation: 8.22
Rate DJ dAndroid
Ballet Mechanique
|
|
Re:Same shit, different figurehead
« Reply #7 on: 2008-11-06 07:59:45 » |
|
I'm sorry letheomaniac, to tell the truth all that article succeeded in for me was to extra convince me McCain wasn't the man for the job.
In reality unless you're psychic or attached at the hip or, whatever, there's no way to forecast if America's dark knight will be of any use whatsoever. It's not logical to me to dislike &/or fear the man for things he hasn't even done yet. On the other hand disliking his slick & expensive campaigning is perfectly valid, but I personally won't judge him on that score because well, it worked; no harm no foul. Come real decision making time, life off the dirty campaign trail and moved into his very clean and slicker new office(s), the world will slowly (or quickly) find out what kind of politician and man they & we are, erm, stuck with. And really either way always were stuck with then, since I've yet to find anyone (in my own circles) who would be jumping through hula-hoops if McCain had won; would you have been happier with that outcome?
On the other hand I definitely have a way of simplifying things, probably part of why I'm not attracted to politics at all and usually stay away. But this campaign had a way of drawing the whole world in, everyone hoping for the best. And I'm an unrepentant optimist at heart, often stubbornly and past all reasons for it. After all the endless evangelizing of every sort, perhaps Obama just really is the Devil and hey, I fully admit I'm drawn to that too. 
|
Shouldn't robots have the same right as humans to have gender and express their sexuality?
_Clayton Bailey_
http://www.claytonbailey.com/monrobot.htm
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Same shit, different figurehead
« Reply #8 on: 2008-11-06 20:04:44 » |
|
DJ, I think the Counterpunch article posted byLetheomaniac is a brilliant meta analysis of Obama's campaign strategy, and goes some way to explaining why McCain & Co lost so resoundingly to Obama. It is demonstrates that for a change intelligence, appropriately applied won and makes me hopeful that the Obama administration may find a way to continue on the same lines despite the party and the system behind them.
Kindest Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.77
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Same shit, different figurehead
« Reply #9 on: 2008-11-06 22:24:43 » |
|
One of the things that has surprised me a bit, is how many conservative commentators - who had nothing nice to say about Obama for almost two years - have turned out to publicly congratulate him. Rush Limbaugh is a notable exception on that, and of course many others are sticking to their guns, but it seemed that almost none of the opposition indulged in congratulations when Clinton won. They simply got uglier and nastier for him. Of course Obama also actually won a popular majority which Clinton did not.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
letheomaniac
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 267
Reputation: 8.52
Rate letheomaniac
|
|
Re:Same shit, different figurehead
« Reply #10 on: 2008-11-13 07:43:19 » |
|
Quote:| It is demonstrates that for a change intelligence, appropriately applied won and makes me hopeful that the Obama administration may find a way to continue on the same lines despite the party and the system behind them. |
Nothing would please me more than to see a change of attitude from the US government, and I too really hope that Obama manages to pull it off, despite having accepted 9.6 million dollars from Goldman Sachs (according to an article I read - I'll post a link as soon as I can find it again) during his campaign. It will take an enourmous amount of pressure from the American people to get Obama to make good on his campaign promises. Never forget that the best way to find out if a politician is lying is to check whether his lips are moving! Still, he's no Dick Cheney, so maybe we are in with a chance after all.
Regards
Lethe
|
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
|
Logged
