Midterm: Further Right Lays Waste to What is Left

November 6, 2010

Re: Obama says he’s out of touch, but offers no concessions

President Obama’s first reaction to the republicans after the midterm results: Let us find “common ground.”  Absolutely amazing – but not surprising.  Everything he gave them for the last two years only further empowered their resolve to destroy him – and any possible remaining chances for Progressive change.  The “common ground” during that span was incessant corporate (Blue Dog) appeasement, which reflected Obama’s actual standing/commitment.  Consequently, his original base was torn – in stages of revulsion.  Anything learned? : “What the American people want is for us to mix and match ideas.”  Wrong!  The majority of citizens wanted the “Change” they were promised – not the same status quo, step-by-step sellouts prevalent since the Reagan years, or updated methods of watering down every measure to the point where the industrial/financial/military circle (neo-cons/neo-liberals) may as well have put forth/planned them themselves – yet openly.

“He noted that he engaged in closed-door, backroom deal-making to get his health care bill through Congress, but said it was necessary and the end justified the means.”  The “end” was a Mandate (during a worldwide Recession/don’t dare call it a Second Depression) – without a Public Option: “If a mandate was a solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everyone buy a house.”  The “means”: “These are the stock-in-trade tactics of the ‘power elite’ that C. Wright Mills wrote so poignantly about back in the 1950s.”

“It’s an ugly mess when it comes to process.  That is something that really affected how people viewed the outcome.  That is something that I regret . . . but I think the outcome was a good one.”  The “process” was assured as one that would be renewed, to an honorable level.  Instead, the “ugly mess” of corruption, behind closed doors, while being sold as something else, on stage, continued – and this, undoubtedly, “affected how people viewed the outcome” – but not just on health care; it “affected” how everything was “viewed” – overall.  Moreover, since Obama’s  degree of “regret” leaves him thinking “the outcome was [still] a good one,” and leads him to seek even more “common ground,” our society can be assured of what is on the horizon:

Senator Reid: “the biggest takeaway from this election is that the American people want compromise across party lines.”  Yes, that’s the answer: more “compromise” – in one direction.  And, those true colors never cease to reveal – as they continually dye each and every surface.

A “thanks” to Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Robert Gates, and all other summoned advisors for the relevant midterm “outcome” – and all that is soon to follow – due to our president’s “out of [a certain] touch” choices, without (leftist, professional or otherwise) “concessions.”

Update (11/10): “President Obama’s . . . deficit reduction commission just proposed slashing Social Security.”

In relation to narratives created by Fox/Koch Brothers, etc., and what was the continuing mindset of the remaining Bush II minority, Obama appointed a biased Deficit Commission – during a Second Depression.  At the same time, he “Put Social Security on the Table.”  Then, the Deficit Commission’s (predetermined) recommendations were put off until after the midterms.  Now, with a new House, Obama and the remaining Blue Dogs will seek even more of that (veil of) “Common Ground,” and “Compromise” – while we hear more about sacrificing.

Re: What Happened to Change We Can Believe In?
Individual Mandates Bootstrap the Homeless
Foreclosure Fraud? Obama Looks Forward
Obama Put Social Security on the Table

[If FDR and his related Congresses had reacted as Obama and the last Congress, what is going to be (within two decades, maximum), would have already been – by 1945.

Prediction: The 2008 election was the last chance to turn a certain tide.  Since it, instead, served primarily to expose who factually rules and whose side Congress and any President will stand on, we can now look forward to a never-ending series of corporate waves.]

Bookmark and Share

Disapproving the Far-Right Texas Education Board

March 13, 2010

Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation’s Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state.”  This relates to a state where the governor is so bold (regardless of implications and reverberations) that he openly promotes a second wave/era of Secessionism.  Those declarations, of course, are framed in terms of States’ Rights.  You know, just like they were – in 1859 (and 1964).  How far can the honorable slogan “Don’t Mess With Texas” evolve from promoting connotations of emboldened independence (Sam Houston) to eliciting references of shame (Chuck Norris)?  What’s next?  Will (captive) students soon be forced (indoctrinated) to learn (from the elementary stage forth) updated interpretations on due process (since Magna Carta), probable cause (basic rights/land of the “Free”), speedy Public trials (with impartial juries/without indefinite detention), right to counsel (protected from the opposition’s surveillance), cruel and unusual punishment (torture), and double jeopardy (acquitted, but they keep terrorizing with new venues)?  Since the Constitution, to this minority, is such an “outdated document” and just a “G…Damned piece of paper,” the likelihood of our Bill of Rights becoming a subversive/socialistic representation – in their hands – is completely realistic.  From our beginning, the importance of Prohibiting an establishment of (State/National) religion has been fought over for many historical reasons.  If only we could (proudly) be “One Nation Under God” – without a (supposedly) sanctioned few forcing their personal translations of that God upon every individual citizen.

Reaction to the latter sentence: “The inherent contradiction embraced in that statement is profoundly disturbing!”  “Why can’t we be ‘One Nation, United in Freedom from doctrinal ideology’?”

Reply: For theists, it is neither contradictory nor disturbing.  The “profoundly” welcoming door in the statement imparts a nation, with various beliefs, under God (as we all are) – without disparaging differences between Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.  True, atheists are offended by such designations; “In God We Trust” must also be an outrage to them.  Yet, while we (for the most part) go out of our way to be all-inclusive, how much should an ultimate majority be expected to give in and give up?  The certitude in a “Higher Power” has been predominant since the original settlers forged their path.  While many major mistakes were made throughout our history regarding religion (and continue to be: note critical tone of original comment), it does not mean the proper outcome ought to be one of complete impiety.  We progress by perpetually seeking acceptable balances and boundaries, not by making goals to erase all ideology – to such a point that Freedom, here, is only finally realized by nonbelievers if it’s a barren Utopian landscape, completely void of Spirit.

Bookmark and Share