THIS MESSAGE IS ENDORSED BY MOI
I would tend to agree that Barack Obama would be slightly preferable over the working-class-disdaining, fiscally pathological, war-mongering, cronyistic, sustainable food-despising alternative.
I would love change, so-called, to usher in a kinder, more sustainable, more creative, safer world where words like terrorism, free-trade, democracy, conservative, liberal, Left and Right have real meaning—other than to obscure.
What is off-putting about Barack Obama to me is that, via the desperate people, he is beginning to take on that dreaded cult-of-personality thing. This is always delusional and even repugnant to anyone with a kind-libertarian/caring-anarchist/discerning-social democratic/small-c conservative/mystic-yet-scientific streak.
In other words, “hope” is found more in compassionate community and enhanced personhood than in some well-spoken politician.
Like Che “No Friend Of Mine” Guevera’s face on T-Shirts, I really don’t like it.
Then again, every four years masses of intelligent people in many different parts of the world bow down to some (generally) father figure they never really had—or so desperately crave.
THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE
Even all these so-called conservative pundits spread across the media, who claim to hate Big Government, are only able to spew their divisive talk because there is Big Government (which means Big Corporation, too).
As for Mr Obama, he may be a wonderful fella; he is intelligent, from an IQ point of view, to be sure. He is also clearly a well-groomed political animal—just watch him, listen to him, the endless use of cliches—hope, community, integrity etc—that have little practical use.
SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL (for most things)
In a more perfect world, it seems to me, government would be small; the head would not be The Leader, but The Representative, the best administrator of exercising the will of an ever-greater-educated population/majority (by no means perfect, either).
As for democracy, let’s consider the bailout. Please recall that the American population was solidly against bailing out the banks. Was Obama, when summoned to the capital, against it? No, he voted for the bailout—against the majority will of the population.
One down, perhaps, with many to come. Are not the people the President’s constituents? Of course not.
How funded is Obama by the banks?
According to Open Secrets, commercial banks have funded Obama to the tune of $2,938,556—more than either McCain or Hilary Clinton. Further, of the $9,573,159 contributed by commercial banks, the Democrats received 57.1% of that, the Republicans 42.9%.
They’re the same party! Or at least they’re going to the same party, and folks, you’re not invited to it (although you’re paying for it).
But back to Cult-of-personality. Children singing Obama’s praises in saccharin unison, while being able to neither define his terms nor repeat his ideology—is way too North Korea for me. Movements toward more realized individuality and community are always about people joined in solidarity (hopefully non-violent solidarity, although the Dalai Lama has had a helluva time getting anywhere), not some ideological divide that actually has very little bearing on reality, and still works mostly in the interests of the rich and powerful.
BI-WAY ROBBERY
If I was American, I would find out where the loudest chorus of protesting is coming from against the bailout, read what they stand for, and send my support. A quote from William Greider, but first what I mentioned from Naomi Klein two blogs ago:
…the spin is that [Henry] Paulson was really tough with the banks and forced them to sign against their will; I mean the terms of the deal are incredibly favorable to the banks; they didn’t have to negotiate, because they couldn’t have negotiated a better deal for themselves. They get the money but the government is taking no power, there’s no voting right, so they’ve just been handed free money in the midst of an economic crisis; a lot of these banks, if they are not bailed out, they’re going down. So this spin that Henry Paulson is so tough with the banks is absurd; he’s the best thing that’s ever happened to them, and he’s one of them.
From William Greider, who wrote a huge book on the Federal Reserve and its shenanigans ten or fifteen years ago. He writes:
The swindle of American taxpayers is proceeding more or less in broad daylight, as the unwitting voters are preoccupied with the national election. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson agreed to invest $125 billion in the nine largest banks, including $10 billion for Goldman Sachs, his old firm. But, if you look more closely at Paulson’s transaction, the taxpayers were taken for a ride–a very expensive ride. They paid $125 billion for bank stock that a private investor could purchase for $62.5 billion. That means half of the public’s money was a straight-out gift to Wall Street, for which taxpayers got nothing in return…
If the same rule of thumb is applied to Paulson’s grand $700 billion bailout fund, Gerard said this will constitute a gift of $350 billion from the American taxpayers “to reward the institutions that have driven our nation and it now appears the whole world into its most serious economic crisis in 75 years.”
Is anyone angry? Will anyone look into these very serious accusations? Congress is off campaigning. The financiers at Treasury probably assume any public outrage will be lost in the election returns. I hope they are mistaken.
The full article in the Nation is here.
I am definitely pro-union by emotion—for I don’t know a country without unions that ever achieved decent human rights/worker rights. That said, I am also, by emotion, not pro-Big Union monoliths, top down, hierarchical and, in a paradoxical way, not unlike their corporate opponents. Maybe necessary, but I like smaller units in general, where voices are heard, and no one ends up in a dumpster.
Check out this United Mine Workers President, WA Boyle, who in the late ’60s took Union funds to pay drifters/hitmen to kill union opponent Jock Yablonski.
Either way, never forget that one of the first thing the Bolsheviks did after their rise (coup) to power in 1917 and the beginning of the tyrannical Soviet Union, was crush the trade unions.
Anyway, from Market Watch:
An analysis prepared by the Union, which was attached to the letter, uses traditional Wall Street valuation techniques to demonstrate that the Treasury’s investment in Goldman and the other firms was worth approximately half of the price paid and that the other half was a gift to the firms’ shareholders. The analysis was done by comparing Treasury’s investment to one made just twenty days earlier by Warren Buffett.
“This behavior is simply outrageous,” said Gerard. “Half the money is invested and the other half of the public’s money is gifted to institutions after they paid out hundreds of billions in undeserved bonuses and shareholder dividends and engaged in reckless speculation.”
“This is no different than if you paid me $10,000 for a car for which no one else would pay more than $5,000,” writes Gerard. “You bought it for $5,000 and gifted me the other $5,000.”
“In my world such gifts are rarely offered to working people.”
The full letter, which I have not looked at, is here.
Here’s to more solidarity, love, local food, increased education, less TV, less torture of animals, access to health care, more freedom, less monopolies, greater creativity, rights of those not in agreement with the majority, less work, efficient work, more community, more profound and compassionate individuality, wonder, awe, gratitude, discernment, smiling and protection of the vulnerable, both at home and abroad—Iraq, Sudan, Congo, everywhere. These are our sisters and brothers, children, grandparents, moms, dads, wives, poets, dreamers and on and on…
Pete xo
