QUOTE #1 -- US POLICE SHOOT TO KILL
Anne Sewell “Houston Cop Shoots and Kills Double-amputee in Wheelchair”
In an incident outside of a group home in Houston, a police officer shot and killed a wheelchair bound, double-amputee after the man threatened his partner. Unfortunately the object with which the man was threatening the officer's partner turned out to be a pen.
John Garcia is the owner of the home at 4309 Polk where Brian Claunch, a schizophrenic man in his 40's, has been living for the past 18 months with two other men. Garcia has reportedly operated the personal care home for the past eight years.
Claunch apparently caused a disturbance and became agitated when his caretaker refused to give him a soda and a cigarette. Garcia then called the police.
snip
Garcia, owner of the group home told the Houston Chronicle that the deceased, Brian Claunch, was mentally ill. "He sometimes would go off a bit, but you just ignore it," Garcia said.
He said that Claunch had reportedly lost his arm and leg after being hit by a train.
The shooting officer, Marin, has been placed on three-day administrative leave, which is a standard procedure for all officer-involved shootings. Marin was reportedly involved in another fatal suspect shooting three years ago.
----------
QUOTE #2 -- RAND’s CAPITALISM VS. MLK’s ALTRUSIM
Paul Balles “The Meaning of Altruism”
For Rand: "Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot coexist in the same man or in the same society."
She perceived a choice between: "A morality of rational self-interest, with its consequences of freedom, justice, progress and man's happiness on earth - or the primordial morality of altruism, with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial furnaces."
According to Rand: "The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value."
Martin Luther King Jr opposed Rand's philosophy.
"Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness," he said.
Presaging opposition to Rand's ideas, 19th Century British Prime Minister William Gladstone said: "Selfishness is the greatest curse of the human race."
Current Republican candidates for the posts of US president and vice-president, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, both subscribe to a "morality of rational self-interest".
Ryan, an avowed fan of Rand, hasn't grown out of the enamoured college freshman. He not only tried to get all of the interns in his congressional office to read Rand's writing, he also gave copies of her novel Atlas Shrugged to his staff as Christmas presents.
----------
QUOTE #3 -- WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO LIBYAN AMBASSADOR STEVENS?
Mark Robertson and Finian Cunnigham “Libya’s Green Resistance Did It
And NATO Powers Are Covering Up”
And NATO Powers Are Covering Up”
The NATO powers and the bureaucrats they installed in Libya want you to think that all 5.6 million Libyans are happy that NATO and its proxy terrorists destroyed Libya, whose standard of living had been Africa’s highest under Gaddafi.
snip
In reality, the [Libyan Green] Resistance has been increasingly active since shortly after the murder of Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011, as will be shown below. They strike any NATO target they can, and they execute key Libyans who betrayed Gaddafi and sided with NATO. The Benghazi incident was merely their latest blow against what they see as NATO’s illegal occupation of their country.
snip
The more the Libyan Green Resistance gains strength and challenges the NATO-imposed regime, the more clear it becomes that the Western governments and their media lied in their pretexts of “responsibility to protect (R2P)” human rights and democracy. Recall that these were the pretexts invoked by the NATO powers to justify setting up No-Fly Zones in Libya in March 2011. (The same pretexts are again being reiterated with regard to Syria.)
But, as the growing Resistance illustrates, the Western powers did not “liberate” Libya; they invaded a sovereign country and killed massively to execute their real, criminal agenda of regime change and theft of oil resources. Now the people of Libya are resisting this criminal conquest. And that damning truth has to be expunged at all costs.
snip
In an interview with McClatchy news service last Thursday (13 September 2012) the eyewitness said there were no protesters at all.
“The Americans would have left if there had been protesters, but there wasn’t a single ant. The area was totally quiet until about 9:35 pm, when as many as 125 men attacked with machine guns, grenades, RPGs, and anti-aircraft weapons. They threw grenades into the villas, wounding me and knocking me down. Then they stormed through the facility’s main gate, moving from villa to villa.”
That does not sound like a “spontaneous protest” against a blasphemous B-movie that suddenly appeared on the internet, as the White House and others claim; rather, it was a sharply executed military strike that must have been planned meticulously well in advance.
----------
QUOTE #4 -- NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR TORTURE BUT FULL OUT PROSECUTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS OF TORTURE
Chris Floyd “Bloc Party: Pantomime and Power in the Imperial System”
.... The Obama Administration announced on Thursday that it would not prosecute anyone -- no one at all -- for the murder of two prisoners in American's Terror War gulags several years ago. As the story notes, this move "eliminat[es] the last possibility that any criminal charges will be brought as a result of the brutal interrogations carried out by the CIA" under the Bush Administration. Considering that dozens of detainees -- if not many more -- have been killed in detention over the course of the Terror War, this is a remarkable feat of erasure. Killing after killing after killing after killing -- and not a single killer prosecuted by the "Justice" Department of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
No, wait: we do the Peace Prize Laureate wrong in the above claim. The state-ordered, state-approved, state-protected murder and beating and freezing and slamming and stripping and ice-packing and plastic-wrapping of prisoners (many of them innocent people rounded up randomly or kidnapped or sold into captivity by criminals) has in fact produced one prosecution by the Laureate, as the NYT notes.
While no one has been prosecuted for the harsh interrogations, a former C.I.A. officer who helped hunt members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan and later spoke publicly about waterboarding, John C. Kiriakou, is awaiting trial on criminal charges that he disclosed to journalists the identity of other C.I.A. officers who participated in the interrogations.
There, see! The one CIA agent who revealed the names of people who tortured captives is being prosecuted with the full force of the law, with all the righteousness and moral fervor that we would expect from a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate! There's something that any progressive can point to with pride when he or she works the phone banks and doorsteps for Obama, telling people to support the president and save us from the militarist nutballs and enemies of the truth in the Republican Party.
-----------
QUOTE #5 -- ISRAEL CRIPPLED UN 45 YEARS AGO
Alan Hart “Memo to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon: The Door on a Two-state Solution was Closed 45 Years Ago”
The truth of history, which most if not all world leaders know but dare not state, is that the door Ban Ki-Moon sees closing, was actually slammed shut 45 years ago. The precise date of the closure was 22 November 1967. What happened on that day?
In the aftermath of the Six Days War of that year, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted, after much agonizing over five drafts, Resolution 242. At the time it was hailed as the key to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. It could never have been that and here’s why.
Leaving aside the fact that 242 does not mention the Palestinians by name (it called only for a just settlement of “the refugee problem”), the key to understanding why the resolution was fatally flawed and bound to be a disaster for all who work seriously for justice and peace is in the fact that the 1967 war was a war of Israeli aggression, not as Israel asserted, and still asserts, a war of self-defense by way of a pre-emptive strike.
snip
Because it was a war of Israeli aggression, and given that 242's preamble does pay lip-service to the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war“, there is no question about what the Security Council should have done. It should have demanded Israel’s unconditional withdrawal from the newly occupied Arab territories. That didn’t happen because President Johnson, guided by his Zionist advisers, refused to have Israel labelled as the aggressor.
There was, in, fact, a precedent for what ought to have happened. When Israel colluded with Britain and France in 1956 to invade Egypt in the hope of toppling Nasser, President Eisenhower insisted that Israel should withdraw from the Sinai without conditions. At the time the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress were seeking to tie Eisenhower’s hands and prevent him from reading the riot act to Israel. He responded by going over the heads of Congress with a prime time television address to his fellow Americans. Among the things he said was this:
“Israel insists on firm guarantees as a condition to withdrawing its forces of invasion. If we agree that armed attack can properly achieve the purpose of the assailant, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order. We will have countenanced the use of force as a means of settling international differences and gaining national advantage… If the UN once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the very foundation of the organization and our best hope for establishing real world order.”
In November 1967, by not demanding that Israel withdraw without conditions, the Security Council, bullied by President Johnson on Zionism’s behalf, did what Eisenhower had warned against – it turned back the clock of international order and destroyed the hope the UN represented.
snip
Those responsible for framing the resolution were very much aware that Israel’s hawks were going to proceed with their colonial venture come what may, in determined defiance of international law and no matter what the organised international community said or wanted. Put another way, some if not all of those responsible for framing 242 were resigned to the fact that, because of the history of the Jews and the Nazi holocaust, Israel was not and never would or could be a normal state. As a consequence, there was no point in seeking to oblige it to behave like a normal state - i.e. in accordance with international law and its obligations as a member of the UN. Like it or not, and whatever it might mean for the fate of mankind, the world was going to have to live with the fact that there were two sets of rules for the behaviour of nations – one for Israel and one for all other nations. Because of the way Israel was created, mainly by Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing and without legitimacy in international law, the UN system now had a double standard built into it, and because the political will to confront Zionism did not exist, there was nothing anybody could do to change that reality.
snip
Contentious though it is to say so in public, I think the corruption charge is supported by the facts. In 1947 the Zionists and their allies in the U.S. Congress subverted the General Assembly of the UN to get a rigged and bare minimum majority for the partition plan which was subsequently vitiated. In 1967 the Security Council was effectively subverted by the Johnson administration’s Zionist-driven refusal to hold Israel accountable to international law and its obligations as a member of the UN.
And thus it was, at least so far as the Arab and wider Muslim world (and me, too) are concerned, that the UN said goodbye to its integrity; and the door to a two-state solution of the Israel-Palestine conflict was closed, slammed shut. Forty five years ago.[cross-posted on correntewire and sacramento for democracy]
-------------
Anne Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged seemed to have went out as some kind of an invisible signal to activate all the human devils among us. As for Libya I don’t think a greater criminal act by a nation has been perpetrated since recorded history, outside of course Dubyas butchery in Iraq. And we all know Obama’s a war criminal although I just may vote for him now that he has reinstated extended unemployment benefits. As far as Israel and the Palestinians I think you are deluded there Libby. An honest view of the history there would show that most of the so called Palestinians were shipped into the holy land by Arab aristocracy as soon as Rothschild began to push for Zionism. Amin al-Husseini Grand Mufti of Jerusalem groveled at Hitler's feet during WWII and actually recruited an Arab unit of the SS for him. That’s your foundations of the PLO. It was decided on the Battlefield three times. Each time Israel won despite the odds being against her. This is called trial by combat. It happens in the real world Libby. Its not pretty but it is effective. It should have decided the issue but no Arab country despite their oil wealth will take the Palestinians. If you want to blame someone for the Palestinian fiasco you should be pointing your finger directly at the Saudi and Kuwaiti Royale family's. Instead of financing all this pro Palestinian sentiment in the West they could try relocating their people maybe to that artificial palm tree island they just had built.
Excellent info Libby... except for one bit about Obama, he was truthful when after the Peace Prize came his way, he said he'd still have to do something to earn it. ""I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations...
Throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes, and that is why I will accept this award as a call to action — a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century."
Throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes, and that is why I will accept this award as a call to action — a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century."
Thanks, Jack, for commenting.
I read Rand's The Fountainhead years and years ago and remember enjoying much of it. I considered it more of a romance with a swashbuckling hero, Howard Roark who stood up to a corrupt establishment. I saw him ironically more like a Ralph Nader type than a tea partier type!
I felt Rand was more mocking incompetent bureaucrats and the craven power of the media and one character Ellsworth Toohey looking back at that character reminds me of Karl Rove. There was also a "romantic rape" in the book that I can't forgive Rand for however. That was alarming and very discordant and misogynistic of Rand.
Rand's non-fiction theorizing, taking herself so seriously in political philosophy, is unfortunate for all of us for sure. The "establishment" she was vilifying she saw as government, but it seems to me it is corporate cronyism captured government that is the real villain that should be de-corrupted.
Also, at the time Rand not incidentally was trying to rationally justify having an affair with another woman's husband and that was part of her defense of selfishness. I don't think that gets brought up so much but it is part of the Rand history.
Re Israel, I read a while ago a book by John Mearshimer, "Why Leaders Lie ..." Here is a compelling quote from his book:
page 73
"It is also sometimes feasible for a state with an influential diaspora to export its myths to the countries where the diaspora is located. Perhaps the best example of this phenomenon involves Israel and the American Jewish community. There was no way that the Zionists could create a Jewish state in Palestine without doing large-scale ethnic cleansing of the Arab populations that had been living there for centuries. This point was widely recognized by the Zionist leadership well before Israel was created. The opportunity to expel the Palestinians came in early 1948 when fighting broke out between the Palestinians and the Zionists in the wake of the UN decision to partition Palestine into two states. The Zionists cleansed roughly 700,000 Palestinians from the land that became Israel, and adamantly refused to let them return to their homes once the fighting stopped. Of course, this was a story that cast Israel in the role of the victimizer and would make it difficult for the fledgling state to win friends and influence people around the world, especially in the United States.
"Not surprisingly, Israel and its American friends went to great lengths after the events of 1948 to blame the expulsion of the Palestinians on the victims themselves. According to the myth that was invented, the Palestinians were not cleansed by the Zionists; instead, they were said to have fled their homes because the surrounding Arab countries told them to move out so that their armies could move in and drive the Jews into the sea. The Palestinians could then return home after the Jews had been cleansed from the land. This story was widely accepted not only in Israel but also in the United States for about four decades, and it played a key role in convincing many Americans to look favorably upon Israel in its ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. Israeli scholars, however, have demolished that myth and others over the past two decades, and the new history has slowly begun to affect the discourse in the United States about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in ways that make at least some Americans less sympathetic to Israel’s past and present actions toward the Palestinians."
end of quote
best, libby
I read Rand's The Fountainhead years and years ago and remember enjoying much of it. I considered it more of a romance with a swashbuckling hero, Howard Roark who stood up to a corrupt establishment. I saw him ironically more like a Ralph Nader type than a tea partier type!
I felt Rand was more mocking incompetent bureaucrats and the craven power of the media and one character Ellsworth Toohey looking back at that character reminds me of Karl Rove. There was also a "romantic rape" in the book that I can't forgive Rand for however. That was alarming and very discordant and misogynistic of Rand.
Rand's non-fiction theorizing, taking herself so seriously in political philosophy, is unfortunate for all of us for sure. The "establishment" she was vilifying she saw as government, but it seems to me it is corporate cronyism captured government that is the real villain that should be de-corrupted.
Also, at the time Rand not incidentally was trying to rationally justify having an affair with another woman's husband and that was part of her defense of selfishness. I don't think that gets brought up so much but it is part of the Rand history.
Re Israel, I read a while ago a book by John Mearshimer, "Why Leaders Lie ..." Here is a compelling quote from his book:
page 73
"It is also sometimes feasible for a state with an influential diaspora to export its myths to the countries where the diaspora is located. Perhaps the best example of this phenomenon involves Israel and the American Jewish community. There was no way that the Zionists could create a Jewish state in Palestine without doing large-scale ethnic cleansing of the Arab populations that had been living there for centuries. This point was widely recognized by the Zionist leadership well before Israel was created. The opportunity to expel the Palestinians came in early 1948 when fighting broke out between the Palestinians and the Zionists in the wake of the UN decision to partition Palestine into two states. The Zionists cleansed roughly 700,000 Palestinians from the land that became Israel, and adamantly refused to let them return to their homes once the fighting stopped. Of course, this was a story that cast Israel in the role of the victimizer and would make it difficult for the fledgling state to win friends and influence people around the world, especially in the United States.
"Not surprisingly, Israel and its American friends went to great lengths after the events of 1948 to blame the expulsion of the Palestinians on the victims themselves. According to the myth that was invented, the Palestinians were not cleansed by the Zionists; instead, they were said to have fled their homes because the surrounding Arab countries told them to move out so that their armies could move in and drive the Jews into the sea. The Palestinians could then return home after the Jews had been cleansed from the land. This story was widely accepted not only in Israel but also in the United States for about four decades, and it played a key role in convincing many Americans to look favorably upon Israel in its ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. Israeli scholars, however, have demolished that myth and others over the past two decades, and the new history has slowly begun to affect the discourse in the United States about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in ways that make at least some Americans less sympathetic to Israel’s past and present actions toward the Palestinians."
end of quote
best, libby
Thanks, jmac. Do you actually think Obama will redeem himself a second term? Do you really think Obama intends to earn the peace prize and intended to when he opened his mouth then after all the deaths he has engineered in his first term and the numbers will definitely escalate in a second. Neither Romney or Obama want a War in Iran to happen before the election since God forbid that might give the citizenry any kind of participation and issuing a mandate to end the wars and stop the US craven corporate imperialistic militarism (which we thought we had in 2008) by voting.
We are not a participatory democracy and Obama is no advocate of peace. He can talk peace but he instigates war and that is seriously evil and duplicitous. He is one more colossal liar. He is an international war criminal and he has made us accessories by using our tax dollars and our young people as cannon fodder.
Jill Stein calls out Obama as a wolf in sheep's clothing as opposed to Romney whom she describes as a wolf in wolf's clothing.
Re Obama here is another quote from Chris Hedges over at truthdig "How do you take your poison?"
"And while Romney has been, courtesy of the magazine Mother Jones, exposed as a shallow hypocrite, Obama is in a class by himself. There is hardly a campaign promise from 2008 that Obama has not broken. This list includes his pledges to support the public option in health care, close Guantanamo, raise the minimum wage, regulate Wall Street, support labor unions in their struggles with employers, reform the Patriot Act, negotiate an equitable peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, curb our imperial expansion in the Middle East, stop torture, protect reproductive rights, carry out a comprehensive immigration reform, cut the deficit by half, create 5 million new energy jobs and halt home foreclosures. Obama, campaigning in South Carolina in 2007, said that as president he would fight for the right of collective bargaining. “I’d put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I’ll … walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America,” he said. But when he got his chance to put on those “comfortable pair of shoes” during labor disputes in Madison, Wis., and Chicago he turned his back on working men and women.
"Obama, while promising to defend Social Security, also says he stands behind the planned cuts outlined by his deficit commission, headed by Morgan Stanley board member Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican. The Bowles-Simpson plan calls for cutting 0.3 percentage points from the annual cost-of-living adjustment in the Social Security program. The annual reduction would slowly accumulate. After a decade it would mean a 3 percent cut. After two decades it would mean a 6 percent cut. The retirement age would be raised to 69. And those on Social Security who continued to work and made more than $40,000 a year would be penalized with further reductions. Obama’s payroll tax cuts have, at the same time, served to undermine the solvency of Social Security, making it an easier target for the finance corporations that seek to destroy the program and privatize the funds.
"But that is just the start. Cities and states are frantically staving off collapse. They cannot pay for most pension plans and are borrowing at higher and higher interest rates to keep themselves afloat. ... "
it goes on!
best, libby
We are not a participatory democracy and Obama is no advocate of peace. He can talk peace but he instigates war and that is seriously evil and duplicitous. He is one more colossal liar. He is an international war criminal and he has made us accessories by using our tax dollars and our young people as cannon fodder.
Jill Stein calls out Obama as a wolf in sheep's clothing as opposed to Romney whom she describes as a wolf in wolf's clothing.
Re Obama here is another quote from Chris Hedges over at truthdig "How do you take your poison?"
"And while Romney has been, courtesy of the magazine Mother Jones, exposed as a shallow hypocrite, Obama is in a class by himself. There is hardly a campaign promise from 2008 that Obama has not broken. This list includes his pledges to support the public option in health care, close Guantanamo, raise the minimum wage, regulate Wall Street, support labor unions in their struggles with employers, reform the Patriot Act, negotiate an equitable peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, curb our imperial expansion in the Middle East, stop torture, protect reproductive rights, carry out a comprehensive immigration reform, cut the deficit by half, create 5 million new energy jobs and halt home foreclosures. Obama, campaigning in South Carolina in 2007, said that as president he would fight for the right of collective bargaining. “I’d put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I’ll … walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America,” he said. But when he got his chance to put on those “comfortable pair of shoes” during labor disputes in Madison, Wis., and Chicago he turned his back on working men and women.
"Obama, while promising to defend Social Security, also says he stands behind the planned cuts outlined by his deficit commission, headed by Morgan Stanley board member Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican. The Bowles-Simpson plan calls for cutting 0.3 percentage points from the annual cost-of-living adjustment in the Social Security program. The annual reduction would slowly accumulate. After a decade it would mean a 3 percent cut. After two decades it would mean a 6 percent cut. The retirement age would be raised to 69. And those on Social Security who continued to work and made more than $40,000 a year would be penalized with further reductions. Obama’s payroll tax cuts have, at the same time, served to undermine the solvency of Social Security, making it an easier target for the finance corporations that seek to destroy the program and privatize the funds.
"But that is just the start. Cities and states are frantically staving off collapse. They cannot pay for most pension plans and are borrowing at higher and higher interest rates to keep themselves afloat. ... "
it goes on!
best, libby
Once again you cover a lot of ground in one post, libby! Just a couple of comments:
I wonder why the group home owner called the cops if he 'usually just ignores" the disabled man's behavoor. There should be intermediate responses in betwen "ignoring" and "calling the cops" to handle it. I know from experieence that once you call the cops, legally they can decide how to handle the situation and what level of force is necessary. Regarding Ayn Rand, her view contradicts so much written by the Patron Saint of Capitalism, Adam Smith, who believed capitalism had multiple responsibilities to morality and to society. Ann & Nathaniel Branden's accounts of his (or their) bizarrely submissive, cult-like relationship with her is stunning--reads almost like BDSM porn on a mental level. (I lvoe how charismatic cult leaders indulge in "polymorphous perversity" while imposing strict, rigid Puritan edicts on their followers! How many times to we have to see this--from Joseph Smith through David Koresh--before we realize this is the norm, not the exception?). Finally, I thought it obvious that that Obama got the Novel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush. that was his big "accomplishment" When Obama was elected, much of the world thought "America has regained its sanity, thank God"
[r]
I wonder why the group home owner called the cops if he 'usually just ignores" the disabled man's behavoor. There should be intermediate responses in betwen "ignoring" and "calling the cops" to handle it. I know from experieence that once you call the cops, legally they can decide how to handle the situation and what level of force is necessary. Regarding Ayn Rand, her view contradicts so much written by the Patron Saint of Capitalism, Adam Smith, who believed capitalism had multiple responsibilities to morality and to society. Ann & Nathaniel Branden's accounts of his (or their) bizarrely submissive, cult-like relationship with her is stunning--reads almost like BDSM porn on a mental level. (I lvoe how charismatic cult leaders indulge in "polymorphous perversity" while imposing strict, rigid Puritan edicts on their followers! How many times to we have to see this--from Joseph Smith through David Koresh--before we realize this is the norm, not the exception?). Finally, I thought it obvious that that Obama got the Novel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush. that was his big "accomplishment" When Obama was elected, much of the world thought "America has regained its sanity, thank God"
[r]
Donegal, thanks for commenting!
I asked that, too, re the shooting. why the head of the home called the cops, though I assume to intimidate the guy who was out of control. There was an incident in NYC not long ago where a street performer who was also emotionally troubled got chased by cops for 7 blocks. He pulled out a knife and he was shot to death by scores of bullets surrounded by a dozens of cops. Again, bullets flying and people on the street either running away or taking pix on their cell phones. It was surreal.
So Bloomberg went on the tv that night and backed up the cops, and said the man must have been mentally ill. WTF? So that justified it? Open season on troubled people. Just shoot em. So, all those cops and they couldn't have arrested him, quieted him. It had to end in death? They killed him? And all those sirens and uniforms bearing down on one poor guy trying to live on the street and trying to perform. I mean, they have tasers. They have rubber bullets. They can even wound someone, not shoot to kill.
Yeah that guy had a knife. This guy, the double-amputee, had a pen. The guy was in a wheel chair with one arm and one leg! I mean, hell!!!!! I had to read the article twice, I thought it was from the Onion.
And what happened to the cop who shot him? 3 days' suspension? I don't know what happened subsequently but I suppose this guy was considered just one more throwaway citizen and the cronyism of the police in the police state being what it is.
Re Ayn Rand, I was reading a biography of her and it did sound like she demanded a kind of borderline system cult for herself. People got enthralled by her apparently. Nathaniel Branden, who wrote self-help books, right, and they weren't bad, was her lover. Anyway, I am reading this book about her life and it is interesting and shocking but well written and objective and suddenly the author of the book reveals she is the wife of Branden or was it the estranged or ex-wife! I can't remember. I dropped the book I was so shocked. But I thought to myself the wife was a bit too creepily rational not expressing some justified anger. Come on!!!! She was bewitched, too, in a way. Though she must have made money off the book I guess. But again, WTF???
As for Obama, the American Judas, I am awed how he has enthralled so many. How much mileage simply for not being George Bush and now for not being Mitt Romney. And he's got the pimped out hypocrits of MSNBC in his corner.
Donegal I am so furious that NewsHour refuses to mention Jill Stein. Also, Obama's administration didn't even get her matching funding to her in a timely way during the convention to screw her efforts even more. Gamesmanship. Dirty and unethical gamesmanship.
Take care! Thanks!
best, libby
I asked that, too, re the shooting. why the head of the home called the cops, though I assume to intimidate the guy who was out of control. There was an incident in NYC not long ago where a street performer who was also emotionally troubled got chased by cops for 7 blocks. He pulled out a knife and he was shot to death by scores of bullets surrounded by a dozens of cops. Again, bullets flying and people on the street either running away or taking pix on their cell phones. It was surreal.
So Bloomberg went on the tv that night and backed up the cops, and said the man must have been mentally ill. WTF? So that justified it? Open season on troubled people. Just shoot em. So, all those cops and they couldn't have arrested him, quieted him. It had to end in death? They killed him? And all those sirens and uniforms bearing down on one poor guy trying to live on the street and trying to perform. I mean, they have tasers. They have rubber bullets. They can even wound someone, not shoot to kill.
Yeah that guy had a knife. This guy, the double-amputee, had a pen. The guy was in a wheel chair with one arm and one leg! I mean, hell!!!!! I had to read the article twice, I thought it was from the Onion.
And what happened to the cop who shot him? 3 days' suspension? I don't know what happened subsequently but I suppose this guy was considered just one more throwaway citizen and the cronyism of the police in the police state being what it is.
Re Ayn Rand, I was reading a biography of her and it did sound like she demanded a kind of borderline system cult for herself. People got enthralled by her apparently. Nathaniel Branden, who wrote self-help books, right, and they weren't bad, was her lover. Anyway, I am reading this book about her life and it is interesting and shocking but well written and objective and suddenly the author of the book reveals she is the wife of Branden or was it the estranged or ex-wife! I can't remember. I dropped the book I was so shocked. But I thought to myself the wife was a bit too creepily rational not expressing some justified anger. Come on!!!! She was bewitched, too, in a way. Though she must have made money off the book I guess. But again, WTF???
As for Obama, the American Judas, I am awed how he has enthralled so many. How much mileage simply for not being George Bush and now for not being Mitt Romney. And he's got the pimped out hypocrits of MSNBC in his corner.
Donegal I am so furious that NewsHour refuses to mention Jill Stein. Also, Obama's administration didn't even get her matching funding to her in a timely way during the convention to screw her efforts even more. Gamesmanship. Dirty and unethical gamesmanship.
Take care! Thanks!
best, libby
I always learn from you, Libby; thank you. R
Thanks for this. But I am getting weary of being prodded to become indignant like a rabbit in a cage with kids pushing sticks through the bars to amuse themselves. This site and others like it where decent observant and angry people like yourself open the emotional valves so we can let off steam over the unresponsive general public to open crimes by the police, the people in power in the government and corporate and financial industries is totally frustrating. Humanity has, throughout history and currently, been controlled by thugs and they are rarely brought to justice. And when they are, such as in the USSR, a new set of thugs takes over. It seems this is inherent in humanity and the planet is rapidly breaking down under human abuse. Perhaps a more sensible species of intelligent octopus or dolphin will survive the debacle but humanity, in spite of a small sector of decency and good sense, is overwhelmed by an infinite supply of criminal thugs and idiot populaces and your Green Party candidate has as much chance of changing things as a fairy godmother. I wish it were not so.
I wish I could say something encouraging but the coming election between a tyrannosaurus rex and a vicious phony liar is totally discouraging.
You might read http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/28/an-interview-with-norman-finkelstein-2/ for an intelligent look at things.
I wish I could say something encouraging but the coming election between a tyrannosaurus rex and a vicious phony liar is totally discouraging.
You might read http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/28/an-interview-with-norman-finkelstein-2/ for an intelligent look at things.
The official definition of altruism is that it's an unconscious defense mechanism - one of the three so-called "mature" defenses (the others are suppression and sublimation). The notion of people "choosing" to be altruistic is ludicrous. The function of defense mechanisms, according to Freud, is to keep an individual from being bombarded by overwhelming anxiety.
Rand was a very muddy thinker. Capitalism isn't a philosophy or an ideology any more than altruism is. Capitalism is an economic system. True conservatives have always seen a major role for altruism in a capitalistic economic system. They have always argued that the disadvantaged should be helped through charity, rather than government programs.
Rand was a very muddy thinker. Capitalism isn't a philosophy or an ideology any more than altruism is. Capitalism is an economic system. True conservatives have always seen a major role for altruism in a capitalistic economic system. They have always argued that the disadvantaged should be helped through charity, rather than government programs.
Charity is a system for turning the poor, the sick, the deprived into a community of beggars so that the rich can enlarge their egos by donating a relative pittance to, perhaps, get into God's good graces. It has bee indicated by psychological test that the more wealth a person acquires the less responsive that person is to the basic needs of fellow citizens.
A government system of accepting that a decent society with overwhelming wealth demands that all members of society must, by the basic laws of association, be sustained in a way that they ca have rewarding lives and contribute whatever they can to the general value of the community. Those in society who have benefited greatly through society have wealth only through the will of the social context. Outside of society money has no value at all. There is no God given right to private property, it is merely one of the decisions of the social context that property is respected and protected.
A government system of accepting that a decent society with overwhelming wealth demands that all members of society must, by the basic laws of association, be sustained in a way that they ca have rewarding lives and contribute whatever they can to the general value of the community. Those in society who have benefited greatly through society have wealth only through the will of the social context. Outside of society money has no value at all. There is no God given right to private property, it is merely one of the decisions of the social context that property is respected and protected.
thanks, thoth. I was reading some of my favorite political left websites and I thought my head was going to explode there were so many revelations coming at me. I picked five even though plenty more! thanks for your support! to be continued! :-) best, libby
Jan, appreciate your take. Maddow calls it "ethical freakshow of a universe". It sure helps me to know there are people out there like you who get it and share back, can expand the understanding on it, not that I want to bum you out with yet more horrors.
I used to think when I read or saw on the tv or heard on the radio all about amoral and illegal stuff it would be handled. Like those jokes about when 60 minutes pulls up in your driveway you know you are having a bad day. hah! Exposure of wrongdoing meant responsibility and accountability. Once the fourth estate had exposed it, then the law would get involved or probably already was and all would be right soon enough with at least that corner of the world. The authority "daddies" of society had stepped in to right things.
Now we have to search the corners of the internet from left and international websites to begin to know the truth about the vast amorality around us because of the massive propaganda that induces massive passivity and complicity among the citizenry. Bill Moyers talked about post-truth politics on one show. That was a sobering label.
Human progress. Sad when it slows down. Even sadder when there is serious regression -- rolling back all that was so hard-won! Seeing those thugs call so many shots. And yes, when I was younger and unaware of the thuggishness going on I had rose tinted glasses, but, things have worsened from then, indeed. Ron Paul and Kucinich and a couple others are willing to speak up against the rest of the pimped out cronies in our government?
You write:
"... and your Green Party candidate has as much chance of changing things as a fairy godmother. I wish it were not so."
Someone asked Jill Stein about her dim prospects about this election (when I met her months and months ago they were less dim than today, I mean I was sure her name would at least be a household word by now -- I did not appreciate just how much her name is like Rumplestiltskin's to the mainstream media -- never to be uttered EVAH) and she smiled and said, "Then I will run again. I am not going away. This is my fifth election and not necessarily my last."
Hearing her say that with a definite spiritual groundedness gave me hope. Keeping the faith is tough, comes and goes for me. But she gave me some of hers. 2 million Americans at least are committed to voting for her. They get it. That is a beginning. It will ripple outward, the wisdom. I just wish it were faster. Meanwhile America drops down to an even deeper bottom. Sigh.
Thanks for the link. Will check it out.
best, libby
I used to think when I read or saw on the tv or heard on the radio all about amoral and illegal stuff it would be handled. Like those jokes about when 60 minutes pulls up in your driveway you know you are having a bad day. hah! Exposure of wrongdoing meant responsibility and accountability. Once the fourth estate had exposed it, then the law would get involved or probably already was and all would be right soon enough with at least that corner of the world. The authority "daddies" of society had stepped in to right things.
Now we have to search the corners of the internet from left and international websites to begin to know the truth about the vast amorality around us because of the massive propaganda that induces massive passivity and complicity among the citizenry. Bill Moyers talked about post-truth politics on one show. That was a sobering label.
Human progress. Sad when it slows down. Even sadder when there is serious regression -- rolling back all that was so hard-won! Seeing those thugs call so many shots. And yes, when I was younger and unaware of the thuggishness going on I had rose tinted glasses, but, things have worsened from then, indeed. Ron Paul and Kucinich and a couple others are willing to speak up against the rest of the pimped out cronies in our government?
You write:
"... and your Green Party candidate has as much chance of changing things as a fairy godmother. I wish it were not so."
Someone asked Jill Stein about her dim prospects about this election (when I met her months and months ago they were less dim than today, I mean I was sure her name would at least be a household word by now -- I did not appreciate just how much her name is like Rumplestiltskin's to the mainstream media -- never to be uttered EVAH) and she smiled and said, "Then I will run again. I am not going away. This is my fifth election and not necessarily my last."
Hearing her say that with a definite spiritual groundedness gave me hope. Keeping the faith is tough, comes and goes for me. But she gave me some of hers. 2 million Americans at least are committed to voting for her. They get it. That is a beginning. It will ripple outward, the wisdom. I just wish it were faster. Meanwhile America drops down to an even deeper bottom. Sigh.
Thanks for the link. Will check it out.
best, libby
Thanks for commenting, Stuart! I never thought of altruism as an unconscious defense mechanism. I thought of it as opposed to egoism. A large capacity for empathy and generosity and acting on it. I thought there would be a spirit of altruism more among some of the wealthy. I mean, there used to be great philanthropists and I know there still some out there. But I think seeing the lobbyists and the pimping out of so many of the politicians who just accept it as a necessary status quo that they serve oligarchs and not us because of $$ is so depressing and shocking.
Bill and Melinda Gates when they first got into donating for education I was impressed, but now hearing about privatization and its incredible opportunism and union busting and profit-making motives I am cynical about Gates. Also there is grandiosity and I attribute that to him. Like I saw with Bloomberg in NYC when he appointed a school chancellor who had not one molecule of education training and background. Bloomberg assuming CEO-group think was what education needed. I am glad there was so much blowback about that.
Take care.
best, libby
Bill and Melinda Gates when they first got into donating for education I was impressed, but now hearing about privatization and its incredible opportunism and union busting and profit-making motives I am cynical about Gates. Also there is grandiosity and I attribute that to him. Like I saw with Bloomberg in NYC when he appointed a school chancellor who had not one molecule of education training and background. Bloomberg assuming CEO-group think was what education needed. I am glad there was so much blowback about that.
Take care.
best, libby
"All governments lie." - I.F. Stone
Oh gosh Libby!
Just when I thing you've REALLY got your head screwed on straight, you go and take up a deep religious belief in one of the stagnant fringe parties.
Jeeze.... how many times do you have to get kicked in the face by another politician - and political system - before you realize that you can only get your teeth kicked out just so many times before you can't eat anymore?
Even if your woman really were what you seem to think her, she can't / won't make any real headway against the wholly-owned subsidiary of the wealthy that exists now under the name of Congress, by being part of this system of the elite's devising.
You're still assuming that if Jill Stein could gather the votes to put her and her party in power, that she'd do anything different once in those plush seats.
Forget it. It's true that the individual politicians and parties are corrupt. BUT they work within a corrupt system; they cannot be anything but corrupt. What you are trying to say is that instead of government "of the people, for the people, by the people", that changing the fat butts who sit in the seats of power will change the society. It won't. Same system - same bullshit. The system works this way; it is "governing (not government) of the people, for the elite, by the wanna-be elitists." And them's the facts!
.
Just when I thing you've REALLY got your head screwed on straight, you go and take up a deep religious belief in one of the stagnant fringe parties.
Jeeze.... how many times do you have to get kicked in the face by another politician - and political system - before you realize that you can only get your teeth kicked out just so many times before you can't eat anymore?
Even if your woman really were what you seem to think her, she can't / won't make any real headway against the wholly-owned subsidiary of the wealthy that exists now under the name of Congress, by being part of this system of the elite's devising.
You're still assuming that if Jill Stein could gather the votes to put her and her party in power, that she'd do anything different once in those plush seats.
Forget it. It's true that the individual politicians and parties are corrupt. BUT they work within a corrupt system; they cannot be anything but corrupt. What you are trying to say is that instead of government "of the people, for the people, by the people", that changing the fat butts who sit in the seats of power will change the society. It won't. Same system - same bullshit. The system works this way; it is "governing (not government) of the people, for the elite, by the wanna-be elitists." And them's the facts!
.
You say " The "establishment" she was vilifying she saw as government, but it seems to me it is corporate cronyism captured government that is the real villain that should be de-corrupted." re the Fountainhead. Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged. I've heard the the Fountainhead was more of a draft for Atlas.
If Ryan is using Atlas as a guidebook, he's not following in the footsteps of Galt, Reardon, D'Anconia or Dagny Taggert. He is using it as a guidebook for government control of power. It looks, though, as if he is trying to change the ending and is going to fail, miserably.
I just looked up altruism. I had a belief that it was akin to charity but it's not. It's giving to others to your own detriment. What right thinking individual would voluntarily kill their golden goose? I think the church got it right with tithing- 10% is a good number. Expecting a moral person, no, demanding that a moral person die in squalor so that someone else can profit from the fruits of their labor is wrong. What Ryan et. al. want, and what Rand wrote against, and what Atlas Shrugged warns against, is a government that funnels all of the money and power to only a few corrupt people who don't understand it, who see it as a magic button that will make them into what they think they should be. Money and power should be a reward for virtue. Instead it has become a club to attack the virtuous, to keep the workers in line, and to destroy the world.
All of what you wrote above are symptoms of that disease. Money is not the problem. The people in charge who use money for the wrong purposes are the problem.
If Ryan is using Atlas as a guidebook, he's not following in the footsteps of Galt, Reardon, D'Anconia or Dagny Taggert. He is using it as a guidebook for government control of power. It looks, though, as if he is trying to change the ending and is going to fail, miserably.
I just looked up altruism. I had a belief that it was akin to charity but it's not. It's giving to others to your own detriment. What right thinking individual would voluntarily kill their golden goose? I think the church got it right with tithing- 10% is a good number. Expecting a moral person, no, demanding that a moral person die in squalor so that someone else can profit from the fruits of their labor is wrong. What Ryan et. al. want, and what Rand wrote against, and what Atlas Shrugged warns against, is a government that funnels all of the money and power to only a few corrupt people who don't understand it, who see it as a magic button that will make them into what they think they should be. Money and power should be a reward for virtue. Instead it has become a club to attack the virtuous, to keep the workers in line, and to destroy the world.
All of what you wrote above are symptoms of that disease. Money is not the problem. The people in charge who use money for the wrong purposes are the problem.
Money is the grease that keeps the society in motion producing what is needed. When the grease is merely used to make more grease instead of keeping the machinery moving, the machinery grinds to a stop and you cannot eat, travel with, keep healthy with or live in the grease. It's just slippery shit and when it impedes the welfare of the world something radical needs doing.
Phyllis makes some interesting points. The first time I read Ayn Rand, I got pretty much the same thing from her ideas. When I read them later, at another stage of my political awareness, I took her meaning to be much more as it means to those dedicated to predatory, greed capitalism today.
I cannot agree with the statement that, "Money and power should be a reward for virtue".
Money and power should not be "rewards" for anything. Money is, and always ought to be, a means of exchange; that's all. Power is the authority to act given by the population to those who have the responsibility to manage the society in the best interests of that population.
To make money and power the "reward for virtue" could only be of use if our notions of "virtue" were fixed and immutable. But virtue depends upon circumstances and has different shades from great virtue to little virtue.
And what really is virtue? Is it having virtuous ideas? Is it doing virtuous things? Is a person virtuous if he/she only thinks virtuous thoughts; or are virtuous deeds required as well? What of those who act virtuously by accident? Who intended their act to be not-virtuous but where circumstances made it become an act of virtue? Are they entitled to the "rewards of money and power"?
Then there is the question of power or money that is acquired by means other than virtuous ones? Does the person become "virtuous" merely by the acquisition of great money and power? Are we to assume, as Ayn Rand apparently does, that gaining money and power, by any means at all, automatically confers virtuousness upon those who do so? She even confers virtuousness upon those who inherit money! Is there then some great virtuousness that is also inherited? How does that work?
;-)
.
I cannot agree with the statement that, "Money and power should be a reward for virtue".
Money and power should not be "rewards" for anything. Money is, and always ought to be, a means of exchange; that's all. Power is the authority to act given by the population to those who have the responsibility to manage the society in the best interests of that population.
To make money and power the "reward for virtue" could only be of use if our notions of "virtue" were fixed and immutable. But virtue depends upon circumstances and has different shades from great virtue to little virtue.
And what really is virtue? Is it having virtuous ideas? Is it doing virtuous things? Is a person virtuous if he/she only thinks virtuous thoughts; or are virtuous deeds required as well? What of those who act virtuously by accident? Who intended their act to be not-virtuous but where circumstances made it become an act of virtue? Are they entitled to the "rewards of money and power"?
Then there is the question of power or money that is acquired by means other than virtuous ones? Does the person become "virtuous" merely by the acquisition of great money and power? Are we to assume, as Ayn Rand apparently does, that gaining money and power, by any means at all, automatically confers virtuousness upon those who do so? She even confers virtuousness upon those who inherit money! Is there then some great virtuousness that is also inherited? How does that work?
;-)
.
I don't know about Rand's life, all I know is her books.
I see virtue, as stated in her books, as living for "right." How to define it. We know it when we see it, though we may not want to recognise it. It is a lot of the Golden Rule and doing unto others. It is respect and treating yourself as a person worthy of respect. Not because you exist, that would be pity. But because you live a life of respect and you respect others skills and virtues. People of honesty working together. Giving and receiving in fair exchange. Not out of pity. No demanding more than they're worth. No stealing.
Welfare should be a hand up. Social programs should be run as investments since people of good will paid in to them with expectation of receiving a benefit from them. We have become a greedy people expecting certain things simply because we are alive. I admit to feeling like that in the 1990s. I was raised to believe it's not what you know, it's who you know and Dad was more right than he knew. Society holds Steve Jobs and Bill Gates up to us so that we will foolishly believe that we live in a land of opportunity and keep feeding the machine. They don't want us to know that the game is solidly rigged and we are doomed. People could feed themselves without handouts. We are surrounded with edible plants but we don't know what they are. I had a friend who's mother, who was from Viet Nam, used to walk down their street every night harvesting the salad they would have for dinner. I can't do that. Can you? Books exist but we're indoctrinated to believe we have to spend money on food.
I hate to say it, and can't believe I'm going to, but Romney had a point. A lot of people won't pick themselves up. But it's not because they don't want to. They are trying. We have lost the skills to do so. And we are being brainwashed to believe that government has all of the answers while it is only working for the fat cats. A contradiction we accept.
And no, Sky, money and power don't create virtue. That is what these people are trying to buy.
I see virtue, as stated in her books, as living for "right." How to define it. We know it when we see it, though we may not want to recognise it. It is a lot of the Golden Rule and doing unto others. It is respect and treating yourself as a person worthy of respect. Not because you exist, that would be pity. But because you live a life of respect and you respect others skills and virtues. People of honesty working together. Giving and receiving in fair exchange. Not out of pity. No demanding more than they're worth. No stealing.
Welfare should be a hand up. Social programs should be run as investments since people of good will paid in to them with expectation of receiving a benefit from them. We have become a greedy people expecting certain things simply because we are alive. I admit to feeling like that in the 1990s. I was raised to believe it's not what you know, it's who you know and Dad was more right than he knew. Society holds Steve Jobs and Bill Gates up to us so that we will foolishly believe that we live in a land of opportunity and keep feeding the machine. They don't want us to know that the game is solidly rigged and we are doomed. People could feed themselves without handouts. We are surrounded with edible plants but we don't know what they are. I had a friend who's mother, who was from Viet Nam, used to walk down their street every night harvesting the salad they would have for dinner. I can't do that. Can you? Books exist but we're indoctrinated to believe we have to spend money on food.
I hate to say it, and can't believe I'm going to, but Romney had a point. A lot of people won't pick themselves up. But it's not because they don't want to. They are trying. We have lost the skills to do so. And we are being brainwashed to believe that government has all of the answers while it is only working for the fat cats. A contradiction we accept.
And no, Sky, money and power don't create virtue. That is what these people are trying to buy.
Thanks, Matt. Yes, they do. And when they have no regulating force to be reckoned with the behavior of said governments becomes more and more oppressive and surreal and non-empathetic. The leaders of the government in a toxic sociopathic system become so profoundly out of touch with reality and seemingly out of touch with their own sense of decency and as I said basic human empathy. I see Obama as being disconnected when he walked into the White House, yet his protestations of empathy while campaigning must have been so willfully deceptive. Say anything to endear yourself for the game without a reforming commitment to fulfill those promises. I know the Republican Party is a nightmare. That doesn't mean you turn away from basic laws and ethics and ideals. Terror at losing popularity for electability or terror at being treated cynically by a craven corporate media seem to have replaced any indication of conscience and empathy in Obama. He performs at "seeming" an empathetic person say when he walks onto the View, etc., or maybe not an empathetic person, but as a cool personality that will invite trust, even though there is no commitment to fulfill such trust.
When we lost the integrity of the fourth estate, most of them, there are still intrepid ones trying to be messengers and getting punished for it.
best, libby
When we lost the integrity of the fourth estate, most of them, there are still intrepid ones trying to be messengers and getting punished for it.
best, libby
Sky, thanks for being honest and we may never find common ground on this.
Jill Stein is a representative of the 99% who is legally situated to do some good in her work at being nominated in so many states and qualifying to run.
Unfortunately the rat bastards have made it too hard for her to qualify for the debates (I forget what percentage you need of the upcoming vote in what poll -- but that keeps her and others down) and then there is the corporate media that won't give her ONE MOLECULE of attention.
But she is calling out the hypocrisy and she is speaking to a platform that values People, Peace and Planet. I approve of what the Green Party espouses and I approve of the qualities and seeming character of Dr. Jill Stein the person from what I have read about her and by her and personally viewed of her. She seems sturdy emotionally and empathetic and articulate and committed and a reformer and smart. That is a rare combo especially among politicians who today are primarily front people, puppets, for the powers that be.
We live in such insane times. But I think we need the Jill Steins and the Ralph Naders to keep illuminating what is possible. Even though as I said I had no idea Stein's campaign would be so dirtily omitted from attention by media.
But the entire left in this country is ignored by a callous media and subsequently minimized or ignored by so much of the 99% to everyone's detriment.
You write:
"You're still assuming that if Jill Stein could gather the votes to put her and her party in power, that she'd do anything different once in those plush seats."
Yes, I think she would do more especially than what Obama is doing. Stein is not playing games for political ambition. She is in it for reform.
What I like about the Green Party and it needs more communication within this country, is that it is loosely an international party with basic precepts of decency and sanity it espouses. It is a foundation for something akin to citizens without borders, a paradigm shift from patriarchical power, control and competition and corporatism's sociopathy to humanism's partnership and cooperation.
best, libby
Jill Stein is a representative of the 99% who is legally situated to do some good in her work at being nominated in so many states and qualifying to run.
Unfortunately the rat bastards have made it too hard for her to qualify for the debates (I forget what percentage you need of the upcoming vote in what poll -- but that keeps her and others down) and then there is the corporate media that won't give her ONE MOLECULE of attention.
But she is calling out the hypocrisy and she is speaking to a platform that values People, Peace and Planet. I approve of what the Green Party espouses and I approve of the qualities and seeming character of Dr. Jill Stein the person from what I have read about her and by her and personally viewed of her. She seems sturdy emotionally and empathetic and articulate and committed and a reformer and smart. That is a rare combo especially among politicians who today are primarily front people, puppets, for the powers that be.
We live in such insane times. But I think we need the Jill Steins and the Ralph Naders to keep illuminating what is possible. Even though as I said I had no idea Stein's campaign would be so dirtily omitted from attention by media.
But the entire left in this country is ignored by a callous media and subsequently minimized or ignored by so much of the 99% to everyone's detriment.
You write:
"You're still assuming that if Jill Stein could gather the votes to put her and her party in power, that she'd do anything different once in those plush seats."
Yes, I think she would do more especially than what Obama is doing. Stein is not playing games for political ambition. She is in it for reform.
What I like about the Green Party and it needs more communication within this country, is that it is loosely an international party with basic precepts of decency and sanity it espouses. It is a foundation for something akin to citizens without borders, a paradigm shift from patriarchical power, control and competition and corporatism's sociopathy to humanism's partnership and cooperation.
best, libby
I gotta go to work but will check in later and respond more. thanks for comments! sky, jan, just phyllis, et al. will be back.
As I was reading last comments I was shocked at myself that I had not addressed the concept of "codependency" re altruism after so many years in 12 step meetings which I acknowledge -- codependency -- is toxic and if Rand were going after altruism as a toxic codependency that is one thing. I think way back when I originally read her book I thought that is where she was going. But was Rand in her elitist Republican circle supporting a horrifying ruthless economic profiteering to the detriment of so much of humanity? It seems so.
ooops. sorry ... gotta run. to be continued later! best, libby
As I was reading last comments I was shocked at myself that I had not addressed the concept of "codependency" re altruism after so many years in 12 step meetings which I acknowledge -- codependency -- is toxic and if Rand were going after altruism as a toxic codependency that is one thing. I think way back when I originally read her book I thought that is where she was going. But was Rand in her elitist Republican circle supporting a horrifying ruthless economic profiteering to the detriment of so much of humanity? It seems so.
ooops. sorry ... gotta run. to be continued later! best, libby
Phillis,
No. You've got it upside down when you say.....
""Welfare should be a hand up. Social programs should be run as investments since people of good will paid in to them with expectation of receiving a benefit from them. We have become a greedy people expecting certain things simply because we are alive.""
We do not expect "certain things simply because we're alive.
We expect those things because we are part of a whole society.
People form social groups, up to and including nations, for mutual benefit. Every member of a society contributes to it in one way or another. One of the things a society does is establish an organizing and management body - a government. The purpose of any government is to organize things to the benefit of the whole population of the society.
It is NOT the purpose of management to set the members of a society at each other's throats for the rewards that come from co-operative effort. No business with employees exists without co-operative effort.
As with business, so too with management of the society. All efforts contribute to the end result and wealth created. All wealth thus created ought to be used for the benefit of all the participants.
We have known for thousands of years that there are times and circumstances which leave some of the people of any society in less than favourable circumstances. These people are NOT some sort of alien beings to whom the society may deny any obligation. They are members of the society as fully as those who take for themselves a greater than fair share of the rewards of that society. they are indeed entitled to "Welfare" or any other care that they need so long as the society can provide it for anyone else.
With modern automation and other innovations, for all of us to be putting in 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, is simply unnecessary for us all to enjoy very good lives.
Instead of ensuring that all people have that good life, the greed-masters have decided that they, and they alone, shall reap the wealth now created by fewer and fewer hands. Are the rest of us to obediently starve to death? In the midst of wealth of untold proportions? Because a fricken' machine is doing the jobs we once did?
Or should we initiate a different means of distributing the wealth of our society? One that reflects the new reality?
If all start off with equal talents, abilities, interests, share of the wealth, intelligence, education, etc., etc., then perhaps pure competition would also be fair. But we don't all start off like that.
The one thing we DO all start off with though is membership in a society - ours happens to be a wealthy society. Our membership entitles us to a fair share of that wealth. We, and our ancestors helped create it every bit as much as those who have grabbed it. We did all this, if you remember, to leave a better world for our children and for their children.... NOT to make some financial wizard rich beyond dreams while our children get left out.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the kids of the rich can inherit wealth that they've not contributed to creating, because their parents or other ancestors DID make a contribution, then so can the children of all of us. And for the exact same reason.
The purpose of a society is to apply the talents of all to the benefit of all. The purpose of a managing body is to levy taxes so as to ensure that all partake of the wealth created by all.
Charity? Fuck charity! If wealth were distributed in any remotely fair manner, there'd be no need of charity of any kind!
;-)
.
No. You've got it upside down when you say.....
""Welfare should be a hand up. Social programs should be run as investments since people of good will paid in to them with expectation of receiving a benefit from them. We have become a greedy people expecting certain things simply because we are alive.""
We do not expect "certain things simply because we're alive.
We expect those things because we are part of a whole society.
People form social groups, up to and including nations, for mutual benefit. Every member of a society contributes to it in one way or another. One of the things a society does is establish an organizing and management body - a government. The purpose of any government is to organize things to the benefit of the whole population of the society.
It is NOT the purpose of management to set the members of a society at each other's throats for the rewards that come from co-operative effort. No business with employees exists without co-operative effort.
As with business, so too with management of the society. All efforts contribute to the end result and wealth created. All wealth thus created ought to be used for the benefit of all the participants.
We have known for thousands of years that there are times and circumstances which leave some of the people of any society in less than favourable circumstances. These people are NOT some sort of alien beings to whom the society may deny any obligation. They are members of the society as fully as those who take for themselves a greater than fair share of the rewards of that society. they are indeed entitled to "Welfare" or any other care that they need so long as the society can provide it for anyone else.
With modern automation and other innovations, for all of us to be putting in 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, is simply unnecessary for us all to enjoy very good lives.
Instead of ensuring that all people have that good life, the greed-masters have decided that they, and they alone, shall reap the wealth now created by fewer and fewer hands. Are the rest of us to obediently starve to death? In the midst of wealth of untold proportions? Because a fricken' machine is doing the jobs we once did?
Or should we initiate a different means of distributing the wealth of our society? One that reflects the new reality?
If all start off with equal talents, abilities, interests, share of the wealth, intelligence, education, etc., etc., then perhaps pure competition would also be fair. But we don't all start off like that.
The one thing we DO all start off with though is membership in a society - ours happens to be a wealthy society. Our membership entitles us to a fair share of that wealth. We, and our ancestors helped create it every bit as much as those who have grabbed it. We did all this, if you remember, to leave a better world for our children and for their children.... NOT to make some financial wizard rich beyond dreams while our children get left out.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the kids of the rich can inherit wealth that they've not contributed to creating, because their parents or other ancestors DID make a contribution, then so can the children of all of us. And for the exact same reason.
The purpose of a society is to apply the talents of all to the benefit of all. The purpose of a managing body is to levy taxes so as to ensure that all partake of the wealth created by all.
Charity? Fuck charity! If wealth were distributed in any remotely fair manner, there'd be no need of charity of any kind!
;-)
.
@skypixie0
About time somebody said that. Thanks.
About time somebody said that. Thanks.
Sky, " The purpose of a society is to apply the talents of all to the benefit of all."
Exactly. And our government is using the talents of all to benefit a few. I, too, believe we should all share, fairly, in the wealth but our system is rigged. We aren't given equal education & thus are denied equal opportunity.
You don't see welfare as charity? A lot of people do, even those who are on it & have no hope of getting off of it.
I think we're coming at this from opposite sides. I want a society where we can get our fair share in a fair manner and be proud. Taxes and social programs are necessary to get there. We had that, we're losing it. College loans are prohibitive but have become a requirement. How do these kids have a good life after graduation? They can't. Government says that's okay. It's not.
I want a government that encourages it's societal members to be all that they can be. We don't have one. And we don't have that society anymore when people use the money the government gives them to buy things, when we have killer mobs to get the specials on the day after Thanksgiving at the stores, when we have become a society of buyers. In the immortal words of G W, paraphrased, "Go out and shop."
I agree that the money shouldn't be hoarded by a few people who have used non-productive means to gather it. It's meant to be used. We need a total revision, we need to quit making a profit off of students (the loans). We need to support everyone and make life fair. But, giving anyone money that they haven't earned in some way devalues it, whether it's the corporate raider or the person scanning the welfare system. Industrialists built this country. We need that back. Not unfettered, I never said that. But something better than we have now.
Exactly. And our government is using the talents of all to benefit a few. I, too, believe we should all share, fairly, in the wealth but our system is rigged. We aren't given equal education & thus are denied equal opportunity.
You don't see welfare as charity? A lot of people do, even those who are on it & have no hope of getting off of it.
I think we're coming at this from opposite sides. I want a society where we can get our fair share in a fair manner and be proud. Taxes and social programs are necessary to get there. We had that, we're losing it. College loans are prohibitive but have become a requirement. How do these kids have a good life after graduation? They can't. Government says that's okay. It's not.
I want a government that encourages it's societal members to be all that they can be. We don't have one. And we don't have that society anymore when people use the money the government gives them to buy things, when we have killer mobs to get the specials on the day after Thanksgiving at the stores, when we have become a society of buyers. In the immortal words of G W, paraphrased, "Go out and shop."
I agree that the money shouldn't be hoarded by a few people who have used non-productive means to gather it. It's meant to be used. We need a total revision, we need to quit making a profit off of students (the loans). We need to support everyone and make life fair. But, giving anyone money that they haven't earned in some way devalues it, whether it's the corporate raider or the person scanning the welfare system. Industrialists built this country. We need that back. Not unfettered, I never said that. But something better than we have now.
@Phillis,
You're buying into the predatory, greed capitalist definition of welfare and those who need it. It is NOT "getting something for nothing."
That would only be true in a "everyone for himself and the devil take those who can't compete" type society - the one the already rich ( and those who think they'll get rich) - want to make us think we already have. And they've bee so successful at brainwashing us into thinking this that even normal, average people, who KNOW better, are buying into it. This is sad.
If we wanted a dog-eat-dog compete for every scrap of food, every man for himself type of world, we'd not have formed societies for mutual sharing of the work and the rewards. You must understand that, in a society with massive numbers of members, there will always be some who cannot contribute to the "production" side of the equation. The equation being "Production AND Consumption".
One side of the equation alone - production - cannot work in the absence of the other. We tend to forget the consumption side of that equation. It is just as necessary as the production side if the equation is to be of any use to us. Those unable to contribute to the production side are playing a vital and necessary role in keeping the equation balanced.
It is in the the interests of the whole society for all members to be consumers and for as many as possible to be producers. Yet, we don't ask children to "produce", nor do we ask those suffering from mental or physical illness to produce, nor the aged, nor the pregnant. How is it so difficult to include those who haven't any production capability of value to offer in with these other non-producers?
Then there is the problem of too many workers and not enough jobs. Right now in the US there are 12 workers available for every job available. Simple arithmetic tells you that 11 of every 12 jobless people are NOT going to find a job. To make it worse, major companies are employing automation to cut down on the number of employees they employ. More people out of work. Then those same corporations off-shore jobs to cheaper labour markets; more unemployment here.
Our society, being formed for mutual sharing, owes it to those unemployed to provide them with a suitable income until it can provide them with gainful employment or a stable income, even if not employable, so that they can fulfill their role as consumers.
The "right wing" Philosophy is that EACH person must be both a consumer and a producer. Wiser heads realize that this individual balancing is not necessary; that the balancing can take place across the whole broad cross-section of the society.
The "right" hates this idea because only when we must compete for jobs can they cut wages, pensions, work-place safety, etc. Whenever individuals must stand alone against the corporations, the individual loses.
Our present society is in the control of corporations. It is organized for the benefit of corporations and those who are financially intertwined with it. We see the results of such a back-assward society right now.
In a proper society, the social system rules the economic system and puts it to work for the benefit of the population. The social system has a duty to ALL of the population. The economic system only has a duty to itself.
.
You're buying into the predatory, greed capitalist definition of welfare and those who need it. It is NOT "getting something for nothing."
That would only be true in a "everyone for himself and the devil take those who can't compete" type society - the one the already rich ( and those who think they'll get rich) - want to make us think we already have. And they've bee so successful at brainwashing us into thinking this that even normal, average people, who KNOW better, are buying into it. This is sad.
If we wanted a dog-eat-dog compete for every scrap of food, every man for himself type of world, we'd not have formed societies for mutual sharing of the work and the rewards. You must understand that, in a society with massive numbers of members, there will always be some who cannot contribute to the "production" side of the equation. The equation being "Production AND Consumption".
One side of the equation alone - production - cannot work in the absence of the other. We tend to forget the consumption side of that equation. It is just as necessary as the production side if the equation is to be of any use to us. Those unable to contribute to the production side are playing a vital and necessary role in keeping the equation balanced.
It is in the the interests of the whole society for all members to be consumers and for as many as possible to be producers. Yet, we don't ask children to "produce", nor do we ask those suffering from mental or physical illness to produce, nor the aged, nor the pregnant. How is it so difficult to include those who haven't any production capability of value to offer in with these other non-producers?
Then there is the problem of too many workers and not enough jobs. Right now in the US there are 12 workers available for every job available. Simple arithmetic tells you that 11 of every 12 jobless people are NOT going to find a job. To make it worse, major companies are employing automation to cut down on the number of employees they employ. More people out of work. Then those same corporations off-shore jobs to cheaper labour markets; more unemployment here.
Our society, being formed for mutual sharing, owes it to those unemployed to provide them with a suitable income until it can provide them with gainful employment or a stable income, even if not employable, so that they can fulfill their role as consumers.
The "right wing" Philosophy is that EACH person must be both a consumer and a producer. Wiser heads realize that this individual balancing is not necessary; that the balancing can take place across the whole broad cross-section of the society.
The "right" hates this idea because only when we must compete for jobs can they cut wages, pensions, work-place safety, etc. Whenever individuals must stand alone against the corporations, the individual loses.
Our present society is in the control of corporations. It is organized for the benefit of corporations and those who are financially intertwined with it. We see the results of such a back-assward society right now.
In a proper society, the social system rules the economic system and puts it to work for the benefit of the population. The social system has a duty to ALL of the population. The economic system only has a duty to itself.
.
Sky, I agree with you again.
I keep flashing back to Wisconsin in the 80s, though. It was known as the easiest state in which to garner welfare benefits and it was a disaster. People were flocking to it from all corners of the country to jump a ride on the wagon and Wisconsin almost went under. There are rumors today of people in my town having addresses in Indiana and Illinois and getting welfare from both places.
Setting a criteria for receiving the benefits of the society is mandatory. I know that there will always be people incapable of contributing at any level. That is a given, and they don't get dropped off due to their lack of ability. But there has to be a cost beyond being born in or being able to move to a certain place, even if it is simply community service and beautification. Otherwise everyone will want the money for nothing, we will be inundated with people moving here for no other reason than to get some of the money, and no one will produce. What will we consume then?
Also, I am not thinking only of those at the bottom of the pile, as it were. There has to be an evenness all the way through. Corporations shouldn't be sucking productivity from our future (see again, usurious college loans) with their corporate welfare, either. If the executive suite would not be so gosh darned greedy, needing 7-8 or more figure salaries, then off shoring the jobs to cut costs so they can make a "profit" for the shareholders. Then getting government subsidies while paying incredibly low taxes.
I don't see a way to fix it, but simply taxing the money away from the rich and giving it to the poor won't work. The money will simply migrate back to the same sort of people it was taxed away from. I know that I had no clue on what to do with money beyond spend it on junk. I don't think I'm alone there, either.
I keep flashing back to Wisconsin in the 80s, though. It was known as the easiest state in which to garner welfare benefits and it was a disaster. People were flocking to it from all corners of the country to jump a ride on the wagon and Wisconsin almost went under. There are rumors today of people in my town having addresses in Indiana and Illinois and getting welfare from both places.
Setting a criteria for receiving the benefits of the society is mandatory. I know that there will always be people incapable of contributing at any level. That is a given, and they don't get dropped off due to their lack of ability. But there has to be a cost beyond being born in or being able to move to a certain place, even if it is simply community service and beautification. Otherwise everyone will want the money for nothing, we will be inundated with people moving here for no other reason than to get some of the money, and no one will produce. What will we consume then?
Also, I am not thinking only of those at the bottom of the pile, as it were. There has to be an evenness all the way through. Corporations shouldn't be sucking productivity from our future (see again, usurious college loans) with their corporate welfare, either. If the executive suite would not be so gosh darned greedy, needing 7-8 or more figure salaries, then off shoring the jobs to cut costs so they can make a "profit" for the shareholders. Then getting government subsidies while paying incredibly low taxes.
I don't see a way to fix it, but simply taxing the money away from the rich and giving it to the poor won't work. The money will simply migrate back to the same sort of people it was taxed away from. I know that I had no clue on what to do with money beyond spend it on junk. I don't think I'm alone there, either.
Hi.
Nought to say just now but thanks & supportcha.
Nought to say just now but thanks & supportcha.
No comments:
Post a Comment