Obama's New National Security Force: Obama compared to Hitler: article

[MikeNY]

removed by author

[Alan_OldStudent]

http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/republican-warns-of-obama-dictatorship/243817?icid=100214839x1212439982x1200845122


Quote from article "Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado in which he called for expanding the nation's foreign service.
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

What do you think about the Civilian Security Force Obama wants to start and fund as muuch as the Military?

Hi Mike,

Happy Veteran's day.

You can quit looking under your bed for reds. Here's another article (http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/articles/obama_outlines_plan_for_national_service.html) with a bit less hypervention about this. You'll want to be a bit careful about reading this, though Mike, because it's from the journal of that well-known organization of philistines, liberals, effete snobs, pointy-headed social engineers, subversives, hate-America-Firsters, and elitist intellectuals known as AARP.

Hitler, of course, long before being "elected," (actually appointed chancellor by Von Hindenberg in 1933) had a gang of armed thugs, sort of the German equivalent of the KKK and skinheads all rolled up into one. They specialized in breaking up strikes, physically attacking and disrupting leftist meetings, and political hooliganism in general.

Anyhow, here in the good old USA, we have "civilian" armed groups. As a matter of fact, in Iraq, they serve as mercenaries and number about the same as US military personnel. One of the more notorious is Blackwater.

Paramilitary adjuncts to the military operating in civilian America is nothing new. In case you didn't notice or perhaps forgot, a civilian/paramilitary group recently was active in a major American city, with the blessings of the Bushies, no less. During the Katrina crisis, they patrolled the streets in New Orleans, and you can read about it here in that other notoriously subversive Bolshevik rag (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702214.html), The Washington Post.

Regards,

Alan

[b38]

Alan,

Good to see your post. As always, insightful and polite.

All the Best.

B38

[MikeNY]

removed by author

[Alan_OldStudent]

Hi Mike,

You skimmed the AARP article too fast. The article refers to Americorp being Clinton's baby but it never caught on. Obama did talk about expanding Americorp and the Peace Corps, policies also advocated by McCain and Bush. But Obama talked about a more ambitious series of volunteer programs. None of them, as far as I can see, included an armed civilian paramilitary group

As a matter of fact, I doubt very seriously that either you or Mr. Broun can find any speech, any written statement, any piece of objective evidence anywhere to establish that Obama talks about forming a civilian armed paramilitary force. I'll grant you that you can find plenty of people who will state that Obama plans to subvert America. For example, apparently, my son-in-law suspects Obama's the antichrist.

Citing the article:
Obama repeated his pledge to boost the size of the active military. But he also said the nation's future and safety depends on more than just additional soldiers.

"It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia," he said.

Obama had first outlined many of the proposals he talked about Wednesday during appearances in Iowa last December.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

Of course, McCain and Bush both say they support expanding the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps. Nevertheless, it is that last sentence in the above quote that got the redoubtable Paul Broun into a snit.

Here's what the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Broun) on Paul Broun states about this flap:
Broun cited a July 2008 speech by Obama in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate had said, "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." A spokesman for Obama indicated that he had been referring to a civilian reserve corps intended to handle postwar reconstruction efforts, such as rebuilding infrastructure. The Bush administration has endorsed this idea.[11]

The very next day, on November 11, Broun backed away from his inflammatory statements, saying on WGAC radio that “I regret putting it that way," and “I apologize to anyone who has taken offense at that.”[12] However, he still claims that Obama has promoted a lot of "socialistic" (sic) ideas which concerned him.

In other words, Mr Broun has egg in his face and as this story points out (http://www.ajc.com/services/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/11/11/paul_broun_expresses_regret_fo.html), he is backing water pretty quick. Here's why:

Someone with a bit of common sense must have asked a Mr. Broun a few needling questions:
Where is Obama going to get the money? Does Mr. Broun think Congress is going to give it to him?
If Congress doesn't fund this, does Mr. Broun think he can find some "sooper seecret" way of getting it from his supporters via an internet plot?
Where's Obama going to get recruits?
Who's going to train these worthies?
Who's going to pay their salaries?
Who's going to arm them? Are they going to get their arms from the same suppliers as the US military, or are they going to be supplied by Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, or maybe (shudder) France.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

By the way, doesn't it raise your suspicions when you hear politicians comparing their opponents to Hitler? Isn't that kind of rhetoric a bit of a clue that one must be a bit skeptical? In the meantime, somebody hand Mr. Broun a hanky. He's foaming at the mouth and needs to mop it up.

Regards,

Alan

[MikeNY]

removed by author

[MikeNY]

Alan nice to see you back on the forum.

[Alan_OldStudent]

Alan nice to see you back on the forum.
Thanks Mike,

I still am slammed with work, but I expect to have more of a presence in January. Meanwhile, it's mostly lurking for me now.

Regards,

Alan

[MikeNY]

Enjoy your lurking my friend! I started here as a lurker too :act-up: Looking forward to your return.

[Alan_OldStudent]

Hi Mike,

That article you cited (http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/111208/edi_483082.shtml)from the Augusta Journal had this to say about the esteemed Georgia representative, Paul Broun, who suggested that Obama was some type of Commie hell-bent on creating a Hitler-style fifth column of civilian paramilitaries

U.S. Rep Paul Broun, R-Ga., has won himself national attention for making the harshest criticism of Barack Obama since he became president-elect. What the congressman has won for his 10th Congressional District constituents, however, is a huge dose of embarrassment.

Broun, who already has a reputation among his colleagues as being something of a flake, added to that perception Monday when he said, "I may sound a bit crazy." Why? Because he fears that Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship on the nation.

Apparently, the Augusta Journal is pretty pro-Republican and conservative. The article further complains:

We think the Republican Party has a problem with Broun's big mouth. He cites as evidence of the president-elect's "radical Marxism" a proposal Obama made some months ago to establish a civilian force to help the military with national security

Just so the Augusta Journal's readers don't think they've gone all Bolshie, they say:

A lot of people were also troubled by the thug-like conduct of the mob that gathered outside of his Philadelphia headquarters on election night. If they are what he means by a civilian defense corps, then there is reason to worry.

Of course, that's plain hogwash, as they themselves realize. That's why they titled the article you cited: ""'Hitler' remarks out of line. Civilian defense corps a bad idea, but Broun goes overboard"

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide2.gif

Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy called Reductio ad Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)? Wikipedia states this:
The relative frequency of such comparisons in Usenet discussions led to the formulation of an adage called Godwin's Law in 1990, which posits that the probability of analogies involving Hitler or the Nazis approaches 100% as the duration of an online discussion increases

So you see, by using the Hitler analogy, perhaps Mr Broun wishes to stop an examination of his political imbecility. At any rate, he has certainly scuppered himself by wrecking his credibility with such political crudeness and lack of sophistication.

By the way, Wikipedia says this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)Wikipedia says this about Dodds corrolary to Godwin's Godwin's law:
"When debating a particular subject, if a comparison or implied connection is drawn between the opponent's argument and Hitler and the Nazi Party, the maker of that statement is automatically discredited and the debate is automatically lost by the person or group who referenced the connection to Hitler or the Nazis."

So yes, Mr. Broun has found out what so many others are finding out. The political cheap shot of red-baiting as a way to whip up hysteria and stop reasoned examination of political realities no longer has the power it once did, and its practitioners end up looking foolish. The poster children for this are Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14777.html), and now Paul Broun himself.

Regards,

Alan
http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/icons/redbutterfly22.gif

[MikeNY]

removed by author

[Free]

Time will tell. Unfortunately not much we can do about it now. The Hypnotized masses have spoken.

[Alan_OldStudent]

I look at Obama's words and take them at face value. Alan your only probelm is what Obama said and I think he meant it. Off script and without a written script to read and Mr.Obama delivers the true Obama. I take him at his word. i do not see this as Left or Right; any President that wanted a Civilian National Security Force would be suspect. I am not a Obamanite and didn't drink the koolaide. The truth will come out where Obama wants to lead. I hope I am wrong.

Um, say Mike,

You don't happen to have a link to his original speech so that this can be viewed in context, do you?

I looked all over for it but could not find it.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

Maybe later on I'll post something here explaining how socialists really could gain power in the United States, and it does not involve paramilitary forces.

Stay tuned for that thrilling set of action plans....coming here when my work load lightens up.

Regards,

Alan

http://www.alanstancliff.com/image/moonbat.gif

[MikeNY]

removed by author

[MikeNY]

removed by author

[Alan_OldStudent]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, the U-Tube is blocked here on my work computer, so I was unable to see them. It will have to wait until I have time to look at them on my home computer. But I did see the melange from Eyeblast.

From what I could see from the cut-and-paste job in the Eyeblast piece, they seem to be advocating some kind of universal civil service for 3 months for youths to support federal agencies acting in the wake of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. It is kind of hard to tell from it, as it seems to have a lot of selective cuts.

However, note that Obama's chief of staff was talking about creating this through legislation.

Don't you find it hard to believe that a bright guy like Obama would seriously attempt legislation to create a civilian paramilitary force that would include all young people between the ages of 18-25, under the command of the president? I mean, really Mike, does that make sense?

Especially seeing as how Obama could just imitate Bush, have his paramilitary sub-rosa in a black-bag operation, such as the Bush Administration did with Iraq and New Orleans. That way, Obama would not be bothered by all those pesky reporters and obstreperous politicians who love so much to grandstand.

But as I said earlier, before I draw any conclusions that he may have seriously proposed some madcap liberal-commie gestapo under the command of Comrade Obama, I'd like to see a transcript of the original speech, as opposed to something that has the possible odor of swiftboat bilge.

So I put it to you again, my friend. Do you have any links to the transcript of the original speech?

To answer your rhetorical question
Alan are you saying the Assocaited Press forged the Obama quote? The other newspapers also joined in a conspircy to defame Obama? Oh MY God they even faked a Obama look a like on you tube.......

No, I don't presently think there is some gigantic unified conspiracy to defame Obama. There are lots of things I don't like about him myself. But I do think there are certain crazies out there who are convinced that he is the antichrist, a white-race hater, a secret Muslim agent, and a socialist or communist or Nazi intent on establishing some sort of nefarious dictatorship. Such charges, ludicrous as they are, attract a lot of attention, so news media covers them. After all, such a spectacle is entertainment, even if it is kind of low entertainment.

But I don't think for a moment that the mass media in this country takes that seriously. They just see the high commercial entertainment value and realize that covering the ravings of a Paul Broun's hissy-fits and subsequent apologies draws readership and viewership.

Again, do you have a link to the entire speech so we can see it in context?

Regards,

Alan

[MikeNY]

removed by author

[Free]

Well the other labels are debatable, but there is no doubt Obama is a Socialist, as are many others in government, and it could be argued that the whole government structure since the implementation of progressive taxation, and the changes to the constitution that takes power away from the states, and puts it in the hands of the few in Washington.

The recent bailout shenanigans is evidence of just how Socialistic our government has become, and George Bush is right there in the center of it all. Obama, just wants to take it to the next logical Socialistic step, to directly take money from those who have worked hard for it, and hand it out to those who haven't. Clear redistribution of wealth, or in his own words "spread the wealth around". There is nothing more Socialistic than that concept.

[MikeNY]

removed by author

[Alan_OldStudent]

Alan do you have any proof that Bush used Black Ops in New Orleans or is using it now in Iraq? that would be grounds for impeachment.

I see Obama as a continuation of the worst elements of Bush but on steroids.

The Bailout saved Obam's wall Street Elite friends and backers, it should have been called the Bush-Obama Bailout. The republican plan was better more like what the Europeans did. Citibank got 25 Billion and used it for 25 Billion in Bonus money for the Obama Elites.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the soft ball:


NY Times: Bush OK'd Global Secret Raids--Rumsfeld Penned Order Allowing Ground Forces To Invade Any Country To Go After Al Qaeda (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/10/world/main4587208.shtml)
On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gat hering_0413.html)
NY Times: Bush OK'd Global Secret Raids (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/10/world/main4587208.shtml)
Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan-- New York Times (http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2008/09/president-bush-orders-special-ops-for.html)
Bush's Shadow Army (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/scahill)
Bush's Blackwater, an armed and deadly mercenary Christian army (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2249)
Special Operations: High Profile, but in Shadow (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/world/middleeast/29forces.html)


So, you see, Obama doesn't have to go through all the messiness and risk that open democratic legislation entails when trying to get Congress to approve his "civilian paramilitary" group to bring the horrors of Communism home. Instead, he can just follow the precedent of his honorable predecessor and use a hired mercenary force.


Regards,

Alan

[Free]

Ahh.. New York Times.... now there is a credible source. Couldn't you have found one from the National Enquirer? :eyeroll:

[Alan_OldStudent]

Well the other labels are debatable, but there is no doubt Obama is a Socialist, as are many others in government, and it could be argued that the whole government structure since the implementation of progressive taxation, and the changes to the constitution that takes power away from the states, and puts it in the hands of the few in Washington.

The recent bailout shenanigans is evidence of just how Socialistic our government has become, and George Bush is right there in the center of it all. Obama, just wants to take it to the next logical Socialistic step, to directly take money from those who have worked hard for it, and hand it out to those who haven't. Clear redistribution of wealth, or in his own words "spread the wealth around". There is nothing more Socialistic than that concept.

Hi Free,

Of course, there's nothing wrong with being against socialism and subjecting it to the most merciless criticisms--as long as you actually know what socialism is. Otherwise, your comments will seem to lack credibility to other intelligent and perceptive people.

Moreover, it's really quite impossible to fight socialism if all you know about it is that you're against it. Your post up there makes me think that you are a bit confused as to what socialism actually is.

I say that because whatever else socialism is, it is not about using taxes paid by working people to bail out capitalists from a capitalist market in collapse. If I have been reading your comments correctly, you seem to be confused about that very point.

Albert Einstein, who favored socialism, wrote an essay called "Why Socialism (http://www.bigissueground.com/politics/einstein-socialism.shtml)." I think it's a pretty good explanation of what socialism is by a highly-respected committed socialist. You might want to start off by reading that.

Also, Wikipedia has a pretty good, more impartial article on socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism), a bit about its history, some of the critiques of socialism by people who know what socialism is, lots of links to other articles, pro and con, and source citations. You should check it out if you're interested in making valid criticisms.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

There's the story of the drunk on a dark street around midnight looking around a lamp post outside a bar. A cop comes by and asks him what he's looking for. The drunk explains he's dropped his wallet with a couple of hundred dollars and his wife's credit card in it, and needs to find it before he goes home or his wife will kill him. So the cop helps him look. They search the bushes around the lamppost, but no wallet. So the cop asks him if he's sure he dropped it near the lamppost.

"Heck no," says the drunk. "I actually dropped it in the dark alley behind the bar when the bouncer threw me out for fistfighting the bartender."

The cop looked dumbfounded and asked, "So why are you looking here, in front of the bar?", to which the drunk replied, "why there's no light out there in the alley."

So Free, with all due respect, what you want to do is avoid the drunk's mistake of looking in the wrong spot.

Regards,

Alan

[Free]

Well Alan, I looked at your links, and did not see a direct conflict with what I posted about spreading the wealth around.

Since you like to use semantics, and obfuscation to support your points, lets get directly to the heart of the matter.

Please answer this question directly. Under Socialism, would I be able to work, and keep all the fruits of my labors, and the property I own, or would a portion of my hard earned rewards be taken from me by force, or my property be divided up to be given to others, who did not own it in the first place?

[Free]

With each passing day, it seems more and more like a Mob, rather than a team.

[Free]

I think I am going to shut up now. It is not safe to have these types of discussions any more.

[Alan_OldStudent]

Hi Free

Well Alan, I looked at your links, and did not see a direct conflict with what I posted about spreading the wealth around.

Thanks for taking the time to read them with an open mind. When I was young, I found it can be so tempting to question the integrity and intelligence of those who disagree with me. As I get older, I realize more and more just how difficult it is to look at the other fellow's point of view objectively and to remember bright people of good will can disagree strongly on fundamental principles.

From the above quote, it is obvious that you have some willingness to look at other viewpoints.

Since you like to use semantics, and obfuscation to support your points, lets get directly to the heart of the matter.

My personal apologies to you if my explanations are not clear. Being human, I sometimes assume common ground or understanding where it does not exist or is limited. For what it's worth, I do not deliberately try to deceive with obfuscation or semantics, and insofar as they exist in my statements, they reflect unconscious and unexamined bias, not deliberate attempts to deceive.

Please answer this question directly. Under Socialism, would I be able to work, and keep all the fruits of my labors, and the property I own, or would a portion of my hard earned rewards be taken from me by force, or my property be divided up to be given to others, who did not own it in the first place?

Fair and direct questions, Free.

A lot of people a whole lot smarter than I have dealt with these questions, so bear in mind that my answers are my answers and reflect my understanding. I have, however, been reading about socialism for well over 50 years.

According to my understanding of democratic socialism, you would have the right to work at a decent wage as long as you had the capability and desire to do so. Your personal property, such as your house, your automobile, your clothes, etc would be yours, guaranteed by law. Your earnings from your work would be yours. Of course, just as in a capitalist society, there would be social expenses, such as roads, public education, defence, etc. There would also be programs to support those unable to work, the sick, the elderly, the retired, etc. Those social expenses would be paid for by publically administered funds, accountable to democratic input, and raised by taxes.

What you would not be able to own as an individual would be the banks, major industry, etc, because they would be publically owned and administered by some sort of democratic process. Some of the gains from the old order, such as constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc would be kept, and the right to form political parties would be guaranteed.

Again, Free, please bear in mind that this is my understanding of democratic socialism in an American context.

Regards,

Alan

[Free]

Alan, thanks for the clarification. What is not clear, is how much of your hard earned money you would get to keep, how progressive the taxation system would be (I assume that it would be at least as progressive as our current one) and how comfortable a home or car you would be allowed to have.

Anytime the government tells you what you can keep of your own labors, or those of your family before you, it is a bad thing, in my opinion.

[MikeNY]

removed by author

[MikeNY]

removed by author

[MikeNY]

removed by author

[Alan_OldStudent]

Here is an interesting article on Obama's planned Secret Police Force http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obama_fear_and_the_security_fo.html

Interesting indeed, Mike. Thanks for the link.

Although I believe that Selwyn Duke's fears are irrational, this piece is a very clear exposition of exactly the nature of the feelings of so many on the right from the point of view of a rightist. It provides a window to the palpable adrenaline-soaked fears of these people.

Many people do indeed fear Obama's election heralds some sort of police state. It behooves leftists such as myself to really try to understand the frame of mind of such people instead of just dismissing them as kooks. Understanding this fear from their perspective is the key to us being able to intelligently address their concerns in a respectful fashion.

Later, I'll contribute more to this discussion. Stay tuned.

Regards,

Alan

[MikeNY]

removed by author

[Alan_OldStudent]

Here is an article that is a horrible development: Threats Against Obama Unprecedented. People making threats against the President Elect belong in jail.

http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/threats-against-obama-on-the-rise/249016?icid=100214839x1213026599x1200823362

Hi Mike,

Here are a few other links to some similar stories.


Election spurs 'hundreds' of race threats, crimes (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iEyLuiVkdd-f1RM5wnoR0kF4WbvgD94FHP480)
Students chant 'Assassinate Obama' on school bus (http://www.2news.tv/news/local/34274374.html)
UPDATED: Local Newspapers Cover Rising Number of Racist Anti-Obama Actions in Small Towns (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003890511)


I'm pleased (but not at all surprised) to see that you're against that type of terrorist threat. Despite our profound disagreements about a range of political differences, I respect you as having a sense of fair play.

Talk to you later.

Regards,

Alan

[Andy62]

It is hard for me to believe that any of these crazy groups would have a chance at killing Obama with all of the precautions taken to protect him. Never the less their threats are scary.

[Alan_OldStudent]

It is hard for me to believe that any of these crazy groups would have a chance at killing Obama with all of the precautions taken to protect him. Never the less their threats are scary.

Hi Andy,

You make a good point about how unlikely it is that these folks could kill Obama, given the present security apparatus around our presidents.

You're also right that this is scary. A bus load of grade-schoolers chanting "assassinate Obama" or sectarian extremists attending a Palin rally shouting "kill him" won't be able to do it. Neither will those skinheads caught in Colorado on their way to assassinate him, one of whom said that no "nigger" would ever sit in the White House.

But this really is about much more. What we are seeing is the seeds of a future mass movement of reactionary thugs. We also see the seeds of an opposing mass movement, a progressive movement. This is the beginning of a real polarization that will perhaps rival the one preceding the American civil war of 1861-1865.

Consider the following:

Somebody at work sent me the following information from a book called Generation We (http://www.generation-we.com/).

Who Are Generation We?
Millennials are the largest generation in American history. Born between 1978 and 2000, they are 95 million strong, compared to 78 million Baby Boomers. They are independent—politically, socially, and philosophically—and they are spearheading a period of sweeping change in America and around the world.

These young people do not have the same political outlook as their parents. Most of these folks have had minority teachers, minority supervisors, minority officers if they were in the military. They tend to accept homosexual marriage. They tend to be antiwar. They also tend to believe in global warming and are environmentalist in their sentiments. They think the health-care delivery system and tend to favor universal coverage. They are also turned off by "politics as usual," the Republican party, and even the Democratic Party. They voted for Obama because they viewed him as not being a part of the Democratic Party establishment, and they will abandon him in a heartbeat if he does not come through with the change they imagine he stands for. They are not so hot on neo-liberalism. And they are tending to move to the left.

Contrast these "Generation We" types with the millions of people who are not comfortable with an African-American president because they are not comfortable with a multicultural America. Many of these people feel deeply that the United States is ordained of God to lead the world, that it really is the main force for international good, but that we are misunderstood and hated by most of the world, partly out of ignorance, partly out of perversity, partly out of wickedness of our "enemies." They wish for a return to an imaginary golden age, a time of national tranquility, an age of innocence, an age where crime was rare and people respected their elders and lived wholesome Christian lives, a time of simple black-and-white cartainties, with no social or moral ambiguities, and an ever-increasing standard of living.

Now consider this: Since the end of the second world war, our standard of living has been based on two facts: The United States consumes 25% of the world's natural resources and has 6% of the world's population. But the economic order that has made this possible has been changing and being challenged by the rise of other potential superpowers, Russia, Brazil, China, and India, and a host of second-tier nations after that including Mexico. On top of that, the world capitalist system is entering a deep recession, a recession that may well mean decades of mass unemployment in the range of 15% to as high as 35%, the rise of labor strife and militancy as working people seek to shore up their situation, mass protests against future wars and erosions of civil rights, in other words, a situation not dissimilar to the great depression of the 1930s that was just ending when I was born.

I remember at the end of the second world war hearing my father say the government had to end the depression because it had just placed a generation of young American men under arms and trained them to fight.

So when some here talk about Obama having a secret plot to have a civilian paramilitary to institute a dictatorship, along with unruly gatherings at political rallies calling for Obama's assassination, when you have mass unemployment developing, a large segment of whom are combat veterans, and a mass shift to the left going on among the youth...when you have same-sex marriage being outlawed and mass protest demonstrations in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and even many cities in so-called middle America...when you have millions of working people infuriated that their retirement accounts, job benefits, and even jobs are being defunded while the politicians use their tax dollars to bail out banks and big industry from financial disaster, you have the makings of a political explosion the likes of which we have not seen for 160 years.

Just wait until those "Generation We" types find out that the Democrats are as willing as the Republicans to sacrifice the well-being of working people to bail out the bankers, industrialists, and war profiteers. Just wait until the Generation We abandon traditional political parties and seek alternative instruments and ways of acting politically. Wait until that Generation We discover that the bitter wrangling and political battles between the Republicans and Democrats is over how to best serve the interests of the real rulers of America, the big corporations, even at the expense of the common man and woman.

Just wait until the older, more established interests, those captains of industry try to suppress and demobilize this rising and actually irrepressible pressure from the bottom.

There's going to be a hell-fire storm in Babylon.

That, my friend, is what I think is scary.

Regards,

Alan

[Alan_OldStudent]

Here's a poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley that I think some may find relevant:

OZYMANDIAS

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away

Regards,

Alan

[Andy62]

Alan, I am basically an optimist,but I agree with many of your observations. The world is in a state of change the likes of which none of us living today have ever seen and it is hard to predict where things are going. In my opinion there is no way that things economically will go back to the way that they were. I think one of the problems that we are starting to face is the effect of world population growth. When I was in college the world population was 3 billion people,today it is 6 billion people and within the next generation it will reach 9 billion people- how many people can the earth support? Add to that the effect of 3 billion Asians, recently turn capitalists ,who want cars and other items which we have taken for granted in the West. I see the recent election in the US as a reaction election where expectations were raised too high and things were promised that cannot be delivered. The President of The US really doesn't have all that much power and oil pricing and the shift of manufacturing to the lower production cost Asian and Eastern European countries are certainly out of his control . I also believe that the terrorists are out of his control and that war will continue. The mess we are in is the result of people all up and down the food chain and not just one or a few groups that became the target of political head games during the elections. The Bankers on Wall Street are guilty as sin,but they made politial contributions around the President to members of Congress to keep the suprime loans and other structured finance programs in effect. Bush tried to put the brakes on the wild lending in 2003,but Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer insisted there was no problem. I was in the commerical mortgage lending business while this problem was developing and believe me the guilt goes all of the way down the line. Over $200 million were pumped into the campaigns of members of Congress over the last 10 years by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Executives to keep those programs going and their compensation in the stratosphere. I saw an interesting interview yesterday with John Howard, the former Prime Minister of Australia, who said," you don't try to bring social change by using the financial institutions." There will be some changes,but they will be no where near the expectations that those young idealists were led to believe during the election and the war is not going to stop either. If we incease the US Debt to fund all of those social programs eventually tax rates will increase and we will lose our competitiveness inthe world. I really don't expect violence on any scale unless the economy really collapses. If that happens all of the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum will come into play. The Nazis were active long before they were able to take power prior to World War II and they were only able to take power after the economy collapsed. This is a very critical time in the world's history and as the different demographic groups play off of eachother with their their different values and expectations the risk increases. Let's just hope that cooler heads prevail. Gordon

[Alan_OldStudent]

Hello Gordon and Peacekeeper,

Yogi Berra is reputed to have said something like "Making predictions is a tricky business, especially when it comes to the future."

Despite the darkish tone of my post of yesterday, I am somewhat optimistic about the future. The raw idealism of the young fills me with some hope.

In my lifetime, I've seen great struggle, even a fair amount of violence. But I have also seen a lot of decency. It is possible for the human race to muddle through, but it will take courage and a commitment to help create a world where the advantage of one contributes to the common good.

Right now, we live in a world where the advantage of some is often at the expense of the other. We live in a world where greed is celebrated and considered a virtue. We live in a world where preemptive invasion of others, regime change, and assassination is considered desirable, even cool. We live in a world that more and more breeds wars, depressions, poverty, and degradation for the many and enrichment of the elite.

We lack a sense of morality based on human solidarity.

Here's my idea of morality: We each need to do our tiny bit to help leave this world a better place because we walked on the face of mother earth. We need to remember we are all brothers and sisters to all other humans, and we all share DNA with all life.

To do this, we must be sober and realistic in our assessments of what's going on. Right now, the winds of important change are tickling the leaves at the top of the trees. But they are building.

Let us each make a commitment to decency and human solidarity. Even though I do not believe that the Democrats or Republicans can rescue us, I look to another potential agent of change.

Most of the social benefits we take for granted have come about by mass action.


The Bill of Rights was added to our constitution because there were mass demonstrations demanding it. They were not given to us; we wrested them.
Women gained the right to vote because of a mass movement that lasted for decades.
People used to have to work 12 hours a day 6 days a week. Mass action got us the 8-hour day.
Mass action also abolished child labor, which used to be considered quite respectable. Asa Chandler, founder of Coca Cola, said this (http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.php?id=135): "The most beautiful sight that we see is the child at labor...As early as he may get at labor the more beautiful, the more useful does his life get to be."
The Jim Crow laws crashed because of mass action. Un-segregated housing, interracial marriage, antidiscrimination laws in employment all came about because of mass action.
Social Security came about as a result of political concessions to popular unrest and the great sit-down strikes of the 1930s. Universal education and voting rights for all citizens irrespective of race came about the same way.


There are many other examples I could cite. None of these really came about as a result of politicians giving them to us. They came about as concessions in the face of mass movements.

But, as we may well imagine, mass action can be a 2-way sword. Fascism is the classic example.

Italian fascism and German fascism came about as a result of mass action too. Hitler had gangs of thugs numbering a million or so that physically broke up meetings and attacked opponents. To put it into an American perspective, imagine an active Ku Klux Klan with millions of members acting as thugs to break up not only Obama rallies but even McCain and Palin rallies, gangs that trashed minority-owned businesses, etc, in the context of an America with mass unemployment.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide3.gif

What is the key to minimizing the dangers ahead and maximizing the future? I believe that each of us must strive for clarity of thought, and we must endeavor to become educated. We must simply be rational.

We must encourage the fullest democratic exchange of ideas. We must be willing to change our point of view based on evidence and rationality.

We must respect different ideas and be willing to listen respectfully to other points of view.

The democratic process, oiled with respect, is essential to our survival as a species...it's not just some nicey-nicey goodie-two-shoes ideal.

We need to know history, to know where we came from so we can orient ourselves on the highway of the future. We need to avoid mindless scapegoating, mindless labeling, mindless name-calling. Such things lead us down the broad road to hellfire of war, agonies of racism, perdition of extinction.

In the modern context, too often that mindless and deadly name calling take the form of red-baiting, which is saying that a certain position is not worth considering because some communist or socialist advocated it.


During the struggles to eliminate child labor and ensure universal education, proponents of child labor accused their opponents of being socialists and reds.
During the struggle to eliminate the American form of apartheid, the Jim Crow laws, the supporters of the old way called Martin Luther King a communist and the civil rights movement part of a red conspiracy.
Likewise, the struggle for women's suffrage was denounced as a red plot by those who wanted to keep half our citizens out of the political process, that half that are our mothers, sisters, wives.
The passage of the voting rights bill, elimination of poll taxes and literacy tests to register to vote were all denounced in turnas the result of subversive infiltration, a socialist plot.
The struggle of workers to have the democratic right to form unions was denounced as a red plot. The supreme court once ruled that belonging to a union was unconstitutional because it deprived the factory owner of his rights to use his property.


http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

We need to remember that progressive change does not sneak up. It's not the result of a plot. After all, millions, or even billions, of dollars are at stake in these changes. Those without the dough cannot, and never have been able to, sneak change through, especially in an advanced industrialized country. Sneaking requires lots of money and power. It is the domain of the privileged.

The only way the rest of us can affect change really is through mass action, and that requires a program, openness, and organization. It requires democratic debate and winning the allegiance of the majority.

I am hopeful that the Obama generation have a better-than-even chance of being able to push through progressive change when they become aware of the futility of relying on one of the two parties of corporate America. I am not so hopeful that Obama and the Democrats will do it, although if the change comes because of mass pressure from below, they'll take credit for it.

Perhaps the Obama generation will form a party based on the interests of working people and the common purpose and engage the corporate power structure in the political arena when they wake up to the futility of relying on one of the two parties of big business. Perhaps at a certain point, the corporate power structure will finance and support fascist gangs to counter the millennium generation, such as the German and Italian corporate power brokers did in the first half of the 20th century.

What I foresee in my Yogi Berra crystal ball is the development of economic, social, and environmental crises and a period of social struggle and strife. What I hope for is a decent outcome, the shape of which is not real clear, as my crystal ball is getting cloudy. What I have confidence in is those wonderful young people, those who seem to be so idealistic, more in tune with the health of our mother, the earth, and more concerned with human decency.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide.gif

So be of good courage and moral decency, my friends. We are coming into an epoch that can bring out the best, most heroic and decent aspects of our human nature.

Regards,

Alan
http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/icons/violets.jpg

[Andy62]

Alan, You have some great thoughts there and you have obviously devoted a lot of thought to the process. I did not vote for Obama,but now that he is President I hope that he will rise to the office as so many have done throughout history. The thing that gives me caution is some of the groups that supported him obvously have self interest as a motivation and self interests that would not move the country or the world in the direction of the greater good as your post would hope. He is obviously an excelllent orator, is very charismatic, and very intelligent. He really did advance through his association with some very unsavory characters in his early politcal career in Chicago. He also played into the hands of the Daley Machine in Chicago to advance his political career and the Daley Machine is the very definition of machine politics. His promoter David Axelrod has a long history with the Daley Machine. Will he be able to overcome the "I owe Yous" that these groups expect? Time will tell and we all have to hope for the best. Gordon

[Alan_OldStudent]

Alan, You have some great thoughts there and you have obviously devoted a lot of thought to the process. I did not vote for Obama,but now that he is President I hope that he will rise to the office as so many have done throughout history. The thing that gives me caution is some of the groups that supported him obvously have self interest as a motivation and self interests that would not move the country or the world in the direction of the greater good as your post would hope. He is obviously an excelllent orator, is very charismatic, and very intelligent. He really did advance through his association with some very unsavory characters in his early politcal career in Chicago. He also played into the hands of the Daley Machine in Chicago to advance his political career and the Daley Machine is the very definition of machine politics. His promoter David Axelrod has a long history with the Daley Machine. Will he be able to overcome the "I owe Yous" that these groups expect? Time will tell and we all have to hope for the best. Gordon

Hi Gordon,

Thanks for your perceptive thoughts. As always, your comments are appreciated.

Speaking of Chicago politics and Barak Obama, here's an interesting news story (http://cbs2chicago.com/local/election.night.hate.2.863693.html) from CBS News, Chicago.

Whatever the merits of this legal action, this story is certainly a vivid illustration of polarization surrounding this election.

Regards,

Alan

[Andy62]

Alan, Hopefully those allegations aren't true,but no doubt emotions are running high. I think a lot it of it has to do with the state of the economy. Most people that I know on both sides say the election is over and wish our President Elect good luck. Gordon

[Alan_OldStudent]

Alan, Hopefully those allegations aren't true,but no doubt emotions are running high. I think a lot it of it has to do with the state of the economy. Most people that I know on both sides say the election is over and wish our President Elect good luck. Gordon

Hi Gordon,

You are quite correct. Thanks for the points you made.

This is the time to be rational. For my part, I'm willing to wait to see what happens. There certainly are some people on this very forum who vehemently disagree with me, but they limit themselves to debating me while showing obvious respect for me.

That's what's wanted most of all. We need to listen to each other, learn from each other, and be courageous in the face of very difficult and as-yet unimagined trials ahead.

It is said that the Chinese have an old curse, "May you live in interesting times." We certainly do live in interesting times.

The ancient Greek playwright famously said, "He whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad," the word "mad" in this context meaning crazy. Above all, we need to behave rationality and avoid the madness of baseless paranoia, race hate, mindless prejudice, black-and-white thinking, and bigotry and intolerance of every sort.

I have a very busy week coming up, and I may not get a chance to post much. But all my brothers and sisters on this forum will be in my thoughts.

Regards,

Alan

[Alan_OldStudent]

Hi Gordon and all,

Here's another story from the Christian Science Monitor called After Obama's win, white backlash festers in US (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1117/p03s01-uspo.html).

A picture accompanies this article. The picture is that of a man implicated in a Ku Klux Klan murder.

Regards,

Alan

[MikeNY]

removed by author

[MikeNY]

removed by author