The presidential election exposed the liberal class as a corpse. It fights for nothing. It stands for nothing. It is a useless appendage to the corporate state. It exists not to make possible incremental or piecemeal reform, as it originally did in a functional capitalist democracy; instead it has devolved into an instrument of personal vanity, burnishing the hollow morality of its adherents. Liberals, by voting for Barack Obama, betrayed the core values they use to define themselves—the rule of law, the safeguarding of civil liberties, the protection of unions, the preservation of social welfare programs, environmental accords, financial regulation, a defiance of unjust war and torture, and the abolition of drone wars. The liberal class clung desperately during the long nightmare of this political campaign to one or two issues, such as protecting a woman’s right to choose and gender equality, to justify its complicity in a monstrous evil. This moral fragmentation—using an isolated act of justice to define one’s self while ignoring the vast corporate assault on the nation and the ecosystem along with the pre-emptive violence of the imperial state—is moral and political capitulation. It fails to confront the evil we have become.
America has now elected its first half-black president to a second term, which, if you understand math, means that America has finally elected a fully black president to one term. A little more than half of America is gloating like drunken pigs on moonshine. A little less than half of America is brooding with a smoldering sense of resignation and perhaps permanent cultural defeat.
Among the latter contingent is a young fat blonde pimply idiot woman in California who recently Tweeted the following:
Another four years of this nigger, maybe he will get assassinated this term..!!
Several news agencies blacked out (pun intended) the word “nigger,” while others opted for variants such as “(N word)” and “n———r,” the latter of which may have caused unsuspecting souls to wonder whether she meant to say “nitpicker,” “Northerner,” “naysayer,” “NASCAR driver,” or “nougat-eater.”
Tuesday night’s election result has left conservatives (and reportedly Romney himself) shell-shocked, dumbfounded and a little traumatized by the seemingly gravity-defying political skills of President Barack Obama. Obama, who has won reelection to the office of president with the More…
By Jack D. Douglas
Vast social revolutions and wars are often preceded by periods of giving up on reforms, despairing withdrawal from public life by the best and brightest, and even peacefulness which seems to have become the normal condition in spite of deep conflicts and growing crises beneath the surfaces of public life. Often, earlier periods of intense conflicts and crises have been overcome and resolved, so it comes to look like that is the normal in life. This lulls most people into assuming their worse fears cannot happen, but this leads them to lowering their guards against growing conflicts and crises, so small ones can more easily cascade down into massive ones. If people expected they could become vast wars or revolutions or implosions, they would take more precautions to prevent that. But when lulled in expecting the worst cannot happen, the worst than they could ever imagine often explodes suddenly.
President Obama is seeking re-election to a second term in 2012. A large crowd of Republican candidates are competing for the GOP nomination. Plus there are LOTS of third party and independent P2012 hopefuls. So, if a person is running –regardless of party, ballot status, or chances of winning — we have him or her listed below. Incumbent party first, following by the main opposition party, then the third party candidates, and finally the independent and write-in hopefuls.
|America’s Future Foundation (AFF), a group geared towards ambitious young Washington conservatives like me, usually holds its monthly roundtable discussions at the Fund for American Studies on New Hampshire Avenue. At each meeting, a spread of wine, beer, chips, and guacamole makes a welcome appearance, and afterwards we head to a bar in Dupont Circle.|
Early in Ronald Reagan’s second term, Bill Rusher, the publisher of National Review, was interviewing the president in the Oval Office for a documentary on the conservative movement.
Rusher asked how he would describe Barry Goldwater’s role.
Reagan thought a moment and replied: I guess you would have to call him the John the Baptist of our movement.
I resisted the impulse to lean in and ask, “Sir, if Barry Goldwater was John the Baptist, who would that make you?”
The death of George McGovern brought back thoughts of these two men who suffered two of the greatest defeats in presidential history.
McGovern was an unapologetic liberal from South Dakota. Goldwater was Mr. Conservative and proud of it. Both had been World War II pilots. Goldwater had flown “over the hump,” the Himalayas, into China. George McGovern flew bombing runs over the Ploesti oil fields.
If Obama wins, Frank Rich says the GOP’s fury will intensify, and the party will only get more extreme
Ever since the days of Barry Goldwater, many liberals have assumed — or naively hoped — that each national defeat would teach Republicans that they had overreached, and pull them back from the extremes. Instead, the opposite has happened: The lesson of every loss, even the routs, has been “we were not conservative enough.”
A few days ago, I participated in a debate with the legendary antiwar dissident Daniel Ellsberg on Huffington Post live on the merits of the Obama administration, and what progressives should do on Election Day. Ellsberg had written a blog post arguing that, though Obama deserves tremendous criticism, voters in swing states ought to vote for him, lest they operate as dupes for a far more malevolent Republican Party. This attitude is relatively pervasive among Democrats, and it deserves a genuine response. As the election is fast approaching, this piece is an attempt at laying out the progressive case for why one should not vote for Barack Obama for reelection, even if you are in a swing state.
Some hot-button issues in previous presidential campaigns have hardly surfaced in the 2012 race, which is all about the jobs and the economy.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. presidential campaign has focused heavily on jobs, pushing other once high-profile issues to the side. It dismays activists who have spent decades promoting environmental issues, gay rights, gun control and other topics to the center of national attention.
Topics suffering downgrades in campaign attention include these:
Coming Apart: the State of White America 1960-2010, a recently published book by scholar and author Charles Murray, has generated some very interesting and important discussions about America’s increasingly polarizated society. In a January NY Times Op-Ed, David Brooks wrote that Coming Apart will prove to be one of the most important books of 2012 because it “so compellingly describes the most important trends in American society.”
The key premise of the book, as described by Murray in this Wall Street Journal column, is that “America is coming apart. For most of our nation’s history, whatever the inequality in wealth between the richest and poorest citizens, we maintained a cultural equality known nowhere else in the world – for whites, anyway.” For most of its history, a major hallmark of American democracy has been the comfortable mingling of the social classes. “Americans love to see themselves this way,” writes Murray. “But there’s a problem: It’s not true anymore, and it has been progressively less true since the 1960s.”
Is the United States on the verge of legalizing pot? Already 17 states and the District of Columbia allow the medical use of marijuana, and on Nov. 6, voters in three states will decide whether adults should be able to buy it for recreational use.
Ballot measures in Washington, Oregon and Colorado are in direct conflict with federal law, an issue that opponents hope will sway voters. But the measures are polling well in Washington and Colorado and getting support across the political spectrum, including from some high-profile conservative Republicans, The Washington Post reports.
The issue is in play on a national level, too. In Colorado alone, campaigns for and against the state’s Amendment 64 have reportedly spent well over $3 million, much of it from out-of-state organizations on both sides. “This is a big deal, and I think the federal government knows that,” said Sam Kamin, a law professor at the University of Denver. “And I think they’re watching these elections very closely.”
Supporters of legalized marijuana have also been more politically savvy in this round of elections, compared with during earlier efforts, such as a failed 2010 attempt in California. They are pointing to the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars that strictly regulated marijuana sales programs could bring to state coffers.
Welfare is back as the handiest weapon in the racist rhetorical arsenal. It’s back in the speeches of Republican candidates and surrogates, on right wing radio, and even in the language of those young “individualists” who see themselves as politically hip because of their perceived proximity to anarchist types. They believe the poor are poor because they want to be poor. Or are failed individuals. Or have grown so used to poverty that they are satisfied waiting for a check, that they like making the often humiliating trek to the local Department of Social Services office. ‘Welfare’ is back, which is to say ‘kick-a-nigger’ politics is in full swing. More…
Brian Stauffer for The Washington Post
By Jonathan Turley
The Washington Post
Check it out. As well as its related Youtube channel. Attempts to synthesize, in a way, the ideas of the alternative and reactionary right with a sort of Wittgensteinian postmodernism, as well as from various reactionary sociologists and philosophers like Nietzsche and George Fitzhugh. He even occasionally calls it “Postmodernism of the Right”.
Bertolt Brecht’s name is now largely lost to history, but the idea expressed in the succinct question above remains as potent today as when he uttered it. Brecht, a self-made Marxist who was once investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) during the “Red Scare” era of the late 1940s and early 1950s, probably did not know a then-young Edward Kennedy or the other politicians who later devised the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, and he did not live to see the eventual mass migration of immigrants, legal and illegal alike, into the U.S. after his death. We can only speculate on how Brecht would have viewed the rapidly-Balkanizing United States of the early 21st century, but it seems safe to conclude that the old Marxist would be astounded at its scope, scale and rapidity. More…
From Just Khaotic. Bloke sounds like their perfect candidate.
You would expect that the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) would do good background checks on its prospective employees. But this doesn’t appear to be the case, after it was determined that the organization hired a priest who’d been defrocked for allegedly molesting two girls in grade school.
The shamed former man of God was given the responsibility of patting people down at the airport in Philadelphia, including young children. The Philadelphia Inequirer reported that 65-year old Thomas Harkins was pushed out of the priesthood as a result of the allegations. We’re not sure why he didn’t go to jail instead, but the priesthood has been long criticized for not seeking criminal penalties for priests, even when they’ve been accused of harming children.
The TSA justified its decision by stating that “[a]n allegation alone does not warrant dismissal or automatically disqualify applicants from employment with the TSA,” spokesperson Ann Davistold the Inquirer.
TSA said that they didn’t check the priest’s background because they desperately needed agents at the time and didn’t have time to check everyone. This was shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks, when the organization was hiring large numbers of agents at the same time.