Choose your dystopia: Obamaworld
There was a discussion in the comments section here a while back about just what type of tyrant Obama might end up being. Commenter “huxley” wrote:
Stalin and Hitler were aware of how people approved of them, but no more than that. When it came to kill inconvenient people, neither hesitated.
Wake me up when Obama is functioning at that level.
It’s true that Obama is not in the mold of either of those epic tyrants of history. He’s following a very different template.
As a young teenager of about twelve or thirteen, I read the novels Brave New World and 1984. I was absolutely terrified to the point of nightmares by the latter, but the former seemed more odd than frightening.
Yes, I could see that the society described in Brave New World was a dystopia. But compared to the far more horrific world Orwell’s imagination had created, Huxley’s vision seemed relatively pleasant, with the feelies and the soma and the sex. It was much lighter, and contained a certain amount of humor, an element notably absent from the exceedingly dark 1984
As I grew older, I came to understand that the two books described twin tyrannies, the yin and yang of dystopias (“Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice”). There was Huxley’s (the author, not the commenter!) clamp of a science-controlled society on the human spirit, and then there was Orwells’ brutal stamp of the boot on the human face forever.
Freedom is what’s missing from either vision. Yes, if I was forced to choose, I’d choose Huxley’s world over Orwell’s. But both societies are nightmares.
Obamaworld is not like that of 1984 (except for his habit of Orwellian Newspeak); it’s a kinder, gentler universe more like that of Brave New World, where people are ministered to for their own good, soft music plays in the background, and we’ve got sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Meanwhile, liberty is just as dead in that world as in the other. And it’s hardly necessary to kill people for that to happen.
Gosh, I just hope this picture does not represent some sort of attempt to mock, ridicule, satirize, or otherwise make fun of the President of the United States.
Because, if so, the poster named Gray will remind us that it is completely ineffective and pointless.
We’re not radicals, so if we use any of their tactics against them, we just lose anyway. Or something like that.
We must remain firmly perched upon our high horse, er…..ooops, I mean high ground……and stay deadly serious and must dryly stick to cold facts and issues at all times. A winning formula for defeating the totalitarians – surely! And if not – well, if we end up being marched off to boxcars anyway, in spite of our reasoned intelligent debate, and flawless application of our irrefutable common sense logic – well then, at least we can hold our heads high having stuck to our noble principles of genteel fair play and dogged adherance to Queensbury Rules.
Reminds me of the foreword of Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death”, one of my favorite books:
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/post_1.html
southernjames,
OK, that one had me laughing…lol…seriously!
(from one southerner to another southerner….)
Gosh, I just hope this picture does not represent some sort of attempt to mock, ridicule, satirize, or otherwise make fun of the President of the United States.
Because, if so, the poster named Gray will remind us that it is completely ineffective and pointless.
No. I love that picture: it was a picture drawn by an Obama supporter, in all seriousness, prior to the election to reveal the wonder that is Obama.
So, no, you can’t use their tactics on them: You cannot satirize them ‘cuz they are not only more looney than you imagine, they are more looney than you can imagine.
Can I come over to your house before the naked “Naked Ambition Anti-Obamacare protest” and build some big-head Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer puppets?
I learned guerilla theater and papier-mache in the Infantry.
well then, at least we can hold our heads high having stuck to our noble principles of genteel fair play and dogged adherance to Queensbury Rules.
No. I never said that. I never argued that. We need to hit them where it hurts again and again until the left is defeated, not negotiated with, not funded with our incomes, defeated.
The problem is ‘where it hurts’ for them is different than ‘where it hurts’ for us.
Fighting dirty against them doesn’t mean using their tactics; that only empowers them and give validity to their tactics.
So, no: no conservative tree-sitting and proletariat protests against corporations. No smashing starbucks and Apple stores in the name of capitalism. We have more to lose.
southernjames Says:
“Gosh, I just hope this picture does not represent some sort of attempt to mock, ridicule, satirize, or otherwise make fun of the President of the United States.”
Will be after I stencil in ‘Brave New World’ and plaster them around town. 🙂
Ya know, if this IS a sincere effort on the part of an Obamabot to glorify their dear leader, that makes it all the more hilarious!
It’s always funniest when the slow one in the bunch doesn’t really catch on to the joke as to what (or actually who) everyone else in the room is laughing at.
In this case, it’s a pretty sizable chunk of the electorate that’s laughing….
However, perhaps our hostess with the mostest should consider toning down the sarcasm just a bit.
JUST KIDDING!
Keep it up – I’m having a ball this afternoon!
Nobody has ever stopped a rabid dog by getting on all fours and biting it harder just to show it how mean it is. It doesn’t care.
Using the tactics the left devised to defeat us relies on our conscience and our belief in our own righteousness and rules.
The Right is complicit in it’s own destruction.
Gray,
And here I thought you had given up….
Of course, a rabid animal of any sort absolutely has taken leave of it’s senses through no desire of it’s own.
Not sure I would put the Left in the same catagory. They are more indoctrinated and diseased.
Oops, should have been “indoctrinated than diseased”.
Obama doesn’t have the stones to be any kind of tyrant. Right now, he’s living a fantasy, and playing President is pretty heady stuff. When it gets hard, and it is and will continue to get harder, he’ll fold, because he just wants to eat his waffles.
He’s a vain and shallow sort, a small time thug who votes present. He’s got a vicious streak, but he doesn’t have what it takes to be a true monster. Said crudely, has he ever gotten his ass beat, or delivered a good ass beating? No, Obama doesn’t like to sweat or get his hands dirty. He’s not a fighter. He’s a con.
The One is a one termer. His administration will continue to unravel, and he’ll glady retire into a life of luxury and sycophant adulation–which is what he wanted to begin with.
Trouble is, Gray, reason doesn’t work either. What do you suggest? We’ve already seen that the “Tea Parties,” consisting of (generally) well-meaning, logical folks have been called “right-wing agitprop” by the “progressives”…to the extent that the White House is asking folks to rat on their neighbors.
Faced with this, what would you do? Calm, reasoned argument doesn’t work with someone who paints the tripe like that above. I’m afraid NOTHING works with someone who’s bought into the myth that deeply.
The flaw in Gray’s position, and this is my honest opinion here, is that he’s looking at it from the viewpoint of swaying or influencing the views of the true Left.
Nothing the Right does is going to do that.
Instead, the Right needs to direct it’s efforts towards the fluctuating Middle that sways in either direction for the most fickle of reasons.
Yes, that Middle does respond when the Dear Leader is ridiculed…and it’s not a favorable response for The Won.
“No conservative tree-sitting….” We don’t sit in trees – we chop ’em down for lumber. 🙂
“… and proletariat protests against corporations.” Profit is not a dirty word in our world. So no worries there.
“No smashing starbucks and Apple stores in the name of capitalism.” Last time I checked, Starbucks and Apple represented successful free enterprise. Now, doing a little smashing of your typical Star Bucks PATRON is another story. Just kidding.
“We have more to lose.” What we have to lose, is our very freedom itself, unless we fight.
And if by fighting, that means, for the first time, fighting DIRTY at times, then so be it. The Left no longer gets to set the rules of engagment – which up to this point has been (as one example): Call Bush Hitler and call for his assassination – that is A-Okay!!; but a Joker poster of “The One”…Racist!!.
And now, the left is currently pissing and moaning and bitching over tea party protestors booing and hissing and shouting at their elected “betters” who wish to pontificate at “town halls” without interruption. Tough shit. It’s time we took our skirts off (sorry – just an expression – I don’t mean to come off as sexist with that :)) and gave them a taste of their own damn medicine. For the past 8 years, they have consistently shouted down and refused to let conservative speakers talk at college campuses. And we’re just so damned polite we let it happen. Let’s see how they like it when the tables are turned.
An ever growing percentage of the heretofore silent, polite, and quiet minority (we are no longer a majority unfortunately, IMO) is getting fed up at the double standard applied in the political playground. And getting fed up at being ignored by our politicians, and abused with impunity by the left.
In the 1930’s, most of the Jews of Europe stayed polite, logical, rational, principled, and never – until it was too late – lost their basic and essential belief that sanity and common sense would ultimately prevail – and what was in the air was merely overheated rhetoric and hyperbole.
We’re not going to make that mistake. They want a (cold, for now) civil war? – they’ve got it.
should have been “indoctrinated than diseased”
Then I guess it would make sense to you to appeal to them and change their minds through their tactics/images/ideas.
In my (extensive) experience with lefties I’ve found the opposite to be true: there is some unreasoning hatred of the very idea of a god, some intractable addiction or sexual perversion, some pathological meaness of spirit that manifests itself outwardly as leftist politics.
It’s a whole party with vastly different interests held together by what they mutually despise. They are immune to the rabid attacks they use on us. We need silver bullets and political holy water and garlic.
Gray,
As I noted just a short time ago:
“Instead, the Right needs to direct it’s efforts towards the fluctuating Middle that sways in either direction for the most fickle of reasons.”
You seem to think there is a way to change the minds and hearts of the Left, and I believe we should instead be investing effort into winning over the Middle.
As with the 1980’s, win over the middle long enough and the ranks of the Left begin to diminish.
People actually LIKE freedom once they’ve gotten a good taste of it, and it’s especially tasty immediately after an unhealthy dose of Left wing ideology gone wild.
After Reagon got through with them, it took the Left decades to rebuild to where they are now, and even now with all of the power in their hands they are on extremely thin ice with the public and they know it.
Some of them are also “soft” leftist – which means not all that convinced, deep down, of the correctness of their beliefs. Showing that their emperor has no clothes – not only with reasoned argument and cold facts but also my making him into as big a “joke” as the Left has made Palin, will make a dent. They have egos that need nurturing. Nobody likes to hitch their wagon to a Joke.
A lot of them are also cowards. It is one thing for a cowardly pussy to come out to an anti-Bush rally when they will be one of 500 and there might be 50 counter protestors. It is quite another, to decide to come out of Mommy’s basement for a protest, when you and your fellow useful marxist idiots are going to be outnumbered ten to one – which is what has been happening, with this ObamaCare issue.
Taste – of – their – own — medicine.
Faced with this, what would you do? Calm, reasoned argument doesn’t work with someone who paints the tripe like that above. I’m afraid NOTHING works with someone who’s bought into the myth that deeply.
Well, this is where they’ve really got us: They are subsidizing our destruction with our own tax dollars! But if I withold consent and taxes, guys with guns show up and I go to jail….
How can I defund their schemes built and paid for with my incomes without losing everything I’ve worked for?
Conservatives are too law-abiding to ever actually tax-payer revolt. This Tea-party nonsense is political theater and the left is master of political theater.
You seem to think there is a way to change the minds and hearts of the Left, and I believe we should instead be investing effort into winning over the Middle.
I think that is a waste of time. It didn’t work at all for McCain.
This isn’t a Maoist People’s Struggle, you can’t look for the proletariat to be some kind of conservative vanguard against the elite left–that is nonsensical.
The American Revolution was top-down. It’s gotta start with those who have the most to lose, but our elites are steeped in Maoist people’s struggle and collectivism and conservatives are leaderless.
The reasoned efforts at enlightening the public as to the proper role of government does have it’s place.
That place is AFTER the Left is kicked out of power.
The Right doesn’t do re-education camps, the Right provides information and reasoned argument to support it’s position when it does things.
Just as importantly the Right provides reasoned arguments when it chooses NOT to do something.
The public can only be educated by example – something the republicans failed miserably at the last few years they were in power.
They want a (cold, for now) civil war? – they’ve got it.
Speaking of over-heated rhetoric…. When are you going to stop funding the left with your taxes?
Gray,
You misread history.
The revolution was only supported by about 1/3 of the population.
1/3 was in support of the British.
1/3 was in the middle and swayed in either direction depending on circumstances.
If you read through the history of the American Revolution, you come to understand just how much politics and propaganda by both sides was used to influence that middle 1/3 of the population.
One of my own ancestors fought at King’s Mountain as a Patriot, so yes – I know my history.
And BTW, King’s Mountain was fought almost completely by local colonists from the surrounding mountainous regions.
No “top down” leadership there!
Southernjames: bravo.
neo: We agree that Obama is not a Hitler or Stalin, but how specifically does Obama lead to Brave New World?
BNW was Aldous Huxley’s dystopia in which the technologies of genetics, mind drugs, and psychology were used to enslave people. I see none of that in Obama (yet). The narcosis of consumer culture is an ever-present danger for America, but that threat exists whether Obama or McCain or whoever is president.
Obama is clearly a leftist preaching some variety of socialism. He may be a John the Baptist for someone far nastier. If he grinds down the American economy sufficiently, by design or incompetence, we will be looking at something much more like 1984 IMO.
I find this recent appeal from the Obama White House for citizens to report “fishy” discussions about health care in emails or “casual conversation” to be rather alarming and 1984ish.
Referencing the Tea Parties: The potential strenght of the Tea Parties may be felt come primary season. Primary Season is where the RINOs can be separated from the true Conservatives. The Tea Party people may be able to cull some RINOs.
Gray Says:
“The American Revolution was top-down.”
That’s Marxist consciousness btw. Classical Lib: It was a revolution that included people from the top.
Just sayin, if we are purging leftyism from our process….
It’s true that Obama is not in the mold of either of those epic tyrants of history. He’s following a very different template.
by what list of facts do you know that assertion.
and to point out, in all the socialist revolutions, killing was never necessary. it always came after they had the power to do it, not as a means to that power for which doing it would be punished before they achieved such power.
you have no idea of the race hate from a half breed like hitler could do… the effeminite man who wore funny clothes, and could work the crowds of his time. his race hate leaked out in things he said, but no one noticed it much since it been floating aruond their communities for a long time as background noise.
i wonder if you took the time to read the book by that man i recommended (i dont have his name memorized). if you had, you would never have made the assertion above.
by the way, how long AFTER they collect the snitches stuff at the whitehouse website and everything else some lefties will put there, and having community watchers will the next part of history repeat again?
or dont you know to what degree its repeating?
Gosh, I just hope this picture does not represent some sort of attempt to mock, ridicule, satirize, or otherwise make fun of the President of the United States.
I’m pretty sure the artist meant for it to be an homage to The One.
Jonah Goldberg laid it out quite well in his book,
“Liberal Fascism.” We will not see jack-booted thugs marching in the streets, we won’t see people loaded on trains bound for gulags and worse. What we will see is government bureaucrats knocking on our doors and saying, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” That pretty much sums up their attitude about healthcare reform and much else. They just KNOW better than we yokels who are stuck on our Constitutional principles, love of individual freedom, Bibles, and guns. If you haven’t read it, I recommend it heartily. Describes the Obamanauts and their fellow travelers exactly.
artfldgr: Of course it’s true that I don’t see the future, or know what Obama, etc., are truly capable of. And I do remember that chilling interview with an Ayers associate who witnessed the Weathermen contemplating the need to kill about 25 million people after the revolution in order to purge the populace of those who needed purging. But I am seeing Obama as more of a Chavez-like figure, and I don’t see mass killing as part of the template.
Speaking of the posted picture, I’m surprised no one has spotted a similarity to another (and much sillier) dystopian piece of fiction.
“Logan’s Run,” anyone?
Please pardon me. It’s past time for me to head to carousel.
wiki
Aldous was the grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley, the zoologist, agnostic and controversialist (“Darwin’s Bulldog”). His brother Julian Huxley and half-brother Andrew Huxley also became outstanding biologists.
Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS (22 June 1887—14 February 1975) was an English evolutionary biologist, humanist and internationalist. He was a proponent of natural selection, and a leading figure in the mid-twentieth century evolutionary synthesis. He was Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935—1942), the first Director of UNESCO, and a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund.
…
He was also knighted in that same year, 1958, a hundred years after Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace announced the theory of evolution by natural selection.
In 1959 he received a Special Award of the Lasker Foundation in the category Planned Parenthood — World Population. Huxley was a prominent member of the British Eugenics Society, and its President from 1959—1962.
and also from wiki
Huxley, a lifelong internationalist with a concern for education, got involved in the creation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and became the organization’s first Director-General in 1946. His term of office, six years in the Charter, was cut down to two years at the behest of the USA delegation.[13] The reasons are not known for sure, but his left-wing tendencies and humanism were likely factors. In practice, his lack of religious affiliation was a positive strength, as was his wide range of international interests and contacts. His brief tenure of office was generally regarded as dynamic and successful. In a fortnight he dashed off a 60-page booklet on the purpose and philosophy of UNESCO, eventually printed and issued as an official document. There were, however, many conservative-minded opponents of his scientific humanism. His idea of restraining population growth with birth control (to limit war and famine) was anathema to both the Catholic Church and the Comintern/Cominform. In its first few years UNESCO was dynamic and broke new ground; since Huxley it has become larger, more bureaucratic and stable.[14][15] The personal and social side of the years in Paris are well described by his wife.[16]
and what does the current czar appointed by obama believe? and by association what would such say about the man that chose him and the goals of the administration that pays his bills?
Huxley was a prominent member of the British Eugenics Society,[63] and was Vice-President (1937—1944) and President (1959—1962). He thought eugenics was important for removing undesirable variants from the human gene pool; but at least after World War II he believed race was a meaningless concept in biology, and its application to humans was highly inconsistent. [64]
Although Huxley was an outspoken critic of the most extreme eugenicism in the 1920s and 1930s (the stimulus for which was the greater fertility of the ‘feckless’ poor compared to the ‘responsible’ prosperous classes), he was, nevertheless, a leading figure in the eugenics movement. He gave the Galton memorial lecture twice, in 1936 and 1962. In his writing he used this argument several times: no-one doubts the wisdom of managing the germ-plasm of agricultural stocks, so why not apply the same concept to human stocks? “The agricultural analogy appears over and over again as it did in the writings of many American eugenicists.” [65]
Huxley was one of many intellectuals at the time who believed that the lowest class in society was genetically inferior. This passage, from 1941, puts the view forcefully:
“The lowest strata are reproducing too fast. Therefore… they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilisation.” [66]
medical care rationing that would over time result in the lowest class dying off faster than the healthier upper class…
“Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects… totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have by the most eloquent denunciations.”
the question is not whether obama is like hitler or stalin. the question is whether obama beleives in the same things that hitler, stalin, mao, marx, engels, pol pot, castro, guevara, and all the others believed in. hitler and stalin were very different, but they believed the same ideology.
each were trying to create the outcome of that ideology as THEY saw it, but the ideologies missives are the same for all of them.
so again, what are you looking at to know what your dealing with? if you arent looking at the right thing then the answer to your question is meaningless regardless of what it is.
“All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm… these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character… [A general war will] wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.” — Friedrich Engels, “The Magyar Struggle,” Neue Rhenische Zeitung, January 13, 1849
“This Tea-party nonsense is political theater.”
This “political theater” which you scoff at from on high, maybe, just maybe, will scare a few RINOs and Blue Dogs into running aware from voting on ObamaCare.
Who the hell are you anyway? Peggy F–king Noonan?
“Speaking of over-heated rhetoric…. When are you going to stop funding the left with your taxes?” I’m in the process of going Galt every which way I can. Including for the first time ever, doing some business transactions on an (illegal) “barter” basis. Have you read that the tax revenues have dropped 18%? You think revenue withholding is not happening?
I’m also, for the first time in my life, actively supporting conservative candidates instead of the National GOP “chosen’ one – example: Marco Rubio in my state, instead of the GOP’s golden boy RINO, Charlie “I wanna be like Arnold” Crist.
I’ve also changed my life in a few other ways too. One example: I’m 50 years old and had never shot a gun in my life, let along owned one. Now I’ve got a 12 gauge Remy 870, and two handguns – one of which is a .357 magnum. And a concealed carry permit. You ever hear of Chuck Heston’s “famous five words?” There are now, tens if not hundreds of thousands of guys….just like me.
If the rebellion push-back starts getting too messy for your delicate and refined GOP elitist sensibilities, feel free to avert your eyes and stay out of the way.
The violence of Hitler, Stalin and yheir followers before they were in power is documented.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_before_the_Revolution.
Nothing like that exists in Obama’s record. His people strong-armed caucuses and raised huge amounts of unverified funds for his campaign, but that’s all we know about. Furthermore, Obama has been in power for 6 1/2 months, and still no killings.
Again, despite all of Artfldgrs’ heavy breathing and insinuations that anyone who disagrees with him doesn’t know history, Obama is not Hitler or Stalin and the US is not 1930s Germany or 1910s Russia.
The Road to Serfdom
“It’s true that Obama is not in the mold of either of those epic tyrants of history. He’s following a very different template.”
With respect Neo, there are many disturbing parallels already between Obama and the worst tyrants. He is of their same moral code: no limits. It’s not just that he has an absence of morals – there would also appear to be something actively malevolent there.
He already signed bills (multiple times) allowing babies who survive abortions to be put in closets to die. That’s just breaking eggs to make omelets. If that’s his attitude to human life neutral to him, how do you think he feels about sworn political/racial enemies? (“White folks greed / world in need”, Wright, etc…)
Plenty of things he has already done and is doing is on a similar scale of “unthinkable”, compared to a couple of years back. Don’t know about you, but I thought it highly improbable DHS would label mainstream grandparents peacefully waving signs and American flags as actual terrorists…
Quoth Obama: “You ain’t seen nothing yet”.
Huxely,
You deserve a good answer.
I said each one tries to fulfill the goal in their own way, and so each believes it will work if they find the right magical combination. Their thinking is really remarkably unchanged for 100 years or so.
here is a man in office now as he said before
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote in the conclusion of “Human Ecology.”
If your waiting to see Thuggary before, then your not looking in the right place because the conditions are no longer conducive to that.
In Germany and Russia in 1910, the ability for an image, to be taken and sent around the world was non existent. (Or else Duranty would have not lasted three seconds).
Hitler and Stalin didn’t have the media concerns we do. if they did, they wouldn’t have been violent in the early days. They would have been more as they presented themselves to foreigners who couldn’t see what was going on. Today they can not act with impunity the way that in the past others could. They also believe that such crude methods do not work well enough and so now use other methods.
These are PRAGMATIC people. Not mindless automatons.
Your rebuttal is a straw man on two counts.
1 history repeats but it isn’t a Xerox copy, it has to suit the times.
2 I have never made the argument that he was either of them any more than Stalin and Hitler were the same, or any of the despots in history were the same. They are after all individuals. Variations on a theme. Hitler was a piker compared to Stalin, and Mao was more prudent even if he had more to waste. Castro was brutal, but he had a little island and help of a brutal man to start with.
How they act is not 100% under their control, which is why the world sees them after as incredible, and wonders how they did it. You’re seeing how they do it, and you are making every argument against that. Note that I never have argued what actions to take, just understanding the situation. They have to synergize their goals and beliefs to work with what the people they are leading will have work for them.
Think of the Stanford experiment on a national scale. Their thuggish behavior and totalitarian control freak natures come out when real people who are not under their control, write themselves into the history they are creating and oppose it. then they get paranoid, and then they do things like try to find the names and stuff to put pressure on them, perhaps labeling them with things that tell the population instantly not to pay attention, racists, fascists, tin hatters, haters, birthers, nirthers, and a whole hose of others.
Oh… and any comparison to any actual despots who actually succeeded in fleecing the nations they led is Expressly forbidden unless its against the non existent right. then its ok, since it wont match up. Do it to the left, and know the writings, well your going to see the same goals, population control, stagnation of growth, desire to control the outcome of the future so they have to control the people (parts) that will make that future. Statism, redistribution of wealth, youth orgs, indoctrination, disincentives to family, destruction of the dominant religions, demoralization of the population, hyper inflate currency, and lots of stuff like that. Maybe not all of it, or maybe some of something else, but the end of what those things do is the key, not the things.
Let me know how many of those things our administration has opinions on, and are acting on, and let me know where in the constitution they have that right, or even in their oaths of office?
It’s not the general welfare clause that was the states general welfare, and unless we are communist, the state works for us, and is not equal to the people. The state has no right playing god with the daily actions of the people if these actions are not in some way denying freedom to others. My success or your success, no matter how large, does not constitute that.
Pingback:Maggie's Farm
Obama himself won’t be a tyrant. For one thing, he doesn’t have the balls. He’s a spokesmodel, the Billy Mays for socialism. He’s a featherweight, who will be flicked aside when he’s served his purpose.
No, if there’s to be a tyrant, he is now waiting in the wings to take over when (not if; it’s only a matter of time) Obama really crashes and burns. Then will give a tyrant a chance to step up to “save the Republic” from the (pro-American) mob. (We’re seeing a little of that already, with the DNC crap about mobs at town hall meetings.)
In this context, I would liken Obama to Alexander Kerensky. The question is who is auditioning to play young Ulyanov? I’m still working on that one. Perhaps I’m just overly concerned about this, and tending toward melodrama in my dotage. (If so, please don’t be afraid to say so!)
I think this post, this blog and most of the commentors are very, very fishy. This is a mob. You people don’t care who you malign. As my President has requested, I have sent this information to the Whitehouse.
Ulyanov?
I am more worried about Felix!!!
but few know the history…
how and who was part of that start, and then later opposed that creation. makes for a complicated history that spanned europe and courts of time.
Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, the army’s chief of staff, knew well what Jews thought of the Tsarist Empire. Without much ado, he proclaimed all Jews to be traitors and spies and ordered their expulsion from a region within 50 versts (33 miles) of the front. In Kurland, this order uprooted 40,000 Jews at the end of April and early May of 1915. In all, 75 per cent of the Jews living on Latvian soil were forced to abandon their homes during the war. For Jews, as well as Latvians, the First World War meant the Great Flight, which was even less voluntary than for the Latvians.
In 1916, the eight Latvian Riflemen’s Battalions were reorganized as regiments. They fought against the Germans with extreme valor and self-sacrifice. There were harsh battles along the shores of the Daugava, especially around Christmas 1916, and on several occasions the Latvians saved Russian army units on the same sector of the front from defeat. The Latvians proved themselves to be exemplary, disciplined, and steel-hard warriors.
They became the elite troops of the tsarist army.
The winter of 1916-17 ended with the revolt in St. Petersburg that toppled the autocratic regime, and Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate. The new Provisional Government lifted all restrictions on Jews and promised autonomy to non-Russian peoples. Soon, the attitude of both Jews and Latvians changed sharply.
New times began. To paraphrase the motto on the flag of one of the Riflemen’s regiments, “A Blood-Stained Sun Rises.” Erosion of morale set in among Russian army troops after the February revolution in 1917, and thousands deserted from the front.
Only the Latvian Riflemen maintained discipline and their reputation of prowess in combat.
In April of 1917, the Bolshevik leader Lenin returned from Swiss exile to St. Petersburg. The Germans had allowed him and several comrades, including Zinoviev (Apfelbaum), to pass through Germany in a sealed railway car and even gave them money to promote subversive activities in Russia. In May, the energetic revolutionary Lev Trotsky (Bronstein) returned to Russia from the United States.
and there is more interesting information as to why latvians might have a bit of insight into things. (there is similar intimacy with the german and other courts througout history even before the coupe)
Bolshevik agitators in the Russian army tried especially hard to get the army’s best soldiers, the Latvian Riflemen, to back their cause. This largely succeeded, mainly because the Riflemen were still angry that the incompetent tsarist military leadership had left them to their fate during the Christmas battles of 1916, costing many Latvian lives. Also, many Riflemen were sons of landless agrarian workers who believed the Bolsheviks’ promises to carry out radical land reform when they came to power. The Baltic barons’ great estates would be divided, giving land “to those who work the land.” In the wake of the events of 1905, there were many Marxist sympathizers among the Riflemen, who thought that Bolshevik demagoguery represented the “highest and purest form” of this teaching. In addition, these young Latvians were patriots from a small country, who at the same time were internationalists to a considerable degree, well acclimatized to living in the vast stretches of Russia and meeting people of different nationalities both in everyday life and in the trenches.
The Bolsheviks promised national self-determination for all peoples in the Russian Empire. Visions were raised of the proletarians of a free Latvia joining with the working masses of a free Finland, a free Poland, and a free Caucasus in an offensive against the “old, rotting world.” They would soon be joined by the workers of France and Germany, then by the “enslaved millions” of China and India. Before too long there would be a “world commune” based on absolute justice.
Of course, not every Latvian Rifleman thought of the future in these terms, but their overall attitude was euphoric, and Red propaganda was a major factor in the rapid Bolshevization of these troops. Not only the Riflemen themselves but also most of their officers embraced the Bolshevik cause, among them the highly talented Jukums Vacietis. Vacietis became commander in chief of all Soviet Russian military forces after the Bolshevik coup in S t. Petersburg (the so-called Great Socialist October Revolution). Some officers did not go over to the Bolshevik cause: Fridrichs Briedis, shot by the Bolsheviks in 1918; Karlis Goppers, shot by the Bolsheviks in 1941; Colonel P. Dardzans, who died recently in Chicago.
The second All-Russian Congress of Soviets met in St. Petersburg on November 7, 1917 (October 25 old style), the day of the coup. The American journalist John Reed, present as an observer, relates a speech by delegate Karlis Petersons, a representative of the Latvian Riflemen, who in 1918 became commander of the Red Army’s Latvian Division and a member of the Revolutionary Tribunal of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. According to Reed (Ten Days that Shook the World, New York, The Modem Library, 1960, p. 130), Petersons concluded his rousing speech with the following words:
I tell you now, the Lettish [Latvian] soldiers have said many times, “No more resolutions’ No more talk! We want deeds — the Power must be in our hands! “Let these impostor dele gates [who opposed the Bolshevik coup] leave the Congress! The Army is not with them!
And John Reed remarks, “The hall rocked with cheering.”
Indeed, the Latvian Red Riflemen were in fact the strongest pillar supporting the Bolsheviks. They were the Bolsheviks’ Praetorian guard. As the Latvian historian Uldis Germanis, who lives in Stockholm, points out (in Oberst Vacietis und die Lettischen Schuetzen im Weltkrieg und in der Oktoberrevolution, Stockholm, Amqvist & Wiksell, 1974), Lenin could rely on neither the disorganized Russian troops in St. Petersburg, nor the famous sailors at Kronstadt with their growing anarchistic tendencies, nor the militarily weak Red Guard, composed of workers. The Bolshevik headquarters in St. Petersburg, the Smolny Institute building, which contained Lenin’s office, were guarded by a special company of Latvian Riflemen (officially called Svodnoya rota Latyshskich Strelkov pri VCIK i Sovnarkome). When the Soviet government moved to Moscow in March of 1918, these faithful bodyguards of the Bolshevik leadership, now known as the United Latvian Riflemen’s Battalion, were assigned to guard the Kremlin.
it is the nature of latvians to excel.
people never recognize the names.
So even if people think i dont know my history, they would be hard pressed to know why the bolshevic revolution succeeded. most people dont even know where latvia is, never heard of it and sometimes ask back “laughfia”.
meanwhile after the revolution in russia, the left and right hand man who created the nkvd were latvians.
their ancestry being viking and the only europeans not conquered by rome, carried their employ silently throughout history as the guards of the courts and such, even for other despots who screwed them too (but they were sold out on that one and had lost the tast for such lies by then and had to be conscripted).
not knowing the good and bad of it would be like an american not knowing who washington was, or jefferson.
convincing americans that they dont know the details of other countries histories to the degree they think they do…
well thats a whole other story.
Gray Says:
“The American Revolution was top-down.”
That’s Marxist consciousness btw. Classical Lib: It was a revolution that included people from the top.
The leadership–the “idea guys” were land owners, literate, many former officers, the guys who produce things, the good guys. The guys who had the most to lose, not the proletariat who had the most to gain.
Their ardent followers and the Continental Army were guys who’d rather die on their feet than live on their knees.
I do not, and one cannot look at the American Revolution in marxist terms. I reject entirely marxist consciousness. The revolution wasn’t a People’s Struggle or Class Warfare. It was a fight for “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happineff”.
No other founding document has the word “happiness” in it. I’ll fight for happiness….
Gray,
You simplify things too much.
Simply saying the land owners led a revolution is to create a cartoon version of reality.
For instance, setting aside the Nicholas Cage movies, there WAS a strong undercurrent emanating from the Freemasons in this country prior to, during, and immediately after the founding, and you can see their influence if you know what to look for.
Within that organization, plans could be made and discussed in secret and security (something probably very useful if planning a revolution!), and if you look at the Founding Fathers you will find quite a few who wore a certain kind of apron for a very specific reason.
Within the masonic society, all members from all classes mingled equally – and a wealthy landowner could find themselves mingling equally with a less wealthy individual.
As well, in the example I provided at King’s Mountain, these were mountain men who fought – not any kind of landed aristocracy.
Your assertions do no do these men justice.
“This Tea-party nonsense is political theater.”
This “political theater” which you scoff at from on high, maybe, just maybe, will scare a few RINOs and Blue Dogs into running aware from voting on ObamaCare.
No. The Tea Party nonsense will give the Blue dogs and RINOs cover to side with Obama against “extremists”. They know which side their bread is buttered on.
Who the hell are you anyway? Peggy F—king Noonan?
You wholly misunderstand me. I’m the farthest thing from a country-club Republican. I live, and grew up in New Mexico and work as a defense engineer.
I’m in the process of going Galt every which way I can. Including for the first time ever, doing some business transactions on an (illegal) “barter” basis. Have you read that the tax revenues have dropped 18%? You think revenue withholding is not happening?
I know it is. I’ve been doing that for years. everyone out here has something “under the table”. That is an excellent example of something we can do individually that isn’t part of leftist tactics. That’s exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about.
I’m also, for the first time in my life, actively supporting conservative candidates instead of the National GOP “chosen’ one – example: Marco Rubio in my state, instead of the GOP’s golden boy RINO, Charlie “I wanna be like Arnold” Crist.
Entirely unhelpful. You cannot win by voting for losers–that’s how Perot helped elect Clinton. (and I’m pissed at the Republican party for not being aggressive enough….)
I’ve also changed my life in a few other ways too. One example: I’m 50 years old and had never shot a gun in my life, let along owned one. Now I’ve got a 12 gauge Remy 870, and two handguns – one of which is a .357 magnum. And a concealed carry permit. You ever hear of Chuck Heston’s “famous five words?” There are now, tens if not hundreds of thousands of guys….just like me.
That is an excellent thing. Another great example of individual choices that Make a Difference, and again: Not out of the “rules for radicals”.
If the rebellion push-back starts getting too messy for your delicate and refined GOP elitist sensibilities, feel free to avert your eyes and stay out of the way.
No. You’ve got the wrong guy: I’ve had this discussion with my law-and-order conservative pals, and they blanche at what a rebellion would actually look like. I’ll leave it at that.
Republicans are not as comfortable with guys like Bill Ayers as the dirty, dirty left is….
Occam’s Beard,
“No, if there’s to be a tyrant, he is now waiting in the wings to take over when (not if; it’s only a matter of time) Obama really crashes and burns.”
I kind of was thinking along the same thoughts – only I was conjecturing what kind of precedents were being set and authority being consolidated by The Won that a Post-Obama tyranically inclined individual could make use of at a later date.
“What destroyed Russia? Jewish brains, Latvian bayonets, and Russian stupidity.” – white russian saying.
and grackle. i am a student of the soviet union just like obamas mother and father. Just like populist obama. (and dont forget that condoleeza rice and bill clinton both went there. clinton thanks to fullbright)
i not only know the history, i also know the political theory and all that, i am not a useful idiot. i am also not a fellow traveler either, they never offered me a job. as a latvian, i might take it, then where would you be comrade grackle?
its entirely pragmatic, no?
and comrade grackle…
The leaders of this community were about 12,000 Latvian communists — former Riflemen’s officers and commissars, political workers, activists. As mentioned earlier, many of them took leading posts in the Cheka, the Red Army, and other institutions. Latvians such as Fiche and Eidemanis consolidated the Soviet regime in the Crimea and Central Asia, and also in Yakutia and other regions of Siberia. The Latvian communists in Russia had their own cultural and educational organization “Prometheus,” their own cooperatives and presses, schools and theaters, newspapers, a literature and art journal Celtne.
so there may be a warm place in the administrations heart for one related to such rich history that owes its very existence to latvians.
no?
Unfortunately, Stalin’s Great Purge started to affect this community at the end of 1936. In two years all Latvian organizations — cooperatives and presses, schools and theaters, newspapers and journals — were closed. Thousands of Latvians were shot, from Chekists and high Red Army commanders to teachers and writers. Thousands were imprisoned in the Gulag. Many changed their Latvian surnames, for even to be Latvian was suspect. Stalin considered all Latvians in Russia to be spies for independent Latvia. The persecution of Latvians, especially Latvian communists, was almost genocidal in nature.
so maybe i have a different view of things like the outcome of loyalty to such a state?
Solzhenitsyn remarks in The Gulag Archipelago: “The Estonians and Lithuanians are close to my own soul…. They never harmed anyone, lived quietly, in good conditions, morally more honestly than we. As it turned out, they were guilty of living next to us and cutting us off from the sea…. As for Latvians, my attitude is somewhat more complicated. There is an element of fate. It was they, after all, who started the whole thing.”
those interested in reading more of the quick version can go here.
vip.latnet.lv/LPRA/fg_coup.htm
Within the masonic society, all members from all classes mingled equally – and a wealthy landowner could find themselves mingling equally with a less wealthy individual.
That is an excellent point, and very true. I really wanted to be a mason at one point because of this history. (Then I got to know some of the local ones, and I was disappointed…. that’s a different story.)
As well, in the example I provided at King’s Mountain, these were mountain men who fought – not any kind of landed aristocracy.
Again, you misunderstand me. I’m not saying the fighters were landed aristocracy. I’m saying the leaders, the officers, the idea guys, the “Founding Fathers” were landed, “gentleman farmers.”
I think that is a good thing. I’m not a Maoist, but we are so steeped in Maoism that you feel you have to defend the Founding Fathers from the charge of being landed gentry. That’s exactly my point: It wasn’t a class struggle.
In fact, it’s the only revolution in history where the average guy (like us) actually benefitted from the fruits of the revolution.
In fact, it’s the only revolution in history where the average guy (like us) actually benefitted from the fruits of the revolution.
oh.. your being too modest… the french, the germans, the japanese, the english and many many others are happy that we did win that revolution. that revolution benifited much more than the average guy.
it benifited the world like no other.
and is completely unapreciated
Again, Gray – and at this point I actually am not trying to argue – I disagree.
Yes, most of the well known individuals from that era did own land. Several were also business men of various interests and not land owners at all.
But there were also – especially in the Southern colonies – a lot of individuals who provided leadership during the American Revolution who were absolutely not wealthy at all, or had relatively modest means at their disposal.
Yes, most people made their living farming at that time as the colonies were agrarian in nature, so simply have a farm or ” plantation” was not necessarily a big deal.
It was a lot of hard work on all concerned.
In the mountainous areas, this was even more so because that area did not lend itself to farming, and slavery was not a very profitable way to do business in that area.
So, they were very small scale farmers – almost subsistence level – and hunted and trapped.
Consider General Greene, who ended up leading the Southern portion of the Continental army.
He educated himself, and studied military history on his own. He was not tutored – his was a bootstrap education. He came from Rhode Island originally.
Yes, his family owned a business – but it was a *family owned* business, not his alone.
He actually started out as a private and rose to General on his own abilities.
Wealthy folks didn’t start out as privates in that time frame.
When you really study the history, you realize there was a LOT of things going on you never hear about.
You hear about Concord, Lexington, etc. – but there is generally little comment provided on battles that did not occur in the Northeast.
I’ll leave it to you to conjecture on your own as to why this is the case…
At any rate, one of the great advantages the Americans had over the British was they were quick to take advantage of any natural leader, regardless of class. They took leadership wherever they could find it.
The treatment of Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin suggests that the left tilts toward the 1984 style of Utopia, and the overlap with the MSM is frightening. The almost total lack of leaks about Obama’s early life is evidence of the takeover of the media and universities by the left.
Artfldgr with the “tip-in” for score.
Am I completely offbase with my idea that even conservatives are so steeped (well, as a generation, anyhow) in Maoism and People’s Struggle that we are hopelessly attempting toa, ineffectually, defeat the left using the leftist template of People’s Struggle?
We are so steeped in ideas of collectivism that we don’t even worry about whether doctors will work for the collective good as their wages are confiscated under Obamacare; of course they will.
The left used tactics for the past 40 years that turned our strengths as conservatives against us and allowed them to marginalize and co-opt America’s natural majority!
I argue that we cannot then use the same leftist tactics to defeat them that they used on us because they don’t have our strengths and don’t flinch from protests, ridicule, mass-action, making them follow their own rules, charging them with hypocrisy and shaming them. They have no shame and we are only validating their tactics.
A “conservative revolution” is not class warfare and cannot be waged using class warfare tactics.
The problem is, as conservatives, we have no leaders with the imagination to visualize what it would look like and the rank-and-file conservative is so steeped in maoism (specifically) that they keep looking to motivate “the peoples” to rise up.
It makes sense to me, but have I finally gone mad?
Gray,
In answer to your last query.
Yes.
😉
At any rate, one of the great advantages the Americans had over the British was they were quick to take advantage of any natural leader, regardless of class. They took leadership wherever they could find it.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. When we overthrew the Crown, we also, Thank God, ended their hidebound class structure.
I’m certain that we no longer have a majority of people who will fight for someone else’s right to property and wealth because it may benefit them.
In fact, the majority of Americans are happy to suffer so long as ‘the rich’ suffer more.
I cast no aspersions on the Revolutionaries, it’s odd you have to defend them….
Behold! the national anthem of “Obamatopia,” to be sung every day by schoolchildren with their right arms outstretched toward a photograph of Dear Leader:
When no one else can understand me
When everything I do is wrong
You give me hope and consolation
You give me strength to carry on
And you’re always there to lend a hand
In everything I do
That’s the wonder
The wonder of you
And when you smile the world is brighter
You touch my hand and I’m a king
Your kiss to me is worth a fortune
Your love for me is everything
I’ll guess I’ll never know the reason why
You love me like you do
That’s the wonder
The wonder of you
(apologies to “Saint Elvis a Memphis”)
Furthermore, Obama has been in power for 6 1/2 months, and still no killings.
Ah, it’s too bad Neo’s blog doesn’t support automated sig lines, I might use that.
As to killings, I’d bet it’s about hundred times more likely one of the more unhinged “patriots” posting here will go on a killing spree first.
Which usually means some poor sap highway patrolman or a couple beat cops will lose their lives when appointed lunatic finally comes out of his car or house, guns blazing in the name of opposing tyranny.
That’s also what history shows us about such ranters. Yeah, most of the loons are harmless. Just hard to tell which one really means it.
Gray,
No defence of them is necessary, simply clarifying certain facts.
You seemed to be indicating that their leadership came from the wealthy, and I was simply pointing out that this was a misconception and the “leadership” came from far more than that small group.
logern,
Got anything to back that up other than your own stereotypes?
Which usually means some poor sap highway patrolman or a couple beat cops will lose their lives when appointed lunatic finally comes out of his car or house, guns blazing in the name of opposing tyranny.
Well, not everyone can be Janet Reno and incinerate dozens of little Christian kids in their beds. But I think Janet Napolitano has “that look” about her….
Or Bill Ayers…. He actually tried to blow up beat cops and he’s celebrated. I don’t think this line of attack is going to work for you. McVeigh? “He’s just some guy in my neighborhood.” I’ve never heard a conservative say that….
You won’t turn me in to the Whitehouse Healthcare Chekhists for this, will you?
You seemed to be indicating that their leadership came from the wealthy
To be honest, I was thinking more about the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. My favorite stories are the ones of the Continental Army NCOs….
Gray Says:
‘I do not, and one cannot look at the American Revolution in marxist terms.”
You just did again. Proletariat? Land owners?
PS
Considering the availability of land, claiming land owners was a ‘top’ class is also a poor association.
Loegern, I don’t recall too many conservative paramilitary groups lurking around election booths slapping nightsticks into their palms and glowering at potential democrat voters. Do you?
I love these discussions. They are always a lot of fun. So I will throw in my two cents and then you can all call me stupid and then I will report you for being fishy.
I think Neo is correct. It is a different type of tyranny, but you still lose your freedom.
I remember reading an article in The Nation magazine a few years back where the author basically said (highly condensed version):
1) Americans have too many choices.
2) This causes confusion and hinders decision making.
3) In conclusion: cut the number of choices people have.
This is a totalitarian mindset. But the author is not a bad person. He doesn’t wish any harm. He thinks he is doing the right thing. He thinks he is compassionate. Same with that guy Alter that Neo quoted just yesterday: “The federal government knows best.”
This is Obama. He is no tyrant. He has good intentions, but those good intentions lead to a governmental structure that severly restricts your freedom.
The real danger is that once that structure is set up, someone ruthless can come along, take it over, and exploit it. Baklava pointed to The Road to Serfdom. Precisely what Hayek was worried about when he wrote that book.
This governmental takeover has to stop. And it has been going on for far longer than Obama has been around. He has simply accelerated it.
I believe Britain, Hayek’s audience for that book, went so far that at one point the government almost started assigning occupations for its proles. Imagine that.
So, that is what I believe. And you can’t prove me wrong. And even if you do, I will report you.
You just did again. Proletariat? Land owners?
C’mon, I used those terms to try and show how nonsensical they were in that context. It wasn’t a Class Struggle. Those terms don’t even apply.
I think owning property, protecting that property and fighting confiscatory taxation is virtuous.
I remember when that picture of Obama surfaced back during the campaign last year. Some conservative blogs had a field day with it.
It was all very fun . . . and then Obama won.
Doh!
If you want to feast your eyes on more outlandish, off the wall, totally pathetic and bizarre paintings: Go here.
Warning: Some of the other stuff on that website may not be safe for work. So don’t stray past the landing site.
And for your listening pleasure, if you haven’t already heard these, listen to select quotes from Obama reading his own book.
Again warning if you are at work. Strong language.
MikeLL,
Keep in mind, before certain german and soviet dictators did what they did to become dictators, and before certain chinese dictators did what they did to become dictators, their own particular combination of tactics and strategy had never been applied before their time.
Yes, some elements had been done before, and they all shared certain common characteristics – but the exact combination was unique to each a$$hole.
Likewise, Obama’s current political trajectory, while incorporating some very worrisome elements, is still unique to him.
We can learn from what others have done before and be wary for those reasons, but we still have to deal with a unique and original situation that has never occurred exactly as it is now.
So, will Obama become a dictator – I don’t think he has the fiber to do so, but as you noted and I aluded to earlier, I am also far more concerned about the guy who comes along AFTER him and uses his actions and tactics as precedent.
In the meantime, we still have to watch the current occupant like a hawk.
“He is no tyrant. He has good intentions,”….
People keep saying this. Over and over and fucking over again. Why?
Considering how little, if anything, any of us know about his past — what basis, other than the apparent probability that you too have been seduced by his smile and facade of charm, and media build up of his allegedly wonderful wife and cute children – do you have for making this proclamation?
Isn’t it at least a possibility that it is equally probable that he is a power hungry, egotistical, tyrannical, prick – with ill, rather than good intentions?
MikeLL: “This is Obama. He is no tyrant. He has good intentions, but those good intentions lead to a governmental structure that severly restricts your freedom.”
A better way to put it may be that Obama doesn’t believe himself to be a tyrant. Who does? Who looks in the mirror and says, “I AM EEEVILLL!” I doubt Hitler did – he’d have called himself Germany’s savior. Stalin too. A good number of their people and future victims saw them that way too.
Some in the gulag felt till the end that it was all some horrible mistake, that “if only Stalin knew”, he would fix it. He was no tyrant to them.
Gray,
I don’t think the people who fought in the battles of American revolution did that for someone else’s right to property and wealth because it may benefit them.
They did it because in this country, with nation started afresh, they saw the possibility to to have that right to property for themselves. Nobody is altruist enough to die for someone else’s happiness – unless they are your own family; and to fight for someone else in hope it will somehow benefit you is not smart.
The principle of private property, of single person’s right to private property is at the bottom of the most important, continuous battle between collectivists and individualists, whatever the ornate theories both sides use to dress up this truth.
There is nothing wrong with stating this struggle as a class struggle, even in the most primitive terms of Bolsheviks of 1917: class of capitalists and all who supports and seek to benefit from capitalist’ right to private property against the class of leeches and expropriators.
When Soviet writers Ilf and Petrov traveled the US in teh 30s and then wrote their famous book One-story America, they had to make propagandist and pro-Soviet passages in it. Still, it is an unbelievable miracle that the book made it through censors – so much positivity and admiration was in it. Those who mastered the art of reading between the lines of Soviet newspapers had no difficulty understanding what these two journalists are trying to say. So, there is this passage in the middle of book:
“In Flagstaff we said goodbye to our hitchhiker. [who shared with the passengers of the car his primitive theory – just like Mr.Obama’s – that the rich should be parted with their money and the proceeds divvied among the rest, the threshold being $5 mln – T] When we left the town, Mr. Adams [their American communist guide and driver – T] asked us: Why do you think this poor guy still wants to leave to the wealthy five millions each? You don’t know? I’ll tell you. In the bottom of his heart he still hopes to became one such millionaire. American Dream is a scary thing!”
And this is what collectivists, then and now, are most afraid of: of individual’s aspiration to own property, to be independent, to grow wealth for himself.
I don’t see why this fundamental unifying idea should be discarded because of some fear of “class language”.
A better way to put it may be that Obama doesn’t believe himself to be a tyrant.
Yes. Better said than me. That was the point I was trying to make. That was why I referenced those authors.
apparent probability that you too have been seduced by his smile and facade of charm
LOL. I have not been seduced by him. I am about at far right wing as they come.
And by the way, I didn’t say there was no danger. I was clear that there is a real serious threat.
And I said it must stop.
Scottie Says:
“We can learn from what others have done before and be wary for those reasons, but we still have to deal with a unique and original situation that has never occurred exactly as it is now.”
The old Bismarck
This morning, as I was getting ready for work, I listened to a gentleman, whose name now escapes me on MSNBCs ‘Morning Joe’. He explained that Obama differed from previous great progressives FDR and Woodrow Wilson, in that, they led as though they carried a banner. Obama led, he said, by “herding” his supporters.
This was a liberal gentleman, and he wasn’t being derisive.
I don’t think we’ve ever seeing anything like this. Honestly, I don’t know what to make of it. I know Obama is blatantly dishonest, but so was Clinton. Still, when Clinton got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he looked like he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Obama won’t bat an eye lash – even when there is video.
Tatyana:
I don’t think the people who fought in the battles of American revolution did that for someone else’s right to property and wealth because it may benefit them.
They did it because in this country, with nation started afresh, they saw the possibility to to have that right to property for themselves.
That’s exactly what I meant, you said it better.
And this is what collectivists, then and now, are most afraid of: of individual’s aspiration to own property, to be independent, to grow wealth for himself.
I don’t see why this fundamental unifying idea should be discarded because of some fear of “class language”.
That’s exactly right. I didn’t put it well. Thank you for the clarification.
Oops, Bismarck paved the way for Hitler point.
Gray: thank you; your htoughts made me formulate it for myself.
“We can learn from what others have done before and be wary for those reasons, but we still have to deal with a unique and original situation that has never occurred exactly as it is now.”
The old Bismarck
That’s good. That’s kinda what I was ineptly trying to get at cautioning about using the same leftist tactics they used to defeat us.
He explained that Obama differed from previous great progressives FDR and Woodrow Wilson, in that, they led as though they carried a banner. Obama led, he said, by “herding” his supporters.
I don’t think we’ve ever seeing anything like this.
Maoism. The Great Helmsman.
(‘K, done thread hogging for a while. Thank you for the indulgence.)
logern,
Got anything to back that up other than your own stereotypes?
Nah, but I’m in good company with the often extreme speculation that goes on about Obama here by some of you numbskills. Notice I said some. I want to be accurate; not accuse all of you.
Anyway, I know what you’re up to, and will report back to the proper authorities. Please register your guns with Homeland Security. Thanks.
Gray:
We’re not going to have a top-down revolution this time, because our modern elites have thrown in their lot with the Socialists. They can see that 21st century socialism is just a new form of feudalism, and they are quite content with it. Our political class is becoming increasingly hereditary.
Maybe we are regressing to the norm of human history, which is a tiny hereditary elite lording it over the masses.
So, to recap, the ruling elites think they should rule because they are smarter than everyone else. The poor think they are entitled to a decent standard of living simply because they were born and are breathing.
What we need now is a middle-class revolution. The people who actually make this country work need to take control of it.
’K, done thread hogging for a while.
Why? I love the comments. The more the merrier. I’ve seen other people here make that same statement on other threads.
It is a tribute to Neo that she can draw such intelligent and knowledgeable people like all of you and keep you coming back day after day.
So, comment away.
Predictably, as soon as I say that no one else has any further comments.
Sigh.
Hi, Scottie, southernjames: fellow Southerner here! (and I used to live in Gastonia, N.C.). Have an ancestor who was a 70-year-old colonel when the Revolution broke out: he said to hell with my gout, I want in on the fun, and led a regiment.
Ornery family. 😉
“Furthermore, Obama has been in power for 6 1/2 months, and still no killings…”
I’m a broken record here, but, no killings directly, but indirectly he has enabled the murders of hundreds of people by his support for Odinga, Fatah, and his position on the Iraq war which inspired the so-called insurgency to hold out longer and murder more innocents and American troops; then his silence concerning Iran recently, as well as his appeasement and support for leftists and islamists all over the globe, such as Venezuela, and the betrayal of Israel and Honduras, where the life and limb security of literally millions is now severely compromised. Obama and his democrat party lackeys are the new Vichy French, and everytime you think they can’t get any lower, they find a way, and it’s only been six months, and they’re likely just getting warmed up…
Re: Hussein’s intentions.
I suspect him of a great deal of malice aforethought. He’s let the mask slip often enough. But the most telling, and damning, evidence of his malice is his enthusiastic, two-decade membership in that racist, hate-filled, America-loathing, un-Christian “church” of his.
That makes me feel sometimes like I’m hearing people debate the intentions of a known Klan/Nation of Islam/Comintern/Nazi party member. HellO?
…it also reminds me of one of don marquis’s quips, about the ants in the ant heap that had just been partially obliterated by a cow’s hoof; they were debating the intentions of the gods towards their civilization
Ah, Gastonia, North Carolina – I know exactly where you’re talking about!
Welcome!
Ladies and Gentlemen, a Southern Belle has joined our little conversation.
Tatyana,
You get points for hitting extremely close – so close you nudged it – to the true basis for the liberty the Founding Fathers left for the nation.
It’s not that a person can own property – it’s that the person owns themselves.
If they own themselves, then logically they own the proceeds of their own labors, and with those proceeds they are free to obtain and own land or whatever else they fancy.
The government has no “right” to take of the fruits of that labor except for very good reasons as enumerated in the agreement set forth between the People and the federal government via the US Constitution.
Even then, it’s not a “right” so much as it is a delegated responsibility. All of the founding documents always refer to “rights” as either belonging to the individual or to the states.
Investigate the concept of “Natural Rights” and “Natural Law”, and read the Federalist Papers, and you’ll see what I mean.
Yes, there was slavery at the time – that got cleared up a generation or so later.
At any rate, it was never a class struggle – rather it was a struggle to assert rights inherent in all men against a monarchy that sought to extend and expand it’s rule over a people that had by necessity over several generations become quite independent of old England.
Regarding the glowing descriptions by any Soviets of 1930’s America, you have to understand that President Roosevelt was basically a socialist, and there were plenty of communist spies within his administration from way back through which the Soviets kept tabs on what the US was accomplishing – up to and including the creation of the atomic bomb during WWII.
Heck, Stalin knew about it before Truman did!
…it sort of has that fatuous, creepy ”heaven on earth” Jehovah’s Witness feel to it…
I wonder – if the people voted democratically for government-funded health care for everybody, higher taxes, guaranteed unemployment and old-age pensions – in other words, a full-fledged social democratic Welfare State, as has been done in Sweden and elsewhere, would you let them do it? Or would you ‘know better’ and simply engineer a coup to preserve their ‘freedom’?
PS Bush supported Fatah too, and the Odinga thing is just an urban legend
I don’t know any Southerners. Are there many like you folks here? Sure hope so!
Tea parties “nonsense”? No, they build morale. Remember only a few months ago. Remember the defeatism? The apathy? The tea parties are a message to us: We are not alone. We won’t be lambs to the slaughter. I don’t know about the rest of you, but the tea parties put the fight back in me.
Scottie wrote:
“Gray,
You simplify things too much.”
Funniest line of the thread.
Occam’s Beard, excellent comment. Future despotisms, and despotisms descended from democracies in particular, will not look exactly like any of the old models, real or fictional. We attend to such things for clues and overview, not prediction.
I don’t want America to go in a Scandinavian direction, but it is important to note that Sweden is not the gulag. Ten years ago I would have said that northern Europe was on a gradual, well-landscaped path to tyranny, but now I am less sure. They are swinging back to free-market principles in at least a few areas – school vouchers, for example. They trust their own governments too much, but that is likely because of the very low corruption. And significantly, they do not trust other European governments that much.
Yes, they still believe you can make everyone nice by being nice to them and avoiding conflict, and determined Eurabians may yet bring them down. But the decline is going to be slower than I thought. I think movement away from the free market in America will gradually sap us of our energy and drive, allowing others to take our current eminence in the world. But I’ve been to Romania and Hungary too many times to pretend we’ve got anything like their history going on here. As the overuse of the Holocaust analogy makes light of the suffering of the Jews and gypsies, the overuse of the concept of “tyranny” makes light of the sufferings of those who lived under Ceausescu or Holodomor. We don’t suffer all that much here; comparatively, we have irritations.
I must admit that I’m not sure where to start, because my views are all over the board with this.
First, regarding Obama. Let me acknowledge that I am nowhere near the point of view that Obama is equivalent to Nazi or Communist leaders. In this regard, I agree with Neo that “It’s true that Obama is not in the mold of either of those epic tyrants of history. He’s following a very different template. ”
Second, I will also acknowledge that I am not yet at the point of using the word “tyrant” to refer to Obama. My family escaped from Communist Cuba, and we know what a true tyrant is. Although most people in my family oppose Obama, myself included, we would be the first the reconize the difference between Obama (democratically elected, subject to constitutional constraints, in a country with deeply rooted liberties, including free speech). Believe me, there are no protests at town meetings opposing the leader’s policies in Cuba or North Korea, and there are barely protests in present-day Communist China.
Third, the agenda of Obama, as I see it, appears to be one of European-style social democracy. I do not agree with this agenda and will do anything within reason to oppose it. But there is an enormous difference between the kind of socialism (really mixed socialism and captitalism) that they have in the UK, France, Sweden, Germany, and most European countries. There are many reasons to oppose such a system’s implementation in the US, most notably that: (a) it has shown itself to be inefficient and to not live up to its promises, (b) it limits choice with regard to health care and other economic and lifestyle choices, in short it limits individualism; and (c) it is not as applicable for many reasons to the heavily free-market oriented US. But I absolutely have to reject the notion that this is equivalent to, or automatically leading in the direction of, a Soviet-style society. After all the years of socialism, my understanding is that Western Europe, for all its faults, remains among the most free parts of the world. See this map from a reputable human rights organization, Freedom House: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2009
Fourth, there is definitely at least one sense in which Obama’s agenda could create a danger for American freedom and liberty. I’ll call it the Chavez scenario. This involves a situation like that in Venezuela, where a leader steeped in a collectivist ideology, uses his charisma to amass a large amount of unthinking followers, and uses them to override the constitutional safeguards within the system of government, to give himself excessive power. As in Venezuela, this could well take place in a society that is a constitutional democratic republic. As in Venezuela, the charismatic leader could take power in ostensibly free elections within the constitutional system. And as in Venezuela, he could then use the devotion of his unthinking followers to alter or override the constitution, amass more power, and in quick order limit or destroy that society’s civil rights and liberties.
This latter scenario is one that I take very seriously. The possibility of this occurrent is as least present in the unthinking adulation which Obama’s supporters are giving him, as shown by that bizarre picture. That is definitely one possiblity, and it must be stopped.
My opposition to Obama comes from two sources. First, I think the most probably secnario is that Obama is trying to implement Eurpoean style social democracy here in the US. I still do not think this equates with Eastern-bloc Communism… belive me, my family knows Eastern-bloc Communism and there is a difference between it and Western European social democracy. But, nevertheless, I cannot support Western European socialism because I prefer the more individualistic free-market US-style system. I agree with Neo that I do not want a government bureaucracy telling me what is best for me or what is “for my own good.” Moreover, I find a great deal of the thinking coming from the Obamas and Pelosis in government to be incredibly arrogant, elitist and condescending.
Second, although I still think for Obama to implement a Chavez-style scenario is improbable here, I dont think its impossible . Thats why its so important to stop Obama’s steps toward greater government power now, and why I am so gratified that people are now standing up and letting their voices be heard at twon hall meetings. I’ve wondered myself whether Obama sees himself as an american Chavez. While I am not ready to find him to be that, I’m not ready to entirely discout that such a notion has crossed his arrogant mind. This train can, and must be stopped through the electoral process and through exercising our freedom of speech.
Loyal Achates:
“I wonder – if the people voted democratically for government-funded health care for everybody, higher taxes, guaranteed unemployment and old-age pensions – in other words, a full-fledged social democratic Welfare State, as has been done in Sweden and elsewhere, would you let them do it? Or would you ‘know better’ and simply engineer a coup to preserve their ‘freedom’?”
—–
I do believe the scenario you describe would actually be something of a “coup” itself for the following reason:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” (Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4.)
To have the *pure* democracy you describe would require amending the Constitution or instituting a coup to overturn the Constitution.
Then there are the other more practical considerations, which admittedly do go farther than your example countries, but are still relevant to the discussion.
A pure democracy allows no rights for the individual. You only have the rights that the basic majority will allow you to have – which by definition cannot be rights because you are allowed them in the first place only through the good will of the majority.
If the good will of the majority changes, those “rights” you thought you had can be taken away simply by majority vote.
So much for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness!
Then there are the words of of the Founding Fathers themselves on how to deal with the General Welfare clause that you are touching upon with such a welfare state utopia:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in letter to James Robertson
“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792
“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791
So, it’s clear that the guys who actually wrote the Constitution envisioned the General Welfare clause to only be furthered at the federal level by using the powers enumerated within the Constitution.
To go beyond that, to the extent you described, would require some extreme constitutional changes and amendments – something I seriously doubt there is an appetite for by the majority of Americans.
For these reasons, the very scenario you describe is what I would consider to be the “coup”.
J.L.
The important thing to keep in mind is that more than one dictator has risen to power via the election process instead of at the muzzle of a gun.
It is better to resist such societal tendencies (even if the leader is not intending to become a dictator) BEFORE you actually have someone achieve such a dictatorship in the future.
I personally don’t think Obama could become a dictator – but then again I never thought contracts could be torn up and ignored and private property could be confiscated from one private party and simply given to another private party either….
Assistant Village Idiot Says:
“I think movement away from the free market in America will gradually sap us of our energy and drive, allowing others to take our current eminence in the world. But I’ve been to Romania and Hungary too many times to pretend we’ve got anything like their history going on here. As the overuse of the Holocaust analogy makes light of the suffering of the Jews and gypsies, the overuse of the concept of “tyranny” makes light of the sufferings of those who lived under Ceausescu or Holodomor. We don’t suffer all that much here; comparatively, we have irritations.”
I could not agree more with this last statement. Word have meanings. If one calls everything disagreeable Nazi, Fascist, or Communist, then those words lose meaning. We can oppose Obamas policies without making them out to be what they are not. They are bad enough as they are to oppose them as they are.
Scottie Says:
J.L.
The important thing to keep in mind is that more than one dictator has risen to power via the election process instead of at the muzzle of a gun.
It is better to resist such societal tendencies (even if the leader is not intending to become a dictator) BEFORE you actually have someone achieve such a dictatorship in the future.
I personally don’t think Obama could become a dictator – but then again I never thought contracts could be torn up and ignored and private property could be confiscated from one private party and simply given to another private party either
I think we agree. This actually is not unlike my own approach. As I’ve noted: “I’ve wondered myself whether Obama sees himself as an american Chavez. While I am not ready to find him to be that, I’m not ready to entirely discout that such a notion has crossed his arrogant mind. This train can, and must be stopped through the electoral process and through exercising our freedom of speech.”
My remarks starting several months ago, now, about having to apply the “template” of “bad faith,” Tyranny and of Dictatorship–as opposed to our normal template of “good faith, ” Democracy and adherence to the Constitution–to Obama’s actions, in order to be able to recognize and correctly interpret Obama’s moves as extraordinary malevolent and deliberately destructive moves taken, not to fix whatever problems a President normally tries to fix, but, rather, as calculated steps very deliberately taken to smash our current democratic, capitalist system and Constitution and to bring into being some form of Socialist/Fascist/Marxist state here in the U.S., was used by Neo as the jumping off point for several recent discussions here.
Thus, I am kind of puzzled as to why many commenters here are still arguing about where to place the deck chairs, while the much more urgent matter of the increasing angle of the list of the Titanic is overlooked.
Cases in point, Obama & Co.’s call yesterday for “informers” to inform on those who oppose his health care reform by emailing copies of any “fishy” correspondence to the website flag@whitehouse.gov , and the campaign by the White House and Congressional Democrats to brand any who protest against Obama’s programs as part of an “Astroturf” campaign, not genuine citizen questions and anger but rather ‘synthetic anger” from nuts, Nazis, and plants from the RNC or the Insurance industry, so that they can, with somewhat salved consciences–by the way, do they still have any consciences or are they burned out in the process of getting elected and “serving” in Congress–ignore all of the protests by regular citizens that are springing up all over the country and, seemingly, intensifying day by day.
If these protesters are demonized and ignored, the inevitable progression here is towards violence.
It seems to me that these developments clearly benefit and bear the hallmarks of a nascent dictatorship.
What could be more “dictatorish” than creating a network of informers, what could be “dictatorish” than ignoring, indeed, demonizing and trying to silence those who try to exercise their right of free speech and protest, what could be more “dictatorish” than provoking violence to justify all sorts of nifty crackdown moves, and to delegitimize the opposition?
Wake up, folks. This stuff is happening right now, it is a progression, and we need to disrupt that progression toward dictatorship, to focus on each particular threatening development and try to publicize it, fight it, negate it, not worry if the Obama as Joker poster is a good or bad development. We need to focus on the main event, not the sideshow.
P.S.–Here is an overview of what “Loyal Achetes” called the “urban legend” of the Obama-Odinga relationship, videos and documents included (http://tinyurl.com/63kgu7).
I didn’t imagine Obama would be this bad, this soon. It’s actually somewhat scary. Let’s just hope it’s one term or he’ll probably try to rewrite the law to abolish the 8 year maximum.
With regard to my comment that citizen protesters are being accused of being plants and Nazis, here is a video of Pelosi telling a reporter about all those swastikas that the obvious Nazis attending and disrupting town halls are carrying (http://tinyurl.com/l3ppy2).
Loyal Achates Says:
“I wonder – if the people voted democratically for government-funded health care for everybody, higher taxes, guaranteed unemployment and old-age pensions – in other words, a full-fledged social democratic Welfare State, as has been done in Sweden and elsewhere, would you let them do it? Or would you ‘know better’ and simply engineer a coup to preserve their ‘freedom’?”
We already have and we’d let let them plug the last holes for the uninsured if they want too.
The rub is taking away our private insurance / forced equality / pushing us to be part of a public system. F them, I’m not going to take it. Hands off my body / healthcare.
While we are on the subject of coups, the whole idea of national healthcare is unconsitutional. The progressives have simply worn down constitutional resistence (ie, properly following the) over several generations.
Government healthcare has nothing to do with regulating interstate commerce.
Your analysis makes no sense except maybe as humor. Daily Kos was writing the same silliness when Bush was president. How he was spying on us, taking out freedoms, using newspeak…. Boring. Not true then, not true now.
If you really, really feel your ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’ is being taken from you then maybe you need to move out of the country before they disallow you to go – which I am sure you believe is the next step.
But how about you just learn to see things a bit clearer and see that the sky is not falling. Come back from the fringe and see the real world where real people live. It takes time and perhaps few years of insight but you’ll come back.
Wolla Dalbo Says:
“Cases in point, Obama & Co.’s call yesterday for “informers” to inform on those who oppose his health care reform by emailing copies of any “fishy” correspondence”
Case in point, I emailed them using my whole name email address and turned Obama in for his lies about the healthcare debate. No knock on the door yet.
Thomass
If the whole idea is unconstitutional then I guess you think Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional?
Or did you not realize they were government run programs like Reagan administration economist Art Laffer who is so dumb he said on CNN yesterday: “f you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they’re run well, just wait until you see Medicare, Medicaid, and health care done by the government”
Ha, what an idiot!
There are many out there who do not know Medicare and Medicaid are government run. And what’s more they are successful and more well liked than regular run private healthcare
Chavez-like figure, and I don’t see mass killing as part of the template
no one sees mass killing in the template, few can imagine its reality. why is this so hard to get?
the fact that this is a castro bolivar revolution should tell you wahts going on behind the scenes.
you forget that he controls the press, and all outside connections. so like russia, he controls the msm message that gets out. and since obama and him are comrades in arms agaionst capitalism, you can be sure that the press here will be like duranty.
Kleifoth states as follows regarding Duranty’s intention to report negative developments coming out of the Soviet Union in his paper: “in agreement with the New York Times and the Soviet authorities, his official despatches always reflect the official position of the Soviet regime and not his own.”
so dont expect to get the news till after things are over… cause thats when we started to find out. when it was happening for decades we didnt know.
i would read the history of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, and their 70 year cooperating with the soviets.
Despite evidence even the Times does not dispute which shows Duranty knew well that millions were being starved to death at the very time he used the newspaper to deny Stalin’s forced Ukrainian famine, the Times has refused to return the prize he won in 1932 for his Soviet reporting. In fact it still displays Duranty’s work in an in-house exhibit honoring the paper’s Pulitzer Prize winners.
you can go back and compare his articles with what was happening, and then tell me that you know what chavez is doing giving the new rifles he just bought and grenade launchers and that to them.
how long did amerca believe that there are no gulags and such. note that today many believe this. you can find many who deny it.
however, try to put your mind aroudn the population of NY city and surrounding area being starved to death in one winter. 8 million.. and the 8 million was hidden from us…
and how does the fact that one person who hasnt killed people openly defines all other people in that same power position in the future?
Duranty knew about this virtual genocide of the Ukrainian nation by Russia, but he did not publish a word about it. The Times itself has recognized this, but it hasn’t dealt at all with the aspect of the Kleiforth memo which indicates that the paper’s misreporting on the Soviet Union was a matter of editorial policy.
so if papers have similar ‘policies’ today, as they did yesterday when america was more free and barely had socialism, then what?
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
Another case in point, news reported today that the DNC is calling for SEIU and AFL-CIO goons to come to the town hall meetings to police them and intimidate the protestors(http://tinyurl.com/9vtzn). Aren’t these the tactics of some Banana Republic “Maximum Leader,” or “El Commandante”?
The story of Laila Pakalniņa’s Kurpe (The Shoe) reflects the absurdities of Latvian life in the early days of the Soviet occupation.
The story of Laila Pakalniņa’s Kurpe (The Shoe) reflects the absurdities of Latvian life in the early days of the Soviet occupation. This was the period in which the sand of LiepÄja’s coastline was dredged each night by a tractor, like a conscientious golfer would a sand trap, and the following morning checked for fresh footprints.
[think of it as a soviet gulag cinderella story where they search for the woman whose shoe it belongs. but one way to know that the state has gone over the line to this form of state is the absurd rules and behaviors of your leaders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! see any odd behaivior compared to past leaders?]
What ensues is an absurd tale that reflects the absurdities of Soviet life.
http://latviansonline.com/reviews/article/1890/
The film is an “art” film and as such might not appeal to those who are used to more traditional forms. There is very little dialogue and the plot assumes that the viewer understands the backstory. The shot selections often will often have the characters shot in silouethes or as reflections. The cinematography is in high contrast black and white.
so i thought it may attract…
i can give you an example of the kind of absurdity that was COMMON.
one of the most valuable things you could have was a burned out lightbulb!!!!!!!!!!
why?
because that meant that you could get a good one for your home!!! since you couldnt buy them and they were rationed, and the ration period was less than their lifetimes. so you would sneak and you could take a bulb from a state office, and screw in the burned out one.
I’m pleased (sorta) to see we’ve been assigned a higher quality of operative now. Movin’ on up!
ModDem: So happy to be able to bring a little smile to your day.
And of course, if you say I’m wrong, that’s all I need to convince me. I see the light! Obama doesn’t use Newspeak! He isn’t interested in damping down free speech (a concern which goes way back for him, by the way), and his kneejerk defense of Zelaya and his sucking up to Chavez have no larger meaning whatsoever, except that he’s a kind and sweet fella who likes to be liked by all.
And please don’t report me to the fish police! I’ll be good! I promise!
As for the popularity of Medicare and Medicaid, the poll you linked to is based on the entire system that’s in place now. If you read the fine print, the satisfaction is based on good access to treatment as opposed to managed care plans. But Medicare and Medicaid do not revamp our health care system in the manner that Obamacare would, and they depend on the entire health care system being in place for this access to continue. In other words, even Obama has acknowledged that the cost-cutting needs of Obamacare would result in more rationing (although he hasn’t usually used that r-word, of course). This would put in place the sort of managed care and long delays that have caused problems in Canada and the UK, for example (ever read about the niceties of NICE?)
The Medicare and Medicaid with which people are presently satisfied ride on the back of our present system, and are also subsidized by it. That’s another thing very likely to end with Obamacare.
Oh, and before you get too giddy laughing at Laffer, pay attention to what he actually said (love those truncated quotes, don’t we? They’re so much better than the truth). After speaking about how the costs of Obamacare have been underestimated, he then said [emphasis mine]:
I mean, if you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they’re run well just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid, and health care done by the government; I mean the single provider I think is a real problem.
Laffer is unquestionably talking about the change in the system as a whole to single provider, which he sees as the hidden goal of Obamacare that will inevitably flow from it, and to a new Medicare and Medicaid embedded in that system. The person he is talking with then responds to him as though she understands his argument as being about the larger change, because she responds by saying single payer won’t happen with Obamacare.
Here, I’ll make it easy for you:
(simply standing in awe of neoneocon…….nice!)
ModDem Says:
“If the whole idea is unconstitutional then I guess you think Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional?”
They are, we just let it slide in the name of democracy (the people’s reps voted for it and it wasn’t worth drawing a line in the sand over). But now that you’re going too far, I guess we need to set down some ground rules / direct you back to the constitution. If you don’t like it and want to push back, so be it. I guess we might need to settle the issue about the role of government now that your pushing to take control over our healthcare decisions.
ModDem Says:
“There are many out there who do not know Medicare and Medicaid are government run. And what’s more they are successful and more well liked than regular run private healthcare”
Both depend on (and leech off) the private system now in place. Every time medicare underpays for a service, my insurance company has to pay more for mine to make it up.
I said before, it’s not just ‘where will the Candadians go’ if we have single payer. Where will US government care go? We’ll smash the golden goose / good private system and end up with a NHS like blackhole.
Has anyone else had the thought that between the White House advising informers to snitch on anyone they see questioning The Won’s mandates, and individuals such as ModDem showing up to run interference in the private sector for The Won, that we are actually having our previous concerns validated regarding an overreaching government?
Not that I’m at all concerned about ModDem and any influence they may think they have – I just find it ironic….
does this look familiar?
Besides, ModDem – have you heard about the costs of Medicare and Medicaid?
Here, I’ll make it easy for you:
“[since 1970] costs of Medicare and Medicaid have each risen one-third more, per patient, than the combined costs of all other health care in America — the vast majority of which is purchased privately. Medicaid’s costs have risen 35 percent more, and Medicare’s 34 percent more, per patient, than the combined costs of all other health care nationwide.” (Source)
Another on : “federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid would increase from about 4.5% to about 20% of U.S. gross domestic product by 2050, CongressDaily reports. ” That was 2 years ago, way before economic crisis.
You still believe in excellence of government-managed health care programs?
BTW, in addition to the snitches they are cultivating among us, and the surrogates we find ourselves poking fun at, they are also banning books.
How’s that for a mental image?
Apparently, they have decided children’s books that may contain a small trace amount of lead in some of the colors are an incredible health hazard and can no longer be bought or sold per government edict.
Never mind that nobody can point to an instance where this has been a problem before….
How in the hell did I ever survive childhood????
Tatyana Says:
“Besides, ModDem – have you heard about the costs of Medicare and Medicaid?”
Heh, yeah… they are efficient in the same regard we have little voter fraud… i.e., there is just no good mechanism to measure it…. so the left pushes the idea it is good / low / efficient. Medicare and Medicaid programs are full of fraud… they’re ‘efficent’ on administration by partly hiding the admin costs and just not hiring enough people to stop the fraud. Also, because they underpay fair market rates on some things (but, when lobbyists get involved, they overpay for others…).
Apparently, they have decided children’s books that may contain a small trace amount of lead in some of the colors are an incredible health hazard and can no longer be bought or sold per government edict.
The real goal is to get the large abundance of used pre-politically correct children’s books off the used book market. These used books as a group are highly superior in creative, fun content to the politically correct crap being published today and are snapped up by consumers who want to give children a quality product and a lively first encounter with the world of books. It has nothing to do with health hazards.
Megan McArdle is bitching about it on her blog — bless her Obama-voting heart!
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/08/book_banning.php
Scottie–Yeah, I wondered about that myself. Let’s see–measles–two kinds, mumps, chicken pox, many episodes of whooping cough–my grandmother liked Bear Grease to rub on for chest congestion while she could still get it in Philadelphia, then it was “mustard plasters,” major nose bleeds–shooting out all over the place–that made me think I was gonna die, scarlet fever–maybe, massive ear infections and hospital operations winter after winter—a wash cloth heated on a light bulb gave a little relief (sulfa drugs–at this point impure, lumpy brown powders–were just coming in at the end of these years in the late 40’s),–after a while the Dr. stopped sending me to the hospital, he just popped the offending eardrum with a lancet so, no hospital admission, surgery or Ether, they yanked out my tonsils and adenoids–I still remember the offending tissue in a souvenir jar next to everyone’s bed when they woke up, scar tissue that made me deaf in one ear for a while, they burnt that out with Radium–the guys in the lead suits lugging the heavy steel canister that held the little vial of Radium were right out of science fiction, “growing pains” in my legs–boy, they hurt like Hell. Then later, Bronchitis over and over and “Creoterpin,” with its high alcohol content, creosote? and terpintine–now since banned, I believe, and add in the assorted broken bones. Then, there were all those fluoroscopes at the old time shoe stores that we used to hit once in awhile to look at the bones in our feet, and the more adventurous stuck their little kid heads in so their buddies could see their skulls.
Yeah, I really don’t know how I survived.
The book thing is pretty staggering. Children’s books published before 1986 (I think, or somewhere around there) can no longer be sold or “stockpiled” (which may exclude even keeping them on the shelves in libraries.) The same bill, by the way, prohibits rhinestones on children’s clothes and mandates such detailed and repeated testing of every component of toys, clothing, and other children’s products that it’s going to put legions of small toy companies, craftspeople who make kids’ toys and clothing, and kids’ consignment stores out of business. All this on no showing — none — that any child has ever gotten lead poisoning from checking an old copy of “Little Women” out of the library or wearing a glitzy costume at a dance recitals. Our government at work!
a dance recital, not recitals. Ugh.
[since 1970] costs of Medicare and Medicaid have each risen one-third more, per patient, than the combined costs of all other health care in America – the vast majority of which is purchased privately. Medicaid’s costs have risen 35 percent more, and Medicare’s 34 percent more, per patient, than the combined costs of all other health care nationwide.
Will not a fan of single payer initiatives floating around Congress now or even of Medicare itself, I wonder how the insurance industry would react to being told it would have to be the primary insurer of Medicare-age seniors if Medicare was abolished.
I can’t see them being very happy about taking on this very high-risk group unless the premiums were prohibitively expensive — in which case we would have a big problem with a bunch of uninsured seniors.
Let’s keep the Progressives as the uncaring side that wants to shove grandma and grandpa into an early grave instead of allowing them to accuse us of the same thing.
Also, I wonder how much of the rise in cost of Medicare compared to private insurance is due to the fact that seniors have more illness and more expensive illnesses than the rest of the population.
Perhaps the overwhelming portion of the population should simply ignore the edicts?
Could they possibly – possibly! – arrest everyone?
I have several children’s books from my childhood – my kids love them (as well as the old Marx Johnny West toys I managed to find in the attic!)
Wolla DalboThus, I am kind of puzzled as to why many commenters here are still arguing about where to place the deck chairs, while the much more urgent matter of the increasing angle of the list of the Titanic is overlooked.
I posted the answer to this a while back. thats when i posted the title of a book and explained that it was written from a unusual historical perspective. what it was like to live in the time and what it was like to live through the changes when some such does come to power.
the excerpt explains that talking is what they do.
everyone endlessly talks about things and the key people who value being respected as reasonable (or see that as a way to gain such), then try to temper and convince them that this is not so.
its the same effect as when you have 2 donkeys and they are tied together with a long rope, and you put a pile of feed in front of them. they will starve and die before they cooperate.
we are not made to detect abstract dangers. concrete ones are what makes matter move.
a video of Pelosi telling a reporter about all those swastikas that the obvious Nazis attending and disrupting town halls are carrying
if you know your history, they see this as a fight between only two choices, communism, and fascism.
the farther right than swastikas, classical liberalism, isnt even considered part of the landscape.
you can have anything you want, but you have to have spam in it. there is spam spam eggs spam and spam. that only has a little statism in it.
P.S.—Here is an overview of what “Loyal Achetes” called the “urban legend” of the Obama-Odinga relationship, videos and documents included (http://tinyurl.com/63kgu7).
If I were the commentor I wouldn’t put too much faith in the Atlas Shrugged website. The article the commentor cites throws around a number of allegations and speculations in regards to Obama but offers no real proof. For instance, the article has a number of links that lead to nothing if you click on them. Also, the article repeatedly implies that Raila Odinga, a Kenyan politician, is Obama’s cousin, which is pure fantasy.
Obama took a trip to Kenya in 2006 to try to calm some of the strife there. Atlas Shrugged links to a video in which Obama gives a speech which takes the assemblage to task for not living up to Kenya and Africa’s potential and calls it campaigning for Raila Odinga.
There is an email from a Kenyan missionary which figures prominently in the article. Here’s what Snopes.com has to say about the email and its author:
The real subject of this message is Barack Obama … virtually everything included therein about him is either unsubstantiated or demonstrably false …
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp
I think there is a tendency to believe every story we hear about those we dislike.
Wolla Dalbo Says:
August 6th, 2009 at 10:54 am
If this continues, it will lead to bloodshed.
It cannot possibly lead anywhere else.
“PS Bush supported Fatah too, and the Odinga thing is just an urban legend.”
True, Bush supported Fatah, and should have known better, but it was in a much narrower context than Obungler… The Odinga thing is just an urban legend? Baloney, the photo-ops, interviews, and documented evidence, including mass murders are well compiled…
If this continues, it will lead to bloodshed. It cannot possibly lead anywhere else.
I think “it” can lead also to legitimate, peaceful political dissent. I oppose Obama but if anyone commits “bloodshed” in the misguided belief that bloodshed is the thing to do I for one hope the full weight of the law comes down on their murderous heads.
The Odinga thing is just an urban legend? Baloney, the photo-ops, interviews, and documented evidence, including mass murders are well compiled…
Odinga is about as unsavory as any other despot, true. The urban legend is that there is any significant Obama connection.
grackle:
I really don’t think you comprehend the gravity of the situation. You seem to believe that this is partisan politics as usual. It is not.
I would recommend that you read Artfldgr’s comments more closely. He seems to have a better “read” on this more than most anyone here, myself included. Perhaps because he’s had actual experience with Communist totalitarianism, maybe?
grackle:
You sound like a Michael Medved fan. Just an observation.
rickl – as have I, and I think dodger’s overheated.
Because of his background he has more tendency to see tyranny everywhere. Some things are just wrong, without necessarily being harbingers of despotism. Not all slopes slip.
I really don’t think you comprehend the gravity of the situation. You seem to believe that this is partisan politics as usual. It is not.
In the opinion of the commentor the situation is grave and beyond partisan politics. I agree that the situation is certainly grave.
The Jihadists, who want nothing less than the destruction of America, will be appeased and/or ignored while they continue to construct a weapon which is capable of destroying the US. Google “nuclear electromagnetic pulse.”
As for “partisan politics,” I see people bitching about Obama who are behaving in such a way that all but insures his re-election. These seem to be the same folks who couldn’t find it in their ultra-partisan hearts to drum up any enthusiasm for Obama’s last opponent.
I see wrongheaded people purging the GOP of those who don’t fit their strict moral template, alienating potential voters and having the audacity to congratulate themselves and wax righteously about their success. Thanks, RINO-haters!
I see what seems to be these same folks going around hinting and implying God knows what, subscribing to a far-fetched conspiracy theory and talking up bloodshed while at the same time behaving in a way that insures their dire implications will come true. It’s circular reasoning on a grand scale.
You sound like a Michael Medved fan. Just an observation.
More implication. More mysterious hinting and then calling it an “observation.”
Here is the very real “Urban Legend” of U.S. Senator Obama’s campaigning in Kenya for his fellow Luo tribesman and cousin, Muslim and Marxist Raila Odinga, during the 2006 Kenyan Presidential election –
Many of the videos of Obama campaigning for Odinga in Kenya have been scrubbed from the Web, here is one still up of U.S. Senator Obama campaigning for fellow Luo tribesman and “cousin” Muslim, Marxist Odinga “The Butcher of Kenya” (http://tinyurl.com/myvwep)
Here is an overview from an African source, with many citations and links, about this episode (http://tinyurl.com/4nd9gg) here is another one from the New York Sun (http://www.nysun.com/opinion/kenya-connection/69273/)
Here is information, including a video, about the massacre of 50-60 Christians, who were burnt alive in a church by a mob of Odinga’s Muslim followers (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71383)
Here is information on Oding’s agreement to establish Shari’a low in majority Christian Kenya if he won the Presidency (http://tinyurl.com/l3jvzy) (http://tinyurl.com/nbr38l) and here is the text of the agreement signed by Odinga: (http://tinyurl.com/lu7v9r)
Many of the videos of Obama campaigning for Odinga in Kenya have been scrubbed from the Web, here is one still up of U.S. Senator Obama campaigning for fellow Luo tribesman and “cousin” Muslim, Marxist Odinga “The Butcher of Kenya” (http://tinyurl.com/myvwep)
The video shows Obama in what seems to be Africa surrounded at different times with what seems to be crowds of Africans and what seem to be various African dignitaries, one of whom is labeled, “Odinga.” So what?
Another point: It is really, really difficult, if not impossible, to have anything “scrubbed” from the internet — especially anything that could be damaging to a controversial figure like Obama. Google the word, “viral.” If it isn’t obtainable somewhere on the internet it probably did not exist in the first place.
Does the commentator expect that a visit to Africa by a US Senator would not bring a host of important African people that wanted to be videotape in the presence of Obama? The only time Obama gives what could be characterized as a speech in the video it is to an assemblage of what looks to be prominent Africans and it is definitely NOT any kind of campaign speech for Odinga.
Furthermore, the video is an unsourced YouTube offering. Show me a FoxNews video of Obama campaigning for Odinga and I’ll take more notice. This video is nothing.
Here is an overview from an African source, with many citations and links, about this episode (http://tinyurl.com/4nd9gg)
The URL above is some kind of bogus website calling itself “African Press International.” I’m not impressed, especially since they posted an article dated April 1st, 2009 entitled, “Shocking news: Barack Obama will resign as US President on the 15th of June.” Yeah, sure. April Fool, anyone?
Also the site wisely issues a disclaimer which among other things says, … API[African Press International] cannot guarantee that the information on its website is always correct or complete … which is one hell of an understatement and looks to be an attempt to insure the site owners against libel suits.
here is another one from the New York Sun (http://www.nysun.com/opinion/kenya-connection/69273/)
The above link is to an op ed by Daniel Johnson. Most of the article makes the case that Raila Odinga is a bad dude, which I wouldn’t deny. Odinga is one in a long line a murderous politicians in Africa. Then the writer finally gets around to the point:
What, you will be asking by now, what does any of this have to do with Barack Obama? Well, Mr. Obama’s father came from Kenya and his son is proud to call himself a Luo. His Kenyan relations boast that, even if they cannot get a Luo into the Kenyan presidential residence, they can look forward to a Luo in the White House.
So far, so NOTHING. Obama’s father came from Kenya. This is news? Obama’s “Kenyan relations” boast about having a relative that is the POTUS. Who would expect otherwise?
Indeed, the connection may be even closer than a tribal one. Mr. Odinga even claims that Mr. Obama is his cousin, because the senator’s father was Mr. Odinga’s maternal uncle. Whether or not this true, the two men are friends and political allies.
Here the writer tries to pull off some journalistic legerdemain. Odinga “claims” to be Obama’s cousin. Notice the writer doesn’t flatly state the “claim” is true. We have no idea whether Odinga is really Obama’s cousin; neither does the writer. Then the writer states, with no substantiation whatsoever, that “the two men are friends and political allies.” The rest of the article is a weak, dishonest attempt to justify that statement.
In August 2006, Mr. Obama visited Kenya and spoke in support of Mr. Odinga’s candidacy at rallies in Nairobi.
I have not yet seen any evidence that Obama “spoke in support of Mr. Odinga’s candidacy at rallies in Nairobi.” Neither has the writer.
The Web site Atlas Shrugs has even posted a photograph of the two men side by side.
Oh WOW! “… a photograph of the two men side by side.” And this proves WHAT?
More recently, Mr. Odinga says that Mr. Obama interrupted his campaigning in New Hampshire to have a telephone conversation with his African cousin about the constitutional crisis in Kenya.
The writer excoriates Odinga earlier in the article, going on in depth about Odinga’s connections to atrocities, murders, etc. but is quite willing to accept Odinga’s word about alleged telephone conversations with Obama. Laughable at best. Journalistic deception at worst.
What should Americans make of Mr. Obama’s Kenyan connection? If he has been putting tribal or family considerations above America’s national interest by supporting Mr. Odinga’s anti-Western candidacy, it raises serious questions about his judgement.
Notice the writer tries to save himself with the word, “if.” What that “if” means is that the writer is attempting to peddle crap as a Hershey Bar.
At the time of his visit in 2006, President Kibaki’s spokesman complained that Mr. Obama was behaving like a “stooge” of Mr. Odinga – which was at best undignified for a visiting American senator, and at worst unwarranted interference in the internal politics of another country.
Gee, not President Kibaki “complained,” which may have made some sort of checkable headline somewhere in some sort of reputable news outlet, but an unnamed anonymous “spokesman” allegedly said to the writer that President Kibaki complained. I smell more Hershey Bar. I warn the commentor: Beware of writers who cite unnamed, anonymous sources in order to give credibility to important points they are trying unsuccessfully to make.
Even more serious are the doubts raised by Mr. Obama’s attitude toward Islam, which has so far received much less scrutiny than might be expected in a post-September 11 presidential election.
Hey, finally something here with some reality attached to it. I think most of us would agree that Obama’s foreign policy moves(or lack of) and his general attitude toward Jihadism stinks. That doesn’t make the rest of the article any less smelly.
If Mr. Obama did not know about Mr. Odinga’s electoral deal with the Kenyan Islamists when he offered his support, then he should have known. If he did know, then he is guilty of lending the prestige of his office to America’s enemies in the global war on terror.
What “support” of Odinga? Getting photographed while Odinga was standing near? Can anyone offer any link to any videotape of Obama uttering any words in support of Odinga — or even mentioning Odinga in ANY context? I haven’t viewed anything so far but I’ll wait patiently.
We need to know exactly what Mr. Obama knew about Mr. Odinga, and precisely when he knew it.
On the strength of what evidence? The writer certainly didn’t offer any evidence in the article. The article was all implication, unnamed, anonymous sources and speculation. You have to have something more than that in order to start demanding things. So much for the article.
Here is information, including a video, about the massacre of 50-60 Christians, who were burnt alive in a church by a mob of Odinga’s Muslim followers (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71383)
Here is information on Oding’s agreement to establish Shari’a low in majority Christian Kenya if he won the Presidency (http://tinyurl.com/l3jvzy) (http://tinyurl.com/nbr38l) and here is the text of the agreement signed by Odinga: (http://tinyurl.com/lu7v9r)
Gee, I don’t doubt that Odinga is a bad guy. The world is full of bad people — but the subject of my inquiry was Obama’s possible connection to Odinga and this material, while admittedly horrific, is simply irrelevant.
Assistant Village Idiot Says:
August 7th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I picked Artfldgr because he’s well-known to people here, but he is by no means my only source or inspiration. Besides, I’ve read enough about what happens when Communists have taken over other nations to recognize that the same damn thing is happening right here in our country.
I could also cite any number of threads and comments at Belmont Club. In fact there’s an active thread going on right now: “Punch back twice as hard”
Among the comments I especially liked were 27. RAH, 30. trangbang68, and 43. Mongoose, but there are plenty of others.
Screwed up the link. Here it is:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/08/06/punch-back-twice-as-hard/
For what it’s worth:
From The Washington Times
HYMAN: Obama’s Kenya ghosts
By Mark Hyman | Sunday, October 12, 2008
Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama’s six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Mr. Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. “The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials,” Mr. Obama announced.
I don’t believe that Grackle would believe any amount of evidence against Obama, but here is an interesting video compilation on Odinga and Obama featuring coverage from sources like the UK’s Skynews CNN and statements from Human Rights Watch (http://tinyurl.com/crm5pk)
I don’t believe that Grackle would believe any amount of evidence against Obama …
The commentor is wrong. I do not like Obama and am ready to believe just about anything about the man as long as the accusation has some relation to reality.
There is ample evidence around about Obama which is real to know what he is — but I must have credible evidence for any individual accusation before I believe it.
Just call me a stickler for accuracy. I would feel the same about any public figure — Sarah Palin, John McCain — you name the figure — and I would demand something more than hearsay, speculation, out of context quotes, implication and all the rest of the methods commonly used to say something deleterious but untrue about someone.
The last bit of “evidence” I was given — the bogus news site calling itself the “API,” and the Daniel Johnson article which made one relevant statement and used the rest of the article to try unsuccessfully to justify that statement just did not meet the minimum standard for credibility. The rest was a bunch of material about the evilness of Odinga — which I readily accept but which is irrelevant.
I see that new stuff has been posted. I’ll look into it and get back with a comment. If it’s credible it will be acknowledged as such.
I don’t believe that Grackle would believe any amount of evidence against Obama, but here is an interesting video compilation on Odinga and Obama featuring coverage from sources like the UK’s Skynews CNN and statements from Human Rights Watch (http://tinyurl.com/crm5pk)
The video is a bit over 8 minutes long. The first 6 minutes or so is about violence in Kenya with nothing about Obama. After this build-up the screen is captioned “Raila Odinga & Barack Obama,” with headshots of the two men edited to where they are side by side. A female voice with a British accent intones “… Odinga says they are cousins …” I notice that she doesn’t flatly state that Obama and Odinga are cousins, just “Odinga says …” Like I’ve said before: Odinga may be Obama’s cousin or he may not but I don’t believe we can put any credibility in what Odinga says or doesn’t say about that subject or anything else for that matter. As an evidence-giver Odinga is simply NOT credible.
A little further on there is a well-dressed man, seemingly an African, who is taped claiming that Obama is a “stooge.” We don’t know who this man is, we don’t know who the interviewer is, we don’t know which news organization, if any, that the interviewer works for … it’s just some unknown person making an accusation while being taped by some other unknown person. This is evidence?
Still later a well-dressed white man with white hair is shown claiming that Obama is “supporting Odinga.” Neither the man nor the interviewer is identified. There is some kind of symbol or logo that looks vaguely like the top corner of a folded newspaper that appears briefly but is almost totally obscured by the YouTube logo. This is evidence?
The commentor states that the sources of this video is: “UK’s Skynews CNN and statements from Human Rights Watch.” The only attribution I saw was CNN but that was only during general footage of violence in Kenya — never anywhere when Obama is the video’s subject. I saw no evidence that Skynews or the Human Rights Watch had anything to do with the video. This is evidence?
The only video “evidence” I’ve seen so far is that the two men, Obama and Odinga, have been photographed and soundlessly videotaped while in the presence of each other — that hardly constitutes Obama “campaigning” for Odinga. What I HAVE NOT seen is any videotape of Obama campaigning for Odinga.
I ask that the commentor stop offering these bogus videotapes as evidence. I have to sit through them 2 or 3 times, stopping the tape every once in awhile, write down what was said and make other notations, get the material in order and then post it.
I’ve spent a good 2 or 3 hours of my time on these stinkers and it’s getting to where it’s just not worth it. I request that the commentor view closely for veracity any tape he wants to offer. He ought to know by now, after reading two of my analyses, what constitutes believable video and what doesn’t and act accordingly.
For what it’s worth:
From The Washington Times
HYMAN: Obama’s Kenya ghosts
By Mark Hyman | Sunday, October 12, 2008
Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama’s six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Mr. Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. “The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials,” Mr. Obama announced.
A commentor offers the above post quoting an article about Obama and Odinga. So let’s examine the article.
This article could be the twin of an earlier article I fisked by Daniel Johnson. Notice readers, that they are both offered as opinion pieces and not as news.
They both start with long backgrounds on Odinga. The idea seems to be to establish that Odinga is a bad guy. I do not dispute such an evaluation.
We’ll skip over all the “Odinga is a bad guy” stuff and get to the real point of the piece — which is an alleged relationship between Obama and Odinga:
Initially, Mr. Odinga was not the favored opposition candidate to stand in the 2007 election against President Mwai Kibaki, who was seeking his second term. However, he received a tremendous boost when Sen. Barack Obama arrived in Kenya in August 2006 to campaign on his behalf. Mr. Obama denies that supporting Mr. Odinga was the intention of his trip, but his actions and local media reports tell otherwise.
This first paragraph starts out weakly, talking about Obama’s “actions” and “local media reports.” These “actions” are not detailed nor are any “local media reports” cited. Let me state at the onset that I do not place much credibility in “local media reports” in Kenya, even if they WERE cited. I would want CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC or some other more reliable source before I’m going to be much impressed.
Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama’s six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Mr. Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. “The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials,” Mr. Obama announced.
The writer says Odinga and Obama were “inseparable,” claims that the “two traveled together” and that Obama spoke on Odinga’s behalf.” But how does the writer KNOW this, apparently having not been there himself? Was it those mysterious un-cited “local media reports” mentioned in the first paragraph? It is usually the practice of good journalism to name sources.
I’ve learned over the years to be very suspicious of “facts” claimed by writers from unnamed or anonymous sources. My suspicion is that in many cases the writer is simply making up material out of his own head in order to make his points seem more credible.
“Kenyans are now yearning for change,” he declared. The intent of Mr. Obama’s remarks and actions was transparent to Kenyans – he was firmly behind Mr. Odinga.
It is customary when using quotes to attribute the source. Was the quoted material from a published text of Obama’s speech? Was it from one of the “local media reports” on the speech? Was it from a video from CNN? In order to fairly judge the veracity of these quotes, which are taken out of context, the reader must have access to the whole speech, the source. This the writer does not provide.
Also, the writer, with the “intent of Mr. Obama’s remarks and actions was transparent to Kenyans – he was firmly behind Mr. Odinga” statement seems also to be able to read the minds of Kenyans. Mind reading: It’s such a fortunate ability to possess, eh?
Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama had met several times before the 2006 trip. Reports indicate Mr. Odinga visited Mr. Obama during trips to the U.S. in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
But how can the reader know that these meetings actually took place? Was the writer present? Obviously, no. So who TOLD the writer about these meetings? The reader is left in the dark because the writer never bothers to clear up these little details. The writer just flatly states what seem to be “facts” without offering any source for the “facts.”
Mr. Obama sent his foreign policy adviser Mark Lippert to Kenya in early 2006 to coordinate his summer visit. Mr. Obama’s August trip coincided with strategizing by Orange Democratic Movement leaders to defeat Mr. Kibaki in the upcoming elections. Mr. Odinga represented the ODM ticket in the presidential race.
All the above says is that Obama went to Kenya. Oh, it cleverly tries to imply something more — but implication is not truth, dear readers.
Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama’s father were both from the Luo community, the second-largest tribe in Kenya, but their ties run much deeper. Mr. Odinga told a stunned BBC Radio interviewer the reason why he and Mr. Obama were staying in near daily telephone contact was because they were cousins. In a Jan. 8, 2008, interview, Mr. Odinga said Mr. Obama had called him twice the day before while campaigning in the New Hampshire primary before adding, “Barack Obama’s father is my maternal uncle.”
Here we go again. The writer spends half the article telling the reader what a cad Odinga is, just as Daniel Johnson did — and then blithely accepts Odinga’s word about a crucial point, just as Daniel Johnson did. But let’s pause a bit here and think about this “cousin” thing … let’s say it turns out that Odinga actually IS Obama’s cousin … so what?
You know, I’ve got a couple of relatives who aren’t prize citizens, either — am I supposed to condemn myself because these relatives are not upstanding members of the community? Should we condemn Obama because someone who may be a relative of his is a bad person? I think not.
President Kibaki requested a meeting of all opposition leaders in early January in an effort to quell the violence. All agreed to attend except Mr. Odinga. A month later, Mr. Kibaki offered Mr. Odinga the role of prime minister, the de facto No. 2 in the Kenyan government, in return for an end to the attacks. Mr. Odinga was sworn in on April 17, 2008.
There is nothing in the above with which I would argue. There is also nothing in the above about Obama.
Mr. Obama’s judgment is seriously called into question when he backs an official with troubling ties to Muslim extremists and whose supporters practice ethnic cleansing and genocide. It was Islamic extremists in Kenya who bombed the U.S. Embassy in 1998, killing more than 200 and injuring thousands. None of this has dissuaded Mr. Obama from maintaining disturbing loyalties.
And the above ends the article. Well, I think most of us would agree that Obama’s judgement and policies in foreign affairs stinks. But I haven’t seen any proof in this article that Obama “backs” Odinga. In other venues I’ve seen adequate proof that Obama backs Zelaya, that Obama seems willing to tolerate the Iranian despots, that Obama is unwilling to help the protesters in Iran, that Obama is deficient in many, many other ways. But “backing” Odinga? Nope, nothing yet.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/12/obamas-kenya-ghosts/
Grackle–How do we know anything in “true” in this age of computers, technology, and special effects thanks to CGI?
It seems to me that if even news sources favorable to Obama–like CNN–report he was in Kenya campaigning for Odinga then he was, actually, in Kenya campaigning for Odinga. and that pictures of them together at campaign rallies were actual, fully truthful, unmanipulated pictures of an actual event, rather than piced together and phony CGI manipulations.
I suggest that you either give yourself a good “slap upside the head,” or you check the box for this blog and move on to your next assignment.
Grackle—How do we know anything in “true” in this age of computers, technology, and special effects thanks to CGI?
Let’s say for the sake of the commentor’s point that there was a fake CNN video with fake audio of Obama campaigning for Odinga. Such a video would be impossible to fabricate where it would be believable, even with Computer Generated Imagery.
The fake audio would have to sound like Obama, the fake words would have to be timed just right to correspond to Obama’s lip movements. Ever seen a foreign movie that was dubbed in English? Even a child can tell that the actors are not really uttering the words you hear. Even a child can tell the dialog is dubbed. And that’s with professional dubbers doing the job. Even then, try as they might, they really fool no one.
It seems to me that if even news sources favorable to Obama—like CNN—report he was in Kenya campaigning for Odinga then he was, actually, in Kenya campaigning for Odinga.
But contrary to what the commentor tries to assert, in neither video presented by the commentor did CNN “report” that Obama was campaigning for Obama. The only thing the CNN footage used in the video reported was that there was violence in Kenya, not that Obama was campaigning for Odinga. I ask the readers to view both videos and note that at no time in the videos is the CNN logo visible when the footage is about Obama. It is obvious that someone took some CNN reportage about violence in Kenya and spliced that in with other footage, source unknown and un-attributed, that someone else produced about Obama.
and that pictures of them together at campaign rallies were actual, fully truthful, unmanipulated pictures of an actual event, rather than piced together and phony CGI manipulations.
I saw soundless video of Obama speaking to crowds in Africa. I saw different photographs of Obama surrounded at various times with many different people, people that were no doubt Kenyan functionaries of various types.
Campaign rallies usually have signs. I saw no signs in any of the footage that had Obama in it.
In fact, none of us can know from the videos presented that the crowds gathered around Obama were there for “campaign rallies.” My guess is that the crowds were there to simply see and hear the famous visiting Senator.
During all this, Odinga managed to get himself videotaped and photographed in the presence of Obama, along with hundreds, perhaps thousands of other folks wanting to be videotaped and photographed in the presence of the Senator with African roots from America.
But none of THAT constitutes “campaigning” for Odinga. All it reflects is that many prominent African folks, Odinga among them, managed to get themselves videotaped(without sound) and photographed in Obama’s presence. Nothing more.
We never HEAR Obama uttering one word in favor of Odinga or mentioning Odinga at all. For all we know Obama could have been reciting Shakespeare to those African crowds. And this constitutes “campaigning” for Odinga?
I suggest that you either give yourself a good “slap upside the head,” or you check the box for this blog and move on to your next assignment.
But I LIKE this “assignment.” Debunking phony stuff does my soul and sense of fairness a world of good.
As for the commentator’s suggestion to “move on,” I’m going to have to point out that he seems to be assuming authority that he does not possess. There’s only one person that can order anyone off this blog and it isn’t the commentator.
What is the truth? That is all that matters.
Grackle–I see that you are determined to “deconstruct” anything the links Obama closely to Odinga, why I wonder? Somehow, I don’t think it is a noble and objective search for the Truth.
Not surprisingly, the MSM-the New York Times and Chicago Tribune, ABC News, The Hill, etc.–covered for Obama during his trip to Kenya and either did not report on it, or only reported on Obama giving a speech criticizing the corruption of the then current regime and visiting his native villiage, but didn’t report on his campaigning for Odinga.
Africa is a huge, poor, chaotic, and violent part of the third world, and local news coverage is mostly state controlled, sparse and not very sophisticated by our standards, and any local coverage of Obama that was critical of his activities was, I am sure, not exactly welcomed by our MSM or relayed to their audience.
There were several videos of Obama and Odinga campaigning together that included footage of Obama, Michaelle and Odinga together, and Obama giving speeches in praise of Odinga that I saw when they first hit the Internet back a few years ago, but they have been taken down from the Web due to a complaint that the music used on the videotape infringes on copyright; I have seen this tactic used before by the Left to take down all sorts of embarrassing things that showed up on the Web.
In any case, I suspect that even if I were to turn up an eyewitness to Obama campaigning for Odinga you would find some excuse to discredit his testimony, and if I found a long video of such campaigning for Odinga by Obama you would, similarly, find some reason to reject it as false. No doubt, were I to find ABC tape of Obama campaigning for Odinga, you would decide it was fake too. Believe what you will.
Grackle–I see that you are determined to “deconstruct” anything the links Obama closely to Odinga, why I wonder? Somehow, I don’t think it is a noble and objective search for the Truth.
All I’m “determined” to do is to examine the information with which we are all confronted on a daily basis to see if it is real instead of phony. Why? Because I enjoy debunking crap trying to pass itself off as “truth.” It is very easy, even for someone very observant, to fall into the trap of accepting fakery for fact simply because there is a dislike of the object of the fakery. Sometimes we see what we want to see or what we think we should be seeing.
I have never claimed to be “noble,” which is a construct by the commentor. I DO try to be “objective.”
Not surprisingly, the MSM-the New York Times and Chicago Tribune, ABC News, The Hill, etc.—covered for Obama during his trip to Kenya and either did not report on it, or only reported on Obama giving a speech criticizing the corruption of the then current regime and visiting his native village, but didn’t report on his campaigning for Odinga.
Did it ever occur to the commentor that the reason none of the news sources mentioned by him did not cover Obama “campaigning” for Odinga may have been that no such “campaigning” ever happened? Why didn’t FoxNews cover it, if it happened? FoxNews is NOT an Obama-lover. I think we all know that if FoxNews could expose Obama “campaigning” for Odinga that FoxNews would not hesitate to feature it.
Africa is a huge, poor, chaotic, and violent part of the third world, and local news coverage is mostly state controlled, sparse and not very sophisticated by our standards, and any local coverage of Obama that was critical of his activities was, I am sure, not exactly welcomed by our MSM or relayed to their audience.
The commentor believes that the MSM would not be accepting of African “local news coverage.” What I believe is that if FoxNews could get any African “local news coverage” videotape complete with sound of Obama “campaigning” for Odinga is that FoxNews would be pleased as punch to feature it. But soundless videotape and photos of Obama in front of curious crowds in which Odinga might be in the same shot? No reputable news outlet is going to claim such material is proof of anything, and rightly so. Crap is crap, whether it comes from Atlas Shrugs, from African “local news outlets” or any other source.
There were several videos of Obama and Odinga campaigning together that included footage of Obama, Michaelle and Odinga together, and Obama giving speeches in praise of Odinga that I saw when they first hit the Internet back a few years ago, but they have been taken down from the Web due to a complaint that the music used on the videotape infringes on copyright; I have seen this tactic used before by the Left to take down all sorts of embarrassing things that showed up on the Web.
Music can be taken off any videotape. It’s just another soundtrack that can be deleted. The commentor has proven himself to be easily fooled by spliced together, soundless videotape and insignificant photos from Atlas Shrugs so I just HAVE to question his recollection of videos he saw “years ago.”
In any case, I suspect that even if I were to turn up an eyewitness to Obama campaigning for Odinga you would find some excuse to discredit his testimony, and if I found a long video of such campaigning for Odinga by Obama you would, similarly, find some reason to reject it as false.
No doubt, were I to find ABC tape of Obama campaigning for Odinga, you would decide it was fake too. Believe what you will.
Well, considering the fact that folks will say anything to gain fame, notoriety, get themselves on TV or discredit a political figure they don’t like, the commentor is correct that I wouldn’t be inclined to believe “eyewitness” evidence.
But I saw it, I tell you! It landed right in the middle of the road! It had flashing lights and was all glowing and little green men came walking out of it!
However, if I saw a video from any source complete with sound of Obama obviously campaigning for Odinga I would believe it. So far the commentor nor anyone else has been able to produce such a video. What we have seen is soundless videos and photos of Obama in front of curious crowds in which Odinga is in the same shot … which prove nothing. What we have NOT seen is any videotape footage of Obama audibly campaigning for Odinga or even mentioning Odinga’s name.
Let me close by stating to the readers that I do not claim categorically that Obama did not campaign for Odinga. In fact, it would not surprise me to learn that Obama DID campaign for Odinga; I am not bound irretrievably to any one point of view. But as of this moment we have no reason to believe such a thing actually happened.