Over the last few years, I burned a lot of bridges: first on private e-mail lists and second on twitter (and a little bit with unwelcome posts here.)
After Obama got into office and made it clear that he was going to ramp up drones (which I knew and could not publish); and that he was going to drive the West into permanent depression (which I knew and wrote repeatedly); and my compatriots, by and large, fell to their knees and lauded him, even in places which later turned on him, I became, not angry, but enraged.
There were three camps on this:
1) Those who knew Obama was going to be a disaster and would not say it, because he was popular and speaking against a popular president who had just bought the Netroots and who most netroots citizens believed in, seemed like a way to lose readership or followers.
2) Those who believed that Obama was the Panglossian choice: this is the best we can get, the best of all possible worlds. That didn’t mean good, that meant bad, but better than terrible, so suck it up. Billmon falls into this camp on economic policy (the bailouts were the only politically possible policy and this is the best of all actually possible worlds), and I had a huge blowout with him last year about on twitter. He’s brilliant, but…
3) Those who believed and many of whom still believe that Obama was just swell; FDR reborn, who would (and has) accomplished more than FDR every did!
We all have our own truths and determining truth is a problem. I thought then that Obama might well be a one term president, and was wrong. But on the economics I was exactly right; and on foreign policy I was generally right: I knew that foreign policy was going to be a fiasco when he put Hilary Clinton in charge, because the one major area Hilary was to his right on was foreign policy. (Plus the whole drone thing. The only major candidate to say he didn’t believe in the war on Terror was Edwards, but when the unions decided not to back him (largely from gutlessness, in my opinion) he was done.)
I also predicted, following Stirling Newberry, that on civil liberties and constitutional issues he would institutionalize Bush. He was not the anti-Bush people imagined, but Bush’s heir, despite being a Democrat.
I got into blogging to, as the terrible cliche goes, change the world. I did not get into blogging to be a courtier to power, kissing the feet of those in power when I knew they were doing or going to do terrible things.
Add to this significant undiagnosed health problems, and I spent years angry.
I’m not someone who thinks that anger is always bad: often it gets people up off their asses. In the same way that hating your job means you should change jobs, and being unhappy may be a sign that something is wrong with your situation not with you, and you shouldn’t self medicate (you cannot explain the massive increase in depression and many other mental illnesses over the past century using individual factors, it is clearly a social problem, with social causes).
And so, for years, I cut people dead, and cut myself off from much of my old network (though certainly not all.) I look back now, calmer, and wonder “were these fights I needed to engage in?” I think—probably not, and yet, and yet: we lost and too many people just wouldn’t admit and made excuses for terrible policy.
We got a president who is worse on civil liberties than George Bush, who is still destroying countries, whose policies in combination with the Fed have lead to more than 100% of all gains going to the top 10% (and really about the top 3%); with a decrease in wealth and income for the majority of Americans and a ton of Europeans.
Obama may have given Americans a shitty version of universal health care (sort of), but in virtually every other way he is an unmitigated disaster.
And it was obvious way back, or it should have been. And people didn’t say who knew it; or didn’t know who should have because, let us be frank, they wanted the first African American president, no matter what, even if he was a right authoritarian and they wanted to live in a fantasy land where just electing a Democrat, any Democrat would fix things.
The simple truth is that the baby boomers are done. Their positive legacy is the improvement of women’s rights and gay rights (African American rights were won by the Silent and the GI generations.) Their negative legacy is an erosion of every other type of civil liberties that matters, right back to the Magna Carta; the vast erosion of America’s real economic power; the end of American egalitarianism and huge numbers of needless wars and deaths that have made America hated in large parts of the world.
As usual, some of my readers will object to this broad brush, but take it another way: old and middle aged people (Gen Xers too, a noxious generation politically); have had their days at bat, and those of us on the left have failed and failed and failed.
So it’s going to be another generation’s job to fix the huge mess that has been created: politically, economically and environmentally. That doesn’t mean there’s no job for older folks: but the young people will choose which older folks to learn from, follow and emulate. The job of those of us who are older, who lost, is to prepare the ground for the next war; the next battles.
If we do so, maybe we can keep the death toll from what is coming as low as a billion people.
Maybe.
So be it.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
Celsius 233
Wow Ian.
Can’t say I disagree with anything you said.
I liked the anger comment; anger has been demonized and declared illegal; bullshit!
I’m one angry SOB and have been for 50+ years.
The people in power are galoots, every one of them, every fucking one!
There is no such thing as a good government; anywhere, anytime.
People should hold every civil servant to a strict code of ethics, which is to say People need to be ever vigilant and actively involved in every single aspect of governance: Every second, minute, hour, day, week, month year, decade, and century. Job number one.
But people are mostly self concerned and stupid and the poorer they are the worse their decisions.
The U.S. is being povertyized (as you said) and thus their (citizen’s) decisions become worse and worse as their relative positions decline economically and their choices are thus more and more limited.
Anywho, great post…
Cheers
thepanzer
I was fool enough to believe Obama during the initial campaign. Plus he seemed vastly preferable to “America’s Margaret Thatcher” Miss Hilary. The moment Larry Summers was nominated the game was up though, as it was obvious he wanted to try and recreate the Clinton 90’s and wasn’t interested in actually fixing anything.
I’ve also had to swallow some bitter pills on Gen X, I used to hold the boomers and older gens responsible for the mess we’ve inherited. But my generation has proven to be even more useless than the boomers as we seemed to have bought and internalized the 80’s propaganda we grew up on hook, line, and sinker.
I don’t think we’ll see much change from the millennials aside from general dissatisfaction with how much they’ve been screwed over. I’m guessing it will be their children, who will grow up in a broken, unjust America, that even white privilege won’t be able to ignore/internalize, that may finally upend the status quo.
Until then I fully expect Gen X and older to go full in for any candidates who promise to bring the good times back, irrespective of how obviously corrupt/crazy/full of it they are.
someofparts
A relation once asked me why I hadn’t done some thing or other that I had hoped to do. I told her that I had tried and I had failed. Simple as that.
Also, I don’t take issue with your analysis of what boomers have and have not done. It seems fair.
Last thing, your post made me think of these lyrics from a song I like –
I’m not trying to give my life meaning
by demeaning you
and I would like to state for the record
I did everything that I could do
I’m not saying that I’m a saint
I just don’t want to live that way
…
And I’m beyond your peripheral vision
So you might want to turn your head
Cause someday you might find you’re starving
and eating all of the words you said
hopeless liberal
Tonight we announce the bombing of Syria to indirectly help Assad waste ISIL…one year ago we were on the other side. Just last year, Obama pleaded with the people and congress to bomb Syria, now he goes in without outward approval. Last year, both russia and China voiced disapproval in intervention, now the world is largely silent. I tend to think about that and get depressed and wallow in hopelessness.
I look at the latest reports on oil and gas usage with the projections by the oil companies themselves and the climate change situation looks additionally and equally dire.
I look at the war on drugs and Thomas Piketty’s analysis on income inequality and think more hopelessness. Why hasn’t Obama legalized many drugs with the swoop of a pen? Add the QE programs by the FED and ECB to stoke inflation that will erode the middle class, and we’re all on life support and morphine.
At this point, I only see a single event unifying us in giving up our divisiveness.
John B.
I would be curious to know how and where to read Billmon these days…
Mandos
As you might know, I’ve burned a bridge or three in my internetular existence.
Ironically, some of the bridges that were burned were because I took this position in places where it was unpopular to take it:
My problem was that the True Left Strong And Free hasn’t yet figured out how to make what is right and proper politically possible, and yet they expect elected politicians in a hierarchical, career-based political system, to take the lead when all the incentives militate against it, even for the most well-meaning politician. And a lot of people, but some people in particular, were not willing to hear it.
I do appreciate that despite the fact that you and I disagree(d) on this (and many of the related matters, such as whether Obamacare was a better idea than not) we at least have managed to remain on largely civil terms. Other places on the lefty interwebs go all Stalinist on you.
John B.
Just to add to the confessional: Truth be told, I probably fall into camp 2, but remain hugely disappointed by the President by recent acts (or non-acts) and past ones too that you have ably documented. Also, I must say, a lot of the support I do yield to him is because so many batshit insane racist asshats have made his life as president a living hell from the beginning. It wasn’t unexpected and one of his major faults is that he wasn’t prepared for the volatility and ridiculousness heaped upon him from the R’s and teatards. A good part of my support is largely because these folks are intolerable, IMO.
donkey factory
Ian says he was “right” about certain aspects of Obama. Sure, Ian knew Obama was first as the Black President, and Ian knew Obama was a Democrat. For these reasons Ian was a cheerleader for Obama. Because not Repugnican.
Ian regurgitates others and offers the thoughts as his own. Ian shames those who don’t agree with Ian’s views. That’s “right” of course. As in correct. Ian knows his audience, even if he doesn’t know what’s really going on. He’s Ian Welsh, and he’s been published at HuffPo and DailyKos, so you know he’s correct.
I’d like to see a tally of actual fact points on which Ian was correct about Obama. Other than the first Black President thing, and other than the Democrat thing, and other than the not Repugnican thing.
Mostly because I haven’t seen Ian write accurate analysis of anything. But he is Ian Welsh, and he has been published at HuffPo and DailyKos. I bet Digby even cut-and-pasted an Ian remark once. That shows inerrancy, doesn’t it?
grayslady
It isn’t the boomers who failed, Ian: it’s the generation immediately preceding the boomers–those now in their 70s and 80s. Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein aren’t boomers, Barack Obama isn’t a boomer–these are the offspring of the generation that preceded the boomers. That generation never fought a war in Europe, or a war in Vietnam. There were so few men in that generation that they easily obtained jobs and places in college. The “greatest generation” understood that the purpose of education was to give something back to society, not personal enrichment. There was a strong sense of morality that they passed on to their progeny, the baby boomers, who fought against inequality for women and blacks, who opposed military fiascos such as Vietnam, and who generally understood the concept of the commonwealth. It was the succeeding generation that grew up without ever hearing the word “no”, that didn’t respect unions or blue collar workers, that never seemed to have any moral compass.
You speak about whether you could have been more diplomatic in expressing yourself, but I think you are forgetting how really obnoxious the pro-Obama contingent was pre-2008. There was simply no rational way to get through to them. It was as though they were caught up in some mass ecstasy.
As for the role of boomers today, I think it is the responsibility of those of us who were brought up by parents who stressed the value of the commonwealth to keep reminding later generations that it was that value that created a period (albeit short) of genuine prosperity, good will and opportunity for self-actualization instead of working three jobs just to survive.
Frank Shannon
I find your optimism weird and I can’t figure out where it comes from. “So it’s going to be another generation’s job to fix the huge mess that has been created: politically, economically and environmentally. ” I cannot imagine that another generation will fix these problems. Civilization will collapse and the overwhelming majority will die, that’s as close as these problems get to fixed.
Formerly T-Bear
Amusing post over at Zero Hedge where Poland has been informed their gas supply from Gasprom this winter is to be cut from 20 to 24% less than prior. Poland has apparently been reverse flowing their gas supply to (the) Ukraine. Seems Moscow isn’t too pleased, sanctions and all you know.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-10/russian-retaliation-begins-gazprom-limiting-eu-gas-cuts-poland-supplies-20-past-two-
Another new meaning to the term ‘Cold War’. Maybe some manners will be put on the swell heads in Brussels, but wouldn’t hold ones breath for that occurrence. Maybe a new version of that old TV show – Truth or Consequences – might be in order, for old times sake.
mistah charley, ph.d.
John B. states I would be curious to know how and where to read Billmon these days…
he tweets, and you can read him, without signing up for twitter yourself (you are offered a chance to do so, but you need not accept it), at
https://twitter.com/billmon1/
i also look at the tweets for Fafblog, tomtomorrow, distantocean, and tomdispatch
the Panglossian choice
the optimist exclaimed, “this is the best of all possible worlds!”
the pessimist glumly replied, “i’m afraid you’re right”
john c. halasz
I never put much stock in Obama. To me, it was always clear that he was a center-right corporate Democrat, not much different from Clintons. I just wondered if he at all knew or understood what was coming, (what was already happening), economically. Apparently not at all. The choice of Biden was a first sign. Rahm Emmanuel the day after was more proof, (as originally a native Chicagoan), but Summers and Geithner were the final straw, even before the inauguration. So even my limited expectations were disappointed. But the final death knell was Deep Water Horizon, where the Obama administration kept on insisting that it was just 1000 brls. per day leaking, when outside experts examining the publicly available data said, no, it’s more like 50,000 plus per day. The professionals in NOAA and NASA must surely have know the truth, but were suppressed by political operatives. That was the final proof of Obama’s sublime indifference.
Hussla
A lesson for all – Politics is about embracing yourself in other peoples lies.
Obama and suprise suprise whoever else is in the pecking order are nothing but yes men. Their illusion of power is fake. They basically spit in everyones face and people are too stupid to realise.
Mallam
Not much to say, except I largely agree with Mandos. And Billmon (why won’t he move beyond twitter again…ugh).
Anyway, never put much faith into Obama, though I will say I expected better in some areas — most of what’s come to pass is about what I expected.
Bernard
i knew Obama was a Republican when he praised St. Reagan at his victory speech. Being Black gave him gravitas, like being a woman will give Hillary the Vichy/Democratic Party lock in the run for President. Obama was/is the best Republican in politics today. Watching him suck up to the Republican and offer Social Security and lie about Single Payer was more than enough to prove his Republican credentials.
being a Boomer i can tell you lots of them/us grew up believing in the Republican propaganda about socialist FDR and helped to destroy all the connections that made our society work. it wasn’t just the avowed Republicans who continue to unravel the bonds of society. it takes two to tango. the turmoil of the 60’s was a key the Republicans used to scam voters. just look back to the killings at Kent State and Jackson State. the Establishment/TPTB’s/ Republicanism’s Greed is Good mantra showed it would kill those who disagreed, i.e.the political assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK. the use of St Reagan’s folksy PR to finish off unions along with Unions selling out are some of the pieces of the puzzle that allow such Manchurian Candidates like Bush and Obama and Hillary to complete the return to the Gilded Age. the idea of Reagan as “good” is enough to destroy any sense of humanity and hope for life on Earth.
the blaming of any one generation is not correct, though the pervasive dismantling of the Great Society has been mostly achieved by St. Reagan/The Contract on America/ the War on Drugs. each is a part of the puzzle that has allowed Village Idiots like Clinton and Bush to undermine any sense of American value. of course, the destruction of the American Values by incorporating the Right wing Religious Taliban/Evangelicals, Right Wing Christians really did finish any semblance of society where average people have human worth.
the Republicans aka Fascists, did what they intended to do when the “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” was accepted as the groundwork for those violent unprincipled “leaders” of the Right and the vacillating sell out Left. i know one of my Depression era parents voted for St. Reagan, and my siblings as well. and so did I! imagine that. i made the most colossal mistake of my life by voting Republican, which had terminably fatal consequences. and i abhor Republican values/Fascism. just to watch America repeat the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, well. what can i say? as Goebbels said, “Claim your country is under attack and call those who don’t believe in war traitors” really does work.
Sinclair Lewis said “When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag carrying the Cross.
Americans are easy. the American Exceptionalism heresy and all that. lies, lies and more lies. truth is hard to face when you have the 1% telling you what you want to hear. all the generations are to blame for how we got here, along with the exceptional qualities of Big Business helping us sell ourselves out. as one commercial from Toyota used to say, “You asked for it, You got it,” lol.
i remember hearing that a lady in Iowa in the early ’70s compared the R’s and D’s to Tweedledee and Tweedledum. it took me years to “get” it. Americans are also very afraid of connecting to their neighbors, lest the common bonds be realized and the realities we see today be accepted as fact. when Jimmy Carter said to wear a sweater and turn down the heat to lower our utility bill, Americans revolted at such a thought. after all, St. Reagan offered a
new Morning/Mourning in America, that Shining light on the hill. Americans never wanted to own up to the Banana Republics we created in Central and South America. to think Kissinger is allowed to breathe freely today after the 9-11 in Chile in 1973, well, that is proof how willingly all Americans, across all the generations, are responsible for our situation today.
Chalmers Johnson wrote many books about Blowback. the military industrial congressional complex is responsible for lots of the ills we see today. like the “illegal” latinos who leave their countries for the great American Satan. when you realize how bad the Banana Republics are and that we are responsible for this, watching the flow from South of the Border, i wonder why more don’t rush over the border.
the Fascist Republicans and Vichy Democrats aren’t going to budge one iota. they have a nice set up whereby they go to cushy revolving doors “positions” in Wall St. or other Corporate offices.
ever seen a Democrat hold the Congress hostage to demand support for Social Security increases? never! i’ve seen lots of Republicans do just the opposite, shut down America just to stop Social Security or Medicare increases or anything for the common good.
until we as a nation find a “common ground” we are just remaining back in the era of Reconstruction/Gilded Age whereby organized groups can hold the rest of us hostage. the destruction of our common society took many years to do once the Republicans’poison took over Congress in 1980. it is complete, though. we have our own Religious Taliban imposing their religions on us/Hobby Lobby/Pro Birthers/NRA. Dr. Tiller had no Right to Life in America. and we openly support Saudi Arabia and their extremists ISIS/al Queda/Taliban the Saudis created. Timothy McVeigh and the Right have never been held accountable to selling us out for Gold. we have returned to the Wild Wild West, this time with enough guns to kill the whole world, no just some of us at an OK Corral fight out.
our values are immoral and antisocial. how anyone can applaud the values of St. Reagan(yet Obama does) and Margaret Thatcher, who said, “there is no such thing as society, only individual men and women.” that is beyond my ken. hatred of the other is hatred of our own selves.
we are finished as a country until enough of us are able to overthrow the “Greed is Good”or the American Exceptionalism mentality that cements the foundation of the R and D monopoly. Till then, we are easy prey.
Tony Wikrent
There is another negative legacy of the baby boomers, and I would argue that it is the most important: the end of the Enlightenment. The United States was founded as part of the political and scientific Enlightenment, and I believe Timothy Ferris is correct when he argues that they are not only inseparable, but that it was the Scientific Revolution which enabled the Political Enlightenment, not the other way around. As one commenter on my recent post, “The Higgs boson and the purpose of a republic” observed, science and the Enlightenment “was more important to the Founding Fathers than was being saved by the Blood of the Lamb.”
Today, the most important metric for the USA right wing is not truth, but doctrinal purity. One of Sam Brownback’s supporters even created a website arguing that heliocentrism was a dirty liberal plot, because the Bible states that Earth is the middle of the firmament. This a full half century after we used slide rules to put men on the moon. One wonders how we manage to keep our society functional in the face of such militant stupidity.
On the left, unfortunately, we find a general distrust of science and technology, largely wrapped within the issues of environmentalism and militarism. I can at least understand this distrust, though I strongly disagree with it. Also to be noted is that the concept of “progress” has been radically and pejoratively changed since the late 18th century. Progress back then had a much clearer connotation of expanding humanity’s control over nature, especially developing mechanical means for replacing human muscle power. I do not think it is exaggeration to use the phrase “entirely lost” to describe the notion of improving the power of labor: works of USA political economy from the 18th and 19th centuries simply were grounded in the idea of increasing the ability of labor to perform work by applying new and improved means of mechanical manipulation (for example, steam power), or improving the fertility of the soil by applying new agricultural methods and techniques. About 20 years ago, there was an excellent display at Mount Vernon about “Washington, the Scientific Farmer,” who kept careful records of the differences in yield produced by the use of different fertilizers and tools. One “scientific” innovation Washington tried in 1792 was a round barn designed to make threshing as efficient as possible.
Now, economics texts are jammed full of monetarism and other crap pertaining to financialization.
Finally, it should also be note that today, the concept of progress is heavily polluted by the rise of a consumerist/corporatist culture in which “new and improved” routinely is used as a marketing slogan for some of the silliest and most useless gimcracks and gee-gaws imaginable.
Dan H
I’m a milennial – this generation isnt fixing shit. The smartest of us know we know nothing. What has been lost has been outlawed, and we are already caged. Of the remaining 80%, half think Apple is god. The other half think Samsung is a substantive difference. This country needs to burn.
Jeff Wegerson
Worked to elect actually progressive Chicago mayor Harold Washington . Signed on to work Obama’s senate run. But because he had plenty of money he never actually had to run a real ground cAmpaign. That was an early indication to me he was not a real progressive. Final straw for me was as a senator he sided with Lieberman. I told people during pres run that Obama was no progressive. Still hoped some of his political rhetoric might materialize. Oh we’ll.
But I was here in Chicago. You know I wondered at the time how it had taken me so long to become aware of him. Now I recognize the he either injected himself or was injected into the insider track of Illinois politics specifically to rise quickly and grab all of just the right political mantels and trappings.
Mary McCurnin
It was the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that Barry voted for that clued me in. Never trusted him after that. It was so very much confirmed by the BP disaster. The MF’er let BP clean up their own mess. I was down in Grand Isle and saw what was going on. Words fail me.
Dan Lynch
After Obama got into office and made it clear that he was going to ramp up drones (which I knew and could not publish)
Ian, would you care to explain the “I knew and could not publish” part?
Agree that my boomer generation is not going to fix things — old people don’t lead revolutions. If a revolution comes, it will have to come from the young people.
FWIW I did not vote for Obama and have been an Obama critic from day one. But disagree with Ian about placing a lot of responsibility on voters in our fake democracy. No matter which millionaire we vote for, the oligarchs win. We don’t get to vote on the issues.
lowfiron
Yves Smith posted a somewhat similar piece yesterday. She mentioned the frustration of posting all the information, some technical economic concerns others political and environmental that seem to be going into the ethers. It was a theme of frustration and doubt.
She said that we (left liberal progressives whatever) did not get any traction and didn’t prevent the elite finance institutions and people from corrupting- preventing reform that was given lip service to and then ignored. Evil foreign policy was not prevented, civil rights were eroded and the surveillance state was enhanced.
She pointed out that many of these losses would eventually tip the status quo over and things would change for better. She claims to be a stoic. You just keep on speaking to the injustice and corruption and eventually the mainstream comes around.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/09/finance-social-justice.html
Ian Welsh
I had a source, but the publisher in question would not publish unless the source used their name.
Of course, using their name would have lost them their livelihood and security clearance at the least, and exposed them to prison at the worst.
Generally, one should reveal sources, but there are times and places where keeping them secret is appropriate.
Tony Wikrent
Well, if this is the game we’re playing, I’ll shove my three cents in. On January 7, 2008, well before the election, I assessed the economics team of Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Kucinich. Looking back at it, I see no reason to change anything.
I especially like what I wrote about Kucinich, because I think while those of our political persuasion have come a long way, I still don’t think people quite yet are prepared for the viciousness of the fight ahead of us. Ian has been absolutely correct in warning that our adversaries have to be “crushed.”
— Who will tell Wall Street to shove it?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/07/432425/-Who-will-tell-Wall-Street-to-shove-it#
willf
OT but related: Billmon’s blog – http://www.moonofalabama.org/
Stirling Newberry
The that has been all which is really a the voice of the people mad is very simple, he is going to bomb ISIS, without saying he is going to side with Syria.
This is a touchstone, and it will mean that people who have in ignored will be back in the limelight, because it will be recognized as one thing that Obama would not due if elected. still to small to measure, but it is a larger world that before. Use it well Ian, use it well.
OldSkeptic
Obama is a Wall St president. His job, which he did wonderfully was to protect them after their disaster of the GFC (what we Australians call the global financial collapse).
No new laws, no arrests, no convictions, etc. few slap on the wrist fines here and there for public consumption.
In most ways he compares far worse than Reagan. When the savings and loans scandal hit hundreds of CEOs (etc) went to jail.
People never examined his record in Chicago, he was always a big money guy. Those who got disappointed in him were as naive as those who got disappointed by Clinton (another big money guy).
What did you all expect? The US political system is so corrupt that it is impossible for someone to come into power that is not a tool for one, or more, of the major interests.
When a system becomes systematically (or in other terms institutionally) corrupt then there is no hope of getting someone up there that will change things.
FDR was an aberration in that he was of old wealth and turned on his own class. People like that are as rare as hens teeth, but the system now has become so bad that I don’t think even another FDR could pull it off.
The US political system is now in the same sort of state as the old USSR political system was, just before it collapsed. It has no legitimacy any longer in the eyes of the people, its decision making processes are so corrupted by moneyed interests that it can never make sensible decisions for the mass of the population.
It is a country ripe for a military/oligarch takeover, revolution, total collapse, even break up into separate states. What it can’t do is continue as it is for much longer, 5 years would be a limit in my eyes, the next GFC will kill it totally.
Sadly for the Americans, most of the rest of World thinks “thank god for that, sooner please”……
RAY
BE THANKFUL HE DIDN’T FIX ANYTHING AS ANYTHING HE TOUCES WILL TURN TO DUST !
Formerly T-Bear
@ OldSkeptic 11 Sept 2014 #64726
Need to take exception to this hollow opinion:
This opinion has taken ground amongst those who do not demonstrate any great command of history much past what happened last week. This opinion does serve to sow doubt upon historical accuracy though. Once doubt is planted, no fact remains, however valid, secure. I truly hope you are not amongst those who would have this condition perpetuated. If you are so, I shall have been gravely disappointed in your sizable command of fact and ability to convey to those not so endowed. Your mistake is in not recognising the elite are not homogenous in their views. It is certain the views of Rockefellers, Mellons or the Harrimans did differ diametrically from Roosevelt’s views but to maintain as you’re suggesting in your quote is falsely misleading. Roosevelt was supported by a sizable fraction of his class, maybe a majority.
Tony Wikrent
Regarding Franklin Roosevelt as a “class traitor” —
Yesterday, brooklynbadboy had a startling post on DailyKos discussing exactly which districts Zephyr Teachout won and lost in New York City.
— http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/10/1328535/-NYC-Where-Teachout-won-and-where-she-lost
I suggest there’s some heavy thinking we need to do about these results. My initial impression was that these results show how important it remains to have an established political machine on the ground.
I also recommend a look at Matt Stoller’s analysis: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/09/matt-stoller-5-reasons-zephyr-teachout-phenomenon-5-reasons-andrew-cuomo-still-governor.html
Note this in Stoller’s update:
And, off topic, but I like the first comment there enough to quote it here:
Actually, that last quote perhaps provides some insight into part of the dissatisfaction with the status quo evidenced by some of the wealthy who voted for Teachout.
Celsius 233
@ Formerly T-Bear
September 11, 2014
@ OldSkeptic 11 Sept 2014 #64726
Need to take exception to this hollow opinion:
Don’t expect much of a reply.
He’s not up for much criticism it seems…
Which is a pity given the volume of his posts…
ibaien
as a millennial, i’ll concur with the comment by dan h above. shit is fucked and the world needs to burn. we’ve come of age seeing the political process fail, and fail, and fail, and you can only get fooled so many times. virtually every one of my peers has abandoned not only both major parties, but also any real belief that things could ever get better. the climate is in tatters, and it’s too late. resources are dwindling, and it’s too late. the idea that humanity could be an agent for good in the world is vanishing, and it’s too late.
and as for us, we cultivate our own gardens. what else can you do?
Tom
Well Iraq is getting interesting again, ISA counterattacked and retook Bashiqa and Batnaya from the Kurds despite Airstrikes and still hold positions near Erbil. The Kurdish attempt to take Hawija failed and an ISA counter-attack threw them from the city.
YPG is currently being ground into the dust in Kobane, ISA took a string of Euphrates Villages and are beginning to cut a SW bank enclave of Kobane on the Euphrates from supply. FSA units still resisting in the Euphrates basin have joined forces with YPG, but not much hope for YPG their latest graduation class of fighters was 45 members for the Kobane Canton. ISA is getting at least 6,000 new recruits a month and has now completely absorbed Ansar al-Sharia which has disbanded and swore bayah to Khilifah Ibrahim.
Turkey has also closed the border to Kobane Canton, and Kobane is only able to get 40% of its water needs and is relying on a command economy to stretch supplies. Since Turkey considers YPG terrorists worse than IS, its no surprise.
Military wise, YPG are tough, resourceful, light infantry, good on the defensive but get massacred when attacking ISA. Also the fact they have deploy women to the front is a clear sign they are losing. Despite rumors to the contrary, ISA has no problems fighting women soldiers, they regularly post pictures of killed Female YPG fighters, though they censor their hands for some odd reason, as well as pictures of captured female fighters.
Kobane won’t last long unless they get serious help.
alyosha
I’m afraid I’m with Dr Pangloss on Obama. Sure, he’s a Wall St money guy, and he likes to kill people from the air, but.. it could be so very much worse. And after eight years of Bush/Cheney, I had enough of “worse”, and enough of being angry. I know from first hand experience the bad health effects of chronic, sustained anger.
As a boomer, I recall wearing a black tie and a frown to work the day Reagan was re-elected in 1984. While some of my generation went along with the Gipper, I view Generation X with horror as the ones who basically were energized by his glib charm, and are the backbone of the conservative wave that began with Reagan.
So skip Generation X, they’ve been fed conservative BS with their mother’s milk, they simply don’ t know any better. Decades ago, I tried to explain the difference between the 1960s and the 1980s to a Gen Xer – who was star-crossed with Reagan, and who said “weren’t the 80s great???”. I explained that it was like comparing color to black and white, but then this kid had no experience of color, and my words meant nothing to him.
Even though millenials believe it’s all over, my greatest hope is with them. And I find I connect really well with that generation, far more than I ever could with Gen X.
EmilianoZ
I feel your pain. Unfortunately, us old farts will not die soon enough for the millennials to right things. Most likely we will drag them down with us. Do we have any attenuating circumstances? Could we say that we grew up with the most powerful all-encompassing mass media propaganda machine the world has ever seen?
OldSkeptic
Celsius & T-Bear, oh I’ll stick by that as a shorthand description of the FDR phenomenon.
Naturally the politics of the time were complex, but you can’t get past the fact that he betrayed his own upper elite class, to the benefit of the working and middle classes, much to the anger (even to this day) of that elite.
In doing so, he essentially saved the US as a functioning republic and democracy. Imagine a US without him, the depression would have ground on with the Govt becoming ever more repressive to maintain social order. Yes, there would have been an upward blip because of WW2. But after that the US would have quickly sunk back into recession/depression again.
WW2, like WW1 would have been a time of ever greater corruption and wealth concentration as the spoils of war spending went disproportionally to the elites. Plus high inflation which would have hammered ordinary people, again as per WW1. After it, you would have had a ‘austerity’ Govt that would have dumped all those returning GIs on the scrapheap..again as per WW1.
Very few historians give FDR credit for essentially saving the US as a functioning democratic society, because the political/economic model of the time was on the way out back then, just like now, because it has totally failed.
So FDR was a rare phenomena, but betting on another like him to ride in and save everyone is IMHO a suckers bet. Might happen, but the odds are pretty low.
Even more so in that back then there were a large number of intellectual alternatives to the dominant stream of thought. Capitalism was on the nose back then because of its abject failure. Socialism, communism, social democracy, the great work of John Maynard Keynes and so on were all available as competing ideologies . Bits and pieces of which could be borrowed and used as required.
There is nothing like that now, neo-liberalism is the totally dominant ideology, no alternative is even considered now. There is no alternative intellectual framework available for anyone to use, to even propose something else is to be laughed out of court.
So a modern FDR would really have their work cut out. Everything that was considered and introduced back then has been torn up and ‘refuted’ , could you imagine someone trying to get a 90% income tax rate on high earners back again? Or high capital taxes? Even so called left wing people in the US would protest against that now….so dominant has the neo-liberal ideology become (most of so called left in the US are just ‘light’ neo-liberals now).
Might happen, I wouldn’t recommend any breath holding though, but the most probable route for the US is a steady grinding down for every normal person until a USSR like collapse. And, barring a miracle there is sod all anyone can do to stop it, the momentum is just too great.
And getting all worked up (and some do) about someone, who appears marginally to the left of the current political elite (but still far more economically right wing than Nixon was) getting into politics is a complete waste of time. The impact, even if they succeed and they are not really a Trojan horse for the elites (most likely), will be precisely zero.
OldSkeptic
Tom, Ive been holding off on commenting on the whole ISIS (or IS now I suppose until a new name next week) for awhile, since the Ukraine has been the real game in town.
As noted before, they are very good on the offensive, but they have shown themselves weak on the defensive, but they balance that to an extent by quick counter attacks, expensive in fighters though. Poor at anti-air as well. The Novarussia Army they are not, but they are still better than anyone else there (except Syria and Hezbollah of course).
They are still growing, but clearly consolidating very effectively. They are here to stay now. There is going to be no Sunni counter revolution against them in the foreseeable future.
The current question is how much of the Kurdish areas do they want? Some or all? It is really is their choice now. Oh yes it will cost them but they have shown the fortitude to take losses and they have the forces to do it.
The Iraq Shia will be able to hold their areas, but counter attack in any significant way? Doubt it.
After the initial panic the US/Turkey/SA/Israel are settling down now. Their strategy is quite clear now, that is to try and get IS to head back to Syria and finish off Assad (then later attack Hezbollah, Iran and Russia). To do so they will use a mix of sticks and carrots.
The US will bomb the heck out of the Syrian Army for them (accidentally of course), that is one carrot (get on the program and we will clear the way for you). Money and arms from the US and of course SA will be another carrot. The ‘big’ stick is that they will be bombed if they go ‘off reservation’. The US would prefer (actually the Israelis would prefer) them to leave the Kurds alone, SA (and probably Turkey) cheers every Kurd they kill of course. So that dynamic is going to be interesting.
So the US (and the rest of the ‘Coalition of the Stupid’) thinks IS can be made ‘manageable’ (as Obama so revealingly said) and get them back on track.
What IS actually chooses to do will be the most interesting thing of all, after slipping its leash I suspect they have other ideas and plans.
I still have a gut feeling that IS sees SA as the real prize and probably the only way they can really ensure their long term survival. The logical way will be to stir up young Sunnis in SA to soften them up first, but IS has shown itself well capable of surprise.
Plus they know that if SA appears really under direct threat the US and NATO will pour troops in there to defend it, so if/when they go for it they have to use surprise and speed to grab power before the west can react.
So interesting times…bet on oil futures…
Tom
Boko Haram has now been confirmed despite denials by “experts” to have sworn bayah to Khilifah Ibrahim making them like Al-Shabaab an extension of the Islamic State and several Taliban splinter factions are now openly considering declaring bayah to Khilifah Ibrahim if they see that he is the true Khilifah.
Jordan and Saudi Arabia are clamping down tight knowing their people will defect en-masse to the Khilafah. AQAP is on the fence of joining IS. Lebanon is in schizo paralysis with LAF and Hezbollah trying to drag them kicking and screaming into fight IS with the Sunnis divided, the Amal Faction wanting nothing to do with the Syrian Conflict, the Maronites on edge, and IS poised to land like an anvil.
Assad is digging in as his forces are exhausted, demoralized, and starting to fragment. Constant reminders that IS will behead them if they don’t surrender are causing large amounts of desertions and defections. Deir Ezzor and Khweres Airport are under tight siege with IS ordering civilians nearby to evacuate, indicating a storm is imminent. IS is estimated to have massed 20,000+ troops around Deir Ezzor, 5,000 around Khweres, an unknown number in Hasakah Province, estimated in the thousands by YPG and aimed at Qamishli,
It looks like ISA is aiming to knock out regime airports in Khweres, Deir Ezzor, and Qamishli to essentially finish off Assad’s Northern Airforce to prevent it from ranging over North Eastern Syria, then clean out North Eastern Syria in preparation for a broad front offensive south and west to the coast come spring/summer.
If such an offensive succeeds, many fence sitting groups will declare bayah in Syria, and if Damascus falls, Ibrahim will have legitimized his claim to Khilifah and will be able to move his capital from Raqqah to Damascus. That will screw Israel, as ISA can’t allow Israel to be on its flanks, thus those nations will fight concurrently in Lebanon (kicking off a side Hezbollah/LAF vs Israel Fight) and in Jordan. Hamas will likely join in and a big mess starts with Israel attacking everyone, stretching its forces thin, getting ground up in an attritional struggle, then collapsing in morale before being destroyed.
Bruce Wilder
I don’t think I have burned so many bridges, but I have probed the ring of protective complacency, which nominally liberal Democrats have surrounded Obama. People, who claim to feel deeply dissatisfied at the end with Bush II, and contributed to the wave elections of 2006 and 2008, bringing Democrats promising change, large Congressional majorities and the Presidency, and then . . . . not much changed — I’ve asked how they feel about that.
My general impression from pressing people on why they are not more dissatisfied with the change that didn’t materialize is that large numbers of people didn’t really want change; they wanted to preserve the world, not reform it. They didn’t see the political economy of GWB as dysfunctional in any, but a theatrical sense. The only thing that upset most people was gas prices — not, say, the corruption and waste of the housing bubble, or the thousands dead among the rubble in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the horror and dishonor of torture.
Lots of people fixate on “it could be so very much worse” in the way an accident victim grabs hold of an analysis of “how lucky they were” that something infinitely worse did not happen. This may be followed by some mumbling about not making the perfect the enemy of the good or what’s politically possible. If I press really hard, I get, “what choice did Obama have?” and that may be followed with “what choice did we [voters qua political consumers?] have?” I try to take the tact that many key issues have not been all that subtle or nuanced: I will point out that almost no one went to jail in the greatest financial crisis in 70 years is extraordinary and is bound to have bad consequences going forward, or that Afghanistan has been the longest, and together with Iraq among the most expensive wars in American history, and has had no discernible result.
There’s a deep demoralization setting in, as it gradually settles in with people in the U.S. that the country has been “on the wrong track” for more than a decade, and there’s not going to be an option for change — the moment for change came and went in 2007-8, and opportunities for real change won’t come again. The people, who run the country, are not working for us; they are not nice, or kind or loyal. They mean to do the majority harm. Ian talks about the epidemic of depression. In the U.S., we’re a whole country of abused children — passive, dependent, sad and in denial. And, among developed countries, we’re not unusual. Spain, with a center-right government and unemployment among those under 30 near on 50% is a horror show. I doubt that many Americans have much awareness of exactly how Japan’s prolonged “bright depression” has ground down the younger generation. Sweden seems to be abandoning its social welfare state.
I think the rallying around Obama on ISIL in the last weeks has had an oddly brittle feel to it, a sense of unreality as the country repeats the old mistakes. The propaganda goes forward, and the search for calm voices finds few. But, there is that search.
My expectation would be increasing political violence in the U.S. — some of it individuals going postal, some of it echoes of Ferguson. The U.S. economy is stepping down a long path toward third world incomes and infrastructure, and each step downward, and the long ramp between steps, adds to the stress. One might think social media would make it possible to pull together mass-membership organization quite quickly, but I suspect we’re still in the early days, when mostly the fish bowl of social media makes it possible to subtly quash rebellion and political organizing, drawing any passions off into isolated febrility with trolling and triviality. Propaganda uses tribalisms, consumerism and fake outrages to serve the cause of the inverted totalitarianism under which we live, with resentments made to order in PR shops.
The anti-authoritarianism of the boomers fed the Carter deregulation policies and the Reagan Revolution — it was an excuse to dismantle the New Deal institutions, and harvest the energy. Neither the boomers nor the X-ers, nor, I suspect, the Millennials, have any idea how to build a set of institutions, which can work to solve manifest problems. Neoliberalism staggers onward discredited, but still unopposed, and its main lesson is learned helplessness, which just fits right in with the epidemic of depression, which is as much about the dearth of social affiliation as material circumstances. That “bowling alone” phenomenon makes populist political organizing almost impossible. The millennials, in my limited observation, are much more team-oriented and group-oriented than the Gen Xers or Boomers, so maybe that will reverse. Someone born in 1994 — roughly the mid-millenial — is 20 years old. They may be re-building social ties and affiliations, and with them, some semblance of psychological health. They’re certainly getting their economic expectations hammered. On the down side, they take as natural, a class-ridden society devoid of any sense of fairness or leadership responsibility.
peteybee
@Ian Welsh
Well said. Getting elected was Obama’s big accomplishment, and I was happy for it, because I think it was a crucial step on the long road to healing the dysfunctional legacy of US’s racist past. But otherwise… yeah.
Basically the political system is tuned perfectly to demoralize reformers and steer them away from anything meaningful. This is the first thing that has to be broken — the mechanism of political stability, or bi-stability (flipping back and forth between Democrat and Republican.)
One technical tweak that could help weaken the stranglehold of the two “main” parties, not sure if I meantioned it on this site, is Instant Runoff voting. Please read!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
Cheers.
PS- Regarding last night’s ISIS speech — wtf????
Gaianne
Ian–
I liked this post. There is a lot I resonate with. To get the admission over with: I voted for Obama one time. But I learned! Why can’t people learn?
About generational thinking: It is good for slogans, but otherwise not so useful. I am old enough to remember “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” Did we think that would never come back to bite us? I figured it would, but at the time it was pure tactics, and useful.
It is important to remember that the good things we remember the Boomers for, such as the Anti-war movement, were always minority endeavors, and–though they made for a short while a wonderful splash–were soon overcome, or outright defeated, and then effectively slandered and tarnished into oblivion. And this was possible both because they faced an implacable opposition and because the majority were always more concerned with fitting in, and getting a place at the gravy train.
Other movements we hardly remember at all. The hippies? The Black Panthers? These two could not be more different, but both suffered from inadequate strategy and a comprehensive assault from the State prominently featuring black propaganda. Defeat for both was pretty near total. All that is left are perjorative labels of contempt or fear.
So it is with other generations: Most people are doing nothing. A creative few will make a splash until they threaten the state (if they do) and then will be wiped out.
These days I am meeting a lot of very alert people in their twenties. They are a tiny minority, but they seem to have a deep sense of what they are doing that will carry them through the long haul. No benevolent changes are on the horizon, and they know it–they seem to have looked a step ahead.
The vast majority of their peers are just the opposite–engrossed in electronic toys to a degree that makes electronic addiction seem a real thing (and worse than drugs) and just clueless and hopeless: Nothing will come from them.
So real change is not in the cards: Everything is underground.
–Gaianne
Formerly T-Bear
@OldSkeptic 11 Sept 2014 #64749
Celsius 233 was too skeptical that your reply might appear, 233ºC is usually quite astute about those things. The form you’ve chosen to reply shows disregard for the norms of civil discourse, your lengthy lecturing is not appreciated, your assumptions regarding history are false and have not been in existence for much more than a decade. The passage I quoted added nothing to your original comment, was extraneous to their direction and revealed a fundamental ideological agenda. The thrust of your reply is disingenuous. It became a surreptitious presentation of fraudulently manufactured fact serving solely the agenda of neoliberal ends.
This raises a question of your presence in these pages. To constantly produce such lengthy and detailed tracts must involve a massive investment in time and resources, akin to a well funded newsroom – or a CIA/NSA station of operation, the presentation has all the hallmarks of techniques used by hasbara, flooding and overwhelming the discourse with preselected, spurious or extraneous unconfirmable information. I’ll leave this line of observation unfinished for now, you should have gotten the drift by now.
What your reply tells me is you have an agenda in commenting here. Since the post mentioned the burning of bridges, what follows will not be out of line. Your reply displayed a fundamental disrespect for another point of view, lecturing at length of your self-approved position. By not respecting my comment you’ve planted a field of pseudo-factual kudzu, depriving all other perspective of access to the light of day, as does the weed. You are not an honest commentator here by any measure and as such you have succeeded and burnt any bridge of trust I will ever have for your product. Henceforth, nothing you produce will ever be considered as something without alloy with a hidden base agenda.
A friend of my grandfather was the state’s governor, they were contemporaries and both enjoyed sizable business success. This friend ran for POTUS against FDR in ’36 and subsequently came to support FDR’s administration. My grandfather never voted again for a Republican so disgusted he was with Republican perfidy towards that governor. I’ll leave it to you to figure the degree of separation my family had with FDR. It would be interesting to know what your degree of separation is. Please feel free to pander your ignorant opinions to ignorant people, I’m not buying your shite.
OldSkeptic
Oh well definitely burned a bridge or two with Formally T-Bear…..
Not sure why you have such strong emotions re my comments on FDR though, since I did nothing about praise him …one of my personal (mixed) heroes . Perhaps my criticism of the past and current ‘elite’ US classes is the issue? I know many Americans have a sensitivity to the simple observation (obvious if you are not American) that they have a rigid class system.
Overall I am not sure because, honestly, I had problems understanding your points, except that you seemed (and correct me if I am wrong) to say that some of the US upper middle classes and maybe someone (or two) rich disagree with the current ‘ new feudalism’ trends of the US economy and society (and much of the rest of the west). Well I am sure there are, however I will argue that their impact will be insignificant, based on the current trends.
If I am wrong about that, so be it, no one will be happier than myself if that doesn’t become the case, but the trends have been grinding away for over 30 years now and, while no trend continues forever, I see no inflection point yet.
As for the rest of your points (noting that you seem to be getting perilously close to ad hominem here) ….well I read fast and write fast. Always have. My daily reading has been constant for many years now. And there is nothing I have posted here that I haven’t talked/discussed with friends. In fact I find writing it down helps me organise my thoughts, sort of a ‘thinking out aloud’ thing.
I take that as praise indeed that you think “…must involve a massive investment in time and resources, akin to/ a well funded newsroom”. If only….lol. It is actually about a 3-4 coffees and half a dozen cigarettes job….
One thing about me is that professionally I am and always have been into analytics, operations research, etc, etc. So by nature I am an analyst and enjoy it. I like working things out and learning new stuff.
Especially working out what total f**k up our ‘esteemed leaders’ have managed to do today. Their incredible ingenuity in creating new cluster f**ks is a constant source of wonder to me.
Plus I have to admit to a vicarious pleasure in making forecasts and seeing them happen, bit childish I admit, but the simple pleasure of ‘I told you so’ never gets old…..lol.
Oh and I am not a ‘he’…I am a ‘she’ now.
If you want, maybe Ian can PM you my Facebook page….where I don’t actually talk about any of this stuff, just social stuff and descriptions of my transition (boring stuff about HRT and so on) …etc. Pics of my cute dog though, worth a look.
OldSkeptic
As for ‘really’ burning bridges…go and transition….wow amazing how many people, even lifetime friends and relatives, you lose…like nearly the lot….
Know some girls who have been totally disowned by their families. I lost my closest, best friend of 35 years, he just couldn’t handle it, he can’t even bring himself to talk to me.
Which is why, if you are transgendered and you meet people that just accept you as yourself, it is the most precious and wonderful thing.
Celsius 233
@ Old Skeptic
I second T-Bear; you’ve become a boor with your self assumed expertise, bloviating spurious facts…
OldSkeptic
‘Boor’ I will accept, that’s your personal opinion, fair enough, been called far worse than that in my life…lol..well everything except ‘stupid’, even people that have totally hated me have never called me that.
“Spurious facts”, well I show links to a lot to source stuff…so we will agree to disagree about that.
“Self assumed expertise”, not sure what that relates to. Do you know my skill/knowledge set? I analyse and call what I think, based on my knowledge and skills. Right/wrong? Some of both of course, hopefully a bit more of the first one.
I try, sometimes badly (the term ‘as clear as mud’ comes to mind), to give my reasoning too, rather than just an assertion of my opinion. Makes my posts a bit longwinded, apologies, but I am trying to be as intellectually honest as I can be, within my limitations.
If you disagree, then you disagree …
But, I think I have called the whole Ukrainian thing pretty well. Most of my predictions (including US/EU/etc behaviour) have been pretty good. It seems to be all turning out mostly the way I expected. So I’ll put that down as one for me. Time will tell about my ISIS/US/etc/etc/etc analyses, comments and predictions, I’ll quickly call ‘I told you so’ when the first US bombs hit the Syrian Army.
Note that this was a ‘1 cigarette’ post, taking a quick break from chores…. my ” CIA/NSA station of operation” is on a tea break right now and I had to do it myself, blasted union rules, just wait until we privitise them and can outsource their work to India….lol.
Lighten up you guys….
Lisa Formally OldSkeptic
This has really hit my humour button T-Brear.
But I am not sure whether or not to feel complimented or insulted by your comment:
“To constantly produce such lengthy and detailed tracts must involve a massive investment in time and resources, akin to a well funded newsroom – or a CIA/NSA station of operation, the presentation has all the hallmarks of techniques used by hasbara, flooding and overwhelming the discourse with preselected, spurious or extraneous unconfirmable information. ”
That you think a (currently unemployed) transgendered person can match the unrivaled powers of the CIA and the NSA…or that you think I am as f**king stupid as they are…. can’t make up my mind whether or not to feel complimented or insulted.
However I will treasure that comment for the rest of my life….thank you so much …lol. I have cross posted it all over the place, you don’t mind me quoting you of course, well even if you do I am doing it anyway?
If only someone in the CIA/NSA would heap lots of money on me…please….pretty p lease, hey I am cheap…lol. Sorry I am cracking up at that, it is so funny.
Just for you T-Bear I will out myself… I will even ‘friend’ you if you ask nicely…
https://www.facebook.com/, just check out Lisa Toinen Mullin, pretty unique…worth it for the nice pics of my dog…..
It is ok, I don’t expect apologies or retractions from your comments…so you can emotionally relax about that, just feel good about yourself, just keep self-reinforcing your opinions.
Ian, since you have been hurt by things like this in the past, a bit later on I will do an analysis of the psychology behind this sort of thing, it is quite interesting, part of my ‘clustering of beliefs’ theory.
Celsius 233
@ Lisa Formally OldSkeptic
You have admirably handled criticism directed your way.
Speaking only for myself, it does occur that maybe you should start your own blog, no?
My only problem with your volume here is that it rather overwhelms the other posters who would like to participate.
Next:
As time passes it is becoming apparent the rebels did in fact receive more than a little help from Russian soldiers; which is fine with me. Fuck NATO!
But you then totally blew of the accomplishments of the Viet Minh/Viet Cong in defeating the U.S. after having the full weight of the U.S. military thrown at them.
Unless we get WWIII from this; the rebels/Russian military merely showed the utter incompetence of the Ukrainian military.
I reserve the right to call it as I see it. So, lets keep the hyperbole at low volume…
Next:
I don’t have or do facebook, twitter, or any other social media…
So, I can’t “check it out”, but am curious…oh well…
Formerly T-Bear
@Lisa Formally OldSkeptic
Am happy you’ve found humour, treasure away. Feel free to use anything that strikes your fancy with the exception of those statements that are unique or personal, of those please refrain from disseminating outside this forum. Thanks.
A point of information, my computer is old and does not show in blue or pink or rainbow colored script indicating the species of the writer. As before, you have a distinct voice in your writing, but one that is not identifiably gender specific. Again, glad you’ve found happiness, treasure the moments.
Since the specific point of the comment which started this tsunami of bandwidth use has not been addressed at this point, I shall bring my participation to a close and let you analyse away why as you will undoubtedly do.
Hvd
Formerly,
At the risk of seeming ignorant I don’t understand the reasons or the perspective that leads to your distress with Lisa’s comments re FDR as a traitor to his class. This is a commonly held idea. Could you clarify?
Formerly T-Bear
@Hvd
Short answer: This specific composition is a dogwhistle for the ultra-right and the violent opposition to what is known as the New Deal. It identifies those holding such political beliefs to one another. It begins a process of corroding history into an indistinguishable mass of gibberish having no connection with the dynamics of development that produces observable result. It is a lie. It is told by those who cannot sell their ideology without deception.
This dogma connects David Rockefeller (et al.), the Dulles Brothers, John Birch Society, the reagan deceptions to what are known as Neoliberal and Neocon orthodoxies. Are other political cancer markers needed?
Hvd
Forgive me but I still don’t quite understand. Are you arguing that David Rockefeller the Dulles brothers, the Birchers and Reagan are not connected with neoliberalism and neoconism at least as precursors?
If not isn’t oldskeptic/Lisa in agreement with you when she argues that this particular coterie hated/hates FDR as a traitor to his class? And if this class both then and now is the rough equivalent of today’s .1% aren’t they, again roughly correct in seeing FDR as a traitor?
This of course suggests that the system per FDR is reformable and so I say roughly because although FDR stopped for a time their consolidation of wealth and power he did preserve the system upon which the neoliberal/neocon dogma is based and they should see FDR as a savior not a traitor and they are either obscurantists in claiming him as traitor or too stupid to see the opportunity he left intact. Regardless of whether FDR is savior or traitor of/to his class os/Lisa seems to be arguing that neither is likely to arise now and that this class will be left to pursue their depredations to the bitter end. There will be no reform that is arguably an antidote to the imperfections of the system and we will watch this system come to its inevitable end.
Formerly T-Bear
@Hvd
Of course you are not going to understand without reading what I wrote. Please compare your first paragraph with what I had written just above.
Second paragraph: No. If there were agreement between my commentary and her original comment several thousand words wouldn’t be clogging Ian’s post. Again reading and understanding what was written is becoming a vanishing art form.
Third paragraph: My reading of this paragraph of yours leads me to suspect there is a profound deficit in knowledge of history, political science, economic history and theory, logic and writing skills. My original objection to L/OS was precisely her statement was a corruption of history. Go back and read it for yourself. as far as giving instruction in economic theory or economic history – not gonna happen.
Michael Lewinski
Liberalism is a mental disorder. Compelling people to act against their interests and values is a recipe for the disaster unfolding before our very eyes. The politics of denying who are our foreign enemies, and the drive to destroy competitive, free market capitalism, replaced with crony capitalism and a social justice driven big government will bear the fruit of not what is wanted, but what is feared and deserved. Must we become a failed state before the wisdom of constitutional governance is recognized. FreedoMaker Coalition of Indiana.
Hey You
Seems like most of the commenters here are collectivists. Makes sense; otherwise they would not waste the time.
But I did filter out some valid expression:
“we cultivate our own gardens. what else can you do”?
hvd
Formerly,
Frankly, what you write above is gibberish to me. I cannot parse your statements. Instead of attacking me could you please try to explain so that I might understand.
How is the statement that “FDR was a traitor to his class” a corruption of history if it is represented as being the viewpoint of certain persons (neolibs and neocons)? Do they or do they not believe this?
Might the statement that “FDR was a traitor to his class” be true in the limited sense that FDR stopped that class’s consolidation of power and wealth for at least a brief period of time?
What exactly do you believe was FDR’s relation to his class? What exactly do you believe was FDR’s relation to the 99%? Do you believe that FDR was trying to save a corrupt system on behalf of his class so that its corruptions could continue in the future or that he was trying to reform it so that it might work for the benefit of all?
You may understand what you are trying to say but I do not. Please help this ignorant fool. I thought that was the point of discussion.
David Chu
You guys still don’t get it.
There is not one iota of difference between the Left wing and the Right wing of the Vulture called the United States of Death, Disease and Destruction. The Teleprompter, Bush Jr., Clinton, Goro, etc. ALL serve one thing and one thing only which is the National Security State and the 1%. That is their número uno job and reason for being besides their personal financial gains and prestige.
Michael Parenti gave one of the greatest and most entertaining talks about the WHY: Why does the United States do what it has been doing since WW2. Once you understand the WHY, everything falls into place and you can understand very very easily what’s happening with Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc. In light of the most obscene and crude propaganda that have been spray painted recently against Russia et al. in the Presstitude Lamestream Media.
http://www.escapetopatagonia.com/TheU.S.WarAgainstYugoslavia.mp3
Formerly T-Bear
@ Hvd
The first paragraph of my original answer is the operative paragraph. It might be taken to say that L/OS’s usage was NOT history but an opinion ABOUT history, one that does not expand or clarify the understanding of some part of history but colors history fraudulently, obscures history, distorts history. (The following paragraph was only to put flesh upon the prior paragraph only).
It would seem that if one has no clear idea of their history, they have no idea of what they once were, cannot know where they are or plan where they wish to go. Often the carnival house of distorting mirrors is a useful analogue. The resources people have to find their way out of difficult situations are being degraded to uselessness: education is a failure, reading skills are abysmal; information is incomplete, distorted or downright false; language itself is under attack, meaning has become fungible; knowledge of law, economics, politics and every subject that is needed for decision making in a complex society are not available to the citizens of that society (M. Thatcher solved that one – there is no such thing as society …). The few paths out of the present morass is to reexamine those eras where those disciplines were last seen to be operational; reassess the changes that have occurred subsequently and reevaluate the responses taken. This is not possible once the source material becomes contaminated with diverse and unprovable opinion , ideology or theology.
It is not my intention to do others work in understanding economics, history or politics. If you have not or are unwilling to do that work, then what I’m saying will remain gibberish and you will live the consequent lifestyle; communication will have failed. The dangers you face are formidable but surmountable; it is for you to find, develop and perfect the weapons you use in that struggle – otherwise learn to enjoy peasantry and other forms of economic slavery. your time is short and the sands are running out quickly.
Lisa Formally OldSkeptic
Celsius 233 I, definitely have no wish to underestimate or disparage the Vietnamese and what their achieved against such odds. Noting that they did get a lot of help (both direct and indirect) help from the USSR (including at one time Soviet pilots in Soviet planes).
But being an amateur student of military history I am simply amazed by what the NA achieved, in such a short period of time, with such limited resources and with so little help from Russia (the NA complained publicly and bitterly about how little help they got). The main help they got was some experienced people, which alongside their own ones (ex vets) gave them a cadre of good officers and NCOs. There was almost certainly intelligence help too, but very little equipment, especially (probably close to zero) heavy equipment. Probably some ammo though.
Their enemy (UA) out numbered them considerably (20:1 at least at first, though the ratio closed over time) and, though they displayed poor skills and morale, they (unlike the Iraqi army) did fight. They invaded, fought and held their ground against NA defences and offences.
The UA also had total air superiority at the beginning, enabling them to resupply, do CAS, recon, etc.
For (at the beginning), a rag tag bunch of middle aged militia with (again at the beginning) only light weapons, to hold then beat and then capture (eventually) huge amounts of equipment, against 20:1 odds. Which they then used with great expertise against the UA, their artillery use was, in simple terms, superb.
They also destroyed the UA air force (even with the extra planes they got from Poland, etc).
After holding the UA in many places, they then held against a huge offence in the southern area, which the NA then cut off and destroyed. After that they sent their (limited) forces north the Donetsk (ete) regions, and proceeded to cut off several large groups of UA forces, effectively destroying the core of their army (the ones in service before hostilities and the best trained), plus many of the oligarchs privately owned militias.
And this was conventional warfare out in the country, not guerrilla warfare in towns and cities. Plus they had to create an integrated army (with all the C&C, intelligence, supply, maintenance, repairs, etc) out of nothing, from the very bare bones of those original rag tag militias, all while fighting continually. Plus with the disparity of forces they could not afford to lose even one big battle, they had to win every time.
In 7 months…by any standards an astonishing feat of arms, the like of which I have never read about. Has there been anything like this in the last 100 years of warfare? I’ve never came across anything like it (except maybe the Mongol invasions).
That’s why I am so, frankly, in awe
I just hope there is some young budding military historian getting out there to all these people to record from them what happened, while it is still fresh in their minds and before the myths start to appear. Then writing a block buster and award winning book about it.
Formerly T-Bear
@Lisa Formally OldSkeptic 14 Sept. 2014 #64828
Just an observation: I certainly was not aware of the Mongol invasions within the last century, am I remiss? Over a slightly lengthier time frame but not yet 200 years ago maybe Sherman’s march to the sea might be in the neighbourhood of the NA accomplishments (but in defeating the southern insurrection against Lincoln’s election).
Timothy Toomey
Well written Ian and wonderful blogger replies such as
Bernard PERMALINK
September 10, 2014
Well done folks …. Keep this up for sure.
Formerly T-Bear
@Lisa Formally OldSkeptic 13 Sept 2014 #64799
My bad not replying sooner. Please don’t be looking for my appearance re your FB or Twit site, I am not a participant in those forums (I don’t even know anyone who has teenage grandchildren anymore to go to for instruction on how to use).
@Hvd
Should your silence be taken that there has been a failure to communicate?
hvd
Formerly,
It should be taken as pr00f thereof.
Lisa Formally OldSkeptic
Nope T-Bear, just trying to keep my posts down, since I have been criticised for that quite comprehensively by yourself and others.
Parsing my statement:
“Has there been anything like this in the last 100 years of warfare? I’ve never came across anything like it (except maybe the Mongol invasions).”
There are 2 sentences. First states clearly the last 100 years. The second uses the words “I’ve never”. Fairly clear, at least to me that is, that the 2nd is more general across time, while the first is specific to the last 100 years.
“Sherman’s march to the sea ” was an impressive, albeit brutal, feat by any measure (and is generally regarded as such, or so I have read) but it was part of an overall larger war. The question then could be; could he have done it if all the Southern forces were concentrated against him? Or even if they had comparable numbers?
After all he did have numerical superiority of about 1.5:1 over the forces facing him directly (according the sometimes unreliable wikipedia). Nothing like 20:1 against him that the NA forces faced (at least at first).
Formerly T-Bear
@LFOS 15 Sept. 2014 #64856
Please indicate where in my response to you in #64787 on 12 Sept. 2014 did I say your general comments were such. I did say your response to my original comment had those characteristics. The fault, if any may lay with the reader, but my shoulders are broad.
Again, the customary use of paragraphs is to contain sentences that are directly related to an idea, much like fraternal twins. I took your writing to be a result of this convention. I brought it up as it produced an amusing juxtaposition. So much for unintended humour. Oh! the travails the Princes of Serendip must have contended with in telling their tales.
Formerly T-Bear
@hvd 15 Sept. 2014 #64855
Presuming a sock-puppet of Hvd to whom I had been replying above.
I am not surprised at communication failure, both producer and recipient have responsibilities if communication is to be successful. The producer must select and arrange wording to reasonably convey an intended meaning. The recipient has a responsibility to recreate that meaning into their awareness, neither adding nor omitting extraneous material to the original product. Many things have the ability to disrupt this process, e.g. a second-grader would not be expected to understand a university text, not having developed the sufficient resources needed; likewise another undergoing severe stress has a tendency to read conflating what is read with the sources of that stress, the dialogue in their mental processes changing what had been presented; another reader may not have shared the same fount of facts and conclusions necessary for comprehension of the given text, those inflicted with propaganda often have this disability to overcome their conditioning. There are many more such examples of the failure of the reader to comprehend the specific product on offer (of the near infinite ways of phrasing an idea, only what is presented was chosen by the author as appropriate).
Another example which relates to what Hvd attempted can be found at Zero Hedge which illuminates another condition in which the complete framework has been so distorted as to be, if not incomprehensible, firmly insane. It is contained in the title of this posting at Zero Hedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-15/great-keynesian-lunacy-finally-beginning-end…-now
which demonstrates the void between orthodox ideology and historical heterodox reality. The fact being that Keynesian economics marked the last known sanity shown in that field, the lunacy is denominating this as Keynesian or believing the writer of such drivel.
To attempt to answer your remarkably good questions would have entailed several tomes of material, which is why I refrained from answering, not knowing the level of reading competence with which I would be dealing, the background information extant to be relied upon or the levels of mis/dis/mal information that had to be contended with. Life is too short for that. One indication of this was an apparent level of reading ability to absorb a written loci of points that delineated an idea which I used to respond to the original question being asked. Such are the failures of communications.
Lisa Formally OldSkeptic
Re: “Again, the customary use of paragraphs is to contain sentences that are directly related to an idea, much like fraternal twins. I took your writing to be a result of this convention. I brought it up as it produced an amusing juxtaposition. So much for unintended humour. Oh! the travails the Princes of Serendip must have contended with in telling their tales.”
You do know that paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.
Formerly T-Bear
@Lisa Formally OldSkeptic PERMALINK
September 16, 2014
received
Lisa Formally OldSkeptic
I’ve long been a fan of the Archdruid’s articles. Well researched and argued.
Even I (smile) have problems picking holes in his overall arguments. The only criticism I would make is that he is an American, therefore cannot imagine a technologically functioning society with an EROEI of less than 7-10:1. Which is about the US average. But the US is insanely wasteful, so a successful society with a ratio of 3-4:1 is quite possible. Which, for many places, a mix of nuclear, solar, wind, etc, etc can deliver.
There is another criticism I have, because he is American he cannot imagine something like the huge, successful and cheap nuclear industry like France has (75% of electricity). The idea of such a large system not looted to death by insider elites until it collapses is totally un-American in concept and essentially unimaginable by them (and him).
Sadly, given the power of the US, it is quite clear that no other societal/economic model, except its own, is allowable. So when it goes down it will take most other places down with it, by direct or indirect methods (direct might even be a large nuke…).
In fact you can argue (quite well) that the US is now on a path to destroy all other functioning (and potentially sustainable) societies in the World at the moment, with a stark choice being offered: become totally like us (and hence collapse like us soon), or be destroyed (collapse now).
But within those limits, by and large I agree with his projections of the coming end, post cheap fossil fuels, of all of our societies (which the adoption of US model will accelerate) . And the end of what we call technology as the few survivors move to back to a 10th-17th century standard of living level (depending on geographical luck) and ‘science’ is something vaguely remembered in the myths and stories told around the campfire (light at night being one of those myths).
His latest article (they are far more than just random posts) is pertinent to some of the arguments we have had in this thread. In this he articulates some of the basic stuff of what happens when societies hit their limits and how they respond pre collapse.
Dark Age America: The End of the Old Order http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/dark-age-america-end-of-old-order.html
Some key snippets, I highly recommend reading this whole article and all the previous ones as his arguments build on each other:
“Now of course this isn’t what you hear from Americans today, and it’s not what you hear from people in any society approaching catabolic collapse. When contraction sets in, as I noted here in a post two weeks ago, people tend to pay much more attention to whatever they’re losing than to the even greater losses suffered by others. The middle-class Americans who denounce welfare for the poor at the top of their lungs while demanding that funding for Medicare and Social Security remain intact are par for the course; so, for that matter, are the other middle-class Americans who denounce the admittedly absurd excesses of the so-called 1% while carefully neglecting to note the immense differentials of wealth and privilege that separate them from those still further down the ladder.”
“A ruling elite facing a crisis of this kind has at least three available options. The first, and by far the easiest, is to ignore the situation…..”
“The second option is to try to remedy the situation by increased repression. ….
“That leaves the third option, which requires the ruling elite to sacrifice some of its privileges and perquisites so that those further down the social ladder still have good reason to support the existing order of society. That isn’t common, but it does happen; it happened in the United States as recently as the 1930s, when Franklin Roosevelt spearheaded changes that spared the United States the sort of fascist takeover or civil war that occurred in so many other failed democracies in the same era. Roosevelt and his allies among the very rich realized that fairly modest reforms would be enough to convince most Americans that they had more to gain from supporting the system than they would gain by overthrowing it. ”
“Now of course Roosevelt and his allies had huge advantages that any comparable project would not be able to duplicate today. In 1933, though it was hamstrung by a collapsed financial system and a steep decline in international trade, the economy of the United States still had the world’s largest and most productive industrial plant and some of the world’s richest deposits of petroleum, coal, and many other natural resources. Eighty years later, the industrial plant was abandoned decades ago in an orgy of offshoring motivated by short-term profit-seeking, and nearly every resource the American land once offered in abundance has been mined and pumped right down to the dregs. That means that an attempt to imitate Roosevelt’s feat under current conditions would face much steeper obstacles, and it would also require the ruling elite to relinquish a much greater share of its current perquisites and privileges than they did in Roosevelt’s day.”
“I could be mistaken, but I don’t think it will even be tried this time around. Just at the moment, the squabbling coterie of competing power centers that constitutes the ruling elite of the United States seems committed to an approach halfway between the first two options I’ve outlined. The militarization of US domestic police forces and the rising spiral of civil rights violations carried out with equal enthusiasm by both mainstream political parties fall on the repressive side of the scale. At the same time, for all these gestures in the direction of repression, the overall attitude of American politicians and financiers seems to be that nothing really that bad can actually happen to them or the system that provides them with their power and their wealth. “
“They’re wrong, and at this point it’s probably a safe bet that a great many of them will die because of that mistake”
Noting also, which being an American he probably can never recognise, that the Roosevelt reforms were largely a local variant of what was being done in Britain at the time as Keynes influence built up and his alternate societal/economic model was slowly being adopted (which the astonishing success of Hitler’s economic reforms added a bit of impetus too).