Readers' Comments

VNR has advantages as the greater scope of events, but reliability of news this main thing and seems to me that reliability - weak spot VNR. If though time will take place strong disinformation all reputation will be lost together. With firm.

Email me for any questions.
adminlex@firehost.com
[http://replicawatches.host.sk ReplicaMagazine]

"The lyrics of that song omit all of the good this country has done and are therefore and thereby, a lie."

That's a bit of a non sequitor - as the lyrics only address one aspect of a greater subject. Since your posts likewise only address aspects of any given subject, your posts would (by your logic) also be lies.

Has America done "good"? Undoubtedly - although probably quite a bit less than you claim. The US stands far down the line as far as altruism is concerned, unless one is to believe hype as opposed to content.

"It seems then that loving this country and dedicating some of our time to speaking of its positive potential and expressing some useful and valuable ideas, may be a good thing too. It is a way to mark a turning point and begin to make some positive change."

It sure is. However, for the most part, those prone to seeing the "good side" completely obviate the "bad side" - and then carry on by claiming that all critics are "anti-American".

"How do we change the direction of our motion; that is the crux of the matter."

Unless we actually address what is wrong we are not changing any direction one iota.

Motherlode of "toldja so's", A Rant

By Iconoclast_555

The suffering of the Gulf Coast has brought to the forefront the bankruptcy of what passes as an "ideology" of the American right.

The admin said, at the nadir of the current phase of the disaster, that it didn't want people to die because of bureaucracy. The irony of this statement is not lost on the more politically aware - it was the LACK of a bureaucracy at an effective level and a SURPLUS of bureaucracy on the political level that has been responsible for the torpid relief efforts.

The federal government has grown in spurts: the Civil War created the first strong central government apparatus. The New Deal expanded it exponentially. The 1960's saw some growth - although mostly in government responsibilities. Finally, the current administration schizophrenically loaded a new layer of useless political appointees while removing competencies and budgets.

The American right is on record for wanting to eliminate, as far as possible, the federal government. This is a relatively new aspect of the right and came about as a result of the 1960's; the Goldwater cons were unhappy with the idea of the government meddling in such affairs as the enforcement of civil rights, social programs to help raise the less wealthy, education, etc. As the GOP coddled and captured the Dixiecrats, the concept of "states rights" (a pre-Civil War bagatelle) confirmed the idea of "drowning the government in a bathtub".

Billions have been spent on converting the idea of "less government" into a quasi-cultural meme. Yet the money was spent - because some desire to profit from the absence of government. It is an empty rhetorical flourish because even the most rabid government minimalist can't conceive of a society where the basic services provided by the government were to disappear.

Some have argued that government services should be privatized. Others say that the states should be responsible. Almost all point out that the government is inefficient compared to private enterprise and the competitive marketplace. All three are dead wrong - as the recent disaster shows.

The LA disaster plan that turned out to be a disaster itself was... outsourced. LA does not have the emergency infrastructure and it certainly doesn't have the cash to face such a disaster. The "social darwinists" and assorted cons might say "tough tittie" - but unfortunately a disaster like this one affects the whole nation if not the entire world.

Private enterprise may be initially more efficient but adds a profit margin to expenses as well as corruption - while government inefficiency is due to POLITICAL incompetence. And the unending trend towards corporate consolidation shows that the competitive marketplace for "necessities" eventually ends up with monopolies, friendly duopolies or worse.

If there are any meaningful questions to be asked after this disaster, they shouldn't be about the identities of incompetent political appointees or "tweakings of the system." The real question that needs to be asked is "what should the role of the central government be?".

The "minimalist", "states' rights", "privatized" approach was tested and found to be wanting. Iraq showed the first palpable symptoms of this: poor oversight, corruption, incompetence. This disaster showed that the cons have created a major vacuum in a key area - the power to evaluate, coordinate and effectuate necessary actions in a critical moment.

Another open wound discovered (or re-discovered) is the extreme disparity between the wealthy and the poor. Vietnam starved the "Great Society" of funds and political weight and the cons have since removed itself from any responsibility for improving the lot of the citizens it represents. A disaster, a videotaped beating, a basketball victory - all are capable of igniting riots amongst the nation's poor. If there is any barometer measuring the government's competence, this is it.

The politically aware know the conservative rhetoric all too well. Yet what the conservatives ignore is that their rhetoric is 150 years old and when actually applied, has invariably resulted in absolute failure and incredible suffering.

"Self-help", "charity" (the predecessor of the "faith based" initiatives of today)... were Victorian mantras that utterly failed to improve the squalor of the Industrial Revolution. They were also the basis of the Coolidges, Hardings and Hoovers - which resulted in the Depression. It would be fitting if the likely refugee camps to be built for the survivors of the Gulf disaster were to be called "Dubyavilles" - in allusion to the Depression-era "Hooverville" hovels that dotted the American countryside.

Civilization requires governance and the lack of government is, by definition, anarchy. Spreading government to the local level can be effective in the day-to-day administration but is utterly incapable of dealing with emergencies or of progressing society. And borrowing an argument from the cons themselves, the multiplicity of bureaucracies through decentralization cannot be "efficient".

--------

Since the cleptocratic/corporatist establishment will undoubtedly spend wildly in order to maintain their investment in pulling the wool over their constituents' eyes, I hope that they have to spend a shitload of cash.

With a bit of luck they'll bankrupt themselves in the process.

9/04/05

Reality

By Iconoclast_555

The different flavors of the Right have turned the tables on truth.

For years, the Right claimed that Communists and "comsymps" were masters of propaganda, hiding veritable evil behind utopian platitudes. By confusing symbol and reference, they highlighted Comintern political propaganda in an effort to dismiss the far more realistic social messages inherent in progressive thought.

Now, the tables have turned, and with a vengeance.

The conservative economic agenda ranges from "fundamentalist economics" to "free marketdom" depending on the flavor, neocon or paleoconservative. In essence, however, the goal is a return to Laissez Faire capitalism, a system that was a major cause of both the Depression and WWII.

This is nothing new, btw. Since the New Deal, the conservatives have made it quite clear that they would not brook social improvements, anathema because they suppose at least some government control over the economy. In other words, conservatives have defended the interests of their paymasters, business, who would rather have a free hand in making money - albeit over the cadavers of workers.

The Conservatives have adopted a number of propagandistic mantras designed to dupe the electorate into following its scheme. "Market freedom", the concept of "benevolent capitalism" (oxymoron), "less government", "less regulations", can all be translated into "let's go back to the good old days of laissez faire".

To "govern" is to "Direct or strongly influence the behavior" or "Exercise authority". In a democracy, government by and for the people, the goal of "direction" and "authority" should be the greater good.

The economy is the single most important aspect of "the greater good". Food, shelter and health - not to mention the pursuit of happiness in a consumer's world - are dependent on the economy. If the government were to abdicate its authority regarding the economy, precisely the goal of conservatives, the government abdicates its reason for being. If the government caters to a strong minority such as Capital, it is abdicating its reason for being. When a political party uses outrageous propaganda in an effort to dupe voters into adopting policies that are not in their best interests, said party is treasonous.

The Right loves to point at our current affluence, statistics of "growth" and the like, as examples of how "free marketism" is such a success. The fact of the matter is that the improvement of our lot has been attained DESPITE and not BECAUSE of "free marketism".

A little over a century ago we were working 6 days a week. By "we" I mean men, women and children - who worked 12 hours a day for barely subsistence wages. There was plenty of "growth" back then - yet tenement squalor was the social reality behind the statistical veneer.

Various "-isms" arose out of the suffering of the Industrial Revolution. These "-isms" COERCED better conditions for most of the population of 1st world countries - and created the "consumer society" that is the reality of the "American Dream" today.

Make no mistake about it - it took blood, sweat and tears to shave some of Capital's profits and to give a life worth living to the workers. A worthwhile life that incidentally made profits, growth and wealth bigger than ever as well-paid workers actually acquired the wherewithal to buy the products and services that make the capitalistic world go 'round.

Capital has benefited from progressive ideals even more than workers. But as the bottom line is rather blurred and not directly attributable to better working conditions in the subjective account books of corporations, self-seeking shortsightedness takes over.

Modern American affluence was the direct result of the New Deal, trade unionism and the fear of revolution. Yet capital has always been against these movements - fighting against overtime pay, collective negotiation or anything that gets in the way of its hiring workers for as little as possible. "Let others pay more" to make their own products acquirable - capital needs to look at their own subjective bottom line. Short-term expediency reigns.

Communism fell. Trade unionism fell by the wayside in a demand economy where it's always an employers' market. There is sufficient affluence so that the powers-that-be no longer need fear "revolution". And there is no longer a voice that counters the hegemony of capital.

Thus since 1969 only the wealthiest have seen their lots improve, while the remaining 95% of us have had to do with more working hours with less pay. The economy has gone "global", meaning that 1st world workers must "learn to compete" with 3rd world workers - who are shamelessly exploited.

The end result is that the 1st world - home of more or less "mixed economies" - must forsake the hard-won benefits, while capital earns more money than ever....

...Capital learned its lessons over the past couple centuries. It saw the revolutions of 1848 and 1917 (amongst others), read the writing on the wall. They were initially against democracy because they feared that once people had a voice in their governance they would no longer brook exploitation.

The lesson Capital learned was that the electorate is eminently malleable. Base instincts can be appealed to - empty concepts such as "nationalism", "family values" and the plethora of ultimately meaningless concepts that divert attention away from the bottom line. Goebbels was preceded by Disraeli's Primrose League and succeeded by the "Moral Majority" (etc.). Bait & switch is an age-old ploy - as old as democracy itself.

Capital has been all too successful. Always the taskmaster of political conservatism, it has always been the root of righ twing authoritarianism. It has learned that the trappings of power are not as necessary as power itself - and has adapted its message to populistic appeals: it cries "freedom" while holding the reigns of power.

There is no longer any real opposition to laissez faire and to capital-driven populism. We've lived to see no less than 3 decades of erosion of our well-being - and even to see purportedly "progressive" political parties embracing laissez faire. An extremism has won out to the point that "centrist" policies such as Europe's welfare systems are seen as outrageously radical...

... And the end result? The very factors that made the 1st world into something to be emulated are seen as detrimental to society. We are fast on track towards re-creating the very environment that made the opposite extreme (the various "-isms") viable or even desirable. The snake chases its own tail.

Those of us in the center - neither supporters of laissez faire nor the "-isms" - are now considered the radical left-wing extremists, as opposed to being voices of sanity in an insane world. The lessons of history are once again being forgotten.

6/02/05

Concerning criticism all this delirium. Well have criticized, and what? Newspapers have not written anything such terrible thus as though was dissatisfied FAIR with it to lower a rating of such newspapers. On the contrary now about it finds out a plenty of people.

Email me for any questions.
adminlex@firehost.com
[http://replicawatches.host.sk ReplicaMagaZine]

"You present the lyrics to a song that are intended to give a jaundiced point of view; and I'm supposed to do what with those slanted ideas?"

The truth is jaundiced? We have a history of overthrowing democratically-elected regimes because we don't like how the locals voted. We're trying to do so even now - in Venezuela, in Palestine.

The points ARE that we deal with wholesale hypocrisy, we support tyranny (especially of the economic type), and we wonder why we are not universally loved and why the wonderful two-party system isn't universally embraced.

In order to compete with the GOP the DNC must become more like the DNC?

Why not simply join the GOP and be done with?

--------

As for Bubba - he would have been considered too conservative for the pre-Goldwater GOP.

--------

I think that we have fallen for some of the spin that the spinmeisters have spun. What's the difference between today's America and, say, the one that voted for Jimmy Carter?

Frankly - it is the fact that the fundamentalists began to vote, to do so in lockstep and under the aegis of an unholy alliance between corps, thinktanks and churches. These folks are borderline falangists - there's no way in hell that they'd EVER vote DNC.

America hasn't turned to the right - a part of the right that had been hidden has come to the surface.

So what is the DNC to do? I'll agree that it has to take a page from the GOP handbook... but I don't think that it has to change its values for the sake of reaching power. What it must do is to REFRAME the questions facing society, explain in laymen's terms the dangers of, for example, globalization, corporate power/corruption, etc.

It ain't gonna happen though. In our Wiemar the DNC opposition is rife with Republicans in Dem clothing (Lieberbush et al). And things aren't even coming CLOSE to turning a corner.

I thank gawd that I live abroad now.

So? What's your point?

You present the lyrics to a song that are intended to give a jaundiced point of view; and I'm supposed to do what with those slanted ideas?

dh

The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.

"The opposition has no chance as long as their thinktanks and lobbies garner 1/8th of the funding that the cons' do - 1/8th which is in fact a far worse ratio due to the fact that the liberal groups are far more fragmented both in the source and the direction of their funding."

That is exactly my point. If people are going to allow business owners to rule unchecked and without input, we will get more of the same. Further, if people think they can rely on significant business support for the principles codified in the platform of the democratic party, they are sadly mistaken. The democratic party is "fragmented" and "rag-tag" even, partly because people are expecting fundng sources to appear, from among those whose interests depend on a different set of principles. That notion is a foolish novelty.

Democrats used to have Unions as a collective voice. Now Unions are so scared and they are so focused on self-preservation, they act cowardly -in some cases, literally conspiring with companies to eliminate people from the ranks if they speak up for better circumstances. This one fact goes a long way toward explaining the fragmentation of democrats' efforts. In war that's called collaboration with the enemy, and one would be shot. In Union politics it is supposed to be the signal upon which an over-throw of the leadership is required. Yet all the membership stands like sheep, fearfully watching and silently bleating amongst themselves, fretting and refusing to recognize their moment to ascend the leadership has arrived.

What collective voice will democrates speak with now? It will have to come from within the party somewhere and it will have to be a ground-swell. But from where will it come?

I wrote in these pages a long time ago about the rising number of churches who are illegally entering the political fray, in direct violation of federal revenue laws that were set up to protect them from government interference in their religion. One of the most important requirements for that autonomy and preferential tax treatment is that they refrain from ANY and ALL political activities. Now we have an Executive Administration and a supporting majority in the House and Senate, making the political battle a worthwhile risk and effort for these churches, by offering "Faith-Based Initiatives," further encouraging these law-breaking churches to participate in illegal activity by waving a financial carrot before them. And, to boot, we have a conservative Supreme Court before whom these questions will be addressed. This further complicates the issue because these law-breaking churches are going after the political scene with gusto...and mostly on the side of neo-cons. These "Non-Church" activities are Completely Illegal, yet NO ONE is shouting for the prosecution of these law-breaking organizations.

Some of these church leaders and their supporting "flocks" are so narrowly focused on their philosophies and religion, they don't realize they are acting to enslave themselves to a potentially tyranical influence of their own creation.

Add that to the business interests who have the Unions at bay. Is it any wonder things are as they are?

Most of all, democrats support their platform philosophies at "all costs." Democrats refuse to acknowledge that average people (the very people they need to become successful and re-energize the party) have some serious problems voting for them, because they adhere rigidly to their positions, and take the logic of those positions to the extreme, having been hijacked in some cases by certain, very hard-line, special interests.

You know there is a problem when the party is more liberal on certain issues than is the youth of our society.

A sea change is required here, if the democrats are going to be able to deal with these neo-cons. That change needs to come from a new movement. That movement may include some of the more moderate republicans who are tired of being treated as the servants of the neo-cons and conservative democrats who are frequently ignored by their own party. For that to happen, it is going to have to include some gray area on issues that have classically been treated with a "no negotiation" attitude.

It has to be big and it has to be sensible; it has to be well balanced, well organized and well executed.

Just as PNAC saw its moment and was organized to take advantage of that moment.

dh

The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.

"You mentioned a corporation being a person. Legally,
it is a person."

Only because the Supreme Court, in a misguided decision
declared it so. Some day, that decision will be
overturned, though perhaps not in our lifetime.

"We are talking about money here folks. There is far too often too little consideration given to morality when it comes to money. "

You got that right.

"These conflict based "isms" are a distraction to keep peoples' minds off of wealth and way for those without real power to express themselves."

That is true to a degree, but there is also the fantasy
factor. By that I mean the belief many people have that
eventually they will be rich, and benefit from the things
that the already wealthy have. Why are the various
state lotteries so successful? People want to get rich
quick. Why is it easy for some hucksters to sell the
schemes they do? The promise to get rich.

"I believe it is called the human condition..."

Again, can't argue with that. There will always be
people who want more, and will do anything to get it.
There will always be people not willing to put in much
effort, for themselves or, especially, for others.

As you said, dh, all we can do is make our own personal
decision on how to live our lives. I choose to live
mine doing as little damage as possible to those I am
close to, and the world in general.
Am I always successful? Of course not. But, I would
rather strive for that goal and be able to look at
myself in the mirror than to be like those lacking
a conscience. Does that mean I would sit around singing
"Kumbaya?" I think a better choice would be
"For What It's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield.

Few seem to notice that the leadership of the neocons (and of the misadministration) are almost all linked to the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and, to a lesser extent, the Bush Sr. admins. After 30 years wielding power one would expect a veneer of professionalism to cover their underlying incompetence.

What is most sad about articles like these are the utter failure to acknowledge one clear and simple truth, namely that as our system is structured there is no viable difference between either of the two corporate owned, corporate financed and entirely corporate serving "parties".

The reality is that these "party" labels are nothing more than convenient PR labels used to dupe the otherwise non-vigilant and self absorbed general public into maintaining the fiction that one batch of boardroom criminals will "protect the general welfare" of the average citizen any more than the other.

Given the continuity of the many who remain, decades after decade, regardless of which side of the coin is on display for the equally complicit mass media, the elitist system remains devoted to preserving and extending the privilege of the precious few at the expense of what those inside the beltway consider to be the "herd".

Nevermind that upwards of 80-90% of all votes cast are "counted" by the very corporations who have, in recent years, graced our techno-gulled public with the electronic voting machine in the first place.

Choose criminal group A or B, but we'll decide which serves our best interests and image at every turn of the wheel while those pulling the strings remain ensconced safely away from the correspondent's mic.

No real change from the roadmap that led us to this mortgaged future, which we bequeath to our children and grandchildren - will be possible until all the career politicos and the deceptive, manipulative and essentially sociopathic institutional network they established generations ago are driven out and dismantled entirely.

Only then might there be any chance of achieving a system "of the people, by the people and for the people" (already betrayed by the time that very phrase was uttered).