t r u t h o u t | The Politics of Lying and the Culture of Deceit in Obama's America: The Rule of Damaged Politics

t r u t h o u t | The Politics of Lying and the Culture of Deceit in Obama's America: The Rule of Damaged Politics

Shared via AddThis

healthcare debate

I just read this editorial by Charles Lane in the Washington Post which I do not even want to link to because I'm so angry. What I can't believe (although I shouldn't say this because it betrays my willful naivete) is that the Post would publish this kind of nonsense. Again, this is evidence of right wing thinking that contradicts their own set of beliefs. The argument that is being made is that because doctors will be paid for discussing end of life issues with their patients (through the proposed health care bill) that this is tantamount to the government controlling end of life issues. Isn't it the republicans who whine about wanting freedom of choice about everything (except of course abortion decisions which they are more than happy to control) from school choice, choice of you doctor, choice of how you spend "your money", etc... But when it comes to a doctor having an open conversation with you that starts with something like "Do you have a living will? Do you know what that is? Are you interested in talking about this issue with me? Do you know what power of attorney is?" etc... The patient then has the choice to say "yes I want to talk about it" or "No thank you." Then the doctor proceeds accordingly. Where is the coercion in that? The simple minded think that just because the government allows for a doctor to be paid for his work in this area that somehow the doctor will behave unethically and coerce his/her patient into the discussion - or worse forcing the patient to sign some kind of end of life decision document (again this goes to my overall premise that right wing though that process is essential a paranoid one).
There is no allowance of nuance in the minds of extremists and radicals. If Obama says the police officer acted stupidly that equals Obama calling the police officer stupid and by extension all police are stupid. So the same thinking leads the like minded to think that if a statute allows for doctors to have the conversation that they will somehow manipulate their patients.
This is why there is now a conversation about Americans being stupid (which I personally don't think is particularly helpful and will just incite people into being more defensive and angry). But the fact is that a large percentage (as I've stated before in this blog (see older posts) - around 40% of Americans consider themselves fundamentalist or born again Christians. Not that these people are stupid people, but their thinking is simplistic (again a nuance that most of them will not be able to make). By not being able to accept nuanced statements or subtle communications these people can not understand the world around them. Part of this is certainly educational deficiencies and lack of real education. But another part may just be genetics - a genetically determined propensity toward fear that leads to paranoid thinking. Paranoids can not experience subtlety though that is all they think they perceive. The hypervigilance of their perceptions leads to very specific kinds of focus on very subtle changes in the interpersonal space/non-verbal communications. But it is in the way these perceptions are then processed (an interaction between fear and cognitive processing) that the contexts of the experience is lost. The context is then interpreted within the paranoid's world view that there is danger everywhere that he/she must protect him/herself against. This framework is built upon the basic underlying emotion of fear.
Thus we have people like this Mr. Lane who will consistently misinterpret the reality of the public debate/policy through the lens of fear leading to a need to protect yourself leading to hypervigilance leading to misinterpretation of reality resulting in behaviors (writing distorted columns like this one) that are an indication of a paranoid process (the world is out to get me) circling back to "I must protect myself. An endless feedback loop of reality disorientation.
For some reason, Americans are particularly susceptible to this kind of thinking, but it is of course not an exclusively American problem. When there are so many humans susceptible to this cycle, it is no wonder we can not make any real progress toward a more civilized social realities.

Racial Profiling and Gates

Here is the police report on the Henry Louis Gates case:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html

I have read 10,000s of police reports as a forensic expert. This police report is clearly a self-justification report (as I call them). That is, the report is written in order to justify the officer’s behavior by exaggerating Gate’s behavior and minimizing their own. I have seen police reports about robberies that were shorter than this one. The depth of this report indicated to me that the officer was covering his behind.

This is not a case of racial profiling by the police. The police were called by a citizen who was the actual “profiler.” Though she can’t be blamed for calling the police when she sees to men trying to break into a house.

The real issue here is that the officer made a big deal out of nothing. In his own report he acknowledged that he realized that he was probably talking to the resident of the house. At that point he should have backed off, apologized for he inconvenience and left it at that. But instead the incident became a macho stand off. Once the officer felt disrespected, it was all over. The police officer, given the usual psychology of police officers (I have interviewed and psychologically tested 1000s of them), was incapable of standing down and walking away.

Police reports like this never contain the facts of the police officer’s conduct and non-verbal positioning. There is not doubt in my mind that this officer acted out with Gates as well. It is in the middle of the first paragraph on the second page that the officer stated that he knew that he was dealing with the resident of the home but that he was being “very uncooperative.” This is the key sentence in the entire report. The officer could not tolerate that the person he was confronting was being uncooperative despite the fact that he was standing in the person’s own home.

There was absolutely no need for this situation to escalate the way it did and quite frankly I believe it was the officer’s responsibility to stand down and walk away. I believe that is where the racial issue entered into the situation. I read this police report and I thought “this is stupid.” Remarkably similar to Obama’s reaction actually.

So in the end the situation was about nothing real, nothing criminal, nothing at all – but about a socially constructed acting out scenario based on racial history and politics in the end.

This reminds me of the many situations in which much is made about nothing forcing people to act out upon assumptions that then create consequences. The first example that came to my mind was Bill Clinton being forced to justify his personal behavior in a public setting and then being prosecuted for lying. He would not have been in the position to lie if the issues were not raised in the first place. This same scenario happens over and over.

cash for clunkers

Just a quick note regarding the cash for clunkers program. Does everyone remember how republicans continually tell us that American's won't buy smaller more efficient cars and that the car companies make cars that American's want - that is the bigger more gas guzzling cars? Well this program completely undermines this argument. Give American's a small incentive to do the right thing and they will. Everyone wins through this program except right wing ideology!

right wingers and violence

So, do we need any more evidence for my general theory of the right wing mind? Not only is it evident that paranoia is the underlying psychology of these people, but that this paranoia leads to violent acts. To contract, when Bush "won" the 2000 election there was left wing response that was very dire and apocalyptic. I myself wrote about the potential for the Bush Administration to obfuscate constitutionally protected rights and undermine the democratic process (as they and the Supreme Court did in 2000). What more evidence do you need? But, my point is that despite all of the hysteria about Bush winning the election from the left, there were no violent acts in response to this. One has to wonder why that is from a psychological perspective and it points directly to the underlying psychodynamics of the differences that make up the right and left.

While the likes of Rush, Jeff Beck, Liddy, and the rest of them are mouthfuls of paranoid hatred and vindictiveness, individually they have only shown themselves to be violent against themselves(at least that's how it looks so far - for Rush he became an addict (repressed aggression/sexuality and/or aggression against the self) and Liddy is a convicted felon). The level of paranoia that I have referred to is more of a characterological trait rather than a pathological one (as in a paranoia as defined by the psychiatric diagnostic and statistical manual on Axis I. The fact is that the mouth pieces for the right wing movement have a much more insidious pathology at work, they are plain old psychopaths - using others for their own twisted means and fulfilling their own secretly violent fantasies that are fueled by fears over losing their status. That is, they see a black guy become president and their world view of white supremacy falls apart. Democracy is OK as long as your "kind" are in control (this is the case in all societies - Israel and Gaza are a really good example).


I do not believe the recent examples are the last we will see. I believe that there is a concerted effort on the part of the right wing mouthpieces to continue to use the less controlled (the tiller killers and the holocaust museum haters) to foster violence.

The left does not have the same psychological process that would lead to such solutions.

(More on this later)

reply to anonymous

I assume that you are anonymous. I don't think you fully understood my use of "primitive." This has nothing to do with cognitive abilities or what we think of as "executive functions" intellectually. If you read my statement carefully you will notice that I refer mostly to "psychologically primitive" thinking. This is a reference to childhood development and childhood emotional functioning. The fact is that we all retain "primitive" levels of emotional and intellectual functioning and that these processes can be mobilized when people are under stress, fear, or other strong base emotional states. The problem is that unitary thinking (that is black or white thinking) is a serious problem that betrays the need to protect oneself from perceived dangers - often dangers are perceived in this way when a real danger then becomes exaggerated/generalized. This process then results in a host of psychological maneuvers to justify your own actions - often by demonizing the actions of others (as you have in your answer by the way) and excusing your own. This is the kind of thinking that then leads to justifying your own atrocities while condemning the same atrocities committed by others (which you also did in your answer by the way). The argument I am making is that there are psychological antecedents that lead one to interpret reality in this way and that those antecedents are located in very "psychologically primitive" modes of thought. We see this all the time in therapy patients. The fact is that the fears that are generated by our "primitive"/underdeveloped brains as infants can linger and guide later cognitive and emotional functioning (this is not news but it constantly needs to be reminded).

So I believe you missed the basic point I am trying to make. By the way, the extension of my thinking about this issue will include several more points (I just have not put them all together in my mind yet)... But among them will be that there are plenty of liberals who also are guided by this basic process but it manifests differently for a variety of reasons. One of the central things that I believe makes a difference is this all or nothing thinking that I have referred to. I believe that it is not at all coincidence that the most fundamentalist people in the world also follow the most radical political ideologies (fundamentalist christians, hasidic jews with the republican party for example -- radical muslims and the taliban...) The this is actually the same type of thinking that I have explained in my blog. I do not see flexibility of thought there. I see unitary thought that has only one answer to very complex problems. This to me is a serious distortion of reality based in the same emotionally primitive thinking one finds in early childhood. The world is not safe, I need to be protected, and God/the leader will protect me

Paranoia - The basis for Tortured Logic on Torture

As you might expect from my previous writings I have been highly concerned about how the Bush administration justified torture and used torture, thus breaking US law and the Geneva conventions. The logic behind the justification for torture is, quite frankly, tortured. One central observation I have made is that those who are excusing the use of torture seem to be using several quite primitive psychological maneuvers to justify their beliefs and actions.

Lets start with my premise that I have explained previously in this blog, that so called “conservatives” – really those who believe the ideology fostered by the “neo-conservatives” (Dick Cheney, Elliot Abrams, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Crystal, Pearls, and the rest) have a paranoid personality structure.

My further thoughts on this topic have revolved around the emotion of fear and how fear guides a person’s thoughts. It has become clear to me that the primary justification for using torture is based in the idea of protection from harm. We have seen example after example of administration officials using fear to rouse the masses toward agreeing to whatever they want to do (the impending mushroom cloud, ticking time bomb, weapons of mass destruction, evil doers comments, etc.) What is interesting to me is that we generally look at these kinds of comments as “using fear” to mobilize others. However, what is not really discussed is that, in fact, the person who is using this tactic is also likely to be experiencing a fundamental fear that is guiding their actions and reactions. Sometimes we assume that those who are “on the other side” of an argument, especially if they are in positions of power, are consciously manipulating for ulterior purposes. However, it is much more likely that the ideology behind the “manipulations” is based in an underlying paranoid character structure (based in the emotion of fear). The paranoid character is oriented toward self-protection from a world he/she perceives as dangerous, hostile, and specifically targeting the person. This kind of ideation stems from very primitive (that is early life and even in “collective” or “inborn” or “temperamental” fear) experiences. For example, take an infant who, because of very early life physical problems (that is in the very earliest days of life) developed an underlying belief (wholly unconscious) that the world was not a safe place. The pain an infant experienced because of the physical problems could not be understood by the infant and was experienced as something that he/she needed to protect himself/herself from. It is not understood by the infant that this pain is coming at him/her from inside his/her own body and therefore not coming at him/her from the “outside.” The infant has little cognitive structures or experience to understand this, and therefore uses primitive psychological mechanisms to “make sense” of it – that is “integrate” it into his/her experience. The integration of the experience involves primitive psychological defensive maneuvers to cope with the overwhelming fear/pain. Maneuvers such as projection - that is externalizing blame inappropriately onto external sources.
The paranoid character structure is, therefore, oriented toward this kind of externalizing of blame. As the person’s cognitive skills (language and reasoning skills) develop the projections become much more sophisticated and involve logical gymnastics in order to protect the individual from this underlying fear/belief that he world is a dangerous place. Part of these “gymnastics” are designed to prevent the person from understanding that it is he/she themselves that is the container of the problem. That is, the person is now hurting themselves. Thus, you get the kinds of projections that we have seen from right wingers/Bush administration and other governmental figures. That is justification for wrong actions based on “it kept us/me safe.”
My contention is that right wing ideology is based in this kind of psychological process. So here are some justifications for the use of torture that I have read recently:

1. Torture provided information that led to the thwarting of other terrorist attacks - that torture works so it is justified.

2. “Ticking time bomb” justification

3. If your child was being held and you captured one of the kidnappers you would torture the person to get your child back – This reasoning proves my point exactly actually. The basis for this argument is that when it becomes personal you devolve into a primitive mass of impulse driven behavior. While this is likely to be true for almost everybody. (We have seen this process also when people like Nancy Reagan hypocritically favor stem cell research when their loved ones get sick with an illness (Alzheimer’s) that might be cured by such research). The fact remains that it is precisely because human beings are vulnerable to the primitive acts the follow primitive emotions that we have laws that make our society civilized. Devolving into impulse driven behaviors when you are afraid does not justify breaking these laws. Therefore, even if you “tortured” the kidnapper and rescued your child, you would still face criminal prosecution for your own behavior. Or lets take a common moral dilemma – your loved one needs a medication to save his/her life but you don’t have the money to get it. You break into a pharmacy and steal the medicine. Under the right winger’s logic the thief should not be prosecuted for breaking the law because his/her actions are justified by the same reasoning behind the justifications for torture (you did it to save others or save yourself). A civilized society could not function if that kind of reasoning was used to derive laws/morality.

4. Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats knew about it too so its OK. What is interesting about this one is looking at right wing web pages. The most read stories on pages such as “realclearpolitics.com” are the attacks on Pelosi’s veracity around the torture issue. Whether or not she knew about the use of torture has nothing to do with whether or not torture is morally justifiable or legal. The right wing’s use Pelosi to distract from their own failures is one of the purest forms of paranoid projection that has been on display. That is – you target something outside of yourself to blame for what is basically your own fears. There is a fundamental lack of higher functioning “ego” (in the psychoanalytic sense) in these kinds of psychological maneuvers.

5. Here are some quotes from comments I found on right leaning comments pages:

a. “Dems have lost the ability to think critically. All info dumps into the hopper of political calculation for the purpose of re-election. The Country's best interests are not in the calculation.”
My Comment:
This kind of comment is clearly a projection. To believe that the other does
not believe that what they are doing is in the “Country’s best interest” is to dehumanize the other in order to devalue him/her. You might disagree with the policies of the other, but to question their motivations is an example of the kind of primitive thinking I have been talking about.

b. “They don't ask whether or not if our society is inherently better than
dictators, communists, Nazis, or anyone else. They don't look at the results and entertain the entire question. They don't ask how the greatest Republic to ever exist needs to be protected....because they somehow believe that we're just as good - or bad - as everyone else out there.” --
My Comment:
The “they” in this quote are liberals. It is clear from this kind of thinking that one
justifies actions based on fear – the need for safety, and the continuing notion that because we (or I) am great – you are not. The quote’s last sentence actually states this kind of thinking very clearly – the belief that because one questions their own beliefs or behavior means that you are equating yourself with others beliefs and behaviors. We see this kind of rationalization all the time – that is the basis for the left’s frustration with being labeled “unpatriotic” by the other side. This conflation of the expression of thinking about how one’s actions might be problematic with the very problematic actions of others is a great example of the paranoid position.

c. “Interrogation, "enhanced" or otherwise is not torture. The discovery of information from enemy combatants which may save the lives of civilians, our own or allied armed forces is justified. The absolute hypocrisy of the current administrations "ends justify the means" approach of socializing our economy while failing in the most pronounced way in dealing with our most heinous enemies would be laughable if not so tragic. Having witnessed first hand the "Tiger Caging" techniques of some SE Asians on their own countrymen (who had long passed the stage of any further disclosure) be assured that the harmless technique of "waterboarding" that many of own elite units use as a simple training exercise is benign. What part of "they talk but are not harmed in any way" don't some understand?”

My Comment:

I have heard this last statement made by many criminals who justify their actions – burglary, robbery (if no one is physically harmed), even a sex offender who states that the sex with the 12 year old was consensual. This type of psychologically primitive thinking is fraught with serious problems and leads to the justification of all kinds of atrocities. The above quote is also interesting in that it blames the Obama administration for “ends justifies the means” process when in fact it was Dick Cheney (and then many other bloggers/commenters) who actually used that reasoning to justify torture – He stated that they got the information they needed to save lives and therefore torture was justified. In addition, a person’s tendency to take a very small instance and blow it out of proportion is contained in this quote. While it is true that the Obama administration is clearly using the financial crisis as a way of instituting changes in the relationship between government and the governed, it is a complete exaggeration to say that these changes indicate a desire to become a country based on socialist ideology. Again this is the kind of conflation of two disparate notions that is evidence of the paranoid position.



d. “God you people make me sick. Darin is spot on, you and yours have no
problem with the murder of the unborn in the most barbaric manner yet flagellate over our "treatment" of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. The mastermind of 9/11, the barbarian who hacked off Danny Pearl's head while and bragged about it. You miserable hypocrites make me sick to my stomach.
Perhaps we should petition the government to release photos of the remains off those who jumped out of the WTC, or maybe show the video of KSM murdering Danny Pearl, or perhaps you bastards should be made to sit down and watch a doctor suck the brains out of their unborn child.
Hypocrites!”

My comment:

This kind of justification completely ignores the contextual aspects of the
situations and instead conflates completely separate issues to justify the
mistreatment of the demonized party. This quote basically speaks for itself – just
think “I am terrified” as you read it.


I could go on and on taking these kinds of statements and linking them to the basic premise I have been expounding upon.

The press and the left should not get caught up in whether or not Pelosi is telling the truth about what she was told or what she knows. The fact is that if she knew about the torture and she did not speak out about it, she should also be held accountable for her moral and legal failures. While it is true that by speaking out at the time she may have been breaking national security laws as well – that is that she could be prosecuted for exposing state secrets, it would still be her obligation to place herself in legal jeopardy to expose another much worse crime against us.

The blogs and the comments all miss the point that we do not object to torture out of concern for those who were tortured (these guys deserve whatever pain and suffering they have been put through and worse). The concern is about ourselves and how we perceive ourselves as a people. It is out of a deeper patriotism that we object to these breaches of the law for any reason, not the kind of superficial patriotism that is directed by all or nothing and concrete thinking. While there might be a reason to do what you can to prevent catastrophic trauma (a nuclear attack for example), there is really no reason to justify it based on a hunch or based on fear. The problem is that this kind of underlying fear, largely hidden from the individual who experiences it, and hidden from those surrounding him, leads to irrational acts of paranoid self protection that harm us all.

The American Problem

It is true that a country should be judged by both its good deeds and its bad. The United States has contributed much that is good – spending more on food aid and other charitable causes around the world as any other county, supporting medical and immunization programs, and emergency relief. These are all splendid achievements and show the high degree of good will that America projects into the world.

Unfortunately, it is not these deeds upon which we are judged. It is upon the negative deeds, the misdeeds, and the secret deeds that are later exposed that we are judged.

The issues that I want to discuss below are all related and have everything to do with why we are unable to see that our acceptance of these problems as normal (and justified) is part of the problem.

1. guns – the second amendment is one of these problems. That is, we are allowed by our constitution to possess firearms at will with almost no regulations. In many states you can conceal a weapon legally and carry it at any time. To protect the rights of those who want to have a gun, we accept the regular random mass killing of our fellow citizens. We accept that 1000s of children are killed by firearms each year (accidentally and “accidentally.”). We accept the smuggling of guns to our neighbors because we want to have guns. We accept the availability of assault rifles and machine guns in our midst, guns whose sole purpose is to kill people.

2. Not prosecuting those in power when they break the law. This one is of a particular problem for all of us. It is amazing to me that president after president and his henchmen have been slowly becoming more and more brazen in how they break the law. Its hard to know where to go back to – LBJ (Tonkin Resolution)?, FDR (internment)?, Nixon (Watergate)?, Reagan (Iran Contra)?, Clinton (perjury)?, and finally GWBush (Torture, NSA wiretaps, Invasion of Iraq)?. I would say despite these many many egregious violations, GWBush has been the most dangerous of all. As I have written in this blog before, the fact that Bush, Cheney, et.al. approved the use of torture based on completely made up legal arguments is one of the most fundamental violations of the law of any administration. There is now the false notion that because torture may have worked to gain some useful information that the ends justify the means. This kind of argument is a self-justification and should be completely rejected the moment it is uttered. It might be better for the world if the human race were eradicated; it would stop global warming and the threat of mass extinctions and worldwide destruction. So should we then launch all our nuclear missiles to solve this problem? Ok that is an extreme example. However, look in any book on ethics or morality and it is clear that the use of means that are damaging to both the victim and the perpetrator does not justify the ends (even if the ends are positive). The United States has signed a treaty, it is the law, there will be no torturing of prisoners. The argument that these folks are not prisoners of war that fall under the Geneva Conventions should also be rejected. The spirit of the law is to protect both the victims (from physical/psychological harm) and the perpetrators (from delving into the deepest, most disturbing of human behaviors). Justifying your own sadistic behaviors because the other may want to do the same to you is not acceptable and it is against the law. I can not capture a burglar in my house, who happens to have a note in his pocket with instruction on how to rape my wife and cut up my children and then tie him up, find his wife, rape her and cut up his children. There are good reasons why this kind of behavior is not allowed in a civilized society. The actions of the Bush team have dragged us further into the uncivilized.

Our acceptance of the second amendment (as it has been interpreted) is part of this problem. It makes us all victims of a culture that accepts extreme violence. The fact is that all of these problems are related and speak to our country’s lack of consciousness for the community of humanity. It is not acceptable for us to live this way. It is not acceptable for us to support those who justify ends through uncivilized means. We cannot allow that to be what defines us as a people. We cannot allow our own immorality to be what other people see. We must hold those who diminish us in that way to account for their crimes against all of us. We must consider these crimes to be against us all, not just the particular victims of the crimes.

Let us pursue prosecutions for these crimes to save ourselves and to save the good name of America around the world.

I was right

I think that it is now quite obvious that the underlying character of far right wing ideologues is a paranoid structure. Read back to my prior blogs to see a deeper analysis of this tendency.

The righties are really showing their true colors now - desperation has bred overly paranoid fantasies about the Obama administrations motives-- they have calledhim a fascist, they have said this is the biggest power grab in US history, they have been discussing dictatorship. What a bunch of hogwash. These accusations of course completely ignore the quite clear undermining of the constituation by their own Bush administration (see the John Yoo memos, downing street memos). These memos have just continued to demonstrate that the Bush administration prepared the groundwork for suspending the bill of rights (1, 4, and 5 at least)

It is irritating me to no end that these issues continue to be largely ignored, minimized, and completely uninvestigated and prosecuted. WHY, WHY???

Again, I will reiterate that if democrats investigate this their own complicity will become revealed. So democrats can't do it or they will have to indict themselves (at least some of the leadership).

It is so interesting that suddenly Cheney, Ashcroft, Gingrich, Rove are all coming out of their holes to try to rally the GOP troops that are clearly at a loss.

For example, Steele's claim today that his statements all follow a preconceived plan so he can see his place on the chessboard and where the enemy is. This is such an amazing and almost crazy claim - he expects us to believe that he orchestrated a conflict with Limbaugh just so he could apologize and look like and idiot and distract from other clealry important issues and the GOPs own need to come up with some kind of solution to the economic crisis.

Well, the choice of Steele was so cynical and perverse to begin with.
How did the GOP go down so hard and completely lose their dominance in the press and propaganda supremecy? I'm not going to try to explain this here - mostly because I really only have limitted guesses - the war, the defecit, the economic disaster, and a continuous serious of bad policy decisions. But I don't think these things in themselves are the real reasons. I think the real reason has something to do with changes in ideology and tolerance of the subjegation of reason (though I don't think most humans really use reason very well).

The other issue that I thought to write about is to analyze some of Obama's speeches . It certainly appears that he is a true liberal - just as the GOP has alleged. He keeps saying that it will not be until everyone realizes that they contribute to the welfare of everyone else that we will not make progress. I wish I could generate a number of these statements and quote them here, but I don't have the energy to do so right now.

Single Payer Health Care

OK, I'm getting more and more pissed off. I hear over and over again the same mantra about how a single payer system would lead to the type of service you get at the DMV (department of motor vehicles). Well, I went to the DMV today at lunch time to get my driver's license renewed. It took less than ten minutes and the people there were, if not overtly friendly, at least tolerably helpful. I left thinking that if my doctor's office was as efficient I'd be thrilled. It made me remember that all of my DMV experiences have been relatively easy (even in a dense urban environment), a lot easier than many of my doctor's visits actually. I have spent inumerably more hours waiting in doctor's offices with my expensive private insurance (PPO) than I ever have at any government office (DMV, USPS, etc...).

My vote is for a government run health system that would be much more efficient than anything we have right now.

stem cell research - what controversy?

OK, so the Obama wants to loosen the rules on stem cell research and the press presents it to the world as a "controversy." What controversy? This is another example of the same manipulative stuff we get all the time from the media - even the so called most liberal media (NYT - NPR). All I heard this morning was "controversy" "controversy" "controversy." AHHHHH! The only controversy is that there are a small percentage of scientifically retarded people who have no claim to make statements about such things (i.e. religious fanatics). The only issue should be if there is controversy in the scientific/medical community - and there is not (except of course for the very low % of medical practitioners who are religious fanatics but this seems to be oxymoranic anyway -- there would be no modern medical practice without the rejection of fundamentalist religious ideology).

So for the press to constantly harp on the controversy over stem cell research is completely irresponsible at best and wholly right wing propaganda at worst.

This kind of thing makes me more and more sick - maybe I'll need an infusion of stem cells to my brain to dumb me down to their level of ignorance!

Thoughts on Conservatives

Why is conservatism and fundamentalist religious ideology so compatible? This has been a question for which I have been seeking answers for a long time. I have thought that there have been complex answers to this question, but in fact it is quite simple. The answer came to me in a moment of clarity as I was thinking about how republicans have handled the entire process of ascension (starting with Buckley/Goldwater) and termination (George W. Bush). The fact is that conservatism has been the predominant ideology for 30 years+ and they have had their chance to make it work. Yes, I know many of them would say that they never really put true conservatism into practice - but that is, of course, BS. The fact is this "experiment" of lowering taxes, eliminating regulation, shifting money to the rich, undermining unions, reconfiguring the judicial system etc...have been an utter failure.

Republicans have decided to be in total denial about these facts. Bobby Jindal's rebuttal of Obama's talk revealed that republicans continue to press the exact same ideas that so clearly led to these problems. They stick to their ideologically driven "policies" in a fundamentalist manner - with no ability to absorb reality. So any rigidly held ideological system with no ability to have flexibility or ambiguity in the system leads inexorably to the kind of concrete thinking of hyper religious ideology. In other words, extreme religious beliefs are rigid and resistant to any ambiguities. Therefore, fundamentalist religions (whether christian fundamentalists, orthodox jews, hyper religious mulims, etc...) gravitate toward the conservative parties.

Intolerance of ambiguity, the need to ascribe to your beliefs in the face of direct evidence to the contrary, is evidence of this kind of conservative/religious belief. As an aside this is also what keeps conservatives from being able to tolerate science and "expert" opinions. Conservative/Republican reality is based on a denial of the reality of ambiguity.

The Scariest Article

This is the scariest article I have read in a long time. While I can certainly chalk it up to hyperbole and an example of an extreme analysis, it remarkably fits in with how I have thought about things for quite a long time. In other words, it feeds a certain "fantasy" (I mean that in the psychoanalytic manner - that is any idea, wish, etc whether positive or negative) scenario that I have had for many years - a post apocalyptic fantasy in which life radically changes for the worst.

copy/paste this link:

http://www.truthout.org/022709F


OR CLICK HERE:

After the Financial Crisis, Civil War?

Will the economic and financial crisis degenerate into violent social explosions? Tomorrow, will there be civil war in Europe, the United States and Japan? That's the rather alarming conclusion that the experts of European think tank LEAP/Europe 2020 lay out in their latest bulletin dated mid-February.

Sorry

I wrote a single blog but the HTML got messed up so I had to break up the entire thing into parts (which doesn't work so well) but at least its all here.

Bobby Rindel's Rebuttal

Rebuttle (Gov. Bobby Jindel)

We completed a redemptive journey – all moved by president’s personal story

My parents came from a distant land – Worked out an installment plan with the doctor. Dad from India – extreme poverty. Bobby American’s can do anything… when we pull together

We are now in a time of challenge – worried of losing health care and jobs

We are ready to work together

Where we disagree Repubs have a resp. to offer better ideas

In Washington they think govt. will take care of everything

Used Katrina as example of government red tape!

Its not govt. that gets us through, it’s the spirit of amer. People

Lead by empowering you, the amer. People

Lower income tax rates for small business, incentives, new tax credit for home buyers. Dems rejected this, instead of trusting us to make dec with our own money, they passed big spending wasteful spending

He becomes condescending (monitoring volcanos)

Saddle generations with debt!!! – unbelievable

Dems are irresponsible!!!

We cut earmarks, we cut taxes six times, we worked to together in Louisiana

Increase conservation, efficiency, renewable feuls, nuclear, increase drilling

Crisis in health care – no American should worry about losing health care

No govt. run health care

Education – new charter schools, vouchers!!!

Transparency to Washington – never see the passage of a spending bill again!

Terrorists – don’t dismantle our defenses

We look for hope in different places

We place our hope in you the American people!!!

Our party got away from our principles. Repubs lost your trust and rightly so.

We are determined to regain your trust.

The principles the made this the greatest county (are repubs)!

Summary of the Speech/Outline

Agenda:

1. begins with jobs

2. debt we inherited, not a fan of big govt.,

3. clean up the credit crisis – (must restart lending).

a. Create a new lending fund (republicans stand up)

b. Housing plan to lower monthly payments (save 2000/yr?)

c. confidence in banks – hold accountable those responsible, support

(repubs stand up), cost of action will be great cost of inaction will be greater.

4. Reform Regulatory System

5. Long Term Investments – health care, schools. Budget is a blueprint for the future (but he said he doesn’t try to fix everything). We all have to sacrifice something.

6. Energy – (China launched the greatest efficiency)

a. Get jobs back here

b. Double green energy

c. Science and technology

d. Power lines

e. Retrofitting buildings

f. Clean renewable energy – cap on carbon pollution – renewable energy

g. Clean coal, biofeuls, efficiency in cars

h. Auto industry – retooled, reimagined auto industry,

7. Health Care – cause 1.5 million to lose home, bankruptsy every 30 seconds.

a. Can’t afford to put heath care reform on hold –

b. The health care to kids

c. Electronic health records

d. Cure for cancer

e. Preventive care investment

f. Quality affordable health care for every American

8. School Reform –

a. One of the highest HS dropout rate in industrial world

b. College affordable for 7 million more students

c. More Reform – New incentives for performance

i. Charter schools

ii. Commit to 1 year of higher education

iii. Leaving HS is not just quitting on yourself its quitting on your country. By 2020 America will have highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

iv. If you can give back one year of service we will guarantee payment for a college education.

v. Responsibility for education starts at home – an American issue

9. Don’t pass on a debt they can not pay – (this is the magic trick for Obama!) – I knew we could get consensus – then he hits the repubs (deficit we inherited).

a. Identified 2 trillion dollars of savings in the budget

b. End Education programs that don't work

c. End payments to agribusiness

d. Eliminate no bid contracts (IRAQ)

e. Reform out defense budget – no cold

f. Waste and abuse in Medicaid

g. Fairness and balance tax codes – end breaks that ship jobs overseas.

h. End tax breaks for weathiest 2% of Americans

i. He rejects the tax raising taxes issue

ii. Tax cut for 95% of working families

10. Medicare and Social Security – tax free savings accounts

11. Honesty and Accountability to our budget – including the full cost of fighting war

No longer will we hide its price

12. The wars:

a. Iraq – responsibly ends this war.

b. Afghan/Pakistan – no terrorists plotting

c. The army – unyielding support. Raise Pay, Veterans, More troops,

d. Uphold our values – Closing Guantanomo, seek swift justice for terrorists

Living our values makes us safer and stronger

NO TORTURE

13. Foreign Policy – Cant shun negotiating table, confidence and candor

Israel – peace

Terrorism, cyberthreats, pandemic disease, economic crisis that is global, avoid protectionism, spur demand for US goods.

In our hands lies the ability to shape our world.

Leonard Abess- gave his bonus to his employees (didn’t tell anyone)

Bob Dixson – rebuilt all green town

Te’sheoma Bethea – typed a letter asking congress for help. We are not quitters

Everyone loves this county and wants it to succeed

Content when Republicans did not stand or clap

He tried to connect the progressive agenda of the 20^th century as the basis for all of USA growth and progress in the 20^th century (and in between the lines the conservative agenda being at fault for the crisis).

Republicans not clapping or standing while Obama spoke of the following:

1. the stimulus package

2. the issue of rich over poor

3. Saving jobs in mineapolis

4. 75% will see tax cut

5. 2500 tax credit for college

6. extended unemployment benefits

7. Nobody messes with Joe (?) – oversight

8. health care to kids

9. deficit we inherited

10. Tax raise for 2% wealthiest

THE REPUBLICANS NOT STANDING FOR SOME OF THESE ITEMS WAS SO PROBLEMATIC... And in fact I think they realized their mistakes and began to stand up a lot more

My problem with this speech was that while there were specifics to some extent - there seemed to be little real concrete specific means for achieving these goals. I really don't know how he will do these things: for example spending trillions and at the same time balancing the budget??? These items:

a. Identified 2 trillion dollars of savings in the budget

b. End Education programs that don't work

c. End payments to agribusiness

d. Eliminate no bid contracts (IRAQ)

e. Reform out defense budget – no cold

f. Waste and abuse in Medicaid

g. Fairness and balance tax codes – end breaks that ship jobs overseas.

h. End tax breaks for weathiest 2% of Americans

don't seem to make enough of a cut to get to a balanced budget to me!!!

Comments on the Rebuttal - My Main Points are in Here!

The republican rebuttal: my commentary

(its all the same policies over and over again - vouchers to improve schools, tax cuts, the idea that republicans trust you and they trust govt, more drilling and fossil fuels, the fake dicotomy of us = strong military they = wimps). These policies are the exact policies that led us to this disaster. In addition he tried to coop the progressive agenda which led to 20th century benefits as conservative values -- this is the biggest and most amazing distortion of reality. It was not conservatives who wanted to give up slavery, it wasnt' conservatives that wanted people to have voting rights, civil rights, medicare, social security, equality, workplace safety, restricting child labor, exploitation of workers and working class, mass education, women's rights, balanced budgets, regulation, environmental regulations, wildlife protection, and so many other great protections and rights we have today. The claim that southern "conservatives" have been a part of achieving these great American ideals is absurd at best and a violent and distorted lie on the other. The idea that the republican governor of Louisiana would refer to the Katrina debacle as evidence for how government doesn't work when it was the republican adminstration that caused the entire problem in the first place and at the same time blame government for spending money to come to the aid of people in need when Louisiana has taken trillions in recovery money (I read that it is 2.3 trillion!) is again and absurdity of monumental proportions and such hypocracy that this comment itself shoud dismiss everything else the guy said.

I can’t believe he invoked govt. failure on Katrina to support his position!!!

some interesting links

I have had so many thoughts about what has gone on over the past two months since i have written but I have been too busy to write. I am extremely distressed by several things that have come up: 1. the stimulus package and how the republicans have been dealing with this.
2. retreating on Bush's terrorism laws, extraordinary rendition, and guantanamo
3. Obama's bipartisan foibles
4. Netanyahu being the prime minister of Israel
5. sending more troops to Afghanistan (such a stupid decision)
6. bombing civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan
7. Taliban being 100 miles from Islamabad by Pakistani government acquiescence
8. The oncoming depression that will be worse than 1930s
9. The manner in which both banking executives and wall street executives live in a
totally ego centric world - giving themselves millions in bonuses
10. The fact that, during this financial debacle no one seems to be really discussing the
underlying issues - that is the utter failure of our economic system to retain
stability over the long run. Since the late 1970s we have had one major downturn
after another with seeming recoveries and balooning growth that ends up deflating.
We should be smart enough to design a system that serves everyone rather than
the top 1%.

Here are some links to several articles that I think capture some of these issues in a very serious way:

High Noon: Geithner v. the American Oligarchs

Former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), MIT Sloan School of Management professor and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Simon Johnson examines President Obama's plan for economic recovery.

Dump the GOP

Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain

Former GOP Congressman Joe Scarborough was doing his MSNBC morning yak-fest on Friday, and made a comment about how President Obama's newly-finalized stimulus package has "greatly offended Republicans." His guests all agreed with solemnly nodding heads, yeah, you're right, Joe, Obama offended the Republicans. Greatly and stuff.

Ending the Hidden Agenda Behind Tax Cuts

Something as simple as a metaphor can mean the difference between shared prosperity and widespread suffering.

It's time to tell the truth about tax cuts. This phrase dominates political discourse and is coughed out every time a conservative public figure opens his mouth. It is treated like the basis of sound reasoning, yet no one points out what should be obvious - that "tax relief" and "tax cuts" are just code words for destroying the capacity of government to serve the public.

We've heard over and over again that the source of society's problems is the government.

Have fun!

I know I haven't written for a while but here are some issues that Iwant to address:
1. Isreal - Gaza
2. Obama - prosecution of Bush administration war crimes and violations of the constitution

I don't know if I will get to the real crux in this post, just don't have enough time to sit and write.

It is very difficulty to come to terms with what Isreal has done. The justification for killing and maiming 1000s of people - the rocket attacks - just doesn't cut it for me. However, how else do you deal with an organization like Hamas - that is how do you deal with a government whose goal is your eradication? It is also true that the people in Gaza supported these guys by voting them into office in a free election. So the conclusion would be that the people of Gaza are also complicit in Hamas's goals? (It would be equally safe to assume then that we in the US - all of us - are liable for what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan then).

Of course there is an entire history that goes back 60 years with regard to Gaza and the West Bank, the partition, Zionism, etc... I am not getting into all of that here. What I will say is that justifying a murderous act based on recent incidents is not compelling. These acts are clearly designed to get such a reaction from Israel (and Israel's actions are designed to instigate such acts as well). So both parties are quite at fault for what has happened.

The problem for me is that I would hope that my own people would attempt to be able to figure all of this out and not over-react in this way. The current acts will serve to perpetuate and deepen hatred of Israel by their Arab neighbors and by other's around the world. This will lead to more suicide bombs and other horrible actions. It is easy to minimize the pain and suffering of those with whom you are in conflict, but they are equally in pain when their children, parents, sisters, brothers, grandparents, and friends are killed as are ours.

While I certainly understand that a nihilistic viewpoint (that held by right wing folks) can be rationalized, I will not buy into it. That is, one can look at the world as a place in which you must kill or be killed. One of the bottom line facts is that these Palastinians in Gaza do not have any chance to annihilate Israel - unless it is from the inside out when Israel fails to agree to establish a Palestinian state and facilitate the whole endeavor. What could be more positive than Israel providing full on infrastruture building, financing, housing, and other support when Gaza and the West Bank become Palestine. Yes I know, they want it all - but everyone wants it all.



As for Obama and prosecutions -- the generall Buzz is that they are not going to pursue prosecutions of war crimes (torture, rendition, etc) or constitutional violations (wiretapping, suspention of habeas corpus, etc...). I am deeply worried about this decision. It is very clear that war crimes and constitutional violations have been committed and that it is Bush and his cohorts who have been doing it. The John Yoos of this world deserve serious punishment and he deserves banishment from the Bar for his distortions of reality.

However, I believe the real reason for Obama not wanting to prosecute is that if they do, top democrats in Congress will be found to be responsible for these decisions as well. We don't hear Senate committee chairs asking for prosecutions - why? Because in their meetings with Bush they decided to help the guy. Now perhaps there is secret information that pointed them in the direction of allowing these crimes. But who would have believed the Bush administration's claims of intelligence after Iraq WMDs? It is also possible that the democrats are also so jingoistic and "America only" in their attitudes that they were as enthusiastic to support these crimes as was Bush.

I believe that this is the most likely reason for those in power to avoid responsibility for these crimes. I hope that Holder will change his mind, but I am not encouraged.