Barack Obama And The "False Choice"

In Mr. Obama's inaugural address we find this statement:

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

It's a stunning bit of vapidity: safety is one of our ideals.

And in Mr. Obama's speech regarding the use (and destruction) of human embryos for scientific inquiry, we find this statement:

But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent.

The stunning vapidity apparently never ends: No one in the Bush administration ever created the false choice described by Mr. Obama. For President Bush, science informed his ethics, and vice versa: It is science that shows us that life begins at conception, and it is our ethics that draws a clear moral line between the willful destruction of human life for unknown medical gains and research that is not so inhuman. Mr. Obama even acknowledged the "unknown" in his speech the day he repealed Bush's ban:

At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains UNKNOWN, and it should not be OVERSTATED. But scientists believe these tiny cells† MAY have the POTENTIAL to help us... [emphasis added]

Of course, lost in Mr. Obama's emptiness is the unavoidable fact that the Bush administration PERMITTED embryonic stem cell research to continue; President Bush only limited the number of embryonic lines that could be generated (and the administration funded stem cell research as well).

In other words, only Mr. Obama has created the false choice: the choice between his false-choice straw man and the actual facts. There was no false choice save the one in his own imagination.

A REAL FALSE CHOICE

Lastly, the capstone: Here is what Michelle Obama said of her husband on the campaign trail; this was meant to sell him to us as something special. Check out this skewed logic:

The first major decision he had to make in his life, after college - "Do I go to Wall Street and make money, or do I work for the people?" - Barack worked as a community organizer in some of the toughest neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago.

Here, finally, we have evidence of a legitimate False Choice. Mr. Obama's alleged quandary is utterly manufactured. He is alleged to be unbelievably bright, and yet apparently not quite bright enough to see his false either/or. For there is no evidence that a man going to "Wall Street" to "make money" does not "work for the people." In fact, a good case could be made that a Wall Street job is far better for "the people" than community organizing in Chicago. Regardless, the point is clear: Michelle and Barack Obama presented themselves as better people than those who they falsely believe don't "work for the people"; and if Ms. Obama's testimony regarding her husband is to be trusted, then she and her husband have either fallen prey to their own false choice, or they've pandered to the envious masses by giving themselves props concealed in a false choice: We are for the people, and our refusal to work on Wall Street -- though we could have! -- proves this.

And yet, somehow, as workers for the people who rejected the allure of Wall Street, they've still managed to become millionaires.

It is now quite clear, I should think, that a colossal false choice was made some time around November 4, 2008.

Perhaps this also makes clear why Mr. Obama looks with such disdain on those who've been more successful than he. Envy nearly always poses as social justice -- for the good "of the people." In fact, it seems perfectly obvious that the whole of Mr. Obama's economic policies rests upon his most fundamental false choice.

_________________

†In the third Obama quote above, I placed a †. I wanted to draw your attention to the Orwellian diminution Mr. Obama provides: he uses a reductionistic euphemism to distract you from the fact that these are HUMAN EMBRYOS that are being destroyed; that these cells are the very rudiments and foundations of each and every human life that has ever existed or ever will exist. Each of us IS one of these "tiny cells", and each of us WAS one of these "tiny cells." This "great man" believes the weakest among us are strictly here to serve those who happen to have the privilege of walking around, you know, the advantaged; the strong. The embryos in power.

And why DID he repeal the executive order? You know why. The answer is almost genomic: $.

Mr. Obama is so disturbing precisely because he has been presented as anything but.

Peace through dissent.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Orwell On Socialism's Opportunity

Along with far too many other books, I keep at my bedside George Orwell's Why I Write, published by Penguin Books in its Great Ideas series. What follows is something I read to my wife the other night. (I am such a romantic; she yawned.) Please permit me to occasionally add things in [ ], and to use boldface when I think it necessary for emphasis.

From Page 71, George Orwell's Why I Write:

The fact that we are are at war [and in economic disarray] has turned Socialism from a text-book word into a realizable policy.

The inefficiency of private capitalism has been proved all over Europe [and apparently the United States]. Its injustice has been proved in the East End of London. Patriotism, against which the Socialists fought so long, has become a tremendous lever in their hands. People who at any other time would cling like glue to their miserable scraps of privilege, will surrender them fast enough when their country [or their retirement plan] is in danger. War [and economic anxiety] is the greatest of all agents of change. It speeds up all processes, wipes out minor distinctions, brings realities to the surface. Above all, war [and economic disarray] brings it home to the individual. That he is not altogether an individual [you must share; sacrifice]. It is only because they are aware of this that men will die on the field of battle. At this moment it is not so much a question of surrendering leisure, comfort, economic liberty, social prestige. There are very few people in England [or America] who really want to see their country conquered by Germany [or Wall Street, or jihadists]. If it can be made clear that defeating Hitler [and income disparity] means wiping out class privilege, the great mass of middling people, the £6 a week to £2000 a year class, will probably be on our side. These people are quite indispensable, because they include most of the technical experts. Obviously the snobbishness and political ignorance of people like airmen and naval officers will be a very great difficulty. But without those airmen, destroyer commanders, etc. etc. we could not survive for a week. The only approach to them is through their patriotism. An intelligent Socialist movement will use their patriotism, instead of merely insulting it, as hitherto. [It is interesting to read news reports of Michelle Obama's frequent and recent meetings with military families in swing states.]

But do I mean there will be no opposition? Of course not. It would be childish to expect anything of the kind.

There will be a bitter political struggle, and there will be unconscious and half-conscious sabotage everywhere. At some point or other it may be necessary to use violence [like Weathermen bombs]. It is easy to imagine a pro-Fascist rebellion breaking out in, for instance, India. We shall have to fight against bribery, ignorance and snobbery. The bankers and the larger businessmen, the landowners and dividend-drawers, the officials with their prehensile bottoms, will obstruct for all they are worth [or maybe they will even help]. Even the middle class will writhe when their accustomed way of life is menaced. But just because the English sense of national unity has never disintegrated, because patriotism is finally stronger than class-hatred, the chances are that the will of the majority will prevail. It is no use imagining that one can make fundamental changes without causing a split in the nation; but the treacherous minority will be far smaller in time of war [and economic crisis] than it would be at any other time.

The swing of opinion is visibly happening, but it cannot be counted on to happen fast enough of its own accord. This war is a race between the consolidation of Hitler's empire and the growth of democratic consciousness. Everywhere in England you can see a ding-dong battle ranging to and fro -- in Parliament and in the Government, in the factories and the armed forces, in the pubs and the air-raid shelters, in the newspapers and on the radio. Every day there are tiny defeats, tiny victories. ... It is a struggle between the groping and the unteachable, between the young and the old, between the living and the dead. But it is very necessary that the discontent which undoubtedly exists should take a purposeful and not merely obstructive form. It is time for the people to define their war [and economic] aims. What is wanted is a simple, concrete programme of action, which can be given all possible publicity, and round which public opinon can group itself.

I suggest the following six-point programme is the kind of thing we need. The first three points deal with England's internal policy, the other three with the Empire and the world:

1. Nationalization of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.
   
2. Limitation of incomes, on such a scale that the highest tax-free income in Britain does not exceed the lowest by more than ten to one.
   
3. Reform of the educational system along democratic [read 'radical egalitarian'] lines.
   
4. Immediate Dominion status for India [Iraq?], with power to secede when the war is over.
   
5. Formation of an Imperial General Council, in which the coloured [sic] peoples are to be represented.
   
6. Declaration of formal alliance with China, Abyssinia and all other victims of the Fascist powers.
   

The general tendency of this programme is unmistakable. It aims quite frankly at turning this war into a revolutionary war and England into a Socialist democracy.

[end of Orwell quote]

______________

Interesting: "...turning this war into a revolutionary war..." in order to produce a socialist state. Sounds eerily familiar.

Time to "cling."

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

A TARP Over Our Many Woes

I don't see how one can miss the irony of the acronym. The "Troubled Asset Relief Program," or TARP, has been woven by lawmakers and tossed over what might be the corpse found at a horrific accident scene. Usually what follows is an investigation: a forensic examination of all details, an Accident Reconstruction Team running data, taking measurements, taking pictures. And a plastic tape -- in this case probably red tape -- keeping the public at a distance. Which is even more ironic, since the public's trust, and even its treasury, are what lie beneath the tarp.

I have no problem admitting my own culpability. I agree with George Will that suddenly and without warrant, Main Street America has been knighted as some sort of model of fiscal valor and discretion, while Wall Street has been stripped down to nothing but its new clothes of naked avarice. I accept that Main Street -- which is also heavily invested in Wall Street -- is every bit as reckless with personal credit, and as avaricious as the paragons of capitalism.

But the fact remains that, despite John McCain's utterly unhelpful "this is not the time to fix blame, it's time to fix the problem," there is blame to be fixed -- at least in Washington. And from what I am seeing, most of the evidence points directly at the Democratic Party. I don't see how one can conclude otherwise: the Democrats appeared desperate to pass a plan. And though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid averred that no one knew what to do, the Democratic Party's candidate for president, Barack Obama, who clearly did not know what to do, insisted that there was "no choice" but to pass the massive corporate bailout. Apparently, at least to Sen. Obama, some things are not a matter of choice but of inevitability: without anyone proving that the future would be dire, Congress HAD to act -- now.

To me, it all smacks of Democrats looking for America to bail them out, to give them more time to gain more control of all things Washington, solely so they can control the horrors of their own mismanagement, and maybe even their own prosecutions. I sense Democrats desperately seeking to control the scene of their own accident, hoping that they can send in their own investigators. And if there were obvious Republicans to blame, there would not have been a second's pause in Democratic Party denunciations of the GOP's "culture of corruption." In a critical election year, we know Democrats would have exploited Republican culpability to the absolute maximum; that they have not, proves to me they have much to hide.

That President Bush and many Republicans pushed for this bailout can only mean one of two things: either they see that Democrats have in fact screwed things up so badly that there is no time to waste afixing blame right now, and a tourniquet is needed immediately, or that both parties are to blame and the Republicans must join Democrats to stave off a possible coup or revolution. But the latter seems implausible to me, particularly since the Democrats have been legislating for the last two years.

I must, however, return to my grave feelings of suspicion. There is something grotesque afoot; when I look at those who have contributed tens of millions of dollars to Barack Obama's campaign, I see the names of those who stand to benefit the most, not only from the bailout, but from a troubled economy. When I think of Democrats rolling out Warren Buffett as some sort of moral index of economic and market excellence, I sense that there is a profoundly blind eye to the opportunistic advantage given such a wealthy Democrat like Mr. Buffett: as of two days ago, he had made in excess (at least on paper) of $650,000,000 in "helping out" Wall Street (and this from a man who complains that the Republican tax codes favor the rich and prevent him from paying more taxes).

What is the one thing Democrats need, usually, to win the White House? That's right, they need discontent, resentment: they need envy to be maximized. How best to do that? Foment concern about injustice, about economic disparity, about unfair tax rates, about who has X and who doesn't. Every election cycle I have ever seen in which Democrats vie for the White House, a house wherein some Republican beast has been ruining the very foundations of the world, Democrats root against the economy at every turn. Somewhere the Democrats have been able to create and preserve the ridiculous myth that they know how to stimulate and manage economies better than anyone else. Hence, they need, like an addict needs a fix, for economic news to be grim. So they work to undermine it, or so I believe.

What better way to prove the greed of Wall Street, a large Democratic stronghold if there ever was one and yet somehow cast as Republican, than to help create a crisis by mismanagement? What better way to create chaos than to hold a gun to Washington's head, saying, "You have no choice," all the while knowing that your own wealth is not at risk. What better way to create chaos than to have great Democratic billionaires, like Mr. Buffett or George Soros, assist in sell-offs and cheap buyouts and sundry other manipulations of markets and moods? What better way to produce fear -- fueled by envy's promiscuous whispers -- than to tell Main Street that Wall Street has sold it off, even if Wall Street, by nearly 2 to 1, has backed the candidate of the very party in control of the House and Senate, and whose candidate for president is almost drowning in incredibly liquid assets? How else to generate anxiety about free markets than to actually prove that markets are not one whit free; that they are susceptible to the actions of just a handful of billionaires (and who cares if those billionaires are Democrats)?

When a friend of mine, a major-league banker in a Wall Street bank, tells me that he and his bank believe Barack Obama is better for them, I know something is up, and what is up has nothing to do with making the wealthy less wealthy or the poor less poor.

I sense, now, of course, that Democrats will immediately turn this into a Bush failure. They will denounce his tax cuts as "reckless and irresponsible"; they will couple that indictment to a declaration that America can no longer afford the War on Terror, at least in Iraq; they will call for reduction in that theater, that "reckless and misguided rush-to-war theater" of great disgrace.

Republicans, of course, have leverage points, too. But the seemingly pusillanimous John McCain seems so preoccupied with appearing like the incarnation of the bipartisan spirit that he seems unable or unwilling to seize the great campaign opportunity smacking him in the nose. One look at the economic trends since the Democrats won in 2006 might win Sen. McCain a few more votes; but a more revelatory examination of Democratic-backed policies that led to certain "inevitabilities" would certainly lead to a Republican victory.

I will not be the one to say that what lies under the TARP is stinking. But I will not be surprised to learn that the thing that does cast off a great stench is the TARP itself.

Just some hasty thoughts.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Something Seems Wrong, Part 1

Let me state the obvious: If you were playing the stock market yesterday, you might have made a fortune. Feast during famine, famine during feast. It all depends on who you are. But a nearly 500-point gain in a day -- buy low, sell high -- might mean that Monday's thousand-aires are today's millionaires; and that today might be a mixed-market bag, with some cashing in their big gains. But maybe not.

I want to explore something here, something I do not really understand. I shall play it out this way: Today I am just going to post some screen captures from Opensecrets.org that show how much money both the McCain and the Obama campaigns have raised and spent, and how much cash they have on hand. I am also going to show you screen captures of both candidates' top donor lists, both in terms of cash given and the industries from which such cash donations come. I think you will see something interesting. But I won't give too much away. I simply want to learn whether readers see what I see.

Tomorrow, I want to write about a conversation I had this past summer with a man who is a top-tier banker in New York City. I will tell you neither the man's name nor the name of his bank; you will simply have to trust me. But I will tell you that he is a Democrat and a fervent supporter of Barack Obama. And I will also tell you that I've known this man for 40 years.

So, there you have it. My little outline. And as promised, here are the screen captures from Opensecrets.org.

First, the lists of both candidates' top contributors.

Barack Obama:



John McCain:


Second, the lists of the areas of industry that contributed to both candidates.

Barack Obama:


John McCain:


Third, here are graphs indicating how much each candidate has raised thus far, and how much has been spent. The graphs also list debts and cash on hand.

Barack Obama (8/31/08):


John McCain (8/31/08):


I will quickly note that Barack Obama is raising and spending money nearly 2 to 1 compared to John McCain. It is an amazing feat, especially when those of us raised on American politics the past 30 or so years recall hearing nothing but moans and groans regarding "those wealthy Republicans" and how much cash they spend to gain power. But this is a tiny point to make, really.

What patterns do you see in the fundraising data provided above? Doesn't it strike you as interesting that many of the major players in the current economic crisis have given huge sums of money to Barack Obama; and that even if those same bundled-up contributors gave cash to John McCain, their contributions were much smaller? Isn't it also interesting to see that Barack Obama has been given so much cash from the news media (and also Time-Warner) and the movie industry, whereas John McCain has not been given such sums by those who control and peddle information -- and misinformation. John McCain has been given $1.6 million by "Big Oil," but Barack Obama has received more than twice that from Big Publishing, $3.4 million, and more than 3 times that from Big Movie/TV, $5.1 million. Big Computer gave Barack Obama $4.2 million, while giving John McCain received just $1.5 million, or close to a third of what Barack Obama has received. Somehow, however, most Americans are under the impression that John McCain is in Big Oil's tank (forgive me) and that Barack Obama is somehow free of undue outside monies. How does that happen? Answer: Media propaganda. No?

Clearly the income disparities of both campaigns are stunning. The Obama campaign is not only well-greased, it is financed by many of the very groups who stand to gain -- and lose -- so much in the current market dynamics, and in the apparent bailout. But I want to leave you with this: There was something about my banker friend that suggested to me that the impending doom he was forecasting from his seat on the porch of the local general store was not all that scary -- for him. There was seemingly something he felt he could gain in this current financial morass. And surely there is something to gain for some Wall Street folks: illiquid assets bailed out at above market prices; properties bought up for a song and sold later when property values improve; credit protected by federal handouts, just to name a few. And then there's the market: a sudden drop means there are some great deals out there, and great deals were indeed made. Big time.

My banker friend was adamant that what would be best for him -- and his bank -- was a Barack Obama presidency.

Moral: For the life of me, I do not know how my Democratic friends can say A) that Democrats are better with "the economy"; B) that Democrats are not controlled by special interest groups; C) that Democrats are more trustworthy (and are "greed-free") in matters fiduciary; and D) that Republicans are the untrustworthy avaricious worms that have pulled the economy into the ground. But alas, alack, they do believe it.

My rather indelicate observation -- forgive me -- is that there has never been such a load of crap so widely and passionately embraced.

Peace.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Brown Spots On The Wall (Street)

John McCain has called it a crisis. Barack Obama called it a result of George W. Bush's failed policies, the product of "more of the same."

I wonder about the arithmetic of this current correction of the American economy, a correction replete with foreclosures, bankruptcies, take-overs and bail-outs. And I wonder about blame.

If there is the slightest hint of corruption to be found; if the tiniest shred of evidence pointed toward a culpable person or party, isn't it likely that great political theater would have already been staged, with seats sold out in a sudden rush of interest?

If the Republicans were to blame for the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae debacle, wouldn't it be political idiocy, even suicide, if the Democrats did not immediately call for subpoenas and indictments and hearings and special prosecutors? Why haven't they done so? Doesn't the DNC stand to gain from getting to the criminal bottom of it all, if, indeed, Bush and Company are culpable?

Or are Democrats afraid? But why? Why should Democrats fear when they confront the vast "culture of corruption" that is the Grand Ole Party? I should think that the very halls of Congress would be abuzz with news of hearings, of impeachments and convictions. But I am not hearing any such thing. Am I not listening closely enough? Why the relative silence; where's the great hue and cry for justice, for "hell to pay!"

Is the silence due to the fact that the two biggest contributions to political campaigns disbursed by Freddie Mac went to Democrats Chris Dodd and Barack Obama, respectively? Is it because the former head of Freddie Mac, Franklin Raines, who paid himself $20 million in 2003 essentially to destroy a financial sacred cow and then awarded himself another $25 million as a consolation prize, is one of Barack Obama's campaign advisors and was a big player in the Clinton Administration, serving as director of the US Office of Management and Budget? Or is this all a reach?

Or is the silence due to the fact that Joe Biden voted in favor of the 1999 legislation that arguably led to this great 'crisis,' while John McCain was 'absent' from the Senate at that time; and that Bill Clinton signed the deregulation bill into law, making it a key part of his Democratic legacy? Yes, Republican Phil Gramm, a former McCain campaign economic advisor, helped craft that controversial bill. But Democrats were also behind the bill. Beside, as already noted, the Obama campaign is getting economic advice from the man who led Freddie Mac into the abyss. If Gramm is McCain's liability, then Raines is Obama's liability as well.

I am not unaware that Republicans also received contributions from Freddie Mac, but the Republican connections to Freddie Mac do not seem quite as unbreakable as their Democratic Party counterparts'. I am also aware that everyone may stand to lose something here. But surely there is a party that stands to lose less and gain more, no? If so, why has that hand not yet been played? Or does it all amount to no more than a wash? Are we about to see more mud-flinging around Wall Street, flung solely as a distraction, even a palliative, keeping voters confused, detached or disinterested, and hence passive and careless?

Someone, I hope, can set me on the right path. I would very much like to understand the politics of this particular game -- and why the game is not being played for all it is worth.

Prediction: Whoever wins this particular game wins the election.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.