As the next Congressional fight over payroll tax extensions and unemployment benefits and pipelines gets set up in the next few weeks for either its final chapter or to be kicked down the road a bit farther, one or the other, you're going to hear a lot from our Republican friends about how much they value work and workers; most especially, they'll tell you, they value American jobs for American workers.
After all, they'll say, creating American jobs is the most important thing of all.
But if we were to look back over just the last few months, some would tell us, we could quickly find examples of how Republicans promote ideas that don't seem to value work or workers at all, much less American jobs.
Well as it turns out, "some" seem to be right; to illustrate one of those examples we'll look back a month or two or three to a time some Republicans might wish was long, long, ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
Obama was in full campaign mode of course, although he says he was at Ft. Bragg this morning, to Welcome Home the troops from Iraq as our occupation of that country comes to an end. Of course, if you believe that shit I have some wonderful coastal property to sell you here in the San Joaquin Valley which btw is hours from the coast.
Meanwhile Stephen Hadley was bullshitting the masses on Andrea Mitchells’ show shortly thereafter about what the end of our occupation means to Iraq. Hadley,who served under The Shrub, is now hanging his hat at the US Institute of Peace. I find his ‘new job’ incredibly fucking hypocritical, but more on Hadley later.
Back to The Big O and his speechifying this morning. He had, as his backdrop, dozens of soldiers in their military garb applauding as if on cue. I changed the channel before he was finished, I must be honest with you. So, from the MSNBC writeup, here is one of his memorable quotes from this morning..try not to toss your cookies as you read it:
Now I know for sure that Obama is trying to kill us by making us choke on our lunches with laughter. Obama wants his spy drone back from Iran!
"We have asked for [our Sentinel drone] back. We'll see how the Iranians respond," Obama said during a joint news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki after the two met at the White House.
I'm sorry, but this ranks with the stupidest thing ever done by George W. Talk about fulfilling a more humble foreign policy. Assemble the laughingstocks! (didn't brooklynbadboy just wax rhapsodic about Obama's passion for foreign policy?)
Salon.com's news editor, Steve Kornacki, lamented yesterday that "Obama won't face a credible primary challenge", going on about how the closest thing to a liberal challenge he has comes from Republican candidate Buddy Roemer. While it is true that many liberals aren't seeing any "viable" candidates materialize on the left, Kornacki isn't telling us why that is: the failure of supposedly liberal pundits to report on candidates who are actually running.
And therein lies the catch-22 bloggers like Kornacki can't seem to escape from. They complain about Obama, but they refuse to use the public voice they've been given to alter the political landscape. Pundits influence public opinion simply by reporting on someone or something. And they pass up opportunity after opportunity to do so when they fail to do their journalistic duty.
Because there is a Democrat trying to get himself on the ballot to challenge Obama from the left in next year's primaries: Aldous Tyler is seeking the nomination to run for president as a liberal Democrat. His platform hits all the right notes, including opposition to war, taxation of the wealthy, a sustainable energy policy, cleaning up the environment, and restoring and protecting the safety net, among other positions. Tyler also favors heavily regulating Wall Street and corporations.
So why aren't supposedly liberal bloggers and pundits giving Aldous Tyler any coverage? Kornacki writes that "[t]he depths of liberal despair over his presidency are often overstated", meaning that bitch as they might about Obama, far too many who claim to be liberal aren't dissatisfied with his policies enough to want to be rid of him - and having so thoroughly bought into the Big Lie that Republicans are just so much worse than any Democrat no matter what the evidence disproving that notion, they fear that any challenge might weaken Obama to the point that the GOP nominee might manage to cheat his way to victory next year.
But it's Obama's fault that he is even in such a precarious political position in the first place. Having made big promises only to cold-bloodedly refuse to even try to deliver on so much as one of them, and after literally adding insult to injury by dissing his party's official base, it's no wonder that his campaign is looking a lot more like Al Gore's and John Kerry's lackluster, doomed efforts than, say, Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election drive. So coming out of a primary challenged beaten up and vulnerable isn't exactly a legitimate excuse not to cover challengers, especially ones from the left of the political divide.
Isn't it time to break the self-imposed media blackout on left-wing challenges to Obama? If Democrats are truly fed up with him, and are seeking alternatives, it only makes sense for those blessed with public voices, such as Steve Kornacki, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, or Ed Schultz to use their gifts to report on people like Aldous Tyler. The media might lament the lack of candidates, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. They only need to be reported on objectively, so voters can render their own decisions.
The tenets of her plan include building infrastructure and public transportation, supporting sustainable agriculture, developing clean and renewable energy and restructuring the nation's manufacturing base.
"There is a strong economic argument that unemployment is more expensive than a plan to deal with unemployment," Stein said.
The plan's details have not been worked out, according to Stein, but she said it would be a community-based effort that extends to the local level. Her plan would aim to create 17 million new jobs, and she said that, through a multiplier effect, those 17 million would translate into the 25 million needed to achieve full employment.
"The aggressive, needless police actions across the country against Occupy Wall Street (OWS) are an assault on civil liberties and an effort to suppress a much needed movement for economic justice and democracy," said Stein, a Green Party member and past candidate in Massachusetts elections. "The courageous protesters who have stood up to intimidation by lethal force are standing up for us all."
In the statement, Stein called upon mayors in occupied cities to "follow the example of Green Party Mayor Gayle McLaughlin of Richmond, Cali., who welcomed the local occupation" and contrasts that with videos and reports from Wall Street, UC Berkley and Occupy Oakland, which she says show public officials are "suppressing rights of free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press."
"The use of police in full riot gear with helicopters buzzing overhead to arrest peaceful and largely sleeping protesters is frightening commentary on the militarization of state and municipal security," Stein said i nthe statement. "Unprovoked police violence against citizens practicing peaceful civil disobedience - clearly documented on videos gone viral on the Internet - is deeply alarming."
Small wonder then, that in a mock election held earlier this month in Illinois (the largest in the nation), Stein and the Greens garnered twenty-seven percent of the vote.
The mock primary/caucus process produced three tickets: Democrats nominated Barack Obama for President and Hillary Clinton for Vice-President; Republicans nominated Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan; Greens nominated Jill Stein and Kent Mesplay. Then, at the mock general election, the results were 39% for the Democratic ticket, 33% for the Republican ticket, 27% for the Green ticket, and 1% other.
Libertarians were involved but they chose to work for Ron Paul in the mock Republican convention. Jill Stein spoke on campus, and this obviously helped the Green campaign, because no other actual presidential candidates appeared on campus.
In a race that, no thanks to Obama's endless and ongoing betrayals of the public interest to curry favor with the top 1%, may be so much closer than it should be, that twenty-seven percent could make the difference. This isn't a bad thing by any means; Stein's candidacy seems to be having an effect already by forcing Obama to adopt policies he ordinarily wouldn't. (For example, Hopey McChangerton seemed last week to back off of plans to open up even more public lands to oil drilling.)
The biggest problem of the 2012 election won't just be the ongoing right-wing policies that have turned America into a fascist police state, but the exclusion of any left-wing voices from the national dialog. But if Jill Stein keeps up her campaign and manages to resonate with more voters, this could change.
This is an attempt to imagine the hell that the women of the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been through. While I struggle with my own role in an imperialist America, I also believe that it is my job as a writer to advocate, to bear witness, to the horrors of the world.
Last week, President Obama announced that the United States would finally take action against the Lord's Resistance Army. I offer something I wrote a few years ago, and, following that, information on how you can support the women of the DRC as they continue with their brave struggle against those who tried to rob them of everything they had.
In English, when you become stressed, your brain pumps out stress messengers to alert your kidney-associated glands to produce a massive stress response on demand. The powerful, powerful molecule produced (compound F, in humans, also known as cortisone (Kendall's compound E)), goes straight to the brain, and makes animals do crazy, crazy shit if left over-pumped and unchecked (See for yourself: it's coming to theatre near you soon!).
Fortunately, the endocrine system is designed to shut itself off (under normal stress conditions; again, coming to a theatre of the mind near you!). It's like a box with a button: When you push the button, a hand comes out in order to push the button to retract the hand and close the lid again.
No, wait, evolution is not that stupid. A lot of crazy and worthwhile shit happens in between button-pushings. Unlike politics, apparently, button-pushing is NOT the main goal of the endocrine system. However, it's important to turn the system OFF, lest it run in undesirable directions (see your theatre's listings!). The cannabinoid receptor is the fast shut-off switch, quite literally, for the stress system, and probably the political system, as well.
I could write a fucking book on the subject. Oh, wait: I fucking DID!
A more-intelligent-than-me brother-like person, who, unlike Richard Feynman, somehow failed to inherit my genes for smoking and drinking and bongos, etc., last night expressed to me his utter contempt for the Obama administration's (and government-in-general's) effrontery in fiddling with people where it has no fucking business, much less knowledge. Technocrats my ass. These people are fucking stupid.
GET OFF ME! And enforce some actual meaningful fucking laws! Can Eric Holder fog a fucking mirror? We more or less concluded. We are the 99%.
We concluded that the administration were either protecting Pharma's patents on synthetic cannabinoids or protecting the banks' drug cartel money laundering. We all know who Obama is, at this point. Not just the 99%, but the whole 100% know who Obama is. We are the knowledgeable, and we are watching every fucking move.
Perhaps the Constitutional-Interpreter-in-Chief whose non-existent scholarly writings can only be interpreted through his apparently fuck-all knowledge of post-Dark Age scholarship on "human freedoms" should shut the fuck up about the doctor-prescribed and self-administered medicine in primates, on whom (dare we say?) I could also write a fucking book.
Prof. Cornel West commemorates the anniversary of 9/11--another 9/11 that most people, including myself, know little or nothing about--by calling for revolutionary truth-telling:
When you bring together the national security state and the military-industrial complex, when you bring together the prison-industrial complex and all the profits that flow from it, when you bring together the corporate media multiplex that don't want to allow for serious dialogue...and then, when you bring together the Wall Street oligarchs and the corporate plutocrats, and they tell any person or any group, "If you speak the truth, we'll shoot you down like a dog and dehumanize you the way we did to dehumanize the brothers in Attica," the only thing that will keep you going is you better have some love in your heart for the people.....[You] got [to have] enough love for the people in [your] heart to still tell the truth about poverty, about suffering, about struggle, and be able to look-not just presidents, because by presidents you're just talking about the placeholder of the oligarchs and the plutocrats-I don't care what color they are-to tell that truth. [But] most people, they hold off on that.
-Professor Cornel West
Thanks D, for having the love in your heart for the people to keep speaking revolutionary truth on WWL Radio.
Thanks to everyone who posts here at WWL for speaking your truths. I know that compared to many of you, I am part of the batshit crazy lunatic left fringe. My politics often differ sharply from the ideas conveyed in some of the brilliantly written essays I read here, and I am certain that other WWL regulars have rolled their eyes more than once when I've opened my mouth. But know this:
As a much wiser person (also considered by many people to be among the ranks of the batshit loony-left brigade) than me once said, "If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine."
On the Open Salon version of my previous entry, some right-winger who supports Obama kept trying to lay the blame for next year's results on the left for failing to properly support the candidate who has done far more to pass the Republicans' agenda than any GOP office-holder could have.
I am about certain Obama will be a one term president--and that one of the Republican clowns will win in 2012.
Most of the blame for that will fall with the unrealistic expectations and shortsightedness of people devoted to a progressive agenda.
So now we've heard Barry's big "jobs speech" and it turns out to be the exact opposite of what is needed to rescue the crumbling nation. No surprise there.
Obama's so-called "jobs plan" is huge cuts in the payroll tax that are designed to manufacture a real future shortfall in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which will then be used as the rationale for imposing deep cuts on, or even the elimination of, all three programs. Corporate tax cuts will drain even more revenue from the treasury, which will make extending unemployment insurance for the unemployed who currently qualify, not to mention infrastructure repair, highly unlikely.
Salon.com has a piece up urging Democrats to dump Obama and go with a candidate who will restore their party to its New Deal era politics. According to the column by Matt Stoller, there are a number of reasons why they should, including:
If would be one thing if Obama were failing because he was too close to party orthodoxy. Yet his failures have come precisely because Obama has not listened to Democratic Party voters. He continued idiotic wars, bailed out banks, ignored luminaries like Paul Krugman, and generally did whatever he could to repudiate the New Deal. The Democratic Party should be the party of pay raises and homes, but under Obama it has become the party of pay cuts and foreclosures. Getting rid of Obama as the head of the party is the first step in reverting to form.
This is an institutional crisis for Democrats. The groups that fund and organize the party -- an uneasy alliance of financiers, conservative technology interests, the telecommunications industry, healthcare industries, labor unions, feminists, elite foundations, African-American church networks, academic elites, liberals at groups like MoveOn, the ACLU and the blogosphere -- are frustrated, but not one of them has broken from the pack. In remaining silent, they give their assent to the right-wing policy framework that first George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama, cemented in place. It will be nearly impossible to dislodge such a framework without starting within the Democratic Party itself.
In other words, party inflexibility has a price. If the economy worsens going into the fall, and the president continues as he has to attempt to cut Social Security, Democrats might be facing a Carter-Reagan scenario. Reagan, at first considered a lightweight candidate, ended up winning a landslide victory that devastated the Democratic Party in 1980. Carter wasn't the only loss; many significant liberal senators, such as George McGovern, John Culver and Birch Bayh, fell that year.
Stoller nails it by pointing out the extreme inflexibility inherent in the Democrat Party today. Its leaders have decided that they want it to be the party of Big Business, and they don't care what base voters think - so long as the Republicans are content to be the party of overt extremists, as opposed to the Democrats' "covert" extremism, they reason, voters will at the end of the electoral season either shut up and vote for them anyway or else not vote at all. Either way, that suits Democrat Party leaders just fine, wanting all the perks of power but none of the responsibility. Stoller continues toward the end of his column by writing:
Obama has basically endorsed every major plank of George Bush's administration, yet Democrats still grant their approval. What we're finding out is that Obama's pathologically pro-establishment and conflict-averse DNA was funded by party insiders and embraced by liberal constituency groups in 2008 for a reason.
Political parties need to be flexible enough to allow for new ideas to come into the process, or else third parties or civil disorder are inevitable. All it would take to provide this flexibility are well-known Democratic elders who understand that rank and file Democrats deserve a choice, and a few political insiders who realize that they can increase their own power by encouraging a robust debate. I don't think this will happen.
Stoller rightly points out that the disastrous presidency of Grover Cleveland necessitated the removal of him as the Democrats' candidate in 1896 in favor of William Jennings Bryan, who pressed for many populist reforms and began laying the groundwork for both the Progressive Era of the early 1900s and the New Deal Era of the 1930s and 1940s. But for that to happen, there had to be widespread acknowledgment within the party that the path being taken could only lead to its ultimate collapse - self preservation instinct had to take over in order for the party to save itself, and in the 1890s, that realization rose and was accepted by party leaders.
Many disaffected Democrats still presume to think that they can take back the party from the corporate interests that have seized it. But not one of them has dared come up with any serious roster of candidates willing to risk political suicide by running against Obama next year. Corporate money, and therefore corporate influence, is so entrenched within the Democrat Party that it is now beyond all hope of repair. Thomas Hartman does offer advice for retaking the Democrat Party from the corporatists, but it's probably far too late for that. The party has so alienated and disillusioned voters with its pro-war, anti-labor, anti-civil liberties, pro-corporate, anti-democracy nature that it is now highly unlikely that enough citizens trust that their activism will result in any significant reforms.
A serious effort to build a strong, viable third party organization can send the needed message to Democrat leaders that they can no longer take voters for granted, that we do have alternatives and we will turn to them if Democrats keep refusing to live up to their obligation to represent the public interest. In 1992, H. Ross Perot's strong showing of nearly nineteen percent of the vote in that year's presidential election demonstrates that it is possible within our own era to gain significant votes to fundamentally alter the political landscape. Progressives, laborers, and traditionally oppressed citizens can and should begin building that third party effort now, while the iron is white hot. While we are doing that, remaining progressives within Democrat ranks can begin their takeover of the party by gaining precinct committee seats, especially executive committee seats, to obtain more control over the candidate-nominating process. Sun Tzu admonishes students of warfare not to fight on multiple fronts, but to instead force the enemy to do so, thereby dividing his forces. In World War II, Nazi Germany lost because it faced the dual military threats of the Allied forces in the West and the Soviet forces in the East, each of which operated in tandem with the other to close in around their mutual enemy and destroy him. In politics, the same strategies and tactics apply.
Now, Democrat Party loyalists will cry foul, claiming that any attempt to run a primary opponent against Obama or draw voters to third parties will almost certainly result in a Republican victory next year. But the way their party is doing things now, that result is practically inevitable regardless of what progressives do. Obama and corporatist Democrats at the top are leading their party off a cliff, and no amount of hope will cause them to deviate from their chosen path. What's more, Republican vote-rigging is already well underway with highly restrictive ballot access and voter ID laws to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising their right to vote. By running as the party of continuation with George W. Bush's extreme right-wing policies, Obama and his sycophants are guaranteeing a close enough electoral result that Republicans will easily be able to steal 2012, just as they did in 2000-2006. That they have such enthusiastic help from Democrats themselves makes GOP electoral "victories" all but inevitable.
When my bud RJ sent me a link to the writeup about this fuckery I felt a migraine coming on. Especially since Bush, who never gave a shit about the EPA, would of instituted standards stronger than what is currently in place, not to mention Obama campaigned on stronger EPA laws regarding this very type of pollution well…it just chapped the hell outta my ass. From an LAT writeup:
In a statement, the president said: “I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover. With that in mind, and after careful consideration, I have requested that Administrator [Lisa] Jackson withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time.”"Work is already underway to update a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013. Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered,” the statement concluded.
Low-level atmospheric ozone occurs when sunlight reacts with air containing hydrocarbons and emissions like nitrogen oxide. Research shows that living in areas with high concentrations of ozone worsens respiratory ailments. The EPA estimates that up to 12,000 lives could be saved annually from heart attacks, lung disease and asthma attacks by implementing the new standards. (emphasis mine)
Also, considering thatMichelle and Barack themselves have an asthmatic child…(a point all the pundits missed today,btw) this horseshit really makes no sense..unless you consider it another capitulation to the GOP and their brethren in the business community.It’s the silly season after all, and every vote counts to the fucknut currently in the Oval Office.
We gotta grow some jobs, and that's a fact, and we probably aren't going to be able to do it with big ol' jobs programs funded by the Federal Government, what with today's politics and all, and that means if this Administration wants to stay in the jobs game they're going to have to find some smaller and more creative ways to do it.
They are also going to have to come up with ideas that are pretty much "bulletproof", meaning that they are so hard to object to that even Allen West and Louie Gohmert will not want to be on record saying "no no no!"; alternatively, solutions that work around the legislative process entirely could represent the other form of "bulletproof-ery".
Well, I have one of those "maybe bulletproof" ideas for you today, and it has to do with how "Made in USA" the things are that our Government buys.
It was just a couple of nights ago that Keith Olbermann was challenging us, in one of his "Special Comments", to rise up in the streets and take back this country.
He pointed out that the only way those on the left were going to be able to fight against those who are looking to get all "Tea Party" is to be as angry and as organized and as aggressive as the Tea Party community, and if we're smart, we'll take him up on that challenge.
But if you really want to push "professional" Democrats to the left, most especially this President, and you want to do it in time to impact the '12 cycle, the only way to do it is to run a candidate in primary contests that either moves the conversation your way...or leaves you with a surprising new Candidate.
And right here, right now, we actually have a chance to do exactly that - and that's why, in today's discussion, I'm going to challenge Olbermann right back.
In understanding how this most recent, craven capitulation by St. Barry, the Compromiser, to the wackloon, fringoid, cretinous GOPhux could have happened, it is essential to recall that the GOPhux threw the election in '08 for the particular purpose of putting a "novelty" Dim in office: either the first black or the first woman. Both would have served their purposes, which is to undo the public's interest in further pursuing popular sovereignty.
I was brilliant strategy: If I wanted to try to splinter the power of popular sovereignty, I would do everything in my power to drive the populace the fuck AWAY from the State which (in theory, at least) is the servant of the people. One of those handy expedients might include installing someone in the Presidency who SEEMED to be the realization fo SO MANY DREAMS, and turn them into a sham, an empty, predictable imitation of their promise, hollowing them out into becoming a reviled receptacle for all the resentment against the State which had arisen since Reagan, and a scapegoat for it. In doing so, they thought to both supply an easy target for concealed resentments and ready political advantage, and to poison the well for any FUTURE 'diverse' candidates...If I ran the zoo, anyway, that's what I'd do.
The goal all along, since 1934, has been to undo the New Deal. Most of it is either dead or moribund, except Social Security and Johnson's homage, Medicare. (Civil rights, too; but that's the next campaign). Every GOPhucker since Reagan has tried to roll back, or close-out, or privatize Social Security, at $2,8 TRILLION (That's a thousand, thousand, thousand million, times 2.7), the largest pool of money in the world NOT dedicated to the enrichment of the Oligarchs.
But it was a 'third rail.' Like China used to be. Everybody knew China had to be opened up, as Mao's influence waned. But the Dims--who had "lost" China by not attacking Mao with nukes, and restoring Chiang Kai-Shek--couldn't go. It had to be a GOPhucker, and it fell to Nixon to go dance with Madam Mao. And it had to be a DIM to drive the final nails into the coffin of the New Deal--it was just lagniappe that he was a minority.
So I disappeared for a full week, right in the middle of what should have been a busy writing schedule, and I have to claim some "personal days" to cover the time we missed here at the blog - but it won't be time entirely wasted.
Instead, I'm going to jump into my own personal life for today's story, and I'm going to do it so that we can stimulate some thinking about where we really need to go to if we ever hope to make some sense out of the crazy way we deliver health care in this country.
Since this appears to be the weekend that a lot of decisions are either going to be made about the future of our "social safety net"...or they wont; we're entirely unsure...let's talk about how it actually works for a lot of us - and how it could work a lot better.
I've given some thought to what Armando said about re-electing Barack Obama for the sake of the Supreme Court, i.e., women's reproductive rights. I am a complete advocate of women's reproductive rights. To my mind, women quite obviously "own" pregnancy. End of conversation. Goodbye. Click.
Had we carried on beyond the click, suffice it to say that when men get pregnant and carry offspring to term, and be bound to the little curtain climbers for life, then I'll take more interest in men's stupid f****** opinions and moral authority with respect to women's reproductive rights. Until then, men are hardly worthy to discuss it, AND they are genetically conflicted and selfish to boot, which has life-threatening consequences for women, both during pregnancy and not.
The weak May job report has exposed the helplessness and denial of neoliberalism when faced with an economic crisis that 'does not compute'. And Obama and his advisors are such true neoliberal believers:
So 'Creating Jobs Ain't Our Job' is now the Obama jobs program? Jeff Madrick, citing research by Andrew Sum, tells us where we are at after two years of 'recovery' (emphasis in original):
... There has never been an economic recovery since World War II nearly as bad as this one.
Yes, there has been GDP growth, but it has almost all gone to profits, not pay. By most measures, there are still fewer jobs today than there were at the bottom of the recession. Just as disturbing, there has been no increase in wages. There are many measures of wages and salaries, but Sum and his group found that average hourly earnings of all private sector wage and salary workers were unchanged over the seven-quarter recovery. The typical or median full-time worker lost ground over this period. ...
For the first time in more than sixty years, aggregate wages and salaries adjusted for inflation did not rise after seven quarters of recovery. What did rise was corporate profits - and sharply. Here's the stunner, as Sum calculates: Pre-tax corporate profits in 2010 dollars rose by $464 billion and real wage and salaries in 2010 dollars fell by $22 billion.
But President Obama is a Reaganite when it comes to government being part of the jobs solution. This, from his Saturday radio address, is especially revealing:
In less than 48 hours last weekend we were treated to two dominant and opposite drives:
Eros and Thanatos.
Regardless of whatever else one may think of the Brittish Royalty. we were treated to a celebration of Eros with the nuptials of Wills and Kate. I was quite taken with this spectacle. They both seem quite lovely, quite modern. and suffciently aware to perhaps rejuvenate the morbid rigidity of institutional monarchy. Maybe not completely with sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll, but at least with a human and loving face.
Then, less than 48 hours later, we encountered a gross, hateful celebration of death. The crowds outside the White House shouting "U-S-A---U-S-A---U-S-A" provided a morbid display of a dying culture, a dying empire.
Which do you prefer?
Or:
Eros or Thanatos! Eros was the Greek God of Love. Thanatos was not a god, but a mythological Greek figue representing Death. In her blog, a writer named Lauren has this to say about the two drives:
Freud had a theory that we were all driven by two contrasting instincts or drives: the Eros (or life) drive and the Thanatos (or death) drive. The Eros drive is associated with preserving and creating life. It is associated with positive emotions like love and cooperation. This is the drive that is at the heart of all true artists, even in our darkest moments.
In contrast to the life drive, you have the Thanatos drive. This drive pushes people towards death and extinction. It is associated with negative emotions such as fear, hate, greed, and anger. The Thanatos drive is all about destruction.
Though we have both drives, one is usually dominant over the other. People who are driven mostly by the Thanatos drive often don't care about others. The Thanatos drive is apparent in everything from bullying to murder. Because they are so driven by destructive tendencies, which sometimes manifest as materialism and greed, they are often dismissive of those driven by the Eros drive.
You can find more here And thanks to our Edger for help with embed.
Which do you prefer? Eros or Thanatos? Can't we all just get along?
OF ALL THE IMAGES that have emerged from the morally unclean events of Sunday night, the most politically significant and, one has reason to believe, enduring will prove to be the official photograph, released by the White House, of President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and other high officials of the United States government seated together in the situation room as they witnessed the killing of Osama bin Laden and several other human beings, including one woman.
Normally, the witnesses to an execution are not photographed. But the White House clearly wanted this "historic moment" captured for posterity. The eyes of all the participants in this ghoulish tableau-with the exception of a military officer who is working his computer-are apparently focused on a television screen. Obama, leaning forward, is stone faced as he stares ahead. Gates wears the sour expression of a man who is too well acquainted with such operations. Hillary Clinton's right hand is raised over her mouth, a gesture that betrays the horror of what is unfolding before her eyes.
Diane Gee's Wild, Wild Left is a Multi-authored collaboration of the Best and the Brightest moving the World to a Sane & Equitable Future for the World!
Join in!
