Saturday, January 26, 2008

An Open Letter To Amy Goodman

The photo shows David Rockefeller at the 2005 annual Bilderberg conference held that year in the Dorint Sofitel Seehotel Überfahrt in Rottach-Egern, Bavaria, Munich, Germany.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

---Benjamin Franklin

Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrations), too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.

---Thomas Jefferson

For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure---one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

---David Rockefeller
from his Memoirs, p. 405
Poor Amy Goodman. People look to her, as we do to Bill Moyers, to speak unfettered truth to us. There are not many these days, who can punch through the myriad barriers to stand free and clear above the media storm. Like Moyers, Ms. Goodman has managed to get herself an interview kind of broadcast, which can be seen or heard in limited areas where demand is great. She's on the cover of The Progressive this month, and an interview with her is inside. Democracy Now! has a website where the programs can be streamed.

One man who has supported her and Public Radio for many years is Sean Madden. He's an American expatriate living now in East Sussex, UK, where he maintains an interesting blog called Mindful Living. His impressive credentials are listed there too. He blogs his concerns about the States, particularly political and economic, at, and it was here yesterday that he unloaded a pile of frustrations in an open letter.

I think he is not so much attacking Amy Goodman here, as he is sending her, and us, a perhaps startling wakeup call. Mr. Madden is not alone in doing this. Many of us have been screaming about Iraq, Bush, Dubai, global warming and all that for years. But with the bursting of the American housing bubble, talk of impending recession...and maybe worse, and yet another opportunity to bail out some banks, the scratchy voices of economists are joining the chorus of doom. Madden's rant (and a rant it is) to Democracy Now! is along these lines, but without a lot of jargon for which you need an accounting degree. I've included a couple links which I encourage you to follow. There are more hyperlinked at the original, all of which should explain why David Rockefeller illustrates this article.

Friday, January 25, 2008
An Open Letter to Amy Goodman

Sean M. Madden's open letter to Amy Goodman is in response to the following January 23rd Democracy Now! headline:

Economics Journalist Robert Kuttner on the "Most Serious Financial Crisis Since the Great Depression": "This is the Result of Rightwing Ideology and the Political Power of Wall Street"

Is it? Or is it the result of a one-world ideology shared amongst the elite of the so-called Right, the so-called Left, and not just Wall Street but an internationalist cabal of financiers, industrialists and in-pocket politicians who game everything from world financial markets to governments to the media, left, right and center? Conspiracy-deniers, read on and follow the links provided herein to refer to David Rockefeller's own admissions of just such a one-world internationalist cabal.

Dear Amy,

So many who are actively engaged in the search for truth in these turbulent times, as opposed to the overwhelming generality of "journalists" like yourself, have seen the (sociopolitical)economic collapse coming for ages.

Where were you?

The fundamentals were always there: finite energy resources peaking globally; a house-of-cards stock market dependent upon the myth of perpetual economic growth to fuel equity gains; a consumer society kept ignorant and deliberately divided in very large part by way of unspeakably cynical media obfuscation; endless military, covert and economic warfare designed to bankrupt the United States while transferring its (our) formerly great wealth into the hands of war profiteers who place politicians on a pedestal from which we are, ostensibly if not truly, free to choose every couple of years; a housing market which resembles the stock market already mentioned and which is, likewise, propped up by financial fraud; and, finally, unsustainable national and consumer debt levels meant to cripple the country and its people.

Where were you, Amy, to inform the public of these glaringly obvious fundamentals? Why were leading thinkers on such topics precluded from your programming, folk like Catherine Austin Fitts, Richard Heinberg, et al.?

You deign to give your goodhearted listener-viewer-readers the symptoms, never the fundamentals which would empower them. But isn't this exactly your role as a foundation- (and perhaps intelligence agency-, though as these share the internationalist foundations' one-world mission this is but a trivial distinction) funded media star? That is, to add yet another layer of obfuscation to keep Americans firm in their blind belief that the media is doing its job.

I learned this week that even your fellow phony progressive Gloria Steinem was funded by the CIA from her earliest days, and it would seem she remains unrepentant. Who'da thunk it from the Smith College-educated lefty?

But so goes the divide and conquer imperative.

Own (or create) both sides of any story and set one side against the other, at least in appearance, and so via this modern-day bread-and-circuses game of deception, keep the masses under heel.

One final fundamental which would empower your faithful followers if they were to do their own research:

The same high-finance internationalists who give us the sort of "philanthropic" foundations which fund Democracy Now!, Pacifica Radio and a host of other gatekeeper-of-the-left media outlets are, in the time-honored tradition, carrying out yet another (cf., 1929) "pump and dump" of the stock market -- brought about via the classic boom-bust business cycle deliberately cast by bankers and their Federal Reserve -- to loot the people.

In closing, here's (in Bill Moyers' words) "the unelected if indisputable chairman of the American Establishment" and "one of the most powerful, influential and richest men in America" who "sits at the hub of a vast network of financiers, industrialists and politicians whose reach encircles the globe", thanking servile "journalists" like yourself:

We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.

~~~ David Rockefeller, Baden-Baden, Germany, 1991

Given the reach of Democracy Now!'s programming into the hearts and minds of millions of well-meaning Americans who think they're getting the real deal from you, and which of course makes your programming all the more insidious in its effect, there's little doubt that David Rockefeller must be oh-so-pleased to have you in hand as well, as he and his Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg cohorts conspire to fulfil their vision of a one-world fascist tyranny by way of which they intend to lock in their power and profits by locking out democracy, national sovereignty and the world's people, including, yes, we the people of the United States of America.

For this cabal's loyalty lies beyond nationhood and patriotism, the latter being expedient in its pettiest form, however, as a means to keep the masses at their beck and call. Their loyalty lies, instead, in direct contraposition to the American dream and a world free from an elite cadre of power- and profit-obsessed tyrants.

Where, Amy, does your loyalty lie?

Sean M. Madden

In case you've never heard of Bilderberg and are doubting its relevancy and importance, here is a partial list of attendees to the 2007 conference last alphabetical order:

George Alogoskoufis, Minister of Economy and Finance (Greece)
Ali Babacan, Minister of Economic Affairs (Turkey)
Edward Balls, Economic Secretary to the Treasury (UK)
Francisco Pinto Balsemão, Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister (Portugal)
José M. Durão Barroso, President, European Commission (Portugal/International)
Franco Bernabé, Vice Chairman, Rothschild Europe (Italy)
Nicolas Beytout, Editor-in-Chief, Le Figaro (France)
Carl Bildt, Former Prime Minister (Sweden)
Hubert Burda, Publisher and CEO, Hubert Burda Media Holding (Belgium)
Philippe Camus, CEO, EADS (France)
Henri de Castries, Chairman of the Management Board and CEO, AXA (France)
Juan Luis Cebrian, Grupo PRISA media group (Spain)
Kenneth Clark, Member of Parliament (UK)
Timothy C. Collins, Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC (USA)
Bertrand Collomb, Chairman, Lafarge (France)
George A. David, Chairman, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A. (USA)
Kemal Dervis, Administrator, UNDP (Turkey)
Anders Eldrup, President, DONG A/S (Denmark)
John Elkann, Vice Chairman, Fiat S.p.A (Italy)
Martin S. Feldstein, President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research (USA)
Timothy F. Geithner, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (USA)
Paul A. Gigot, Editor of the Editorial Page, The Wall Street Journal (USA)
Dermot Gleeson, Chairman, AIB Group (Ireland)
Donald E. Graham, Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company (USA)
Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings (The Netherlands)
Jean-Pierre Hansen, CEO, Suez-Tractebel S.A. (Belgium)
Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations (USA)
Richard C. Holbrooke, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA)
Jaap G. Hoop de Scheffer, Secretary General, NATO (The Netherlands/International)
Allan B. Hubbard, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Director National Economic Council (USA)
Josef Joffe, Publisher-Editor, Die Zeit (Germany)
James A. Johnson, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA)
Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC (USA)
Anatole Kaletsky, Editor at Large, The Times (UK)
John Kerr of Kinlochard, Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc (The Netherlands)
Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates (USA)
Mustafa V. Koç, Chairman, Koç Holding A.S. (Turkey)
Fehmi Koru, Senior Writer, Yeni Safek (Turkey)
Bernard Kouchner, Minister of Foreign Affairs (France)
Henry R. Kravis, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (USA)
Marie-Josée Kravis, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc. (USA)
Neelie Kroes, Commissioner, European Commission (The Netherlands/International)
Ed Kronenburg, Director of the Private Office, NATO Headquarters (International)
William J. Luti, Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and Strategy, National Security Council (USA)
Jessica T. Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (USA)
Frank McKenna, Ambassador to the US, member Carlyle Group (Canada)
Thierry de Montbrial, President, French Institute for International Relations (France)
Mario Monti, President, Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi (Italy)
Craig J. Mundie, Chief Technical Officer Advanced Strategies and Policy, Microsoft Corporation (USA)
Egil Myklebust, Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA (Norway)
Matthias Nass, Deputy Editor, Die Zeit (Germany)
Adnrzej Olechowski, Leader Civic Platform (Poland)
Jorma Ollila, Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc/Nokia (Finland)
George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK)
Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Minister of Finance (Italy)
Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (USA)
Heather Reisman, Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. (Canada)
David Rockefeller (USA)
Matías Rodriguez Inciarte, Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander Bank, (Spain)
Dennis B. Ross, Director, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (USA)
Otto Schily, Former Minister of Interior Affairs; Member of Parliament; Member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (Germany)
Jürgen E. Schrempp, Former Chairman of the Board of Management, DaimlerChrysler AG (Germany)
Tøger Seidenfaden, Executive Editor-in-Chief, Politiken (Denmark)
Peter D. Sutherland, Chairman, BP plc and Chairman, Goldman Sachs International (Ireland)
Giulio Tremonti, Vice President of the Chamber of Deputies (Italy)
Jean-Claude Trichet, Governor, European Central Bank (France/International)
John Vinocur, Senior Correspondent, International Herald Tribune (USA)
Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman, Investor AB (Sweden)
Martin H. Wolf, Associate Editor and Economics Commentator, The Financial Times (UK)
James D. Wolfensohn, Special Envoy for the Gaza Disengagement (USA)
Adrian D. Wooldridge, Foreign Correspondent, The EconomistRobert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State (USA)
Klaus Zumwinkel, Chairman of the Board of Management, Deutsche Post AG (USA)


jazzolog said...

One response I was certain I'd get here in Athens, was from my friend Bob Sheak. Professor Emeritus at OU of both sociology and anthropology, he's been the most vocal member of a group trying to convince the local "public" station here, WOUB, to carry Democracy Now! Bob wrote a column recently that got in all our papers, describing the value of the program and the frustration of trying to convince "your station" (at fundraising festival time anyway) to do anything. The station replied that Sheak, the advocacy group, and the show itself did not represent the political views of the majority in the listening area. Here's Bob's reply to the Madden open letter~~~

Has Democracy Now not reported on important issues that exemplify the lack of and diminution of democracy, the inequities, the environmental devastation, the harmful and counterproductive effects of our militarized foreign policy, and more? I think it has, though there are limits to what a one-hour program can accomplish. Or, worse, has Democracy Now, reported in stories in ways that support the status quo and the existing power structure? I don’t think so. Does her program focus only on symptoms rather that “fundamentals.” The answer to this question depends on whether one thinks that only Madden’s theory of the global system is valid. Democracy Now does not have an overriding systematized theory of it all. Is she a part of the very system she claims to oppose? Hardly.

Sean M. Madden is probably right that Democracy Now has not advanced the theory through its programs that there is a one-world international cabal, organized around the Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderberg group. My initial response to his view is that it is simplistic.

I have not yet gone back to systematically review Democracy Now’s programs on how “power” is discussed and depicted. Generally, however, the program, in bits and pieces, presents a critique of concentrated government and economic power and how it conflicts with the interests of the majority of people in the U.S. and around the world, and ecological sustainability. It is a program that is sympathetic to new deal solutions, social democratic solutions, and socialist solutions as they appear incipiently in countries like Venezuela. The program devotes many of its featured stories, and headlines, to how capitalist power has a devastating impact on people and community and habitats, and also offers examples of how that power is challenged, though often not successfully.

My impression is that the thrust of the stories dealing with the influence of U.S. corporations is that they are the leading forces in a globalized capitalist system that systematically attempts to exploit resources and markets wherever it can, especially in third world countries. U.S. foreign policy is not only influenced by corporate interests, but they are the major factor. These interests are extended into domination over the government through a plutocratic electoral system, huge campaign contributions, massive lobbying, privatization, deregulation, and more. Their interests extend internationally, for example, through their domination of the IMF, World Bank, WTO, corporate-sympathetic U.S. economic and military aid programs, US insurance for foreign investments, the promotion of sales of military weapons, the threat and use of military interventions, and whatever else they can do to prop up sympathetic governments.

Amy does have liberal and progressive analysts on as guests to offer their views on the economic roots of US economic problems ­ e.g., Paul Krugman, Robert Kuttner, but the views of her guests cover a wide part of the leftist wings of the ideological spectrum. Naomi Klein has periodically appeared on Democracy Now and, through her book The Shock Doctrine, has identified, with extensive documentation, how corporations, in collusion with governments, have been able to extend their control of resources in the aftermath of various kinds of disasters. One of the program’s regular guests, Jeremy Scahill, is probably the most informed researcher about the growing privatization of the military and how corporations like Blackwater profit from government contracts with little transparency and no accountability.

Other recent guests reveal important aspects of this capitalist system, and criticisms of and/or resistance to it, domestic and international. Here’s a random selection of examples, including: Michael Klare (blood and oil); Vandana Shiva (the outsourcing of pollution to the Third World); Trita Parsi (the secret dealings of Israel,Iran, and the US); Dahr Jamial (an unembedded journalist in Iraq); Nir Rosen (how US invasion of Iraq had led to ethnic cleansing, worsening of refugee crisis, and destablization of Middle East), John Perkins (on Economic Hit Men in the American Empire), John Pilger (on struggles for freedom in Israel-Palestine, Diego Garcia, Latin America, and South Africa; and on vulture capitalists), Michael Moore (on “sicko”) , Seymour Hersh (e.g., on how Rumsfeld misled Congress over Abu Graib, etc.; US intensifying plans to attack Iran), critics of media system and FCC (Eric Klinenberg, Norman Solomon); the CIA’s use of psychologists in torture; the unreported health hazards associated with collapse of the Twin Towers in NYC); CIA reports on years of Assassination plots, coerced drug tests, and domestic spying, coverage of the US Social Forum (another world is possible); Falen Abood Umara (general secretary of the Federation of Oil Unions and a founding member of the oil workers union in Iraq); Ralph Nader (on the candidates, corporate power); veterans and whistleblowers against the war; Randall Robinson (the unbroken agony of Haiti); women dissidents from Afghanistan; Poet Martin Espada (on the ongoing struggle for Puerto Rico’s national rights); John McQuaid (two years after Katrina, cleanup and recovery far from complete); Malik Rahim (on Katrina: hurricane of racism, greed and corruption); Akiva Eldar (on nuclear weapons in Middle East, Iran, military influence in Israel, and Israel lobby in US); Greg Grandin (the life and legacy of “Che” Guevara); Tariq Ali (Pakistani author, analyzes turmoil in Pakistan and region); Charlie Savage (subversion of American democracy); Craig Unger (untold story of how a band of true believers seized the executive branch, started the Iraq war, and still imperil America’s future); Noam Chomsky (path to Mideast peace lies in popular organizing against US-Israeli “rejectionism”); Naomi Wolf (US is on a road to becoming a fascist society); James Petras (analyzes opposition to the proposed overhauls in Venezuela constitution); various guests on Iran, questioning US government’s policy assumptions and actions.

On the environment: Chris Moony (about how global warming related to the frequency and ferocity of global warming); George Monbiot (reaction to Al Gore’s Nobel Prize speech; excerpts from Gore’s speech); Tim Flannery (on global warming and the worsening dangers of climate change; on climate change and how to save the planet); debate: Annie Petsonik versus Daphne Wysham (on carbon trading).

Democracy Now has done an excellent job in reporting on and having guests who analyze many aspects of the plight of African-Americans in more depth and/or from different perspectives than one finds on the mainstream media. The coverage of the Jena 6 comes to mind.

On Iraq, Democracy Now was been consistently opposed to a war in Iraq in the years before the actual invasion and then a critic of the war since then. She has devoted programs to such dissident voices as those of independent journalists who have spent considerable time in Iraq like Jeremy Scahill, Dahr Jamail, Nir Rosen, and, recently, broadcast the on-the-ground filming by Rick Rowley documentation of the ethnic cleansing of Shia from Anbar Province….

Is Democracy Now different? I think, overall, its thrust is different in its coverage and guests than the mainstream media. It does represent an independent and critical source of information on power structures and their effects, and gives voice to many of those who oppose such arrangements. That’s not bad.


Quinty said...

I haven't read the comments yet but I did read the attack on Amy Goodman which i think is thoroughly unfair.

Amy has been with Pacifica for many years, broadcasting out of New York. When I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area I listened to her often on KPFA, the Berkeley Pacifica station. And though I no longer tune in, living in Providence, RI, now, I know that she has always attempted mightily to get to the bottom of the truth. And is most certainly no "establishment" figure.

If she had wanted to, I'm sure, she could have made a name for herself on the mainstream media. She could have been a good team player and had a program on CBS, NBC, or NPR. But instead she dropped out (many of us are familiar with dropping out, right?) and veered toward the left. That postage stamp sized plot where unpleasant, unselfcongratulatory truths reside. Those which make you unpopular.

Amy might be wrong. We all are, heaven knows, from time to time. We may even be mistaken in our overall outlook. But she doesn't deserve to be whacked on the side of the head in the way Madden does.

Quinty said...

Yes, conspiracies are as ubiquitous as mushrooms popping up on a humid night. They can take place at the clubhouse bar or at the kitchen table between a husband and wife

Does one occur when two men ride an elevator down together and concur to meet to have a drink and to discuss business? The law has some very definite ideas about that.

There are numerous conspiracies in the world and since they are all kept secret even the most outlandish new theory might acquire some credibility. But we also know there are many outlandish theories which have little to do with reality. And these tend to make new theories suspect.

So bring on the evidence, show us the facts! Put some light on the subject other than detailing carefully contrived plots which sound quite logical and convincing. For within logic alone almost anything is possible, including visits from outer space. The world is chaotic, and events rarely work as planned.

Are there numerous secret shadows out there? History if full of such shadows. And recorded history may in fact be the tedious unraveling of such shadows. (Though revisionists are sometimes suspect.)

I find Professor Shrank’s description of the chaos in the world scene more convincing than Madden’s, though Madden comes across as extremely thoughtful and anything but a crank. And I say this with full respect.

“My impression is that the thrust of the stories dealing with the influence of U.S. corporations is that they are the leading forces in a globalized capitalist system that systematically attempts to exploit resources and markets wherever it can, especially in third world countries. U.S. foreign policy is not only influenced by corporate interests, but they are the major factor. These interests are extended into domination over the government through a plutocratic electoral system, huge campaign contributions, massive lobbying, privatization, deregulation, and more. Their interests extend internationally, for example, through their domination of the IMF, World Bank, WTO, corporate-sympathetic U.S. economic and military aid programs, US insurance for foreign investments, the promotion of sales of military weapons, the threat and use of military interventions, and whatever else they can do to prop up sympathetic governments.”

Don’t some conspiracies fall more into the domain of the anthropologists? A group of businessmen seated about a table in the clubhouse bar will share a certain like mindedness. They may share like values and overall objectives. Somehow this doesn’t seem to fall within the purview of a siinister conspiracy, even though the results of their activities may be socially destructive.

Yes, conspiracy theories are like pornography: you know one when you see one.

jazzolog said...

Conspiracy theorists are attacked with the same venom as treehuggers by the rightwingnuts---or at least as much as they used to spit at those concerned about the environment. Unfortunately the ridicule has worked to shut many liberals down, so that we've walked around the workplace carefully avoiding the hot topics in the lunchroom. That sensitivity has not served us well, and the rightwing has ruled as one result. If you've got a conspiracy theory, I say shout it from the rooftops...and prepare yourself to answer tough questions about it!

jazzolog said...

Yeah, Super Tuesday on the horizon...and the papers are full of analysis especially about the Dems. Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd slapping both candidates around. Krugman leaning toward Clinton's health plan. Ambassador Crocker last Friday promising a good long troop inhabitation of Iraq , which plans seem to interest neither Dem. But along the same lines of importance was Kathleen Hall Jamieson's remarks on Moyers that evening about the SOTU speech. Read this~~~

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: The big news of the week was that the President of the United States with substantial power at his disposal, and in a presidency that has asserted an unprecedented level of authority for Commander in Chief suggested that there may be eventually a protective over watch mission.

PRESIDENT BUSH: American troops are shifting from leading operations to partnering with Iraqi forces and eventually to a protective over watch mission.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: What is a protective over watch mission? And is this President going to commit the nation and try to commit his successors to a more permanent role in Iraq than the Democrats would like? What are the consequences of that? What does it mean? Euphemisms are worrisome. Protective over watch mission doesn't translate well into some clear conception of what we're going to do and what the commitment behind it entails. The second thing that I thought we ought to look at very carefully. "Tehran is also developing ballistic missiles."

PRESIDENT BUSH: Tehran is also developing ballistic missiles of increasing range and continues to develop its capacity to enrich uranium which could be used to develop a nuclear weapon.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Important words in the context of the case that was made for intervention in Iraq. Why should we pay attention to these things? Presidential words matter. Presidential power is real. And in times of war, a President's capacity to act is much less constrained than it is in other environments.

BILL MOYERS: What's the relevance of this to the people listening? What should they take away from this?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: We had two major debates, highly informative debates in which that was not a featured element in the debate. And as a result, we didn't clarify what these people would do in relationship to it, except in the Democratic debate with Hillary Clinton saying that she and Senator Obama would be joining in order to try to move through Congress legislation, a proposal that would say that we're not going to let President Bush bind his successor about a permanent presence or a long term presence in Iraq. And we should ask the same question of the Republicans in the debate. Because perhaps, the Republicans believe it would be desirable to do that. And it's in that context that I would hear Senator McCain's statement about a long-lived presence in Iraq. What is the nature of that presence? The Democrats are being fairly specific about what they see as the length of the commitment, whether desirable or not. And the nature then of the other kinds of activities that they would engage in as President. When would they intervene and go back in? When would they not?

So, the little shit has learned nothing about how Americans feel? He just continues to kill and steal the money? Maybe he thinks he's Robin Hood, robbing the poor to give to the rich.

Quinty said...

Since I favor single payer and see giving any money to the health insurance industry as a waste I don't favor Hillary's or Barack's plans. And Barack (like Edwards) claims to oppose corporate lobbying. You can't have it both ways.

The idea that taxation is bad is so imbedded - following decades or repetition and propaganda - into the American psyche that any form of irresponsibility will be accepted so long as it lowers taxes. Somehow lowering taxes will remedy whatever problems reduced spending may create. For it is like a purifying fire on the social fabric.

Bush wants to make the tax cuts on the rich permanent. Yet he wants to raise spending for the military. (Can someone please tell me what the actual annual bill for military spending is? I’ve seen 500 billion and 750 billion, not including the war. Which Bush always leaves out.) He also intends to cut two hundred billion from Medicare and Medicaid. (That is according to the news sources I heard on the radio last night. I think there may be other lower estimates.) Confirming what my doctor recently told me: that his foundation faces a %40 cut in Medicare reimbursements.

Well, folks, I suppose we can do without such "socialist" programs as Medicare and Medicaid. Why, shucks, just put some money into your "health savings account," or write it off your taxes when you spend a hundred thousand or so in the hospital. What? You mean to say that, like the great majority, you don't have that kind of money to begin with for a huge medical bill? But don't you know taxes are evil? Especially taxes on those most worthy of all, the rich?

Bush always wanted permanent military bases in Iraq to exert American hegemony. The boys at PNAC were planning it before Bush ever came to power. Bush has done everything through slight of hand and if he can get away with leaving a permanent presence in Iraq he will. Which McCain (who, judging from recent performances on TV, appears psychotic) will only too gladly continue.

We’re talking the possibility of a hundred years here, folks. At least that is what McCain has said. And when I recently saw him say it on TV he actually beat his chest, his voice raised in anger. Old mild mannered John McCain became quite violently passionate on the existential threat the Muslim hordes present us. And he promises all out war for we will never accept “defeat.”

McCain, in fact, has actually made me fearful, in this time of deep American fear and paranoia, of his having the finger on the trigger. You know, the trigger on the big one. And I may even vote for Hillary he has scared me so much.

Just watch this guy sometime on TV on the topic of Islamo fascism. Maybe Karl Rove and Bush were right in 2000 down in South Carolina. The guy really is nuts.

jazzolog said...

For more of Quinty's views on the campaign, and particularly McCain, see this entry at his blog...

There's also a detail from a typically glorious painting by his father illustrating.

Blogger said...

Do you love Coca-Cola or Pepsi?
PARTICIPATE IN THE POLL and you could receive a prepaid VISA gift card!