Thank You SO much for this - if mr. hopey changey's law professor doesn't have unique insight, who does?


-R-

Tim, I am from Greece, but your writing could easily be referring to our situation here.

I am strongly favouring the empowerment of citizens and I believe officials must rule only first meeting the human needs and values, cause these needs need governement.

You are so right on saying that in general politicians suffer from a moral-bankrupt and I agree with your words...

""Only a democratic (one person, one vote) government and rule of law derived through timeless human values is right and just and true. ""

So rated, with so many thank you for thinking this for all of us.

Lots of rhetorical assertions , but not a lot of facts... I bailed out when the guy asserted that American property ownership has diminished. In the last twenty years per capita home ownership is greater than at any time in American History. With the innovation of 401K and other instruments for retirement investment participation the wealth of most Americans who make less than $100K per year has grown, despite the market crash in 2007-2008.... if you're going to condemn people with assertions you need to back up what you're saying with facts. Otherwise it's just more rhetoric.

That law professor is a freak with no clue how the world works, who couldn't carry a water bottle for Obama in the real world, if maybe he's trying to carry water for him now to make him look more centrist.

All I can ask is, if Obama must be defeated, what does this mean for us? What other choice is there? Romney? Seriously?

Now before anyone attempts to answer this I find myself generally to be a contrarian as well. And with that in mind let me ask these questions:

What will it take to make people in this country to wake the hell up and realize both parties need to be completely dismantled?

Would having Mitt Romney and the Republican Party in power for at least another four years place so many more people in jeopardy of becoming nothing more than starving serfs that our only recourse would be a true revolt to change things here?

Is it possible that through choosing Republican leadership (*which I say with the full knowledge neither party has anything akin to what we could classify as a leader in them) that we will shorten the fuse of change?

And is it possible that I ask this knowing that, to coin a few platitudinous phrases from Mr. Obama, pulling the band aid off quickly is preferable to waiting for later, or that gulping down a mouthful of unchewed peas is preferable to slowly masticating them into mush and risking a gag reflex?

Right now (and Jmac I am going to completely disagree with your financial assessment of those earning less than $100K) the wealth of the middle class and below is being squeezed downwards to the tune of something like 12-18% depending on which financial analysis you care to review. Right now, the disparity in wealth is so great that over 80% of the wealth in the US is concentrated in the hands of less than 10% of its total population. Right now, we see that the pie chart can be described like this:

There's a $100.00 for the pie.
10 Guys have $8.00 apiece, accounting for 80% of the total pie.
90 Guys are fighting over the other $20.00.
that means of those 90 people, if they shared evenly, they'd each have (drum roll please) ... $0.22 apiece.

I'll take my .22 cents and fight one of the guys with $8.00.
Who do you think is going to win that battle?

I'll use my loquacity and elegant speaking style and convince the other 89 guys to pool their $0.22 apiece with me and now we'll have $20.00 to the one guy's $8.00, but he only needs to convince 2 more friends with $8.00 to stick with him and he can still beat us. In such a small group, the liklihood that all 10 guys with $8.00 standing together against 90 each with $0.22 is pretty high, because they'll be scared that, if they don't they're going to lose their $8.00.

It's not a fair fight. It never has been. So I plan to fight dirty. Just like I did when I only fought bigger kids in school. I just hope that in so doing, I can convince 89 other kids who are being bullied to jump in and start swinging against those other 9 guys I can't fight once I start tangling with the first one.

The real question is: What are we going to to about this?

dunniteowl

First I'm not concerned about the distribution of wealth. I'm going to work and make and save what I can. The fact that somebody else drives a bigger car or lives in a bigger house has no affect on me. I really don't care. I put my values in different places than they do and I'm not willing to do what is required to get what they have. You and the President can envy all you want.

So if insanity is doing the same thing over and over and you are going to vote for Obama again that would make you insane. You know what President Obama is doing and going to do and you will not vote for the other option. You would rather have crappy instead of admit you voted for someone else.

Well you can vote for him and if he wins then you need to quit complaining about what he does or doesn't do. You knew what you were voting for.

Roberto Mangabeira Unger may be the most brilliant man to live since Nietzsche himself. I will reading and listening to all his lectures maybe even tonight, to hell with the Yankees! What an indictment of Obama. If Obama is ever brought to justice I would want Unger to prosecute the case! And to top it all off the man has the cold steel eyes of a real leader. Why don’t we just elect him!

You all lie, deny and lie some more. This is a non issue.

Easy to accuse people of lying - harder to delineate the lie.

This is SUCH a mixture of insight and nonsense that one hardly knows where to begin.

He recognizes the need for drastic changes to be made to the social and economic systems now in place. He sees that a society must arrange its political side so as to control the economic system. He appears to know that an economic system has only one good purpose and that purpose is to serve the needs of the population, NOT to serve as a vehicle to make a few super wealthy at the expense of the many.

But his "solution" - to dump the democrats so as to "teach them a lesson", is nonsense. Does he really think that the dems will actually learn anything from that? Well.... other than that they've got to support the big money interests who can buy them an election, that is. And that is the exact opposite of them trying to put forward the, so called, "progressive" ideology so as to gain public support - votes - that would enable them to lead the country into a better future.

When will the people want what the left feels is a "progressive" government? Who knows; but it sure as hell isn't now. The people still have a lot of love for good ol' capitalism. They know it got hijacked on the way to the future, by a bunch of self-serving, greedy bastards who have made the greed for money the only "value" and the only way to satisfy that "value" is to serve the big money interests.

Let's not kid the troops here folks, this kind of band-aid solution is just another in a long line of band-aid solutions to come down the pike. It leaves the wealth of the elite still intact and still being passed down to their own personal progeny, generation after generation. It leaves the accrual of wealth the only game in town. Surely we can do better than this.

As long as money can buy elections we're screwed. The wealthy will see to it that laws, favourable to them, are always in existence. This is not good for the rest of us. Not good at all. No few members of the elite has created the circumstances that allowed them to get wealthy. That was done by the whole society. Their wealth is only of value so long as "we, the people" ACCEPT it as having value. At present we cannot change this by any known political process.

We CAN, however, begin to build an alternate economic system that we, and we alone, own and control. We can, in time, ignore those with "money" as we know it today. We can establish co-ops and a massive "grey market".

This is already being done as people become conscious of the value in doing this. Some co-ops are getting so well established that they have begun to issue their own script - i.e. "money." These people trade goods and services with each other and can IGNORE "the dollar" as they wish. Being able to ignore the "dollar" means escaping the rule of the elite!

Many progressives are already very active in this quiet underground movement. I applaud them with all my heart. This works to solve our problems of inequality of wealth. This avoids a major confrontation with the elite. This gives them nothing to shoot at or have their cops arrest. It is like smoke. It will make the bastards choke and their damned bullets & bullies won't be able to do a darn thing about it.

It is time to stop fooling around with this bastardized form of capitalism. Let's sit down and work out what we want an economic system to do; i.e. how it should meet the needs of the people of the society. Let's design an economic system that will do that. Let's keep it tightly under control and highly regulated. Let us make sure that those involved in it understand that our economic system is a tool that WE, THE PEOPLE have put in place to serve OUR needs.

And, perhaps most importantly, let us understand that "one man = one vote" has fuck all to do with democracy. Elections, politicians, and political parties are merely handles that the elite can, and do, use to grab control of our social and economic systems. As we can see in today's world, they have done so very effectively. It's time we took away those handles and adopted a different method of selecting those who manage our society.

I have made suggestions on various blogs over the last few years. I will continue to do so. Others also have made some serious suggestions. Some of them I disagree with, but ALL of them are worthy of serious consideration by us.

Let's get together and discuss these ideas. Let's educate ourselves and each other. Let's begin the long, hard process of climbing one more rung on the ladder of human progress. It will, as such things always are, be a very hard task. But it won't do itself; we have to do it.

It's time to begin. Past time.......
;-)
.

"R"
.

Roberto Unger is a punk who couldn't call in an airstrike on Hitler, Stalin, or Mao without having a seminar.

Without watching the video, I rarely watch them, what do you propose we do? It's easy to point out the problem. What would be the solution, in your view?

Well, the surest way to defeat Obama is to vote for Romney who is around 46 points ahead of Jill Stein the the last poll I saw. As the prof says, there will be a cost in terms of the appointments Romney will make, like a couple of Supremes of the Roberts/Thomas/Scalia variety. And it's hard to see how taxes will be sharply raised, as the prof advocates, under a Romney presidency. One would think that that might be more easily accomplished by defeating as many Repub congressmen as possible, but I guess nothing trumps teaching the Dems a lesson.

just phyllis for now has asked the most important question here today. We have a plethora of posts telling us, in great detail, that "things ain't goin' right".

OK, so it helps to know that. BUT it only helps to know that if we MAKE USE OF THAT KNOWLEDGE to create a better way of doing things. And that, my friend, is the rub - damn few are suggesting how we do that. No, no, I don't mean silly stuff like, "throw the bastards out" at election time. We can't. All we can do is replace them. Unfortunately, the only replacements readily available are just as bad or worse than they are!! Terrific! Let's replace a flat tire with another flat tire! I've got news for you..... that ain't gonna work!
.

Thank you, Skypixie0. I want to say that I liked your comment, too, especially the cooperatives. I wonder how I would find one in my area.

Timinglogic has a lot of solutions I suggest anybody who is interested to read some of his back posts. The man knows more about economics than anybody on Open Salon. And Sky I do love your comments to bad your so cranky.

@Jack,
That's "you're"........;-)

.

@Jack (again)

We TWO are TOO cranky TO get along but we'll see how cranky YOUR comments are when YOU'RE my age.

(~grin~)(Sorry Jack, I just couldn't resist....)
.

@just phyllis for now,

Have you tried Google? Or the yellow pages of your phone book? Failing that you can try putting a notice up in your local supermarket and laundromat. Is there an alternative newspaper or magazine where you live? If all else fails, you can put an ad in the local paper, and start one!!
.

I’ll tell you one thing this guy Unger is a real piece of work and I do mean intellectual heavyweight. I can’t believe I have never heard of him before but this just go’s to show how Harvard keeps its own little secrets. Zachary Taylor and I were just discussing that in one of his blogs. I think the subscription to their publication was forty thousand a year. From what I have read and heard so far Unger’s work should be required reading.

The video was more about why this nation's two-party system needs to be defeated, and less about President Obama. This is an old argument. But the two-party system is corrupt and entrenched, and no one has found a way to create a multiparty political system in the United States. Why? Because political and financial power would be dispersed, and the GOP and the Dems won't let that happen.

The people of Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, China, Russia, India, Egypt, Somalia and elsewhere who are under the tyranny of corruption are our brothers and sisters in the reasoned and virtuous struggle for our dignity and our democratic rights granted through the natural laws of self-rule, empowerment, dignity and self-determination. That is the role of government in a free and just society. The words of justice and timeless human values ring true for all people everywhere.

Several people ask what other options we have if won't don't vote for either Romney or Obama in November. I can think of several I can't mention here because I know DHS monitors most political blogs.

At minimum we should be following the example of the Egyptian people, in response to their phoney election last weekend.

Can't say for sure, but I suspect most of those commenting here are waaay to old to be spouting idealistic nonsense. Like teenagers, you old hippies are talking revolution, but I dare say there isn't one in a hundred of you who's been out in the streets or done anything but whine and bitch. Yeah, I know, Jack Heart already has his guns loaded, but the rest of your are blowing smoke. Grow up.

Well, if you won't fight a revolution, the least you can do is vote. And yes, we'd all like other choices come November, but we don't have one. Like it or not there are only two realistic choices:

(1) You can hold you nose, swallow your wounded pride and vote for the moderate compromiser, who out of political necessity crushed your fantasyland dreams of a velvet revolution

(2) You can vote for a political-hack, vulture capitalist, pathological liar -- if not a sociopath (evidence suggests he is), who will be driven to unimaginable extremes (even for him) by a gang of Teapartian fascist thugs bent on restoring "moral order, fiscal sanity and national honor" by any and all means necessary (see Germany in the Thirties).

If you think I'm exaggerating about that charge, you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in state legislatures where the Thugee Republicans have taken control. Note Virginia, where mandatory vaginal probe exams were being required for an abortion; or Pennsylvania, where women will be forced to observe the screen during an ultrasound; or Florida, where drug testing is required to receive welfare and tens of thousands are being dumped from voting rolls (as is the case in dozens of other states where Republicans run the show); or Michigan, where with the stroke of a pen the governor can remove duly elected local officials, dissolve long-established communities, and a appoint a czar of his own choosing, who sells off city property at flea market prices to satisfy banksters. Crazy as all that sounds, dictatorial as all that sounds, I'm not making any of this up.

Wake up, people! The Democratic Party may have fallen from grace, and you may have been led to too audaciously hope for change you can believe in. Well, this you can believe -- come November your choice will be between a slim hope and none. That will be a very easy choice for me.

For me, also, Tom.

I consider myself a solid progressive, but a very poor political masochist. I believe Romney would be a disastrous president for the nation and everyone in it. It's just that the top 1% would take the longest to feel the bad effects. I believe HE's the one to be defeated and as many Teapublicans as we can unseat as well. No doubt there are more qualified people who would make good presidents out there, but you can't force people to run for office if they really don't want the job. You have to deal with the people willing to put on the shiny shoes and the white gloves.

It's fashionable to be down on Obama--I haven't given up on him. Not by a long shot. I voted for him in 2008 believing he's the best option we have availablem, and will do so again this year for exactly the same reason although I fully expected to disagree with him (I have) and have never thought he was perfect. (He's not). Romney has stated he'll roll back Obama's accomplishments, and with the Teapublicans breathing down his neck, I'm sure that's' where he'll start.

It's not where he'll end.

Be really, really careful what you wish for this year.

[r] The Democratic Party is the twin of the Republican Party I have contended in that they are run by corporate pimps.

However, I just read an interesting article on Daily Kos by Kurt Sperry (really listed on buzzflash). He contends that the Dem Party is unprincipled and the Repub party is perversely principled. And people are repelled by the unprincipled far more than even the perversely principled.

He said Obama and Dems are chasing down fringe Republicans for their votes and swing voters in Florida and Ohio, and are so voracious for the win-kill they will throw everything that the Dem party has ever stood for under the bus. He said you don't need a lot of money to hard sell what people actually WANT. And the Obama administration is not going near what the citizenry wants and needs. Defenders of Obama ... WTF? Ego and macho have taken over his military behavior as well as his empathylessness to the plight of his countrymen. He is the American Judas!

Interesting. I agree with the first contention about Dems being unprincipled, pragmatically proud of it. defiantly so reading some of the comments even here. I think the Dems have a colossal nerve pointing at the Repubs when they have not stood up for people and principles themselves and their President is egomaniacally or maybe run by the military industrial security complex and his corporate benefactors and has no will of his own (though I think with his power flexing there is something very dangerous in his psyche) .

And I agree with this professor, that Obama is DANGEROUS as is the DEM party and the enabling of both of them is dangerous!!! The you must vote for us by default TRAP should not be enabled and allowed to continue and yet so-called progressives have been so over-identifying with the amoral and callow strategizing done by a system and people who have clearly NO MORAL VISION and a lousy POLITICAL VISION at the same time.

Reagan had a "teflon-ness" but the powerful branding and media help and Dem cronyism for Obama stuns. Codependency at its worse. A mass codependency to someone who is erecting the scaffolding of fascism and people do not want to awaken their consciences on this.

There could be a strong rallying behind a third party candidate. At the very least it would freak out the complacent Dem Party and President who are so smug in feeling like they can take anyone left of center for granted. I AM TIRED OF BEING A HOSTAGE to pragmatic sociopaths!

best, libby

Re the last remark, I find it interesting how many people rationalize a view of another person that isn't consistent with the facts of that person's behavior. How people refuse to look at four years of a presidency and instead somehow deflect clear policy behavior by blaming that policy on someone else.

Our life is often one large rationalization. We rationalize our own behavior in support of a world around us that only exists in our mind. No one on here is advocating violence. There is nothing illegal or immoral about a reason-based look at facts rather than rationalizations and rhetoric.

I have no desire to change anyone's mind or convert anyone to my rationalization. But, let me just say this. In the end, your life is your life. There is no one there to turn to to rationalize your behavior and your decisions. How can anyone use an argument of voting that depends on the rationalization of a public official in a democracy using subjective authority clearly outside of the rule of law to develop kill lists that this person personally approves. Including American citizens. And, do so without any rights of due process in either a public forum, or in the case of a declared war, a military court or an international criminal court?

Anyone who votes for any politician who acts subjectively under dubious authority to kill anyone else has no chance of getting my vote. It's part of that democratic empowerment and self-determination thing...... self-determination's flip side is that you must learn to take responsibility for your actions. Your vote has consequence. That may include blood on your hands. This argument can be applied to countless dynamics that continue under the Democrats.

Many people will never wake up from a rationalized dream world that only exists in their mind.

The choices in the upcoming American election come down to four.....

1) Vote Republican..... If you're not a convinced Republican, this would only be a revenge vote against Obama; mildly satisfying but with unacceptable results.

2) Vote Democrat..... If you're not a dedicated Democraat this would only prevent a GOP win and leave you with an unacceptable result; just more of the same-old, same-old that you now have.

3) Vote a small party...... This is perhaps the most principled vote for those not dedicated to one of the larger parties. It must be understood, however, that 99% of those who go this way will take votes away from the Democrats rather than from the GOP. This could very well result in guaranteeing a GOP win.

4) Don't vote at all.....This also is a principled rejection of the status quo. It also, if enough people follow this path, would likely guarantee a GOP win.

From where I sit it looks to me like y'all are firmly wedged between a rock and a hard place. I feel for you and wish you all well.

.

How many of y'all ever voted for Ralph Nader? Just askin'.

3rd parties don't work in this governmental set up. Never have. The last successful 3rd party was in 1860. And that was right on the cusp of an all-out civil war.

Tom undoubtedly makes the best argument on OS in favor of voting Obama back into office but I must weigh his statements against my own conscious particularly in the light of the arguments of Timinglogic and those of Roberto Mangabeira Unger. I am a pretty bloodthirsty character myself, anybody that knows me in real life will testify to that. Seems to me violence is unavoidable in this world. Every living thing derives its sustenance by consuming the nearest available other living thing, Dr Unger’s transcendental living God’s philosophy aside (which by the way Mr. Obama must be thoroughly steeped in) that is simply just the way things are. We cannot change that even though that which is truly divine in us demands that we do. As Dr Unger says we are the infinite trapped in the finite. It is pretty obvious by now that Mr. Obama has a penchant for bloodshed that perhaps we have never seen in any other president before him. Regardless of who is giving him the orders he is the one pulling the trigger. I don’t wholly object to Mr. Obama’s violence particularly in regard to the Pashtun who are savage beyond belief. So savage in fact that Dubya, practically the Devil incarnate himself, refused to deal with them even when it was in his best interest. What I object to is Mr. Obamas tactics of deliberately targeting noncombatants (that means woman and children) and fugitively speaking shooting people in the back with his little drone toys. There is something that go’s against the nature of that nagging divinity in man in the way Mr. Obama choses to wage war. Call it a violation of Chivalry, failure to follow the Homeric codes that are ingrained in Western Civilization or just call it plain old murder. There is also the point raised by Dr. Unger of Mr. Obamas reckless adventurism. His soldiers are here there and everywhere. Now we are in Africa. The Africans are armed to the teeth and ready to die on a moments notice we haven’t left them much to live for anyway. Did we not learn that in Somalia? As for Central Africa we might as well just cede it to Laurent Nikunda he is going to take it sooner or later anyway. Just like we might as well broker a deal between India and the Pashtun for the return of Uttar Pradesh (with the stipulation of course that the Pashtun must not take “Badal” and exterminate its 200 million inhabitants). I digress though, it seems that under Mr. Obama’s presidency every half ass corporation that Forbes lists does business under the umbrella of the American military machine. Making every American and every American ally (Sky) complacent in their murders for profit. Instead of becoming more civilized and working to placate the divine voice that tells us to murder is wrong we are becoming more savage by the day. Where even in John Wayne's world does murderous oppression of others become a virtue? I believe that the divine voice does not lie and the divine voice tells me I cannot vote for Mr. Obama. Yes we will probably end up with Romney and some undesirable supreme court appointments but I do not think Romney has it in him to do some of the things Mr. Obama has done. Both Dubya and Clinton were bad actors themselves but they drew lines. They did not wholesale murder people on corporate whims nor lend out the American military for corporate speculation. And as Dr. Unger pointed out the Democrats must be taught that they must represent their constituency or lose that constituency.

OK, I listened to this guy, and I had to get through about half the video before he started to get interesting. He in essence says the following:

"Our best hope is for the Democratic party to behave as if it were really progressive/liberal. That won't happen under Obama's leadership; in fact, it will be prevented from happening by Obama's leadership. Because our need for liberalism is so urgent, we would be better off sacrificing this Presidential election than not. Sacrificing this election carries the risks of the consequences of more court appointments, particularly on the Supreme Court. Sacrificing this election does not, however, carry the risk of more military adventurism in that Obama is every bit as militaristic as Romney is likely to be."

OK, ultimately a coherent argument, and I have to agree with him that we really are that desperate. So, I have a question and a comment. The question is:

Is the judicial risk too great? The Supreme Court did more damage to the United States with the Citizens' United decision than Obama has as President. I'm sorry, but that's true.

The closest I can come to a logical solution is to put all our resources into taking Congress and saying Screw the Presidency. Unfortunately, probably not logical enough, because getting voters to vote for Congressmen in part depends on getting them involved in the Presidential election.

All of which I suppose puts me closest to Tom Cordle. Not surprising.

I find it interesting that both parties are thoroughly unhappy with their Presidential candidates.

You might consider that the Supreme Court most likely will lose judicial review in the next ten to fifteen years. They were not granted this in Article 3 of the Constitution and their polling numbers are drowning. ie, With any transformational reform that eventually will happen within our nation, and it most certainly will, we are likely to see the unelected tyranny of the Supreme Court be taken from them and placed within the authority of the people. France did this a long time ago. They stripped the Supreme Court of judicial review and set up a body of citizens - non lawyers - to review the constitutionality of law. And, it would logically report to the law-writing body as it does in France. ie, The Congress.

It's coming. Mark my word. It's part of the systemic overhaul that is needed in our nation. Judicial review is a vestige left over from times before democracy. It isn't democratic and places unchecked powers not granted by the Constitution into the hands of unelected bureaucrats. It's part of the same rot.

If we had trusted third parties more in the days of Nader we could have avoided the colossal mess and total saturation of corruption today. It shouldn't discourage us from third parties, WE SHOULD BE FLOCKING TO THEM!!!

Obama, like everyone associated at very high corporate and government positions with this system now, on some level is a sociopath. This is a sociopathic system, it's a system that hates human beings and their frailties. It's a system run by people who imagine themselves to be supermen or superwomen and who consider themselves righteous in trying to rule over the vast mass of people whose advancement, whose very lives, the system is now doing everything it can to impede and impoverish. And I don't have a quick solution. All I can say at this point is that I hope the collapse of the global fiat money system doesn't take too long, because total collapse is the only thing that will get some of the poison out of the body politic. Not all of it, to be sure, and maybe just barely enough to restructure and reinvent society, but at least then we'll have a shot. Until then all we're going to get out of this rotten mess is a string of infuriating images of Jamie Dimon and his shit-eating grin.

Rated.

And no, I don't care who wins the election. Blinky or Buffy, it really doesn't matter much, only the con will change, slightly, not the aims. I'll be drinking--heavily--on election night.

Jack so eloquently points out, the liar-in-chief MUST "represent their constituency or lose that constituency."

mr willfully ignorant, OS's class clowns parades slogans like professional liberals, fringe liberals and other (apisa) sh*t telling us we have thrown obama under the bus, when the FACT is obama discarded his constituency, from the very beginning.

ronald raygun asked: "are you better off than you were four years ago, as his weapon to defeat Carter.

Who with a straight face can answer that question affirmatively other than the perennially sociopathic passive-aggressive grinning chimp?

Ah, the Czar deigns to speak to the serfs! We are not worthy.

A cryptic, derivative statement from ben - the only part clear and true being; we (he) is not worthy.

I only read this because a follower sent it to me as spam.

As to the video you refer to as your supporting authority: hey everybody, think before you swallow and be able to vet self-serving propaganda. Ask questions: What is Ungar’s authority? Who is he? What does he stand for? What is his beef with Obama? What would be the obvious, logical, certain, consequence if Obama was defeated in November?

If anyone actually thinks, as Ungar has argued (google it), that defeating Obama in November would move beyond the Democratic Party and restore Progressivism (a 1912! movement) in America then they are surely smoking some pretty bad stuff. Donald Trump no doubt has some under water ocean front property in Las Vegas he’d love to unload on them.

There is no need to discuss Unger’s politics here. He is basically Keynesian who has said nothing Paul Krugman has not said except that he is famously more radically left; but his call for defeat of Obama is an infantile screed.

Roberto Mangabeira Unger, is a radical leftist who was never Obama’s law professor! Though he is a credible scholar on the Harvard faculty who has written on legal theory he is not a lawyer and not really a law professor but a philosopher and Brazilian politician - and a failed politician at that. Who is he to be telling America what Obama should do?

According to author David Remnick's book The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama, Unger merely taught two classes at Harvard that Obama attended – Jurisprudence (which is the theory of law in general and not related to substantive law) and Reinventing Democracy – Professor Unger kept in touch with Obama via Blackberry during the 2008 campaign, wrote Remnick, but did not come out as the candidate’s friend because of his concern that doing so would expose Obama’s ties to leftists.

Please! Obama owes no fealty to every left wing professor just because he took a class under them. Do you not recall college a few processors whose theories you disagreed with? Feeling jilted by OBama, Unger now says Obama must be defeated so that the Democratic Party (which he also slams as rotten to the core) can be restored “as the vehicle for progressive alternative in the country.” But nowhere does utterly politically naive Unger say how that would suddenly, abracadabra, transform the Democratic party and restore it to it’s Progressive roots of 1912!!! Nor does he say who might rush in to fill the vacuum. What? He (and the commentators here) actually thinks defeating Obama (and the certain installation of the Republican oligarch/plutocrat Romney) would restore progressivism in American?

Sorry but Unger’s facade as ‘Obama’s law professor’ possessing the credibility tell him how to run American is a phoney and as thin as the wallpaper backdrop of this Utube screed.

“The corporate state must relinquish control to the just and democratic determination and empowerment of its citizens.” Ya sure. And exactly how is that going to be accomplished? By merely defeating Obama? Pulease! Hurling hyperbole is easy and it contributes nothing. Those who claim to be for liberal democracy and work to slander Obama and damage his chances for a second term (where he can really act without fear) are unwitting shills conscripted to whitewash Tom Sawyer’s infamous fence.

I remain amazed that some people actually think Obama, one man, with a G.O.P. controlled House and a crippled Congress can just come in and sprinkle fairy dust and all the corruption and greed will disappear. Only twits throw infantile tantrums objecting that, in 4 years, one man has not been able, with a few twitters, to undo 30 years of Republican deregulation and taking down of the New Deal to wave a magic wand to dis-empower the 1% who own Congress.

And btw. Nothing in this hysterical slinging of hyperbole is ‘reasoned’.

And Your take on TEN covert and overt wars is what Francois, not to mention shredding the constitution:

"Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools.

After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history."


10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free
by Jonathan Turley

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.

These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.

Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an interview last spring without objection that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, terrorism will never “surrender” and end this particular “war.”

Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: “That is a decision which we leave where it belongs — in the executive branch.”
And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat.
An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.

The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.

The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.

Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-united-states-still-the-land-of-the-free/2012/01/04/gIQAvcD1wP_story_2.html

Thank you, Francois.

Beautifully reasoned and written.

Some of these people would be willing to accept anything that vilifies Obama no matter how absurd...and certainly, no matter the source.

I wonder if fRANK ever wonders why people on able2know (where he's posted more than 15,000 times) refer to him as apisash*t.

Francois,

The Democratic Party has betrayed us. It does not deserve our support. Obama has betrayed us. He does not deserve our support.

Saying NO has to begin somewhere!

Don't blame the non-enablers of an evil system, Francois. Just cuz the Repub party is evil, doesn't make the Dem party NOT evil.

We deserve an alternative. It is not supporters, say, of Jill Stein that are dooming the country. It is the "settlers" for faux-lesser of two evils that are choosing evil and trying to nuance and justify it.

That killing the messenger thinking is the naive track. The fairy dust is NOT in our eyes, Francois. Maybe if you weep for the democracy Obama is dismantling (Romney won't have much left to do) you can get the fairy dust out of yours.

Frank, I can't hear you with your head in the sand so.

best, libby

Note, Francois hasn't the courage nor FACTS to rebut Professor Turley.

Instead he's busily harassing me to death with endless PMs.

Libby, you wrote:

Frank, I can't hear you with your head in the sand so.

Well...my head is not in the sand, so if you can't hear me, perhaps it is your head that is!

Pull it out...shake off the sand...listen to what I am saying. You will be the better for it.

“Beware the man of one book.”

At least have the intellectual integrity to not put words and arguments into Turley’s mouth. Jonathan Turley is red-herring and totally irrelevant to this conversation as are many legal scholars who dispute and debate Obama policies for good reason. The sole argument here is that Obama is a war criminal who must be removed from office and thereby return the Democratic party to 1912 Progressivism. Facts? Really? Please show me where Jonathan Turley ever supported these arguments or is aligned with such irresponsible and poorly reasoned polemic. I happen to know he’d not even dignify these arguments with a comment.

It is unfortunate that those who pontificate on the constitution prove they lack even a thimble full of knowledge about the “rule of law” and the best they can do is cut and paste the opinions of others or otherwise resort to infantile ad hominem while hurling screeching hyperbole. When it comes to matters of international law in times of war they would do themselves a service by remaining silent and presumed ignorant before slamming their keyboards to remove all doubt.

If they have any genuine interest in disabusing themselves of such ignorance they might start with "Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency" by Richard A. Posner and "Jefferson on Civil Liberties" by Leonard Levy - two of the most respected and credible constitutional scholars ever to write on the subjects the nobodies pontificate on. You can dig up any number of 'professors' to peddle their own agenda but swallowing their propaganda as it suits your prejudices is hardly thinking for yourself.

Any nincompoop malcontent can stand on a cyberspace street corner bitch and moan and heap invective and most of them do. It is incumbent on those who call for removal of Obama to not just screech and crank but proffer a viable alternative that will not make matters worse. Aside from this some here might benefit from Emotional Vampires by Albert J. Bernstein, Ph. D.

How?

I want to know How.

Where do we start? How do we build? How do we restore anything?

These arguments go in circles. People talk past each other here. Not everyone is acknowledging the same questions. So, let's ask them:

How critical is it to control the next Supreme Court nomination compared to how critical it is to keep someone out of the White House?

Whether Obama has not done well by liberals because he isn't trying to or because his opposition is too overwhelming does not address the question of why he has supported withdrawing so much legal oversight from antiterrorist activities. What do we intend to do about that under any circumstances?

Do we think Romney would be a. better b.about the same or c. worse, in this particular regard? If not a., that says the ballot box cannot realistically address this issue during this election cycle. If it can't, how do we best address it?

How do we address problems that will not be solved by the White House in the next four years because neither candidate has been inclined to address them seriously?

I am throwing in my 2 cents too.

The answer isn't a new party or even throwing the bums out.

When we hit the skids in 1929 there were a few factors which caused massive changes. The Communists were threatening to kick capitalism out of America, and they had a real shot at doing that. That forced the head rich guy, FDR (Roosevelt) to understand that he could lose all of his money as a result if he didn't make some immediate changes.

And, the unions were also threatening to bring down the whole house of cards.

FDR had no choice but make massive changes and to force the wealthy to start investments here. (See my post "Why the Rich Don't Pay Taxes".)

Revolution, or the threat of an immediate revolution forced the leaders to listen and to put out the fire. Up went taxes to force investments (my post, remember?), in came Social Security, and the start of many to come social and employment programs.

That is our only chance.

Pierre
R

Mark qualifies Jonathan Turley by quoting from his bio on jonathanturley.org. What does that tell you about intellectual integrity? I think I'll look for some good information on astronomy on www.themoonisgreencheese.org and post it here.

@Tom: Oh, it may be easy to stand on the cyberstreet corner cafe and piss and moan, as you intone that we all must be doing and that's fine. I would stand up in real life and do what I think I must, irrespective of who might disagree. So I guess I'd be ready for actual action if it comes to that, rest assured.

@CatnLion: Thanks for the personal treatment. I can only think that I must have accidentally struck a nerve to warrant a personal note.

My personal view is that there is a revolution in the making. My concern is that, should it start, can we keep it relatively bloodless or do I need to stock up on ammo and rations?

I do not love Obama and I do not love Romney. As skypixie0 said the four choices with your vote all appear to be poor choices. In a world of infinite choice, we could simply have more different ones. In this world of corporatocracy and bought and paid for representatives, you can stand on principle like Catnlion does and damn the consequences in a severely selfish black and white world, or you can look at the situation pragmatically and attempt to plot a course that can buy you time while you figure out a plan B.

The analysis of Rebubs as perversely principled and Dems as perversely unprincipled sounds about right to me. So where does that leave us?

I asked it already and I ask it again: What can we do?

I ask this not in powerless helplessness, but in earnest desire to hear some thoughts about what to do, not who's to blame and who should quit complaining about a bad situation.

For the record, the only time I don't think you have a right to bitch about a situation is when your vote = Zero. If you don't vote, then you forfeit your right to piss and moan about the situation, as I see it.

As a starter suggestion, I wouldn't mind seeing a box on all ballots that says: No Confidence/Do Over

Or similar. You get enough of those and we scrap the election and start all over, giving whoever's in power an extremely limited set of powers (including Congress) to only address ongoing issues and not enact new laws, make new appointments or treaties, etc.

Of course, that only underscores the issue of "How do we get the people already in place to do these things in the first place?"

I ask questions and I make points on facts. If that makes me a piss and moaner and an ignorant fool, then at least I'm in good company.

As to idealism, just because I'm not a teenager, TOM, doesn't mean I can't be idealistic. On all other points, I agree with you. Idealism without the intent to act on it is what I think you're pointing your finger at. I'm not that guy.

Obama will win in November in spite of the radical Left's angst over perceived or real intransigence to their agendas. Vote for Romney as protest, don't vote as protest, vote 3rd party, whatever...

It's a numbers game. The demographics have changed before your eyes the past 10 yrs. yet you refuse to see. The extreme left is just as irrelevant as the radical right has become. No revolution necessary as both extremes will be on social security or in assisted living within 3,000 days.

Concerning the three stooges. francois is a moron. he even mentions extra-judicial killings in his own blog (Professor Turley's first point), and therefore should know that they violate the second protocol of the Geneva Conventions article 6.2.

As we've signed this document, it is automatically part of our Constitution.

What makes him even more inane, despite my request that he stop PMing me, he persists, with his latest titled, I'm discarding your responses without reading. After his first four, I stopped responding, and simply, copied his own PMs and sent them back to him, so, in reality, he's discarding duplicate copies of his own PMs.

Now joe is extraordinarily ordinary. In his bio he comments that he: "admit(s) when I'm wrong and have many weaknesses. Such as.... hmmm, can't think of one."

It used to say "can't tolerate bad spelling", but when I found that he makes numerous spelling mistakes; and commented that the bio should read "can't tolerate OTHERS spelling mistakes he deleted that whole section.

Then on Don Rich's blog, he made the statement: "Wasn't everyone surprised in 1999 when Hong Kong reverted to China?" As I live in this part of the world and watch Hong Kong closely, I responded: " . . . the world was not surprised when Hong Kong reverted to China in 1999. Perhaps, you were.

The world may or may not have been surprised at the reversion in 1997."

http://open.salon.com/blog/don_rich/2012/05/04/ideals_and_self-interest_in_sino-american_relations_history#comment_2924128

He never admitted he was wrong, so the words he chose for his bio makes him a liar. Furthermore he never got over this error having been caught by me, so he tries to find ways to carp at me whenever he can.

Spelling is important to mr. ordinary; history not so important.

As for Professor Turley's background, a devious example of the trivial nature of this most ordinary liar and confused little man; from the GW University website: "Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the GW Law faculty in 1990, and in 1998, became the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history."

Ya' like this one better, mr. ordinary? No, I didn't think so. you have nothing better to do, but play your pitiful masturbatory games.

As for fRANK, most of the world knows what a hollow life he has. he brags that he loves to argue and is proud to have been thrown off of three boards so far on his "Myspace" page. On his dominant place of "work" able2know, he is universally hated and they refer to him as "apisash*t."

The less said about this loathsome creature the better.

That the best you can do, you pathetic dick? Ninth time (okay, I'm probably wrong again because I don't maintain archives like you) that you have brought up my terrible error for the HK reversion date. I guess I should have copy-pasted it like every frigging thing you post, instead of actually knowing something.

you actually think I archive a pitiful creature like you, mr. ordinary. That really is a hoot. Clearly you are not worth my time, nor anybody's.

Since I've been addressed by name, I'm compelled to respond. Yes, Obama has been a disappointment in many ways, but I'm not fool enough to imagine any President is going to follow my agenda – he's supposed to represent all the people, including those I vociferously disagree with.

Good Presidents – and we’ve had a few – pursue what they perceive to be policies that benefit the Commonweal, and that are politically viable. Lost causes are for losers – witness the Dixiecrats-cum-Republicans, who are still fighting the Civil War 150 years after they lost it. Thus, the South is condemned to forever be the retarded, redolent, red-headed stepchild of this country.

Problems come when a President recklessly pursues the goals of a vocal and obstinate – and too often ignorant to boot – minority. That was the lesson of Prohibition, a lesson we forgot, and thus we still suffer the awful consequences of the War on Drugs. We see this same dynamic in Congress, where a vocal and obstinate – and too often ignorant to boot – minority group of Teapartians is the crowbar in the clockwork.

What's worse is when a President pursues the agenda of a well-heeled minority. That was the lesson of the Great Depression, another lesson we forgot. Thus, we suffer because every President from Reagan through Bush the Least (and his friends the Have-Mores) pursued that agenda with Supply-Side/Kiss the Rich’s Backside, Voodoo/Trickled-On Economics.

Lest I be accused of rank partisanship, I include Clinton among that cadre, and his statements of late only confirm that charge. His Gobblization wet dream was accompanied by a giant sucking sound – just as Ross Perot predicted. And as I’ve said many times, it was not “the rising tide that lifts all boats”, but the tsunami that sinks all life rafts.

Yes, Obama has catered to the economic elite as well, and his appointment of Tim Geithner is Exhibit A in that indictment. I suspect his actions have less to do with cozying up to the Have-Mores than with trying to prevent the Great Depression 2.0. In any case, any fair reading of his performance ought to take into account the forces arrayed against him. Given that those forces are formidable and utterly without conscience, Obama probably deserves a gentleman's C on that test.

The Far Right has selective amnesia and has blotted from its collective mind the horrors of the administration of Bush the Least by blaming those horrors on Obama. That being the case, it is imprudent – nay dangerous, even suicidal – to vote third-party or not all as long as the Far Right continues to vote like a school of fish for whatever Great White Shark is tossed in their path.

This time around, they will vote en masse for a political-hack, vulture capitalist, pathological liar and likely sociopath – not to mention a heretic member of a religious cult – at least in the eyes of most of the Far Right. And the Far Left has the temerity to complain about being given the choice of Obama?

The Far Left suffers from selective amnesia as well. Their collective mind has blotted-out the lessons of '68, when millions of Democrats deserted the Party in favor of third-party candidate and overt racist George Wallace. I remember it all too well, because my father was among them, god rest his tragically mistaken soul. That tragic defection gave us Richard Nixon rather than Hubert Humphrey – anyone care to argue how that benefited The Cause?

Okay, for the young who weren’t around then and the drug-addled old hippies how weren’t actually conscious then, how about the disputed election of 2000 – an election that wouldn’t have been disputed save for all those disaffected votes cast for Ralph Nader. Anyone on the Left care to explain how those votes benefited The Cause?

Since much of the discussion here has been an appeal to authority, I give you the words of the philosopher Hegel (with a nod to James Emmerling):

"The goal to be reached is the mind’s insight into what knowing is. Impatience asks for the impossible, wants to reach the goal without the means of getting there. The length of the journey has to be borne, for every moment is necessary"

You see, Obama is right about at least one thing – the Perfect is almost always the enemy of the Good. A reckless longing for and pursuit of Utopia inevitably leads to Dystopia. You have been warned.

Tom,
You seem like a good man. I've stayed away from the mob mentality of this train of posts but I want to simply make one remark regarding your two comments on here. Something to think about. You are very good at rationalizing. Your rationalizations are ad hominem fallacies. I'm not going to delve into philosophical or Boolean logic on here... because I am certain you are capable of understanding or looking it up and then understanding this back and forth between posters as ad hominem fallacies. Essentially, this post's remarks have turned into a never-ending circle of the mob claiming and reclaiming and none of it ever serves a logical purpose or an incontrovertible truth.

This is typical of the ad hominem fallacies perpetuated by the Democrats and Republicans. It becomes so ingrained in our psyche that we adopt these rationalizations ourselves. Even though they mean nothing.

I point this out because from your prior remarks on my blog, I am quite surprised of this position that you have taken. These rationalizations are what has kept the system of corruption going in our nation for decades. Yet, what has that gotten anyone? Obama isn't supposed to be president for all Americans..... that is political jabber that rationalizes not doing what is just and right and true. Obama is supposed to lead by Noblesse Oblige. That means doing the right thing. Now, there are many interpretations of the right thing but they are determined by the embracing of timeless and incontrovertible human values. Do you see that in his policies? Honestly? Do you believe murder without due process in civilian or military courts is comprised of Noblesse Oblige? Kicking people out of their homes while giving bankers trillions? Not prosecuting financial fraud? Prosecuting unconstitutional wars? Keeping Guantanamo open? Supporting CIA operations that destabilize democratic elections in other countries? Hiding government fuckups through secrecy? Negotiating trade deals that steal from Americans but benefit corporate donors? Do I need to continue?

Rationalizatons are what our president uses to support all of these positions and more. We don't need any rationalizations in who we vote for. If everyone in this country gave up on rationalizations and voted for timeless human values, neither party could survive. You keep corruption, the destruction of democracy and economic freedom going by rationalizing your beliefs and subsequent actions. - ad hominem fallacies.

We need truth. Not rationalizations. Your vote is never wasted when voting for truth over the lesser of two evils. Ever.

Let me use a simple example to show you how absurd this all is. Let's use an amusing hypothetical situation. Let's say you lived in hell. And, that there were three people on the ballot to run hell; God, Satan and a lesser form of brutality in another candidate from hell. You know there is no way God is going to win because no one is going to support virtue in hell. So, you post a comment on this blog rationalizing why you support the lesser of two evils. Well, guess what? You got exactly what you voted for. That is, no form of any type of truth. You still live in hell.

Timing
In the interest of civility, I'll ignore the condescending nature of your reply, and leave it that we simply agree to disagree about much of what's at debate. Certainly, I agree that I am disappointed -- and in some cases revolted -- by Obama's actions. And I've plainly said so several times.

Where I disagree is with the idea that one is somehow behaving more morally by choosing to vote for someone who will inevitably lose than by choosing the lesser of two evils. You are free to think otherwise, but in my view, it is more immoral to vote for someone who can't win, thus increasing the chances of the worst possible outcome. Call it Nader Syndrome.

Strikes me, you've made a classical fallacy with your argument, and that is to pose a false dichotomy -- and yes, I'm fully aware you could say the same -- and did. I don't agree. Decisions in life are rarely so uncomplicated as posed in your hellish hypothetical. So let me pose another hypothetical -- one a bit more complicated: You are in a lifeboat ... I'm sure you know the rest.

Or if that doesn't suit you, let me offer you another classic -- Sophie's Choice. Surely we can all agree that choosing to send your own child off to certain death in a concentration camp is on the face of it unforgivably evil. But what do we call it if that choice is made to save your other child?

Or how about a not-so-hypothetical -- was it evil to assassinate Osama bin Laden? How about Hitler, given the opportunity? How about the dozens of men on this list?

http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes-hvts.php

Which of these men would you have spared, given the decision?

The fact is, we all draw the line somewhere, but damned few of us draw it in the same place. That fact is, sometimes one must do that which would otherwise be considered evil. Contradictory? Certainly, but sometimes that's the way it is, and that's frequently the case when it comes to war and politics.

I should also add that the degree of evil posed by Barack Obama, even granting the instances you cite, is far less than the evil posed by a sociopath like Mitt Romney. Given the choice between voting for someone bound to lose -- and thereby increasing the likelihood of the worst possible outcome -- and voting for someone who is in my estimation far from as potentially evil -- well, as I said previously, that's an easy choice for me.

Rationalizations are a form of bargaining manifested by the self. They are delusions that only exist in our mind. The self is the only manifestation of evil this world so we are essentially bargaining with the "devil" so to speak. That's not a religious statement. More of a psychological one.

That bargaining is a form of ratonalizing our behavior to fit within the constructs of our belief system. A belief system that resides no where else but our minds. ie, There is no truth contained within either the bargaining or the belief system. It's simply the manifested ego's need for control. That rationalization or bargaining is a form of control driven by lower order processing within our mind. It is meant to protect the image of the manifested self or superego.

By the way, it's the same bargaining that alcoholics do with their manifested self to rationalize and protect their behavior. Except the addiction in this case isn't alcohol, it's control. You aren't alone in this delusion. Everyone does it. But the reality is there is no form of truth in anything you state. Simply rationalizations that allow you to continue a faulty belief system. If you find that condescending, then, that is your belief system's interpretation of someone stating your rationalizations are nothing more than ad hominem fallacies created by your mind.

The only truth that is incontrovertible is that these rationalizations are not any form of truth. They are simply manifestations of control. Re-electing Obama is not a form of truth for anyone who embraces it over our own rationalizations.

"Others--as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders--serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God.” -- HD Thoreau

So, let me ask you a hypothetical question. Let's say the 2012ers are right. I think it's rather laughable that this is the end of the world or that mainstream religion is right about how it will happen for the same reasons I blunted your remarks. But let's say I am wrong. And, let's say the biblical prophecies as expected by the mainstream Christian religion is true. Given your thought processes - rationalizations - ad hominem fallacies - to protect the manifested self's false belief system and why you ultimately support nontruths, how will you recognize good from evil? How will you recognize who is God and who is the imposter or the Anti-Christ? Will you rationalize a little evil for the perception that we may experience greater good as you are doing today? Would you be able to distinguish good versus evil? Remember, prophecy tells us that most people won't be able to. Where do you "draw that line" as you rationalized above? Your responses are the reason we have a rule of law and not of men. Because man can rationalize anything. And, in fact we do. And, you support a party who rationalizes great injustices.

The real Jesus of Nazareth was part of a sect of Judaism who completely rejected violence. He was a complete pacifist. No one in their society was allowed to make weapons of war or make any tool that could be used to harm another human being. Who would I kill as you proposed above? I would kill no one. I would bring them to a court of justice where reason and law were king. Reason and law are the only just authority in our world. Not men.

Most people have no idea who they are or why they are the way they are. Condescending? Not really. Just true.

Now you bring God into the argument -- on your side, of course. Given that so many of the immoral patriarchs of the Bible – Abraham, Jacob, David to name but a few -- were so often rewarded handsomely, I’m not sure what the biblical God considers moral.

Furthermore, I don't know that God exists. But I do hold the belief that morality -- goodness in my view -- exists with or without a Supreme Being. And for that matter, goodness exists without the Law.

Indeed, all too often, the Law is a means to circumvent morality. All around us we see evidence of that which is legal but immoral. Yet the most ignorant, godless savage knows better.

Keep in mind as well that our system of Law at least professes to not be founded on religion – a reality Christian fundamentalists (among others) refuse to acknowledge. In truth, the Founders used the Law primarily as a tool to protect the rights of property owners. In fact, they granted the vote only to white, male property owners. Indeed, the Bill of Rights was an afterthought.

So you and I will have to agree to disagree as well about the efficacy, equality and majesty of the Law. Here, I stand with Jesus. "Man was not made for the Law, but the Law for Man." Indeed, much of Jesus' criticism was reserved for the lawyers of his day -- the Pharisees.

Same goes for Shakespeare "First we kill all the lawyers." And if not Jesus or Shakespeare, then Anatole France:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

That evil of property rights over people’s rights permeates our Law. The prime example is the legalized economic rape of the working man by banksters and corporate profiteers.

As I suggested previously, one answer to the problem is revolution. But given the present level of ignorance in the general population, that doesn’t strike me as likely to have a positive outcome. Therefore, I favor evolution over revolution.

I do believe Barack Obama can be evolutionary, and the evidence of that is that despite horrendous opposition, he managed to push us toward nationalized healthcare, a goal of progressives for over a century, beginning with Republican President Teddy Roosevelt.

Unfortunately, progress is once again in the hands of the Court, a Court that has shown time and again its aversion to progress and its embrace of corporations over citizens.

I am convinced Obama will try to correct the imbalance on the Court, while Romney will exacerbate that imbalance in favor of corporations – and no other prospective candidate has a snowball’s chance in Hell to do anything.

As evidence in favor of Obama, I offer his appointment to the Court and his suggestion that a nominee exhibit empathy. That he was roundly castigated for that speaks volumes about his opposition.

Furthermore, he publicly – and deservedly -- called out the Court for its godawful Citizens United decision, which drew a muttered denial and condemnation from Justice Sam Alito, followed by a similar reaction from much of the mouth-breathing Right.

I cite the Court because it is a serious problem and because it is symptomatic of the larger disease, that is that a large proportion of the population agrees with you – count me among them – that the system no longer works for ordinary citizens. But the problem isn't that people have lost respect for the law (tho most have), it's that the law has lost respect for people.

Where I disagree with you and others is that throwing one’s vote away on a candidate with no chance of being anything but a statistical and historical footnote is an answer. The “logic” of that is the same logic as trying to jump the Grand Canyon in several leaps and bounds.

More rationalizations and now deflections.

My friend, none of us -- none of us -- could last a day without rationalizing our way through this world of toil , trouble and woe. I would also remind you that the root of rationalization is rational, but it's certainly your prerogative to embrace the irrational -- forgive me, but the audacious hope -- instead. Still, I hope that in the end you're wise enough to embrace the undeniably practical rather than the audaciously impossible.

This should have been featured in the Washington Post. No small thanks to your erudite and entertaining arguments Tom. But like the song my argument remains the same.

Tom,
I have little doubt if we knew each other, we would be friends. But, I cannot and never will vote for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

ra·tion·al·ize [rash-uh-nl-ahyz, rash-nl-ahyz] Show IPA verb, ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing. verb (used with object)
1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

As it pertains to Obama, you are showing signs of any addict. Rationalizing your behavior. You do that because you need to tell yourself lies for that action to fit within your belief system. That is because your belief system is fundamentally someone of being just and right and true. So, you can only justify the act of supporting Obama by lying to yourself.

Did you ever see the documentary The Pentagon Papers? The most prescient and profound part of that movie for me was when Ellsberg we facing prison. His attorneys told him that they wanted to keep middle-aged, professional white males off of the jury. And, they wanted to do that because these men had sold themselves out to a corrupt system years ago. And, that meant they would never side with a man who came completely clean and exposed the system for the massive corruption, inhumanity and murder that was the U.S. military industrial political complex. In other words, these men had sold their souls to the devil and had rationalized their behavior in doing so. And, they would not take kindly to a man who would force them to look at what they had done.

Rationalizations are delusions we create in our mind. That's all they are. They protect our belief system that allows us to do whatever we need to do to keep from becoming who we were meant to become.

Over and out.