Ok Glenn. You're right ... and I'm a fan. I used term "false statement" ... and what I mean is "very misleading statement."

You wrote, as I quoted:

Both Obama's campaign and Clinton's campaign are the recipients of enormous amounts of cash from our nation's largest corporate interests which control much of what happens in Congress.

I trust that you are extremely savvy in your use of words, much better than I. So, I request that you consider that these words make your point well, but are essentially misleading. You tend to be critical of others in MSM when they do this.

My beef is this: your statement above /tends/ to suggest an unethical, misleading, covert usurping of power from citizens to those "corporate interests." Perhaps you disagree. You cite proof of these interests by linking to a summary list of the top individual donors to Obama, sorted by their place of employment. Without doing the math, my guess is that the top corporation listed accounts for well under 0.01% of all money he has raised. I've posted multiple items to suggest that Obama's work is to be transparent, to reduce "tainted" money's influence ... while still compete within this system to make further changes. This is to argue that your point in linking Obama and Clinton is not valid. I chose the word "false" ... and I now correct that.

it's been in the military as long as all the pomp & bullshit has, too. munities occur. there are deserters. there is treason. revolutions errupt. thank god for all of them. sometimes good things happen when people say no. sooner or later everyone has their point of fighting back. if the system fails you, and you "can't" change it ... you must find all the power you have. these men (women too? don't know) did this, and i respect them for it. it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees, as they say.

I bring this into the fold because Glenn, I believe, is raising the issue of how rigidly held belief can subvert taking stock in the bigger picture. He doesn't necessarily say rigidly-held belief is wrong, per se, but he does highlight some inconsistencies. Glenn describes that some pro-choice advocates decry Ron Paul's otherwise pro-freedom agenda because of this one sticking point, if you will.

My point in this is to take what Glenn brings up a step further. I do think that rigidly held belief is a problem ... not only for those who hold these beliefs, but also for our larger community.

I haven't read Glenn's book _A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency_ yet. Here is the synopsis I pulled from Amazon:

Greenwald begins by documenting Bush's political collapse and then explores the core beliefs that have driven Bush's decision making, as well as the broader philosophical and political dangers of such strong convictions. He details how the president's absolutist moralistic worldview, the simple identification of good and evil, overshadowed decisions that required more nuanced views in the lead-up to the war in Iraq.

I imagine that most folks reading this would agree with Glenn's premise, as described above. What is amazing to me, though, is how blind many of us are (myself included) to our own psychological patterns that are just as dangerous as Bush's patterns. Yes, the ripples of his mistakes are much broader ... but if "we" are here in part to change how the system works, I suggest that an examination of our rigid thinking is a required first step.

Psychiatrist Dr. Dan Siegel is a leading authority on neurobiology, attachment theory, and emotional development. See http://drdansiegel.com/. He writes:

Longitudinal attachment studies have found that securely attached children appear to have a number of positive outcomes in their development (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999). These include enhanced emotional flexibility, social functioning, and cognitive abilities. Some studies suggest that security of attachment conveys a form of resilience in the face of future adversity. In contrast, a number of studies suggest that the various forms of insecurity of attachment can be associated with emotional rigidity, difficulty in social relationships, impairments in attention, difficulty in understanding the minds of others, and risk in the face of stressful situations.

The whole article can be found here: http://drdansiegel.com/Siegel.IN.pdf

I recommend reading this ... for all of us to better understand who we are and our relationship to the issues that are important to us. Trying to "solve" the problems of our government by using the same symptomatic and maladjusted techniques will likely be fruitless.

Good post, Glenn.

IntrovertGirl:

Are we back the conversation-blip the other day? It's all mother's fault because Cheney and Rove and Bush weren't held and hugged enough as children.

Therefore, I hug all. Who know who'll be president in 30 or 40 years? Maybe my hugs will help them be better at it?

Although, seriously, there are many serious psychological conditions that are traced back to attachment disorders. Borderline personality, for example, or agoraphobia. Give a borderline personality a whole lotta power and a messiah complex and you've got a problem.

Ha Ha. I support your hugs. That would be by bumper sticker if I were running for prez. But ... just so the salon police don't take aim ... I think it's mommie and daddy's "fault." And then, not even. Dr. Seigel claims that attchment issues are passed down from one generation to another ... the metaphysicians call it karma, I guess.

My personal opinion about how to tell when your brain wiring is out of whack (it is for most of us): follow how and why you get reactive. And collolary: that qualities you attach to your enemey or the problem (ie, "my partner is so lazy because they never" blah blah blah.).

Right-wingers and Bush's black-and-white view of "problems" ... making Islam the enemy, needing a border fence, etc., etc. ... is it that dissimilar to villifying Bush himself. Black-and-white doesn't get fixed through more black-and-white-ness.

We have meet the enemy, and he is us. ~ Pogo