Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
It's getting to the point where we only have two choices: Coke or Pepsi. Or maybe Dr. Pepper and Sprite for the sake of argument that we do have more choices (but remember, those are both bottled by either Coke or Pepsi!).
Clinton or Bush? Kennedy Jr. or Jackson Jr.?
I guess it means that despite our declared independence, we're all still essentially Britons at heart. Loyal and even strangely affectionate towards our ruling families. We seem to believe that leadership is hereditary, regardless of all good evidence to the contrary.
One correction to your story above: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not a contender for either a cabinet post or the NY senate seat. He withdrew his name for consideration on both fronts yesterday.
The short answer for Democrats is easy: the end justifies the means.
Tell that to the Bush Family. And to Senators Bennett, Kyl, Sununu, Murkowski, Gregg, Dole, Snowe, and more GOP House members than I can count.
Look back at the past 35 years or so. From Roe v Wade forward, the left has been using the courts--the least democratic of the 3 branches of government, to accomplish its ends.
You mean like the way the Left went to court to have invalidated laws governing things like gun control, campaign finance, domestic violence, integration, guns in schools, and eminent domain?
And the reason they pursued this course is because they knew that the democratic approach--where the majority would make the decision, would not work. Quite simply, when it comes to a vote where the majority wins, liberal notions generally do not do well.
The last two elections left no doubt about this. That's why conservatives are so ascendant in our politics.
It is even more troubling to me that once elected, it is very hard to unseat a congressman.
I would think that in a functioning system that there would be far more turnover than we have in this country. I think I have seen studies that, on average, those re-elected each cycle to congress is near 95% or so. (from memory)
I wonder what it was this last time, even with all the "change".
Imagine a world in American, political rule where Hussein and Obama didn't raise eyebrows, but the opportunistic ascendancy to any Washington power position was shunned for the appearance of conflicts of interest that it is or might become.
I'm reminded of another great irony in this- the Powell name brand sounds very American (and powerful). Joint Chiefs/Sec.OS meet your son FCC Director.
You could also have mentioned Sen. Christopher Dodd, son of Thomas. He could be worse of course. But the idea of RFK Jr. being appointed to the Senate is completely unacceptable.
As you may know, he is largely responsible for popularizing the utterly fraudulent claim that the preservative thimerosal, used in vaccines, is the cause of an epidemic of autism. There is no autism epidemic, nor is there any evidence whatever linking thimerosal to any harm to children or anyone else.
A lawyer, who is famous for being the son of a murdered politician, has gained a very prominent public platform -- including a lengthy article in a high-circulation magazine (Rolling Stone), op-eds in the nation's leading newspapers, and appearances on many of the big-time TV yackfests -- to claim that "they" -- the secretive, corrupt, unaccountable cabal of public health scientists -- are all conspiring to conceal from the world the horrifying truth that the entire medical institution -- drug companies, the FDA, the CDC, physicians the world over, medical journal editors, academic researchers -- have collectively inflicted a devastating disease on millions of children the world over; and what is more, they are continuing to do it in poor countries where thimerosal is still used. What is most remarkable about this conspiracy is the absolute unity and the inviolability of the oath of silence taken by all those hundreds, or probably thousands, of co-conspirators.
Maybe you've been home sick some time, or channel surfing between innings of the big game, and seen those infomercials with the guy selling a book about the miracle cures "they" don't want you to know about. It turns out there's a simple, natural cure for cancer; heart disease; arthritis; you name it. The reason people have these diseases is because they are caused by prescription drugs. Statins are the cause of heart disease. But just send this guy money, and he'll tell you the cures "they" are keeping secret.
What Kennedy is doing is utterly reprehensible. Apart from the exploitation and abuse of families coping with the heartbreak of having an autistic child, he is attempting to cause severe damage to the culture. (Fortunately, despite the podium he has been given by irresponsible corporate media, he hasn't gotten much traction.) As I have said a thousand times, the democratization of science is critical to the future of democracy, indeed the future of humanity. That means we need to expose corruption and self-dealing in scientific enterprise, to be sure. But it also means that we must have respect for the cause of science, the quest for truth using human senses and reason, and the norms of honesty, openness, and intellectual integrity which the large majority of scientists and physicians try to honor.
Science is conducted by flawed human beings, working in flawed institutions. But it is not a conspiracy against the public. Kennedy deserves no respect, and no hearing, from anyone, ever again. If his name wasn't RFK Jr., he'd be an insurance salesman.
And that's just not allowed in this country. Oh, sure, it's okay to speak about other countries in which things like social class or inherited wealth or institutions of socialization and policy planning networks affect who runs for and is more likely to win office, and what sorts of policies are consistently supported over time.
But you cannot do that for this country, for then you are an extremist fringe lefty conspiracist paranoid.
Finding there to be any worthwhile, systematic, long-term patterns that suggest any sort of economic / social upper class influence over politics and policy is at best for pop sociologists of the 1950s through the 1970s, but thankfully we got over all that.
[T]he idea that a relatively fixed group of privileged people dominate the economy and government goes against the American grain and the founding principles of the country. "Class" and "power" are terms that make Americans a little uneasy, and concepts such as "upper class" and "power elite" immediately put people on guard. Americans may differ in their social and income levels, and some may have more influence than others, but it is felt that there can be no fixed power group when power is constitutionally lodged in all the people, when there is democratic participation through elections and lobbying, and when the evidence of social mobility is everywhere apparent. So, it is usually concluded by most power analysts that elected officials, along with "interest groups" like "organized labor" and "consumers," have enough "countervailing" power to say that there is a fluid, "pluralistic" distribution of power rather than one with rich people and corporations at the top.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/national.html
What's even funnier is that researchers such as Domhoff are routinely dismissed as 'Marxist' when he's actually arguing quite specifically against the actual Marxist arguments.
But then, in this country, it's just not done to link wealth to power in any systematic fashion.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
