Perhaps I need to clarify. The supreme court gave corporation every right of an individual except the right to cast votes in an election. As long as every elected official is looking to these corporation to get elected/reelected what the people do will mean nothing regardless of who they are if they are not at the head of the corporations that are writing the checks. Until that supreme court decision is reversed no one can change that the corporations own the people in office and, therefore, the government. As Noam Chomsky says on his talk on Democracy Now the corporate/state alliance will make the decision, the people are mere spectators.

"Do you have a better suggestion?"

My understanding was that people feel that things have reached a critical point that necessitates urgent action. If that's not how you feel, then living and loving [to things I live to love to do, also. I don't negate their limited efficacy] will be enough and you can learn to love the mess we're in :]...don't get me wrong, Norm, I like what you say here, and you're amenable to discussion, which is why I wanted to discuss the issue with you.

I just think that there needs to be an X factor to jump start things and we need to do things we wouldn't normally do to find out what it is. I'm trying to figure it out too...when I ask WHAT DO WE DO NOW? I'm hoping someone's actually going to go out and come up with the answer.

Anyway, I'm celebrating the fourth by doing homework for a class about the political philosophy of MLK, which got me thinking, so this seemed appropriate...

i haven't trusted the NYTimes since Murdoch purchased them and installed the founder of neoconservatism as an op/ed writer.

despite my vociferous support for him during the campaigns, i haven't felt fuzzy about Obama since the dog thing.

[i know it's neither here nor there in the world of geopolitics, but getting an animal from a shelter rather than a breeder is such an obvious choice (even if puppy mills aren't involved), and the excuse given (that it would be too hard to find a dog in a shelter in all of America that met the family's unique needs) was such and obvious lie that i knew i wasn't in camelot anymore.]

since then, i've wavered. much is good, and as i said before, i do support principled compromise...maybe he really is doing the best he can to fight entrenched interests?

i was loathe to be too hard for not leaving iraq too soon--after all, we don't want to abandon the people who've been working with us and leave a failed state in our wake...but it's obviously pretty easy to use this argument to merely "rebrand" the old policy and call it new

and the financial crash--obviously caused by deregulation and the fantasy philosophy that giant corporate monopolies = liberty

but maybe it really was necessary to bail out the banks (to not govern out of spite, you recall, but with an eye to reality), and to spend our way rather than go all Hooverish

the obvious solution, though, to Too Big To Fail is Teddy Roosevelt style trustbusting

and both rhetorical and policy reminders that the rights of corporate "citizens" do not supersede the rights of human citizens

instead we got unchecked bonuses at taxpayer expense and a new super-regulator (the Fed) that is already not accountable to citizens/taxpayers

how does this even remotely make sense?

and yes, we got more torture and the further erosion of civil liberties

finally, cap and trade sounds good in theory(and it's true that it's practically and morally unfeasible to continue consuming and polluting at current rates), but i have an awfully queasy feeling about this one, too; it's not hard to see how this could be just one more way for amoral, a-national corps. to "externalize" cost at taxpayer expense

Say the name three times before the mirror.

Blessed Mary- We have taken your child.

Barren Mary- We have taken your blame.

Bloody Mary- Look into my future and give it a name.

*-----*

Movietone News: Dateline Washington- Congress declares independence from independence. Majority leader proudly states: [laughing with pretty girl] "I'm sorry, what was the question again?"

Movietone News: Dateline Melonville- Fire Chief warns of the dangers of playing with the constitution on the fourth of July. "Every year its the same thing" says Ducksburg Fire Chief Buddy "Buddy" Shanks, brother of Melonville Mayor Tommy Shanks, as he puts out a cigarette with his foot.

"Every July fourth, some kid blows off his finger messing around with the constitution--What do they think is gonna happen?"

Fire Chief Shanks thinks there is a big role for parents to play. "Beat your children," he said "or threaten to cut off their fingers." Chief Shanks added, "This also works with your wife."

One might even say it "catapults" the propaganda.

Didus ineptus... I look forward to baby Shah's piece; after all, if they gave Bill Kristol all that space, why not him? I do doubt, however, that this one's going to go over. He was evidently so reptilian and dreadful that Deborah Solomon, she of the "softballs for slimeballs" section of the NYT mag, didn't even find something to like in him, and that's saying something. If the right thinks he's the next Ahmed Chalabi, an admittedly low bar, they are heading for some disappointment. (I look forward to it too, of course.)

The Solomon interview is a great piece of work, if only for its unusual aggressiveness, and moved me to write, "I'll Have What She's Having" about it at my blog. (link at sig) The best part of Solomon's piece is the picture.... lil' Reza looks like and uglier, fatter version of his cuddly Dad.

Thanks to Steven Andresen for agreeing with my point that the double standard about the use of the word “torture” is best understand in terms of the immediate (primarily financial) concerns of the journalists and ombudsmen. But these concerns are only incidentally about “objectivism” vs. “subjectivism,” or a commitment to the ideals of Orwell to state the facts plainly, or any sort of dedication to the truth, and he takes the point far from where I would venture. The picture I have of a newsroom, whether at NPR, the NYT, or at virtually any media outlet, is of a collection of harried individuals working with feeds to fabricate a story on deadline under the watchful eye of an editor who stands in for a second, even more stern gaze of the sponsors, mainly for the purpose of attracting a readership. At NPR they have the further concern about their government support. What comes out of these pressures is a gruel of words designed to attract advertising revenue, and to not anger potential sponsors and subscribers. So who can blame then when they refuse to use the word “torture” in reference to American acts that are plainly torture? The right would sanctimoniously attack, and the left would cravenly submit in the fashion that they have perfected over the years under the Bush administration (I speak in generalities, of course; honorable exceptions can be found on either side). Kudos to Glenn and the blogosphere for providing a check on the MSM, but the bottom line is always at the top of the agenda.