All Over, but the Shouting

In the beginning there was some argument with me from Glenn Greenwald about Barack Obama's betrayal. Lately he's rather prolific about his assessment of the last three years. Whatever made a majority of the American people believe he was somehow God's gift of "hope and change" everyone could trust only shows how gullible people really are. Now while everyone is trying to justify their voting this liar into the Office of the Presidency of the United States and proclaiming his worthiness for another four years, he's quietly sold everyone done the river.

This past week Glenn Greenwald has written some rather important and thought provoking articles, well worth reading. This one  caught my attention, specially this quote from his: Obama takes tough stance on banks.

The intensely angry "town hall" political protests from last August, though wildly misdirected at health care reform, gave a glimpse of the brewing societal anger and economic anxiety; even Tea Party politicians are now being angrily harangued by furious citizens over growing joblessness and loss of opportunity as Wall Street prospers and Endless Wars continue.  This situation -- exploding wealth inequality combined with harsh austerity, little hope for improvement and a growing sense of irreversible national decline -- cannot possibly be sustained for long without some serious social unrest.  As Yale Professor David Bromwich put it in his extraordinarily thorough analysis of the "continuities" in what he calls "the Bush-Obama presidency":

The usual turn from unsatisfying wars abroad to happier domestic conditions, however, no longer seems tenable. In these August days, Americans are rubbing their eyes, still wondering what has befallen us with the president’s "debt deal" -- a shifting of tectonic plates beneath the economy of a sort Dick Cheney might have dreamed of, but which Barack Obama and the House Republicans together brought to fruition. A redistribution of wealth and power more than three decades in the making has now been carved into the system and given the stamp of permanence.  

Only a Democratic president, and only one associated in the public mind (however wrongly) with the fortunes of the poor, could have accomplished such a reversal with such sickening completeness.

Economic suffering and anxiety -- and anger over it and the flamboyant prosperity of the elites who caused it -- is only going to worsen.  So, too, will the refusal of the Western citizenry to meekly accept their predicament. As that happens, who it is who controls the Internet and the flow of information and communications takes on greater importance.  Those who are devoted to preserving the current system of prerogatives certainly know that, and that is what explains this obsession with expanding the Surveillance State and secrecy powers, maintaining control over the dissemination of information, and harshly punishing those who threaten it.  That's also why there are few conflicts, if there are any, of greater import than this one. 

Just to make everyone's day, this bit of news from Bloomberg hit mainstream news today:

Fed secretly loaned $1.2 trillion in public money to Wall St. firms: report

Differing from the $16 trillion in loans made through asset swaps and preferred stock agreements, which were first revealed by a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit mandated by Congress, these loans came from public money, representing the greatest largess of the financial sector during a crisis that threatened to pull the whole globalized system of finance to its knees.

If you're interested here's the list of his latest articles:

Obama v. Bush on power over Congress - Tuesday, August 16, 2011

A prime aim of the growing Surveillance State

U.S. Mideast policy in a single phrase

The Libya War argument

Obama administration takes tough stance on banks

--Joe

The Obama Doctrine

The Obama Doctrine is best expressed in a cartoon: How the Obama Doctrine Works >

Local SoHum (Southern Humboldt County) blogger/lawyer, Eric Kirk posted his thoughts in: The Obama Doctrine: “Interests and Values” - What he calls "[A] very liberal doctrine of interventionism."

"Intervention" - That's his nice word for going to War on baseless threats and lying, false accusations. Whatever justification he wants to tag this anarchy, it's all based upon American "interests" and/or "values," depending upon the need to trump or ignore the sovereignty of all peoples on this Earth on what amounts to a President's whim.

How to you call someone "crazy" then use what they say as the absolute truth to justify attacking that same person, his country and his people? Then turn around and call it "humanitarian"? It is obscene.

If you take the time to read Kirk's article you'll probably be struck by the same overarching assumptions that caught my eye - you'd think he was sitting at Obama's right hand with an inner-insight right into his mind and heart. He's almost godlike in his understanding and explanations - The Absolute Authority. What's most revealing, however, is how Kirk is conflicted and contradicts himself. There is more, but the following statement is extremely revealing:

"I am assuming that Obama, who doesn’t move an inch without overkill in planning, has a sense of the potential and decided this was a good gamble."

"Assuming" ("to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit") is NOT what he says or defines next:  "who doesn’t move an inch without overkill in planning," but somehow GETS a "sense" which, by definition, is not any kind of a result originating from "overkill in planning." This statement alone defines the inner conflict within Eric Kirk and everyone else that tries to justify their support for "the Obama Doctrine." "Longing," is that anything like "HOPING"?

---

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, March 29, 2010]

Obama and American exceptionalism

Glenn Greenwald defines why American Exceptionalism justifies the existence of people that believe there is NO hypocrisy in saying and defending their rights over those of others. People like Eric Kirk, since we're discussing his defense of Barack Obama's actions and speech yesterday, is a good example. Glenn explains exactly why it is justifiable for and why America has the right to do what no one or any other country can. He also explains how this belief literally motivates and empowers the individual American.

 The fact remains that declaring yourself special, superior and/or exceptional -- and believing that to be true, and, especially, acting on that belief -- has serious consequences. It can (and usually does) mean that the same standards of judgment aren't applied to your acts as are applied to everyone else's (when you do X, it's justified, but when they do, it isn't). It means that you're entitled (or obligated) to do things that nobody else is entitled or obligated to do (does anyone doubt that the self-perceived superiority and self-arrogated entitlements of Wall Street tycoons is what lead them to believe they can act without constraints?). It means that no matter how many bad things you do in the world, it doesn't ever reflect on who you are, because you're inherently exceptional and thus driven by good motives. And it probably means -- at least as it expresses itself in the American form -- that you'll find yourself in a posture of endless war, because your "unique power, responsibilities, and moral obligations" will always find causes and justifications for new conflicts. [Emphasis added]

Another good example of this self-righteous hypocrisy shrouded arrogant exceptionalism is contained right here on this blog.

It's been my experience in life that this belief motivated attitude is the root cause of all forms of hatred and war. It flies in the face of what Jesus Christ said was the second most important commandment that would follow him and be a Christian: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Notice, Jesus DID NOT say, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" ONLY when you find an "opportunity" that serves your best "interests" and "values."

--Joe