Tag: politics

My Position on Occupy Wall Street Protests

~ Clarissa ~ 39 Comments

Is complex.

One the one hand, I’m glad that people are waking up, protesting, making themselves heard. This is definitely a positive development. I’ve been wondering when this was going to happen in the US, and finally it has.

However, there are a few things that bother me about the protests. One is the “1% vs 99%” slogan. As Spanish Prof brilliantly puts it,

I’ve seen a comment this weekend from somebody who is supposedly a progressive where class is divided between “those who rule the country and those who are fucked”. So if you are not among the 1% of the wealthiest, you are supposed to be oppressed like the remaining 99% of the population. Sorry, but that is absurd, and a good way of overlooking poverty rates in the United States.

I understand that every movement needs a catchy populist slogan, but does it have to be so reductive? The provocative “We are the 1%” statement folks at the Chicago Board of Trade placed in their windows resonates with me. Not because I will ever have any access to the kind of wealth the richest people have (nor do I want to), but because the idea of being lumped in with a very vaguely defined majority is not something I am likely to respond well to.

Another problem I have with the movement is that it’s taking the protest to Wall Street, Chicago Board of Trade, financial districts, etc. Can anybody tell me what the point of that is? Isn’t it clear that Wall Street is not the problem? Yes, the traders and the hedge fund people want to enrich themselves. That’s their job, that’s what they do. It isn’t their job to have a social conscience. And said conscience will not be awakened, no matter how much you scream and shout under their windows.

Is the movement hoping that touching stories of personal suffering, debt and illness will convince Wall Street employees to share the wealth with them? I sincerely hope not because that would be too pathetic. What’s the point of standing under the windows of a hedge fund with posters saying, “I’m 22, $50,000 in debt, no medical insurance”? Why should a hedge fund manager care about another private citizen’s debt or insurance? That’s the duty of our government, so maybe it makes more sense to take the grievances where they belong.

Seriously, how would everybody feel if I wrote a similar poster about my personal issues and went to wave it under the windows of a local farmer-millionaire?

Or take this slogan, for example:

Greed is a sin in the Christian worldview and a personal failure in many people’s system of morality. Walking down the streets denouncing other folks’ faulty morals seems kind of useless. Is anybody going to stop being greedy the second they see this placard? Obviously not.

People should feel free to be as greedy (lustful, angry, proud, gluttonous, etc.) as their individual value systems allow them to be. What matters is how far our political system allows these personal failings of some to influence the collective governmental policies affecting us all.

The problem is not located in the financial districts. It’s located in the centers of political power. Politicians do not render accounts to people but to their lobbyists. The US government is distributing bailouts to banks and cutting down on social programs. Washington and state Capitols should be marched on. People on Wall Street are just folks who act in their own interest. Just like the protesters are. The trouble begins when politicians become intimately involved in promoting personal interests of a small group of people and want to pay for that from our collective pocket.

I really want the movement to be successful. This is why I fear it will degenerate into a series of protests by private citizens bemoaning the bad moral values of another group of private citizens. If we get into a debate on who’s more greedy than the other guy, we’ll never get out of it and never achieve anything useful.

Let’s stop making politics be all about personalities already. Let’s make it only and exclusively about political issues.

Why Does Russia Oppose the US on Palestine Independence?

~ Clarissa ~ 23 Comments

I know that the many fans of Juan Cole will hate me for this but I just can’t get into his writings as hard as I try. Here is what he says about the countries that defy the US with their support for Palestinian independence:

With countries traditionally willing to follow the U.S. lead on important geopolitical issues now breaking with Washington on Palestine, it is no surprise that the tier of rising world powers known as the BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—is unanimously in favor of the Palestine bid at the U.N.

I understand that it is very tempting to group all of those weird third-world folks with funny names and strange cultures into one homogeneous group that has to serve the political purpose of supporting Juan Cole’s beliefs and then make itself scarce. But that’s just not how things work.

Putin’s Russia has been under the spell of a massive anti-American campaign for many years now. Putin will vote “nay” even if the US suggests that today is Wednesday. The Russian Federation could care less about Palestine. All it cares about is spiting the Americans who are stupid, nasty, miserable and aim at world domination that rightfully belongs to somebody else. Would you care to venture a guess as to who this somebody else is? Exactly.

The myth that the US won the Cold World and now Russia is on its merry way to democracy will cost us all very dearly of we keep dismissing what is going on in this huge nuclear power.

Who Is Lyndon LaRouche?

~ Clarissa ~ 16 Comments

American political scene never ceases to surprise me. The moment I think that I have finally reached a basic understanding of who’s what, I encounter yet another fascinating twist. Seriously, who needs mystery novels when you can just follow this country’s politics?

Today, I discovered a person called Lyndon LaRouche. Here is what he had to say about Putin’s decision to elect himself Russia’s president:

The Putin-Medvedev decision is actually a sign of hope for all mankind. What is required now is for the American population to dump its British-puppet President, and join with Russia and China to form the Great Pacific Alliance that can rescue mankind.

“This alliance is already in the making, as of the Putin-Medvedev announcement yesterday. Now is the time for American patriots to move decisively to dump Obama so we can join it, and take the necessary measures to save every section of the planet from an otherwise-inevitable collapse into the future envisioned by the British financial empire—depopulation and death.”

 

We have a joke in my country about this very old gentleman who had been a guerrilla fighter during World War II. Nobody told him that the war was over, so he continued derailing trains and blowing up soldiers’ quarters for decades after the war ended. It seems like Lyndon LaRouche is precisely this kind of person who keeps fighting a non-existent war with the long-defunct British Empire.

Is anybody aware of this politician? Feel free to enlighten me.

When and How Will UN Vote on Palestine’s Independence?

~ Clarissa ~ 9 Comments

Many people come to this blog asking when the UN will vote on Palestine’s independence. So here is an update: Mahmoud Abbas has now returned to Palestine, and the Palestinian leadership has decided to push the UN security council to vote as soon as possible. The UN security council will start debating the issue tomorrow (Monday). Potentially, the vote could be postponed for as long as several months.

I find this entire show staged by politicians to be very cruel towards the inhabitants of Israel and Palestine. There are mounting tensions in the area that only grow because of all of the fiery speeches made by politicians. I’m afraid that if the UN vote doesn’t take place soon, we will see many more violent eruptions in the area that will become more and more bloody as the time progresses and there is still no vote in sight. And this is precisely what the US is trying to make happen:

According to a report from Haaretz, the Obama administration is engaged in behind-the-scenes efforts to delay voting on recognition of Palestine as an independent state in both the General Assembly and the Security Council.

A “silent agreement” is reportedly in place between several Western countries to postpone the U.N. votes through a number of bureaucratic stalling tactics, the use of which are being promoted by Washington.

So let me tell you once again: the way I see it, the US has done everything in its power over the years to ensure that the conflict between Israel and Palestine remains in this simmering stage forever. Obama is shilly-shallying on the issue right now but this attitude on his part is something we have seen, time and again, from every US leader for decades. (I remember I would gag every time I saw Clinton’s smirk as he talked about Israel and Palestine.)

A permanent conflict in the Middle East is extremely useful to the US. A perennially besieged Israel provides the US with an excuse to launch an attack at any country in the area that can be accused of threatening Israel. At the same time, people are much more likely to see Israel as the cause of any war in the area because latent anti-Semitism still clouds many folks’ vision of world politics. This strategy brings the US a lot of power in the oil-rich region and allows Americans to shift the blame for everything that might go amiss onto those genocidal, intolerant Israelis and those barbaric, terrorist Palestinians.

In the meanwhile, Palestinians and Israelis alike are paying the price for these political machinations.

Why Are Some People So Fixated on Sarah Palin’s Pregnancy?

~ Clarissa ~ 22 Comments

There is a really fun discussion going on in my Stupidometer post between Brad Scharlott, the person who is planning to publish yet another boring book that will obsessively analyze Sarah Palin’s most recent pregnancy, and your favorite blogger. For those who are interested in why some people have this decidedly unhealthy obsession with Sarah Palin’s reproductive apparatus, let me explain how this works.

Between the ages of 2 and 3, a child goes through what is known as the Oedipal stage of development. This is a moment when the child begins to formulate his or her gender identification and figure out his or her place within the relationship between his or her parents. If any sort of trauma accompanies this stage of development, the child will remain fixated on this stage and will keep replaying the “Mommy, Daddy, and I” drama over and over again.

People who never managed to pass successfully through this stage of development are the same folks who always end up being part of love triangles. Have you ever met a woman who always seems to fall for married men? That’s where her issues come from. At the same time, such people also see figures as authority as their absent Mommy and Daddy. They endlessly rummage in the personal lives of politicians, movie stars, etc. because this allows them to relive their Oedipal crisis over and over again. Have you ever met a man who seems obsessed with when Sarah Palin’s water broke?  He is simply manifesting his profound desire to stick his head under his Mommy’s skirt. The same individuals who promote the insane Babygate stories are also hugely interested in whether Sarah Palin and her husband will get married or divorced and whether there has been cheating in their marriage. They seem to hate Todd Palin even more than they do Sarah Palin, which fits perfectly with a textbook description of the Oedipal fixation.

This is why we need to be very attentive to our children in the crucial years of their development (between birth and 3 years of age.) People who don’t manage to pass successfully through any of the developmental stages will relive the trauma for the rest of their lives. And then you will see those sad middle-aged folks dedicating their existences to endless discussions of politicians’ uteri.

Russian Politics Is Hilarious: Russia’s Next President

~ Clarissa ~ 22 Comments

While the US politics is dramatic and filled with tensions, Russian politics is absolutely hilarious. Probably, not for the Russian people, but for those of us who observe the events in the country from the outside, Russian politics offers an endless supply of material for jokes.

The people of Russia are preparing for the elections. Today, Russian leaders made an announcement that Prime-Minister Putin will “run” for President. As you must remember, Putin had moved out of the Presidential seat for the last elections and allowed his puppet Dmitri Medvedev to take his place. This was done to pretend that Putin respected the Constitution that didn’t allow him to run for the third term. Now, after Medvedev’s interim Presidency during which this poor puppet didn’t dare to breathe without Putin’s approval, Putin will move back into the President’s office once again. When his new two terms expire, he will probably perform the same trick: appoint some interim schmuck as President, sit out his term as the Prime-Minister, and become President all over again.

This has all been decided before the elections because the elections in Russia have become such a joke that nobody in their right mind takes them seriously. To give an especially egregious example, one of the leaders of one of the strongest parties of the opposition discovered – to his huge surprise – that at the polling station where he and his family voted, not a single vote had been given to his party.

Putin’s ruling party has become so shameless that it just ships in fake ballots by the kilo and substitutes all the actual ballots people deposited in the voting booths.

This is why when I hear people talk about “democracy in Russia” and the “collapse of the Soviet Union” I always have uncontrollable fits of laughter.

Does Disillusionment With Obama Equal Racism?

~ Clarissa ~ 4 Comments

I just read an article which suggests that if you are a Liberal voter who feels disillusioned with President Obama and is unwilling to vote for him in 2012, you must be a racist:

The 2012 election may be a test of another form of electoral racism: the tendency of white liberals to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts. If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors.

The reason why the article’s author believes that Liberals who are in no hurry actively to support Obama’s 2012 presidential bid are racist is that, apparently, Bill Clinton got a better treatment when he was running for his second term:

The relevant comparison here is with the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Today many progressives complain that Obama’s healthcare reform was inadequate because it did not include a public option; but Clinton failed to pass any kind of meaningful healthcare reform whatsoever. Others argue that Obama has been slow to push for equal rights for gay Americans; but it was Clinton who established the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy Obama helped repeal. Still others are angry about appalling unemployment rates for black Americans; but while overall unemployment was lower under Clinton, black unemployment was double that of whites during his term, as it is now. And, of course, Clinton supported and signed welfare “reform,” cutting off America’s neediest despite the nation’s economic growth. . .

In 1996 President Clinton was re-elected with a coalition more robust and a general election result more favorable than his first win. His vote share among women increased from 46 to 53 percent, among blacks from 83 to 84 percent, among independents from 38 to 42 percent, and among whites from 39 to 43 percent.

President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now.

I think that the Clinton presidency definitely bears some responsibility for Obama’s low approval ratings among Liberals today. I don’t think racism is involved, though. Admittedly, I wasn’t living in the country when Clinton was president, so Liberals who did should feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. I have a feeling that many progressive-minded voters see yet another smooth-talking, intelligent, charming politician who came to power by attracting the American Left to his cause with many promises and beautiful speeches and then failed to deliver. I’ve heard many people refer to Obama as “yet another Clinton.” The disappointment with Clinton makes it harder for people to invest in this type of candidate yet again only to see their hopes dashed.

Another reason why Obama will find it harder to get re-elected than Clinton did is, of course, the economy. Most people don’t see any improvement in their financial situation since Obama was elected in 2008. This makes it much harder for them to care about anything he can deliver in other areas of life.

And This Is the Kind of Political Commentary I Don’t Like

~ Clarissa ~ 11 Comments

The House of Representatives’ GOP Caucus has one more member after Republican Bob Turner won the special election last night in New York’s 9th Congressional District, to fill the seat vacated by disgraced Democrat Anthony Weiner.

So now there’s a conservative vote where a progressive vote used to be, because Weiner couldn’t keep it in his pants.

No, it happened because voters are more interested in what happens in the politicians’ pants than in what their stand is on political and economic issues. For all I care, Weiner or anybody else could keep “it” wherever they like (consensually), as long as they do their job.

In an aside, something makes me suspect that the blogger who penned the above-mentioned comment would be up in arms if anybody discussed what a female politician should keep under her skirt.

Clarissa and Allan Lichtman Predict That Obama Will Win in 2012

~ Clarissa ~ 21 Comments

Allan Lichtman, the scholar who correctly predicted the results of the last 7 presidential elections, believes that Obama will win in 2012 no matter who the Republican nominee is:

“Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose,” says Lichtman, the brains behind The Keys to the White House. […] Lichtman developed his 13 Keys in 1981. They test the performance of the party that holds the presidency. If six or more of the 13 keys go against the party in power, then the opposing party wins.“The keys have figured into popular politics a bit,” Lichtman says. “They’ve never missed. They’ve been right seven elections in a row. A number that goes way beyond statistical significance in a record no other system even comes close to.”

Let’s see if Lichtman and I have it right. I’ve been saying that Obama will win for quite a while now.

Ron Paul Is Not a Libertarian

~ Clarissa ~ 27 Comments

Why do people keep referring to Ron Paul as a Libertarian? The guy wouldn’t recognize Libertarianism if it stared him in the face:

Stuck in Washington as Congress faces votes on continued funding of American military action in Libya, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, making his third bid for the White House, spoke via Skype to pro-life activists convening in Jacksonville.

“I talk a lot about right-to-life,” said Paul, who called it “the most important issue of our age.”

As Jeffe Fecke at the link I provided above says:

Any serious attempt abortion would require draconian government action that would seriously endanger liberty for women, and even then, it would probably fail. It would require a massive outlay of cash and capital, of police and state resources. It would require spot inspections of health care facilities, and investigation of miscarriages. It would be about as anti-freedom an act as one could reasonably expect.

If anybody has forgotten, Ayn Rand was a passionate champion of abortion rights and believed that they are indispensable for a society even to begin to call itself free.

Ron Paul is nothing but a religious fanatic who is upset at the separation of church and state as it is established by the Constitution of the United States:

“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.”

This is Ron Paul speaking, in case you didn’t know. He’s nothing but yet another Palin, Pawlenty, Perry, Bachmann, and Bush: a crazed fundamentalist who’s using quasi-Libertarian vocabulary from time to time in order to dupe the naive into following him.