My god, You contradict yourself with every other word. It is arrogant to tell other people what the limits and boundries of their criticism oughta be. Who made you the spokesperson for reality? You totally accept the "system" Although you have your own very polite criticism your expectations are non existent. That is fine. Don't allow youself to get too emotional about pre-emptive wars and wholesale murder. Because no single group or political entity elected lord Obama we should shuddup like good Germans? Yeah sure he can have pastor wack off accuse homosexuals of being child molestors. What kind of Christian is that? These guys are discusting they are trying to get us all killed so the Lord will come down and deliver them in a chariot to heavenly bliss. Those self righteous twits think they own god. Is that worse then progressives who think they have a right to criticize Obama. Obama does not utter a word that is not thought out. He is as spontaneous as muzak. There is no mistake in inviting that biggot to speak. He is an opportunist. Let us see what he wants to do with his political capital. We already know he wants more war. If you chose to be a blind follower go for it. But please remember you don't own God or reality.

by robert braunstein (60 articles, 0 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 194 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 6:55:28 AM

  (0+)

You are correct, I do not own reality, but that does not stop it from existing and from you being beyond its bounds.

Try reading the article next time before responding. I intend to hold Obama as accountable as Bush or anyone else. I was speaking to the people who seem to think something is "owed them" for "putting him in the white house"

You also do not understand the word bigot, let alone how to spell it.

Thanks for stopping by!

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:40:11 PM

  (0+)

You have written an insightful article.  It is true that Obama owes nothing to any particular interest group, as a large majority of Americans elected him.  I worry, however, that if he does not deliver on some significant promises he made or implied, the optimism of American youth he generated will be lost forever.  I also wonder if you are not beginning to react, as I am wont to do, to the knee-jerk anti-Christian theme running so fiercely through the modern "progressive" movement. 

We must keep in mind that from the time John Dewey became the undisputed ideological leader of the American educational system, the primary aim of that system has been to bury the history of the Church and to ridicule those that believe in its doctrine.  Dewey falsely believed that Christianity was the major impediment to equality in America because of Christianity's division of society into the "saved" and the "unsaved," a purely theological distinction, having no bearing on one's legal status under the Constitution.  His aim, therefore, became the eradication of Christianity in furtherance of equality.  Of course, had Dewey been a theologian, he would have known that the Jesus of scripture was the first human being to postulate the equality of all human beings, and the supreme value of the individual over the group or tribe. 

Those that attack without knowledge of the true contributions of the Church throughout the ages and into modern society are to be pitied as pawns of the educational intelligensia. Do not be discouraged by those attacks, but hold fast to the truth that ultimately death brings all humans to the foot of the cross, and all will eventually seek a god higher than themselves.  Such is the wisdom of the ages, and it will not be lightly overthrown.  Only fools forsake the collective wisdom of their fathers, and the foolishness of fools most often presents them with no other option than to finally consider that wisdom.  

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 6:06:30 PM

  (0+)

You might be right, I am wont to react too quickly, something God is working on in me. Thank you for your thoughtful insight.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:35:05 PM

  (0+)

http://www.nwolibrary.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20&sid=7563e020c217e637fca2493adb49c167

If you would like an introduction to "Reality", I suggest reading this.

You can ignore my advice and die stupid. It's up to you.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 8:11:27 PM

  (0+)

I beg to differ.  He came to power on a promise.  This is a democracy. I  am a citizen.  He is MY PRESIDENT. He better delivers. This is not whining, this is making him accountable. It comes with the job. He ( and Anthony too) should be happy that  there are people who are watching. That would be much worse  if we  were not. And among all of us there are two persons which he does owe a lot: Sasha and Malia.  Our disappointments are the ones which we experience worrying for them.  And we will- it is our job. We do ours and we expect him to  do his, which he  so far does not seem to be doing.  We are on equal grounds.   And unlike  the Bush case in this case we do care. I care for my President. This is  tough love. Live with it. And  BTW, as Russian poet said ,'My people are not complete without me'. Eat your checkers.

PS. I would also advise to tone  down the  passions  in the articles and comments. Obama is protected  quite enough, thank you. He surely does not care about what and how we write here. We here  do though. I would appreciate stopping the inflamiing definitions and rememeber that the only criteria  is Absence of Malice.  I am not malicious in my discontent, are you?

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:54:56 AM

  (0+)

I could not agree more Anthony. I also think it is very disingenuous that many (not all) of these dissenters and commenters act like the Rick Warren invite was the last straw, when in reality these same posters have been calling Obama the evil incarnate 6 months ago. He is a corporatist, he is no different than Bush, blah blah blah. Obviously none of the McKinney or Nader supporters liked Obama. But they need to realize that the ultra-left progressives are but a small small fraction of the voting block in this country. They can continue to put their heads in the sand and wish as hard as they can that this is not true .... but it is. At the same time, however, they are some of the most passionate voices and their activism and dissent is essential for our Democracy. That is why I love OpEdNews so much. We can have this kind of healthy debate any day that we choose to.

I think many people have clearly missed Obama's message from the very beginning. And that was that we are not electing Obama to have him fix the country and expand our civil rights, but rather "WE ARE THE CHANGE" and we will move the country from the bottom up and Obama will help us make that change.

I am a realist and like you said we need to think BIG not petty. We need to be intelligent and inclusive and not divisive. I don't care one iota about Rick Warren. Rick Warren is one vote. What I care about are many of his misinformed and low information voters who have NEVER really heard an alternative voice.

P.S. I am also not sure I understood what Mark was trying to say with his P.S.? I did not read any malice at all in Anthony's article?

by E. Nelson (40 articles, 8 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 511 comments [57 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:35:12 AM

  (0+)

I am glad that someone read the entire article and did not select bits and pieces without context.

I do not understand the Mark comment either. This was not a free pass for Obama in any form, nor was their malice.

Thanks again.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:46:55 PM

  (0+)

I was promised a government of, by, and for the people.  I intend to keep that promise and pass it on to my children. 

I will not conform to the unwritten rules that hinder progress and limit our abilities. I can't accept the vote once and keep your mouth shut mentality. I will not sit back silently while our government is swarmed by lobbyists, our media is flooded with propaganda, and half our politicians are bought and paid for.

There will be a lot of pressure on Obama to cater to the 'Right' and compromise on a lot of issues. Trends would predict that Obama will cave in. This is the way it has always been, and one might foolishly expect that this is the way that it will always be. In case you missed it. The world has changed.

People are more knowledgeable now than at any point in history. We have access to information like never before, search engines, news archives, global communication, social networks, opinions galore, and a comment section on every corner. Welcome to the information era, where the people have a voice, and Democracy is rising.

James Hovland, a product of freedom 

by James Hovland (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:46:16 PM

  (0+)

I agree with you. This article agreed with you. He should be held accountable and dissent is our responsibility.

Don't listen to the whiners that want to make this article something it is not.

Be well.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:50:59 PM

  (0+)

I understand your point and your frustration, and for the most part agree with what you're saying. But it didn't exactly set me into action one way or another. Mark provided me with a better opening to express my own frustration. Like everyone, I have my own agenda.

I understand how much the world has changed and what that means. I also understand how a change in circumstances can reignite confidence and create new optimism. They say great acomplishment require great effort, it's not actually true, but people believe it. The point is, people have more power than they have ever had, they just don't know it yet. Most of the great effort has already been made.

by James Hovland (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:26:49 PM

  (0+)

Thank you for taking the time and commenting.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:01:24 AM

  (0+)

Obama is a political bureaucrat just like Carter or Clinton.  Place no hope in these people, since the whole political process is a flim flam.  Learn to frame them.  Don't let them frame you.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1762 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:35:11 AM

  (0+)

I have some hope. I think he can do good, much better than Bush but I tempered by reality of who he is and the enormity of the challenge.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:47:51 PM

  (0+)

I’m fascinated by the irony, Mr. Wade. You accuse those who are disturbed by Obama’s selection of Warren of using false logic. But I’m not familiar with anyone who believes (whines? with bravado?) that the left alone elected Obama. I’m not familiar with anyone who believes (whines? with bravado?) Obama should surround himself exclusively with leftists. There are, though, plenty of pastors on the left who actively supported Obama – Warren didn’t. Plenty of peace activists  actively supported Obama - Gates didn’t. I could go on, but I don’t question your hold on reality, so I’m sure you can fill in the blanks. The point is, a little reaching-out is fine, but isn’t it more realistic to hope or expect your opponents to come-around rather than respond favorably when you chase-around?

I’m not familiar with anyone who was so gullible to believe  that Obama’s rhetoric in the campaign was entirely candid. But it was reasonable to hope that he’d be a little more to the left than his image, not more to the right. That’s why some of us are growing increasingly concerned. You’re evidently not. That’s perfectly logical,  but it’s just, well, tiresome.

by Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 147 comments [18 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:25:42 AM

  (0+)

Jim you said, "Plenty of peace activists actively supported Obama - Gates didn’t."

You can't honestly think Obama was going to promote a peace activist as the secretary of defense? I am all for pushing our Congress into creating a new office called the "Department of Peace" or something to that effect. Having a peace activist heading that department would be appropriate. Gates is no Rumsfeld and Bush was all but forced to push Rumsfeld out and bring Gates in. While I am no huge fan of Gates I understand the rationale of transitioning to a new head of the defense department once we can get our troops out of at the very least Iraq. 

by E. Nelson (40 articles, 8 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 511 comments [57 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:41:25 AM

  (0+)

I didn't say "pacifist." Wesley Clark would fit my definition of a "peace activist." Would he fit your definition of "realism"?

by Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 147 comments [18 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:58:12 AM

  (0+)

I misread your post and thought you said Pacifist.

And yes I would have no problem with Wesley Clark.

by E. Nelson (40 articles, 8 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 511 comments [57 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:16:12 PM

  (0+)

I have plenty of concerns about Obama, no doubt. he will get the same scrutiny i gave Bush. I was speaking tio the trend here lately to bemoan the end of the world with each passing selection and the arrogance to assume that any voting block is "owed" anything other than what he promised he would do.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:50:42 PM

  (0+)

You nailed it!  I am still fairly new to this site, but it is extremely frustrating to hear and read so many people expressing such negative, dire, paranoid predictions about Obama, who hasn't even begun to govern yet!  Where have these people been during the past 8 years?  If they were hollering then, it wasn't loud enough, because of the Bush love-fest going on. 

More than that, though, it just always amazes me how people want to talk big about how they "aren't part of the system" because "all politicians/governments, etc" are corrupt and so on.  What dimension are they living in?  Who isn't living under some kind of system?  That's a natural extension of community life - a way to unite/control/infect (insert whatever) a larger population.  Government is the lumbering beast that drags us all together, and for better or worse, it is what we make it.  Screaming of dire imaginings like Chicken Little only excites the herd mentality, but does little to solve anything.  To protest of the evil or corruption of a thing, but yet refusing to become involved in it to try to implement change is the very essence of that image of a chicken running in circles screaming its head off.  Not a very useful pasttime, is it?

by Mary Davis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:36:51 AM

  (0+)

I agree, there are alot of people berating with no solutions.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:52:06 PM

  (0+)

"To protest of the evil or corruption of a thing, but yet refusing to become involved in it to try to implement change is the very essence of that image of a chicken running in circles screaming its head off.  Not a very useful pasttime, is it?"

I invision here in my mind a picture of a hen running in cirlces screaming as a fox is digging under the fence. Meanwile the rest of the chickens are just pecking away at the ground paying no the slightest attention.

One of these hens glances over to the one screaming bloody murder, then nudges her friend next to her and remarks, "Not a very useful past time is it?" And then goes back to pecking for feed.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 5:59:40 PM

  (0+)

 great visual !

In fact, I think Mr M should do the cartoon.......

by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 7:56:55 PM

  (0+)

Well said, sir.  Your critics just prove your point.

 I wrote a similar article at The American Liberalism Project recently because I am sick and tired of the whining. These people do not understand politics, ideology, pragmatism, or much of anything but their own festering egos.

And, good grief, the man is not even in office yet!

 JB

by James Brett (130 articles, 96 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 190 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:49:39 AM

  (0+)

AMEN to Mary's AMEN.  I am unable to tell what the critics of Wade's article can possibly be saying.  Obama will be President of the United States (PTL!), as was Bush 2 (More's the pity!).  You pays your money and takes your chances.  Red, blue or purple.  We get to take a new shot every 4 years.  Let's go ahead, now, and see how it goes.  And take good notes. 

by John Hargrove (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:55:49 AM

  (0+)

     Frustrating for me it is to watch for so long a time now the people of this country of ours ignored in our honorable dissents, our rights crippled and compromised, our monies stolen, our questions left dormant, ridiculed and so many left unanswered, our global reputations maligned, etc, etc...I could go on.

      I pray you are correct on the unraveling and as our elected president, I will happily give Mr. Obama his time to do what good I pray he will accomplish. As Mark says, it is for Sasha and Malia that I offer my prayers and thoughts.

      History is neither kind nor compassionate to what I have witnessed living and loving here. If Obama is to be for all the people, he will need to be held accountable by them, a quality that has been missing for some 28 solid years and counting.

      I would never ask you to temper your personal frustrations. In fact I appreciate them very much. I likewise will not temper mine.

      Remember for the sake of point, these are our elected (?) officials who seek the public trust. Mr. Jefferson would have a field day.

      peace

by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:14:54 PM

  (0+)

If you read the article, you will see that I call for dissent, disagreement, and disappointment. We need toh old him accountable as any president. Obama will get no free pass from me. This was about people feeling "betrayed" because he chooses this person or that and their growing unrealistic and inaccurate conclusions of traiterous behavior or turning his back on his promises.

Before he even takes office, mind you.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:55:01 PM

  (0+)

Not sure where, in the definition of Public Servant, it says that a public servant does not have to serve the public....

He OWES EVERYONE, not just the 22% of the population who actually voted for him.....

Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:49:57 PM

  (0+)

he owes us to do the best job he can and serve the common good to the best of his ability - defend the constitutuion, etc...

He does not owe the gay community a selection of the invocation giver.

He does not owe the anti-hillary crowd to blackball her from his admin...

Etc...

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:56:50 PM

  (0+)

I voted for Obama because he was willing to talk to people and move away from the failed policies of isolation and arrogance. Clinton was the Bush-lite alternative.

Foreign policy was my main issue, and my vote for change put Clinton in charge where I didn't want her the most. The contrast in views in the position she was given is the problem. The last thing we want when the phone rings at 3:00 AM is Hillary running from sniper fire that never exsisted. The people have a lot of work ahead of them, and some of our dreams may just have to wait. 

by James Hovland (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:31:43 AM

  (0+)

and saying so i our responsibility.

Saying however that his selection of Hillary is the last straw and that he owes us more, and that we puit him in the white house and he better blah blah blah...

That was what I was speakign against.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:59:24 AM

  (0+)

Although I don't agree with many of Obamas picks I have not given up because he's not in office yet.

How can people believe in peace, fight for peace but refuse to sit down in peace with those who oppose their views. There's something wrong with that. Even though we have opposing views we are all still brothers and sisters in this thing called America. We may never agree on many things but can we at least try to find common ground in order to move our nation forward.

by Sharon Roach (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 1:18:44 PM

  (0+)

Corporate Bailout Giving, No To Impeachment Democratic Party Unite.

Be good Americans. Report those nasty dissenters, saying uncomfortable truths about your dear Homeland Security and your glorious leader.

To hell with the innocent victims of your own countries Foreign Policy. After all, the price of innocent children are worth it. Just as long as they are not supreme American children.

Good grief. To call you all sell outs is a misnomer. You have to be in to sell "out."

by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 1:43:05 PM

  (0+)

blah blah blah

I called for impeachment back during the Downing Street Memos. I was against it during the 08 election run off for fear it could help McCain.

I would have no issue with pursuing charges now and would welcome it. I just live in reality and know that it would be a long shot that Obama does it.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:58:53 PM

  (0+)

 "I just live in reality and know that it would be a long shot that Obama does it."

I keep hearing you use this term "reality". It seems to be something you consider yourself in full possession of.

So what tea leaves do you read to garner this grasp of "reality"?

I read every word of your article. I found it to be self consistant and reasonable. In fact the only criticism I have of it is that it is NOT based in reality. It is indeed based in a very popular paradigm. However, the popularity of a paradigm is not proof of its correctness.

You begin with the assumtpion that the Federal government is a legitimate and legal organization and that it has the well being of the people as it's purpose. This is so far from the "reality" of the situation as to make your perception tragic. The Federal government is nothing more than a criminal syndicate controlled and manipulated by the global banking cartel.

What is it that gives legitimacy and authority to this government? It is the Constitution of the United States which establishes a republican form of government. It is essential that this is understood, because the assumption that this nation is a democracy, and therefore the "will of the people" as established by a vote is all that matters is provably incorrect.

It is not all that matters, for this misperception leads directly to the situation we have today; a goverment by men rather than a government of laws.

Anyone who can read should be able to discern that the Constitution has been avoided for more than 60 years. That is reality.

I won't go on to innumerate as to why this is so obvious.

I have the sneaking suspicion that there are perhaps three or four others here have any idea of what I am taking about, because they are aware of history and of facts.

Let me simply assure you that your grasp on "reality" is so tenuous as to be almost suicidal.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 12:21:27 AM

  (0+)

While I consider myself a liberal on the basis that if liberalism was good enough for the United States Constitution and for that Jesus Christ chap, it is good enough for me. But I didn't vote for Barack Obama because of his "liberalism"; I voted for him because of his intelligence, something we have been in short supply of for many years. Let's see how Obama puts that intelligence to work for the nation, not for any clearly defined group in the nation. Obama's web site even has a method where Americans can submit their ideas and concerns to him. Whether he reads them or acts on them is another matter but the gesture is refreshing after eight years of neo-cons creating their own "reality" and employing "free speech zones" miles away from GOP leaders. Let's' try Obama's way for a while.

by tabonsell (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 318 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:33:49 PM

  (0+)

I am sooooo looking forward to an intelligent president again.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:59:57 PM

  (0+)

 It is comical to listen to al these defenders of Obama.. As if we have a choice whether we give him a chance or not.He is in, end of story. I love the folks who march along in suspended animation for four yeaRS AFTER AN ELECTION.i GUESS YOU ARE ONLY ENTITLED TO SPEAK YOUR MIND EVERY FOUR YEARS. iT'S FUNNY HOW YOU SPEAK OF POOR oBAMA LIKE WHINING CHILDREN. yOUR LEADER WITH THE ARMY,NAVY mARINES AND BLACKWATER REALLY NEEDS YOUR aMENS. yOUR DEFENSE OF HIS BAD MOVES SO FAR. iF YOU WERE iRAQUI YOU MIGHT SEE THINGS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. iT ALWAYS AMAZES me HOW MYOPIC YOUR VIEWS ARE. oTHER COUNTRY'S DON'T EXIST. oH, WHINE, WHINE, GIVE POOR oBAMA A CHANCE. OKAY i WON'T SAY ANYTHING FOR FOUR YEARS. Does that satisfy your need for silence so Mr. Obama doesn't get discouraged. What chumps you are. Thinking is ultra left, sorry duh! That is exactly how we got Bush and Cheney. Merry Christmas and to all a goodnight

by robert braunstein (60 articles, 0 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 194 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:42:31 PM

  (0+)

You must have something sticky in your keyboard, your caps lock button keeps jamming...

You may want to look into that...

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:01:22 PM

  (0+)

To all who commented especially those who actually read the entire piece for contextual understanding. This is not a blank pass for Obama, i said we need to hold him accountable. This was for people who seem to think that every appointment he makes needs to pass their own personal tests otherwise it is time to gear up for 2012.

There are macro issues, micro issues and non-issues. I hold out great hope that Obama can address alot of the micro issues. I have less hope on some of the macro issues and this article is a plea that people stop focusing on the non-issues. The absolute minutia.

Peace.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:04:08 PM

  (0+)

Wade's article tells Obama critics to shut up. As Robert Braunstein noted above, the article is riddled with self-contradiction. To highlight one example among many: Wade writes that if Obama "...can start to reverse all of the Bush era abuses and manage us through the recession that would be a good start."

Sure, that would be great. But the outcry against Obama's reactionary appointments arises precisely because these appointments augur no meaningful change of the policies that produced the abuses or the recession. That's because the appointees are drawn from the same circles (& in some cases, are the very same individuals) who brought us the abuses & the recession. Not a single one of Obama's choices opposed the Iraq war, & not a one opposed the Wall St bailout.

Wade of course is in no position to tell the rest of us when we may or may not criticize government actions which will affect all of us. In a democracy, we are entitled to denounce any governmental action or appointment that seems likely to violate our interests, principles or rights. Those of us opposed to US militarism, & to rule by the Wall St oligarchy, owe Obama absolutely nothing -- even those of us who were naive enough to vote for him. If we don't like what he's doing, we have every right to say so, loud & clear.

Wade writes, "With every cabinet selection Obama is vilified by people who seem to think that they are somehow owed something from the President-Elect." In fact, vilification is entirely appropriate, since Obama ran by encouraging illusions that he was "a candidate of change." Now that even his gullible fans (even the professional Dem Party Apologists at The Nation) are recognizing that they've been duped, they have every right to express anger & dismay.

Wade writes, "If he can bring our kids home alive and return some of our credibility to the world; that would be a good start." Then he turns around in the next paragraph to admit that he's "not delusional enough" to think Obama will "pursue prosecutions against anyone who broke the law within the Bush Administration." And Wade admits that Obama is "part of the machine as much as Hillary and McCain were."

But if Obama is "part of the machine," just like Hillary & McCain, this suggests he will NOT end the wars, & therefore will not "bring our kids home alive." Indeed, he has promised to send more of them to Afghanistan; he has called for expansion of the military; & his plans for Iraq call only for a very limited & gradual withdrawal. // And if he doesn't prosecute the Bush admin for its crimes, he is not going to return our credibility to the world, because a government that commits crimes & holds no one accountable for them cannot win back much credibility, once the novelty of the new face wears off.

Wade writes, "The truth is that Obama got sixty-six million votes because he was not Bush or McCain and because he ran on a platform of change..."
- The first part is true enough: Obama won because he's not Bush or McCain. But the second part, about the "platform of change" is just another of Wade's wildly errant misperceptions. Only naive liberals believed Obama really represented change. The conservatives who voted for Obama (David Brooks types) did so because they correctly understood that while he's smoother than Bush, Obama's priorities are not really too different. // Many others who voted for him did so only because they had no real choice, since the 2-party system doesn't allow citizens to vote against either the war machine or Wall St. Opponents of these entities may have "pulled the lever" for Obama -- but these votes had nothing to do with Obama's phony "change" BS. They merely reflected how the 2-party system forces compliance with militarism & the rule of big business.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:04:38 PM

  (0+)

hit a good part of the nail on the head. 

I loved the quote you used of Wade's: "...can start to reverse all of the Bush era abuses and manage us through the recession that would be a good start." 

LOL.

Wade, my poor innocent dupe. Obama is going to USE the machinery put in place by Bush, et. al. That's part of what Bush, et. al. was for. In the traditional controllers' use of the Hegelian dialectic ... (in modern parlance) 'Problem, Reaction, Solution'... Bush and crew was used to provide the problem (though he was also part of the elite’s ‘solution’). The American people reacted, predictably, albeit slowly. And the solution - from the public’s perspective? Why, the Change President, of course; i.e., Solution.

Obama will not reverse anything of substance. What he will do, and you can have my friggin house if he does not, what he will do is use that crap put in place by Bush to take us further down the road of authoritarianism and statist control. All with the blessings of you and other Obamaists, who truly have no clue. You will, of course, see Obama’s ‘solutions’ as necessary. You will buy into the rhetoric. You will characterize the epitome of well-conditioned American dupes. His 'arguments' will make sense to you.

Obama is a tool. From the perspective of the 'owners', I hazard that he is the 'right tool at the right time' to carry on the job.

Wade, ya wanna bet your house against mine? You know... if things get immeasurably worse under Obama and his actions in that context can be seen to have furthered the process of statism .. I win. If not, you win. [hint: go read William Engdalh and Gerald Celente before you accept.…]

I live in the piedmont of NC. Where’s your house?....…. 

I’ll be glad to send pictures.… ;-)

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:27:04 PM

  (0+)

Neither of you is likely going to own your house after all is said and done.  LOL.  And living in Blackwater country should give you pause.

But Obama is just renaming the train, painting it,  and taking it to the same place, perhaps by a different route, maybe faster, maybe slower.

Politics has become more about religion, having faith in your parties President, and rationalizing why things seem to get worse no matter who is in power.  I won't bother arguing with those about their religion, now that I have categorized the Obama and Bush faithful as such.  They have a right to their faith and they do not decide who wins elections anyways, so are not important. 

Clinton had even me going for a while until they pulled the plug on the good times, and looking back you see he laid some of the land mines that Bush was able to set off now, as Bush has done for Obama. And Waco, WTC - I and Kosovo in hindsight were signs of things to come.   Also, the good times were inflated with fraudulent economic indicators that started with the CPI adjustments to cheat social security recipients by lowering the COLA to levels that did not keep up with real inflation. 

The Dot.com crash hurt a lot of little people.  Before the crash, they were painful years for me because I refused to buy in at those levels and was seriously questioning my sanity feeling like a big fool for not joining the good times.  Still, I did not get any joy of seeing those happy faces talking about how well their porfolios were doing turn glum. Same faces today for those who bought homes within the last 10 years, but the landmines was placed in Clintons time, Bush just set it off when he brought in Paulson who at Goldman Sachs had bet against the mortgage securities.

My prediction for Obama is 3 years of hell, crisis of one sort or another, one after another, blamed on Bush or being tested by the boogey man, followed by a recovery and then finishing his second term off with a bang, if he has a 2nd term and does not move directly to the UN.

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 6:17:55 PM

  (0+)

of course I knew the  house is irrelevant ... why'd ya think I'd bet it.... ;-)...

at some point within the next three years.. I'll be houseless... in the forest.. and doin' som'ting. Don' know what, know what I mean?

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 6:45:03 PM

  (0+)

Make sure you don't get chipped first, and know that the forest rangers are equipped with Tasers.

Obama will let you do national service, for shelter and food and maybe some pocket change, so if you do not like trees, there is hope and change, and a New New Deal.  

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:37:23 AM

  (0+)

What would you consider substantive that yiou  think he will not change?

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:39:17 PM

  (0+)

He will change nothing of substance, and that will mean that everything  of substance will change for you.

You speak the words "Revisionist History" while you live within the revised paradigm not noticing it.

I know you have read Richard and others speak over and over again of the Hegelian Dialectic...and yet you still are absolutely ignorant of what it is or how it works. You seem to think he is talking about some weird hocus pocus, biling in a pot in by shamans pool in some far off galaxy.

Hegal's dialectic is the very engine that drives a continual revision of history, much like the Memory Hole in Orwell's 1984.

I am either accused of using language that is too far above the crowds head here; or of being a caricature or "cartoon character" beating a dead horse.

Well first of all, sophisticated subjects require a certain amount of sophisticated lexicon, especially as the use of language is a key issue as per propaganda. As far as the charge of "cartoonish babbling: and beating a dead horse; allow me to point out; that horse ain't dead!

If you ring the doorbell over and over, eventually you come to the conclusion that nobody's home.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 12:39:16 AM

  (0+)

Seeing all that is wrong what solutions do you propose at this point?

by Sharon Roach (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:50:11 PM

  (0+)

There is only one solution: Demand a return to legitimate constitutional governance.

Don't "hope" for change DEMAND IT.

And if you aren't aware that the Constitution has been completely gutted, then wake the 'F' up and smell the stench.

That is the solution...now let's hear all the whinysh*t about how scary it is; the thought of taking up our responsability to uphold and defend the Constitution against the domestic enemies that have usurped the people's government and arrogantly rule with utter impunity.

I am not suggesting revolution nor rebellion, I am suggesting mass civil disobedience--But rest assured, it is the criminal enterprise parading itself under the color of authority that will initiate the violence.

Somehow I know you won't like this frank response, and in your obviously delluded state of mind you will come up with every excuse you can to try to convince yourself that it's not that bad.

Well, it's "not that bad" as long as you are willing to give up all of your liberties in exchange for the promise of security, and the promise of stability. and the countless other promises that have been nothing but lies, manipulation, and extortion.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 2:26:32 AM

  (0+)

The ancient Sun Tzu is more relevant today; although battles should be won, “winning 100 victories in 100 battles is not the acme of skill;

defeating the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

There is more than one way to compel an enemy.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 4:59:22 PM

  (0+)

I posted this this morning before you posted "Revisionist history...."  I was tempted to ask you what your definition of a revisionist historian is, but instead I'll just ask you for your comments on my Diary.  And I would appreciate it if you do not talk down to me.

"As a radical, I hated not only Nixon for his Conservatism, but hated the argument that only Conservatives have the strength in the American polical economy to effect fundamental change.

::::::::

And seared into my meomory is the fact that, sure, Tricky Dick fundamentally altered our relationship with China, but at what cost?  Seven more years in Vietnam?

And now we have President-Elect Obama "sticking to his guns" - and (seemingly?) putting all the hardliners right where he promised us he would.  And I hear the echos of history in this country, saying "That's the only way to get fundamental change - surround yourself with ornaments of The Right; and then go ahead and work from your heart, make fundamental change..."

Of course, in 1974, there was a little matter called Watergate.  And already, there'd been action in the strees for over a decade.  Which streets?  The streets of Mississippi?  Yes, with SNCC in 1960.  The streets of Berkeley? And the streets of Georgia and Alabama?  Yes, with Mario Savio, and SDS, in 1963.  And the Streets of San Francisco?  Yes, the Hippie was declared dead in 1967.

Time has told.  And time will tell."   

by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:42:29 PM

  (0+)

we weren't hippies ... we were student radicals... some of us were SDS. We learned a lot from hearing their leader order to fire.

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 6:48:54 PM

  (0+)

My Diary: "Barak Obama - Centrist Enough to Make Fundamental Change?" -  put up on 12.23 - was not thought through.  I regret posting it here, and I am about the delete it from the Diary column.

Anthony, thank you for not ridiculing it here.  I wish I could delete my comment here, containing the whole, unthought-thru Diary. 

richard.  Thank you for going to the Diary.  Your comments there helped me realize that the Diary had to be altered or deleted.  I believe I will be able to retain my original insight (contained in the Diary's title) and re-write the piece to my own satisfaction in the future.

- GLoyd   

by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 7:03:59 AM

  (0+)

We assume we really have a choice.

We don't.

Our perception of this reality everyone seems to have their own expression of is in fact an illusion. The two parties are in fact one and neither is there for us. Yet there are those that banter on as if their voice really mattered.

It doesn't. At least not to those you put your trust in.  

Those of you that claim to have a handle on the real reality, because you claim there were in only two choices, are living the illusion. Who said there were only two choices? Why must we accept that reality? Because you heard it on television? Well, we all know how real that is.

They force feed you what they say is real and you eat it up never getting angry enough to say "bullsh*t".

Think back to the beginning of the campaign and what candidates resonated most and made the most sense, received the most applause, it wasn't Obama or McCain was it? No, it was Kucinich, Paul and  Gravel, but this reality you dwell in didn't hear or recognize them, it ignored and ridiculed them and you, rather than show your outrage, simply accepted the reality that was shove in your face. It's real because they make it real for us instead of us making it real for ourselves, and you never question that, you simply accept that this is the way it is. You accept the few controlling the many as quickly as you forget that that's not what our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for. But it wasn't your blood, so why should you care?

Then they put on the big show, drumming over and over again a version of reality that if looked at from afar is more akin to an Alice in Wonderland Tea Party, where war becomes peace, big is small, and again like lemmings you are, you eat it up. As the show goes on everything becomes more homogeneous, 9/11 signs are no longer allowed, can't have that reality, can we? Way too real there. No, we have to let bygones be bygones, we shouldn't worry any more about those 3,000 people murdered by the same people now telling us to shut-up, much like you're telling us to do. Too much water under the bridge, must move on. Better for all to accept the 9/11 illusion they have shoved down out throats than have our questions answered. It's easier. For cowards, that is.

Then you go "vote". A joke in of itself. You place your finger on a spot on a machine and it lights-up giving you all the reassurance your vote was recorded as would pissing  in the snow.

The people you're putting your faith in couldn't give a tinker's damn about "the people", other than to wish them a quick demise. Your reality isn't real, it's an illusion, a comfortable illusion for you to rest in because the alternative would require you to speak out in outrage at the death, torture and mayhem that is all too real for those that suffer it. But that's not you, you're snug and happy and all too ready to accept the illusion as long as the reality is kept from you. Why concern yourself, it isn't you that have any skin in this fight ... yet.

Because your reality is about to come crashing down all around you, and it's going to expose the one true reality - hunger. And you're going to experience something new in your delusional lives. You're going to find out about the stark reality most of the world has been living in at our expense, and your precious Obama won't be anywhere to be seen.

Oh no, there he goes again, Mr. Doom & Gloom you'll say.

I'm just repeating what your fearless leader has already expounded, because when politicians stop promising roses and tell you things are apt to get worse before they get better, you better believe that they'll get much worse. And if you've been paying attention many world leaders and experts are saying the same. Ask the people in Iceland about how fast things can come apart. A few short months ago they had the 2nd highest standard of living in the world, now they're a beggar nation, and they weren't in 1/100th as bad as shape as we're currently in. And when things fall apart, when the food isn't there and the riots start, and military starts round-ups I can imagine that for a while those of you that are flag-wavers for the murders will be fine for a little while, but you won't ever escape entirely, no one will.

Yesterday, listening to C-SPAN a man called in that said he was a business owner, owned 22,000 trucks. He said that after 32 years in business he's about to go under, his question was what's going to happen when the food his trucks delivered to the super markets stop? How does that figure into your "reality"?

And if things get too far out of hand you better believe they'll be another 9/11 on a much bigger scale to "shock & awe" us back into place. For as long as we let them get away with the first one, you can bet your life that they'll be another.

But that's not real to you. Neither is the raids on farmers, poison food and water, Chemtrails, HAARP, CODEX Alimentarius, rising rates of all manner of diseases, nor the groups behind those that placed Obama in power. The CFR, Biderbergs, Trilateral Commission, Skull & Bones, Pilgrim Society, Bohemia Grove are all illusions to you, they don't really exist, and none of our presidents over the past hundred years have been influenced by these secretive groups, or if you admit they are real, will never admit their influence. World leaders, the rich and powerful meet every year in secret merely to socialize, no policy is ever discussed about how they'll handle the population explosion and hold onto their stranglehold on the wealth and resources of this world for themselves. The Georgia Guildstones etched in granite edith's aren't real either, especially the first one that tells us that the worlds population must be maintained at no more than 500,000,000 in accordance with Nature.

No, not in your reality, better to believe they just get together to play bridge. The Illuminati is an illusion, nothing but paranoid rantings coming from people that live in a world that isn't real, right?

No, in your world steel melts at below the melting point for steel and buildings fall into their own footprint at free-fall speed because authorities tell you so. Like they told you they're the only ones that can lead you. All the documented false-flag attacks that have given us wars for profit for the already wealthy aren't real either. USS Liberty, Gulf of Tonkin proven and admitted false-flag attacks, but not in your world. Obama would never do that, he was only the lesser of two-evils.

First you must have courage to accept that all that you've been lead to believe is a lie. Then you must look inside yourself and find what's real and build upon that. But his takes courage and vision, something that is wholly missing in your illusion of reality.

Bullsh*t to it all. Bullshit to you. Bullshit to what they say I must accept. And if I'm the only one screaming for justice, and in anguish for dreaming of a world that could be, I'd rather live this life alone than in the comfort and numbers of your so-called reality.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 6:45:40 PM

  (0+)

As I know you know... they have no clue regarding reality. They live in the cognitive illusion of complacency. And it is their children who will have to pay the price. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:38:28 PM

  (0+)

You really think their children will survive long enough to make a difference?

We have a very slim shot to perhaps survive what is in store, and when I  say "very" I mean one-in-a-billion.

Even if the sky was to open-up and rid us of all those cretins that have caused all this carnage and dispensed commonsense and knowledge to all good-hearted people that were left, we'd still have to deal with the ecological damage and species loss that we've reined on this poor planet.

Our oceans alone have maybe 15 years left before they're declared wet-desserts. If that were the only thing to go kaput, we'd still perish, but it's only one of several tsunami's about to come crashing on the shores of humanity.

No, I'm afraid we're the December's children. This is it. Whatever will come in the future for our spirits won't be on this depleted plain. Life may at some time in a far distant future return to this planet, but it will be so far along as not even our granite statues will be left to show we were here.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:02:17 PM

  (0+)

First of all, I actually wrote extensively for Paul. I find it amusing that you guys bemoan that Kucinich and Paul are not given a fair chance, and they are not. But then when they turn their backs on you and support the very system you deride so easily, you seemingly give them a free pass for it.

But I am the one not in reality. Ok.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:43:40 PM

  (0+)

... a superior position, as though your reality sits in the center of reasoned discourse, and by your perceived virtue anyone that may find fault in what yu have to say is beneath you.

I can't help you. Since we are all self taught there is really nothing I can do or say that will make you see what I see.

I see Obama as a liar and a fraud because of 9/11. I see all people that should know better and deny the truth of 9/11 as frauds and cowards, so when you and anyone else, starts expounding on what Obama may or may not do it means very little to me unless he comes clean and tells the truth about those murders. And I look upon everything else until that is dealt with as simply whistling past the graveyard.

You fault me for not seeing what you perceive as what you call positive outlook, but you're wrong, I see the potential, and I also see that we'll never get to it as long as we shrink and placate to murders as you so readily wish to do. That's why I have so little respect for you and your ilk. You talk about virtue at the same time you place your trust in scum. I don't know if you're just in denial or incapable of understanding your own duplicity, but either way I find no reason to take you seriously. 

Let's take a "for instance". Let's say you perceive 9/11 as an inside job, you know, as millions of others do, that there is no way on God's green Earth that the official story holds water, and you came to this conclusion from just the evidence you can gather, all by your lonesome. You would have to than come to the conclusion that if you, an ordinary guy, can know this that it would be seemingly impossible for Obama, or anyone else in high office, that wouldn't also know this. It kind of takes the wind out of the sails of us having anything close to a legitimate government that one could place any amount of trust in, wouldn't it? That kind of reality would pretty much rattle all your known perceptions and beliefs to their core.

Yet here you are, proudly supporting an obvious lying, murdering scum. So I guess you can understand now why I have so little respect for what you have to say. And it's not because I think of you as a bad person, I sincerely believe you're a decent, good-hearted man. It's just that you're a sad man, and it's even sadder that you try to make up for this void in your make-up by putting those that don't agree with you down.

Well, I can only return the favor, but it isn't me that is putting you down, you do that yourself rather well.

At least I have no illusions, for I know from where my sadness springs.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:18:45 AM

  (0+)

I do think that the cover story is bunk. I have read the work of Ruppert and actually live in NY and had to live through it and lost people in it. So spare me the lectures.

I wish the truth could come out but because of the power strucutre being what it is, I still choose to stand for something. I still choose to fight for something. You take your ball and go home. You assume everyone must realize 911 was an inside job - your first error. Alot of people do believe the cover story and Obama was not even in DC in 2001.

There are still kids dying in Iraq. There are still good people losing their homes. There are still problems that have to be solved. I can accept that 911 was an inside job and still believe other problems need to be solved as well. You apparently get stuck on 911 and give up on everything else because of it.

Why not become an investigative reporter and do something about it if it means so much to you? Why not keep it on the front burner and never let us forget. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people who claim some moral high ground but do nothing about the immorality that provided them that ground. Instead you want to poison the well for every other thing that is wrong in this world and somehow think you are being righteous for doing so.

But you are not. You are only spitting into the wind and most sadly against people who would probably help you in your pursuits and support you in your outrage. Instead of reaching out, you call them dupes or some other insult. But in the end you offer nothing.

Be well.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:14:19 AM

  (0+)

You are an expert as to what is wrong with the world but what about solutions? You talk about those of us who support Obama as if we are mindless followers but at least we take a stand, do tell what is it exactly you stand for besides trying to discourage?

by Sharon Roach (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:47:40 PM

  (0+)

He doesn't have any solutions. Just complaints and bizarre commentary.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:49:03 PM

  (0+)

.."bizarre commentary"...Lol

Anthony, you certainly have your mind squished into a little tiny cube to fit in that little bitty box if you interpret M's commentary as "bizarre".

You certainly haven't much imagination...and before you make a fool of yourself and define imagination as simply fantasy, be forewarned of that philosophical pitfall.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 2:42:03 AM

  (0+)

We are simply pointing out the obvious. I don't have a goddamned solution. I'm betting 'M' doesn't either. But it does not pay to have your eyes closed and CD (cognitive dissonance) in play. The black americans who happen to be among my patients are all trying to get their gardens planned. Their communities in line. To survive the next few years. They, and the anglos who are their neighbors are all of a mind. They know what's coming. And they are trying to survive. As am I.

None of us are trying to 'discourage'... what a silly epithet. We are trying to let folks know what so many in our communities now know... that the ptb are screwing us royaly and to survive, we must stand together against the man. Got it?

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:06:51 PM

  (0+)

None of us are trying to 'discourage'... what a silly epithet. We are trying to let folks know what so many in our communities now know... that the ptb are screwing us royaly and to survive, we must stand together against the man. Got it?

It's not the man, its the plan behind the man, you got it?

I'm certain that those black americans and any american who gardens would have been planting their garden anyway regardless of who is in the whitehouse. I wonder does any of your patients read your comments on this site especially your black american patients whom I'm willing to bet 98%  are ardent Obama supporters.

If this is not discouraging then what the heck is it?

by Sharon Roach (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:35:54 PM

  (0+)

when are you gonna get off your arrogant complacent butt and get a clue? Are you really so poor at research that you still believe in the memes you were inculcated with since birth? Talk about the blind.....

by the way, I'm still willing to bet my house against yours. You willing to back up your blarney? 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:15:47 PM

  (0+)

... enough with the courage to follow it through.

Seeing the problems is indeed  not very hard to do, that is fairly elementary for even the most base of people.

Solutions aren't even hard, we've all lost count on how many conversations we've had where simple commonsense would take care of most of our ills. What's lacking is the courage to do what must be done when confronting those that are blocking us from applying those solutions.

We all talk a good game, but how many actually put our money where our mouth is? Or our bodies in harms way?

Not many.

But the fact is it doesn't take everybody to effect change, just a percentage dedicated and courageous can do what most shrink from.

I don't perceive much that is positive, but that is after all only an observation of what I see around me. And by expounding on that perception hope to shake some out of their doldrums into action.

I can't help what is, but I can try to help change what is in a future tense by shining a light on our immediate darkness. It's reality base perception.

My rose-colored glasses fell from my eyes at Kent State, I lost them entirely on 9/11.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:48:03 AM

  (0+)

Why is liberty essential? Because without liberty we have no idea of where we stand. How can we move in the proper direction if we don't know where we are starting from? Liberty demands information, and the information it demands is exactly what government is up to. This means that liberty demands that government be transparent, not hatched in back rooms. It means that there is transparency in the process of delivering information, rather than the sinister symbiosis of the media as handmaiden to power.

Liberty does not ask for these things, it demands it.

It should be perfectly clear to any American that any construction of the meaning of the Constitution which obstructs the view of the activities of government is false, no matter how cleverly argued. How is it that such a simple concept of transparency in government can be so overwhelmed by the lawyerly nitpicking of phrases, and torture devices applied to plain language?

Context!

What can be clearer than that the context for this entire document is meant to provide liberty?

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 12:58:54 AM

  (0+)

Thanks for the spelling lesson. I Bet you won the spelling bee. Don't assume that people didn't read your article through. I read it and responded to it. People might disagree with you even if they grasp what you say. I guess if we don't agree with you it is because we a'rent up to your deep level understanding. You are very easily satisfied by baloney and cheese sandwiches. You have inmate written all over you. You take a poition of criticizing the disappointed and saddened. You tell them to stop whining. You disregard the cost in human lives of your heroic patience, You have more comfort in lies than people who confront them. You wind up talking out of both sides of your mouth and eventually criticize dissent while claiming to agree. You can't have it both ways and be honest. Regardless of your self congratulatory understanding you are in the end an appologist. Although a brillant speller. Good form no content.

by robert braunstein (60 articles, 0 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 194 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:22:21 PM

  (0+)

You see when you take portions of an article without the entire context YOU give the clear impression that you either did not read all of it, chose to be willfully ignorant of the context, or do not have basic reading comprehension skills.

So my comment that you did not read it, was actually a complement compaired to what the other options were. My apologies if I was mistaken.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:46:13 PM

  (0+)

Christian progressive. Does that mean you had the patience of Christ during the last inquisition and crusades too?. To the self righteous the prophets are whiners. I myself am a Jewish humanist accent on the humanist. Happy holiday to all,, seriously

by robert braunstein (60 articles, 0 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 194 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:46:54 PM

  (0+)

Considering I define Christian Progressive right in the bio, you again do not seem to be able to maintain your attention long enough to READ the entire context.

Merry Christmas.

For the record, I was not around during the crusades.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:47:42 PM

  (0+)

The comments on this article are direct evidence why we must have hope. If you listen to many here they would lead you to believe that you are powerless, that you can do nothing, that you are stupid and ignorant for having hope. One of the greatest enemies of hope is fear. We are living in an age in which we as a people cannot afford to fear and we cannot allow ourselves to become paralyzed by the words of those who sit on the sidelines and do nothing but groan and moan. I respect those who are opposed to Obama who are active and doing something about it, making their voices heard, making their presence known through organizing. I respect them because they show no fear and are not paralyzed they are trying to be a part of the solution.

If you know all that is wrong with everything from Obama to his supporters to the way the elites eat their dinner then surely with all that self righteous know-it-all king of the hill knowledge you can craft realisitc and workable solutions to the problems of not only this nation but the entire world. No, it's easier to be an arm-chair general and sit on the sidelines and talk about the problems than it is to try and be a part of the solution to the problems.

Talk about reality, that's those who are not affraid to engage the enemy, not affraid to step outside their comfort zone. Unfortunately to many their only life is in the comment section of articles where they pretend to be the czars of what's wrong with the world and why we can't win.

by Sharon Roach (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:20:09 PM

  (0+)

Well said!!!

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:18:00 AM

  (0+)

A central metaphor occurred to me, "The Interent is Theater" - and long "discussions" like this one just prove that every actor wants to have the last line.  Also, in these times, the best actors don't want to speak the lines written for them and are trying, however desperately, to tear off their (actors') masks.

You and I have communicated before - from behind the theater's curtain - in private correspondence here at OEN, and you know I am far less spiritual than you.  But we share what to me anyway is far greater than spirituality - and that is hope.  And humility.  And self-awarenesss.

I would be very, very surprised if I live as long as you do.  And your continuing presence on earth -- as well as the continuing presence so many who believe as you, and I, do -- will be a great comfort to me if I am conscious when the darkness comes.

Thank you, again.

by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 9:20:57 AM

  (0+)

My expectations for Obama have been very modest ever since his low-down, misogyny-driven primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. His supporters called Hillary supporters the C word oover and over again.  They even started repeating hoary right-wing smears against the Clintons from the 90s, which is just about as low as you can go.

When the dust settled, Hillary had won the most primary votes, but somehow Obama got the nomination. Go figure.

Then I found out Obama voted for the Cheney energy bill--possibly the worst piece of legislation ever passed.

Obama voted for the tort reform bill, watered down legislation requiring public disclosure of radiation leaks and voted for nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain twice.

Meanwhile, Rezko's slums continue to fester in Obama's Chicago district. This is a helluva progressive we've got here.

To dispel any lingering doubt he is a neocon, Obama has publically said he wants more executions, more guns, and fewer abortions.

Think about that.  These views put Obama solidly to the right, not only of his fellow Democrats, but of most of his fellow Americans, if not most people in the world.

By the time Obama invited Robert Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense I was only mildly irritated. I'm actually relieved Obama didn't just ask the entire Bush cabinet to stay on.

Then he invites an anti-gay bigot to speak at the Inauguration.  It's like he's afraid of being thought the slightest bit liberal.

The Current Problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i_vquVDPgU

by Perry Logan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 558 comments [74 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 5:33:32 AM

  (0+)

You had me right up to the misuse of the word bigot.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:19:24 AM

  (0+)

  Your assumption is that people don't read what you write. I guess that you think you wrote about revisionist history and false bravado. Likewise an explanation of christian progressive. You don't respond to anyones comments. I thought humility would be part of your christian sensibility. Instead you refer people to your bio with a criticism for not having read it previously. I still don't know what is christian about your progressiveness? What makes your progressiveness uniquely christian? How could I distinguish it from non christian progressiveness. It is not that people don't read what you write. It is the superficiality that undermines commnication. You approach things from a self righteous point of view. What is so unnerving about confronting the difference between what a politician says and does? Is there a diffeence between faith and blind faith? What does religion have to do with politics? Do you believe these idiot politicians should have to answer questions about their faith?  What ever happened to seperation of church and state?  what happened to that commandment about killing people? That is what pisses me off. While you benevolent souls are bemoaning our anger your president is backtracking on peace. It seems that if you want change and are elected on that basis you might go beyond the usual cast of characters for your cabinet. All this doesn't shock me. What is aggravating is how passive,silent and willing you are to overlook the obvious and defend the people with all the power. I know you will not repond to questions. You will refer me to the writngs of Mr. wade. A focused concentrated read will answer all my questions. Anything more should be refered to Santa. ofclaus

by robert braunstein (60 articles, 0 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 194 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 6:47:44 AM

  (0+)

Your assumption is that people don't read what you write.

When people focus on portions of an article and leave out the context, they either are being disingenuous or haven't read it entirely. I am being nice in suggesting the lesser option for them.  

You don't respond to anyones comments.

Are you serious? I must have 20 responses in this thread. You just don't like the responses.

I thought humility would be part of your christian sensibility. Instead you refer people to your bio with a criticism for not having read it previously.

You referred to me being a Christian progressive; which is in my bio. The words immediately following "Christian progressive" in my bio explain what it means. So, i am not criticizing you for not reading my bio, but for reading it enough to see that I refer to myself as a Christian progressive but then apparently not reading the next set of words that followed it.  

I still don't know what is christian about your progressiveness? What makes your progressiveness uniquely christian? How could I distinguish it from non christian progressiveness.

That I do not adhere to the traditional political positions of evangelicals. That I believe saying you are a Christian is not good enough. I believe for example that the moral and Christian thing to do was to not vote for Bush - a position not greeted well in most evangelical circles.  

It is not that people don't read what you write. It is the superficiality that undermines commnication. You approach things from a self righteous point of view. What is so unnerving about confronting the difference between what a politician says and does?

This is why I say you do not read what I have written. There is nothing wrong with cofnronting. I encouraged dissent, disagreement and disappointment within this very article! Then you come in and claim I said the opposite. I could call you a liar but i prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and say maybe you haven't read the entire article.  

Is there a diffeence between faith and blind faith?

No, not scripturally anyway. 

What does religion have to do with politics?

I think it should give you an insight into their beliefs and how they might govern. I do not believe that religion should sway public policy. But I do not believe it shouldn't matter at all.  

Do you believe these idiot politicians should have to answer questions about their faith? 

I do not have a problem with them answering what they believe as long as it is a personal question, not related to public policy.  

What ever happened to seperation of church and state? 

Got blurred a bit under Bush but it is not the dire emergency the atheists would have us believe.  

what happened to that commandment about killing people? That is what pisses me off.

Excellent question. Apparently Warren forgot about it when he called for the assasination of world leaders. They will claim that war is not murder but the truth is there is not one New testament verse that is pro war. 

While you benevolent souls are bemoaning our anger your president is backtracking on peace.

Where is he doing that? First of all, while he promised to get out of Iraq, he only said he was going to move them to Afghanistan. He was hardly running as a peacenik. My hope is he is smart enough to realize that we need to get out of both. As for dissent for backtracking, I say go for it! We need to hold him accountable and I said so in this very article. I was speaking more to the crowd that seems to think he owes them every appoitnment, and ever decision. And if things do not go their exact way, then he is a traitor and reneging on promises he never made.  

It seems that if you want change and are elected on that basis you might go beyond the usual cast of characters for your cabinet. All this doesn't shock me. What is aggravating is how passive,silent and willing you are to overlook the obvious and defend the people with all the power.

I am sorry it came off as defending Obama. If you read my work, you will see that he was not my first choice and in the end he was the lesser of two evils. Far lesser. Believe me, if he starts screwing up like Bush or at all, I will be all over him. I am willing to accept that maybe he knows more than I do about how he is going to get things done. I am willing to accept that maybe he is smarter than I to know that Emanuel knows the Hill and is the exact tough guy he needs. I can accept that maybe he knows better to realize that Hillary was the right choice for sec state.  

I know you will not repond to questions.

I like to think I answer alot more than most writers. You have to realize that when you come at me by misrepresenting my work and yelling at me in caps, my answer may not be sweet.

I hope I have answered your questions this time.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:55:15 AM

  (0+)

I appreciate your explaining what you are trying to say. I agree that people should be able to talk about their beliefs. I don't think they should have to explain them like children in the kind of forum the press had. It is not a criterea for election.  Yes you do respond that was not true on my part. The truth is you respond to people who agree with you. You are very dismissive of people who don't. You discuss reality as if you have an intimate relationship with it. People who talk about reality are usually lacking in imagination. It was nice of you to take the time to explain your point of view. I think when you read your work you can easily see why people are annoyed. People who write and respond in this format are not whiners or doom and gloomers from my point of view. They care and as long as what they say is honest those terms are name calling. It is fair to argue ideas. I think we might have gone passed any hope in restoring the earth. Tons of species are destroyed. The sea is toxic and fished out. Our money was just stolen. The people who stole our money talk alot about god. That is usually the case. I am not mocking your beliefs. That is however one of the major hustles of these particular scoundrels. Religion is a major hustle. Spirituality is another story in my opinion. It says a great deal about a man who he picks to speak at an inauguration. The man he chose is a very sick man. His philosophy is sociopathic. I don't much care if he raps it in relgiosity or the flag. The anger is justified. I am tired of watching these bums steal from the third world at gunpoint. They have no moral authority. Anyone with any values regarding human life must condemn them. The church and these subhuman have always had a symbiotic relationship in my lifetime. Disagreement is a good thing. I would love to be wrong about many things. I try very hard to not sound self righteous. The tone you use is often self righetous in my opinion. I mean this as constructive criticism. I believe that a persons spirituality is nobodys business. Relgion does not mix with public policy. I don't know what gives these folks any moral authority. People are people. There is the good the bad and the ugly. Thanks for your explanation merry christmas

by robert braunstein (60 articles, 0 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 194 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:09:02 AM

  (0+)

I feel i try to respond to everyone, not just those who disagree. I may not respond the same way to both because often the disagreers are not merely disagreeing, they are misrepresenting me or my work and are usually in attack mode when they post.

Believe it or not I am working on my responses. I try to make a joke instead of responding to beligerance with beligerance.

Be well.

For the record, you are absolutely correct about how man has tainted, warped and damaged the message of Christ through religion. It makes me sick.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:19:42 AM

  (0+)

Obama did say that he was going to wack the "trickle down theory" in a key part of his most important election address.

That is a lot, and he owes us that.

I wonder if he realizes that the "trickle down theory" is precisly how capital works?  Socialism and communism too.  That leaves tribalism or anarchy as possible systems.  I think the two are the same.

by John Bessa (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 94 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 8:53:55 PM

  (0+)

Obama did say that he was going to wack the "trickle down theory" in a key part of his most important election address.

That is a lot, and he owes us that.

I wonder if he realizes that the "trickle down theory" is precisly how capital works?  Socialism and communism too.  That leaves tribalism or anarchy as possible systems.  I think the two are the same.

by John Bessa (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 94 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008 at 8:54:20 PM

  (0+)

But my take is that socialism has never been tried.  Ever since nations were formed in the 16th century, the “western civilized” world has been dominated by capitalism.  And it took 300 years for a genius of the stature of Karl Marx to see clearly enough what was going on to write Das Kapital in 1862. Fifty-five years later, in 1916 give or take a year, capitalism was consolidated in America.  (See, Gabriel Kolko’s seminal study, The Triumph on Conservatism in America.)  And America entered World War I, from which it emerged relatively unscathed, and American capitalism had a toehold in Europe.  Then America’s military forces joined western Europeans in invading and fighting to overthrow the new Soviet Union, which, as Russia, had dropped out of World War I.  America joined western Europeans and “White” Russians who refused to accept communism in former Russia, fighting to strangle the newborn form of government in the Soviet Union.  This was war after invasion by foreign powers, and communist control emanating from Moscow shrunk enormously.  (See Isaac Deutscher’s three volume history.) As a postscript, I have to admit (I am a Castro-Communist), that this war came much closer to strangling communism in Russia than the failed Bay of Pigs came to overthrowing Castro’s newborn communism in Cuba in 1961. In any case, regarding your anarchism and tribalism thought: it is extremely wise and timely.  In my opinion the jury of archaeologists and anthropologists is still out on whether homo-sapiens is inherently warlike or peaceful, and what pre-history has to do with us living now, anyway.  Would a world reduced to small semi-isolated communities evolve most rapidly under madmen-virus-like-Charlie-Mansons, or under peace-loving anarchist leaders?  My take is that it likely would depend on where the communities were, and the most recent research is hopeful for anarchists.  And of course, there is still a chance that we’ll never have to find out. Thank you again for your comment, young man.  And merry xmas.        

by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 8:19:23 AM

  (0+)

OK, now I see your comment!!

I take that back -- Trotsky was the real communist, Stalin completely sabotaged any chance of communist or socialist success.

I recently read Ho Chi Minh's biography by Duiker, and saw how a revolutionary succeeds -- but Ho killed Trotsikyites in Vietnam.

Still my point is that economic systems destroy the environment to create goods that are accumulated into centralized locations called capitals -- that will never change.  Only one system works to live with and enhance the environment; that is the tribal native model where humans empathically attach to the natural environment -- all one happy family.

Read Kropotkin !!  

by John Bessa (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 94 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:03:28 PM

  (0+)

Why don't you define the word "bigot" for the rest of us here.

I'm curious as to a definition that doesn't define this charlatan mega church Judas Goat to a tee.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 1:07:19 AM

  (0+)

Anthony, I gather from several of your comments that you are very proud to call yourself a good Christian and I don't doubt that you are for one second.

I consider myself a spiritual but not religious person.  This after 12 years of strict Catholic education.  Having said that, I do admire the man we know as  Jesus Christ because he was a non violent, truly good man.  However, the one thing that really pissed him the hell off was the money changers.  He threw them out of the temple, didn't he?  That was one of Jesus' rare shows of extreme anger.

Yet.... your man of faith and hope, Barack Obama, welcomed those same money changers, with open arms, into his inner circle.  The same men who helped engineer grand theft of the american people on a scale never seen before in american history.  Obama, during his campaign, accepted huge amounts of $$$ from the likes of Goldman Sachs and Lehman brothers.  Payback. Not very CHRISTlike of him was it?  

Obama has also chosen a "fasle prophet" to "pray" at his inaguration.  A man of hate.  A man who thinks he is superior to his fellow human beings.  Again, not very CHRISTlike of him. I don't think that Jesus would want a man of that nature to give the opening prayer at the Last Supper, do you?

Then there is the talk of war and rumors of war.  Troops to stay in Iraq, Blackwater to continue on, all the while torturing and killing with govt approval, outside the law. Talking about not taking nuclear strikes against Pakistan and Iran off the table.  Plus, more soldiers to Afghanistan.  More killing of innocents, more death for profit.   A man of peace, Obama is not.

So, I have to ask you.  If Jesus were here, do you think he'd be making excuses for Obama and telling the rest of us who see these very unCHRISTian like traits in the man,  to shut up and ignore the bad and hope for the good?  

I think not.  But I"m sure you'll find a way to excuse such unCHRISTlike behavior as you always do.  Perhaps, before you do, you should think about what is more important to you.  Is it following in the footsteps of Christ? Or is it defending a man whose political actions betray the principles of true christianity just because he belongs to the political party you have put your faith, hope and trust in?

by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 4:45:09 PM

  (0+)

Jersey...you do have a knack!

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 5:10:36 PM

  (0+)

and may I say, back atcha :) 

by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 6:45:12 PM

  (0+)

http://www.nwolibrary.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20&sid=7563e020c217e637fca2493adb49c167

Jersey, check out this site....rich in info!!!

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 25, 2008 at 9:20:28 PM

  (0+)

you wrote:
In my opinion the jury of archaeologists and anthropologists is still out on whether homo-sapiens is inherently warlike or peaceful, and what pre-history has to do with us living now, anyway.

Forget the debate because it is over.  For humans to have succeeded under the early stresses, complete collaboration was necessary as well as cooperation with nature, which I see as collaboration of sorts.

The goal of evolution is love, literally. Empathic neurons have developed along the separate paths of primates, whales, elephants, and other animals, possibly birds (which are kind of reptile-like)

Love is not hate, collaboration is not killing, and all the "blood model" scientists are in the pay of the mass killers, those who suffer from 'anti-empathy'

by John Bessa (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 94 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:10:42 PM

  (0+)

But you wrote: "For humans to have succeeded under the early stresses, complete collaboration was necessary....."

But what does "humans" and "early" mean?  My understanding is that evidence from bones indicates very strongly that different species of early apelike creatures warred until the apes with speech capabilities (the humanoids) eliminated those without speech capabilities.  What this indicates for us humans transformed by centuries of technology is problematic; but if only a handful of us (or even one?) is willing to initiate a nuclear war, that technology could cancel humanity under a nuclear winter.

by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:21:59 PM

  (0+)