<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
That explains a lot. <br>
<br>
A generation ago American liberalism, under the pressure to see the
obvious that arose from the Vietnam War, had finally regained the
insight - that politics was a matter of class - which had been
destroyed in the post-WWII rectification campaigns ("McCarthyism"
being a synecdoche).<br>
<br>
But in the 1970s, having put its hand to the plow, liberalism looked
back - into the seductive eyes of identity politics. The American
ascendancy, knowing perfectly well what was happening (see The
Crisis of Democracy, 1975) - encouraged liberalism's apostasy.
Racism was substituted for inequality as the bete noire (...) of
American liberalism. With its bad conscience for having given up on
class struggle, American liberalism became a tiger on diversity to
make up for it. Crimes became those of speech and hate - you can't
say that or use those words - rather than actions of economic
oppression and the constant alienating extraction of surplus value.
<br>
<br>
Of course neither racism nor sexism is a good thing - but as the
Renaissance (not the Middle Ages) found, the surest way to prove
you're orthodox (when you aren't) is to burn the odd heretic.
Neoliberalism - not coincidentally arising at the same time as I. P.
- was down with the program. Stamp out anything that sounds like
racism or sexism, and maybe people won't notice that you've
acquiesced in exploitation as a way of life. So in the '80s and
'90s the rich got richer and the poor got poorer at an accelerating
rate - and liberals insisted only that the rich kids show a proper
rainbow of colors (the poor kids, too - of whom there were more and
more - if it came to that.)<br>
<br>
Therefore the greatest taunt for the American liberal is "Racist!
Sexist!" - and the capitalist is perfectly happy with an integrated
workforce, which can only increase the reserve army of the
unemployed, dilute unions, and depress wages. (My students are
disbelieving when told that a couple of recent college graduates
could count on living with a house, car and children - on one
salary! - into the 1970s.)<br>
<br>
Dante spoke of <i>il gran rifiuto.</i> The Great Refusal of our
generation of American liberals is to fasten on to a fanatic concern
for diversity to make up for turning away from the real source of
inequality in our society - the wage contract: "the equal exchange
between free agents" which reproduces, hourly and daily, inequality
and oppression. <br>
<br>
A majority of the US population sympathize with the tea-partiers,
who are raging at their economic deprivation. (That's what they
mean by "socialism" - a directed economy run for the benefit of a
privileged few - not a bad description of "actually existing
socialism" as it was in the late 20th century.) And all the liberals
have left is to shout "Racism! " at them. Such political obtuseness
is extremely dangerous. <br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/4/10 5:45 AM, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> On 12/3/2010 1:32 PM, Brussel
Morton K. wrote:<br>
> <br>
>> the president is black.<br>
> That is Absurd.<br>
> <br>
> Actually:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> 1 In 5 Americans Believe Obama Is A Cactus<br>
> <br>
> WASHINGTON—According to a poll released Tuesday, nearly 20
percent of<br>
> U.S. citizens now believe Barack Obama is a cactus, the most<br>
> Americans to identify the president. ...The poll, conducted
by the<br>
> Pew Research Center, found a sharp rise in the number of
Americans<br>
> who say they firmly believe Obama was either born a cactus,
became a<br>
> cactus during his youth, or has questionable links to the
/Cactaceae/<br>
> family.<br>
> <br>
> "We asked people of varying races, ages, and backgrounds the
same<br>
> question: 'What is President Barack Obama?'" Pew spokeswoman
Jodi<br>
> Miller told reporters. "And a fifth of them responded, 'A
cactus.'"<br>
> <br>
> According to the poll, Obama has lost favor among many voters
who<br>
> supported his candidacy in 2008 but have since come to doubt
he is a<br>
> mammal. While these Americans concede Obama may not
specifically be a<br>
> cactus, most believe he is a plant of some kind, with 18
percent<br>
> saying the president is a ficus, 37 percent believing him to
be a<br>
> grain such as wheat or millet, and 12 percent convinced he is
an<br>
> old-growth forest in Northern California.<br>
> <br>
> When asked why they agreed with the statement "President
Obama is a<br>
> large succulent plant composed of specialized cells designed
for<br>
> water retention in arid climates," many responded that they
"just<br>
> know," claiming the president only acts like a human being
for<br>
> political purposes and is truly a cactus at heart.<br>
> <br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-1-in-5-americans-believe-obama-is-a-cactus,18127/#enlarge"><http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-1-in-5-americans-believe-obama-is-a-cactus,18127/#enlarge></a><br>
><br>
><br>
> </span><br>
A number of polled Americans identified the above as a photo of
President Obama.<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> <br>
> White House officials have asserted that the nation's 44th
president<br>
> is a person.<br>
> <br>
> "You can't go a day without hearing how Obama's a radical
cactus<br>
> sympathizer who wants to sap America of all its drinking
water, or<br>
> how he was actually born in the Kalahari Desert," said media
critic<br>
> Lynn Pelmont, referring to cable news outlets that suggest
the<br>
> president has prickly spines he uses to protect himself from
thirsty<br>
> animals. "For a man who prides himself on delivering a
coherent<br>
> message, there's an awful lot of confusion out there about
whether<br>
> he's a Harvard Law graduate or a leafless flowering shrub."<br>
> <br>
> "He must speak frankly to the American people about his
mammalian<br>
> background," Pelmont added. "If not, it's only a matter of
time<br>
> before people start believing those fringe bloggers who claim
the<br>
> president of the United States is actually an old washing
machine."<br>
> <br>
> Some Beltway observers have accused Republicans of tacitly<br>
> encouraging the cactus rumor, pointing out that if millions
of voters<br>
> believe Obama produces buds through spirally arranged areoles<br>
> situated along his stem, the GOP has a much better chance of
retaking<br>
> Congress in November.<br>
> <br>
> "If the president says he is a human being, I'll take him at
his<br>
> word," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday on
/Meet<br>
> the Press/. "Though I've never heard him complain about being<br>
> thirsty. Not once. That could be a coincidence, I suppose,
but it's<br>
> really not my place to say."<br>
> <br>
> During a Wednesday morning briefing, White House press
secretary<br>
> Robert Gibbs once again denied that President Obama is a
cactus,<br>
> citing numerous physiological attributes of the nation's
chief<br>
> executive, including his ability to walk upright and to
manipulate<br>
> objects with his opposable thumbs.<br>
> <br>
> "Cacti don't talk," said Gibbs, shaking his head. "They just
don't."<br>
> <br>
> President Barack Hussein Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961 in
Honolulu, HI<br>
> to parents Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. From the ages of
6 to 10<br>
> he lived with his mother and stepfather in Indonesia, where
he<br>
> attended Besuki Public School and St. Francis of Assisi
Catholic<br>
> School. In 1971, Obama returned to Hawaii, where he was
raised<br>
> primarily by his grandmother until he left home to attend
Occidental<br>
> College in Los Angeles.<br>
> <br>
> "I don't care what he says or what his people say or what
anybody<br>
> else says," 48-year-old Kansas resident Jake Nolan told
reporters.<br>
> "The guy's a cactus, plain and simple. I mean, Christ, look
at him."<br>
> <br>
> (the ONION)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
>> To Libertarians and their defenders:<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> Some questions to ask our quaint little Teaparty friends<br>
>> <br>
>> The Teaparty folks never tire of calling for "smaller
government".<br>
>> How sweet. Most other Republicans repeat the same mantra
/ad<br>
>> nauseam/ as well, as do many liberals (not to be confused
with<br>
>> progressives). So for all these individuals I have some
questions:<br>
>> <br>
>> * When there's a plane crash the government sends
investigators to<br>
>> the crash site to try to determine the cause of the
accident; this<br>
>> is information that can be used to make air travel safer.
But it's<br>
>> really BIG GOVERNMENT, forcing the airlines to fully
cooperate,<br>
>> provide all relevant information, secrecy is not
permitted, and<br>
>> make changes or face severe penalties. Do you think the
government<br>
>> should stop doing this? * Following this year's BP oil
spill do you<br>
>> think the government was right to bully and threaten the
company<br>
>> for an explanation and solution for the catastrophe, or
should it<br>
>> have been "hands off" for the sake of small government? *
Following<br>
>> a major earthquake there's usually a cry from many
quarters: Stores<br>
>> should not be raising prices for basic necessities like
water,<br>
>> generators, batteries, tree-removal services, diapers,
etc. More<br>
>> grievances soon arise because landlords raise rents on
vacant<br>
>> apartments after many dwellings in the city have been
rendered<br>
>> uninhabitable. How dare they do that? people wail.
Following the<br>
>> 1994 earthquake in Los Angeles the California Assembly
proceeded to<br>
>> make it a crime for merchants to increase prices for
vital goods<br>
>> and services by more than ten percent after a natural
disaster.^11<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-11"><http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-11></a>
Following the<br>
>> destruction caused by Hurricane Isabel in September 2003,
the<br>
>> governor and attorney general of Virginia called on the
legislature<br>
>> to pass the state's first anti-price-gouging law after
receiving<br>
>> about 100 complaints from residents. North Carolina had
enacted an<br>
>> anti-gouging law just shortly before.^12<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-12"><http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-12></a>
Does such<br>
>> blatant big-government interference in our God-given<br>
>> Supply-and-Demand system bother you? Do you think that
our<br>
>> legislators should simply allow "the magic of the
marketplace" to<br>
>> do its magic? * Do you think that the government should
continue<br>
>> waging war against what they call "terrorists" abroad,
since<br>
>> there's no bigger or more expensive big-government action
than<br>
>> this? * Do you think the government should continue with
its<br>
>> electronic strip searches and body feel-ups at airports
or should<br>
>> we allow the risk of bombs being brought on board
airplanes? (Or —<br>
>> as an alternative to either — do you think the government
should<br>
>> cease its bombing, invading, occupying, overthrowing,
killing and<br>
>> torturing around the world so as to put an end to its
creating<br>
>> anti-American terrorists?) * If your bank fails — and
hundreds have<br>
>> done so in recent years — are you willing to accept the
loss of<br>
>> your life's savings? Or are you thankful that big, big
government<br>
>> steps in, takes over the bank, and protects every penny
of your<br>
>> savings? * Do you think that big government — federal,
state or<br>
>> local — should stop haranguing the citizenry about the
environment:<br>
>> recycling, air pollution, water pollution, soil runoff,
etc., etc.,<br>
>> or that people should simply be allowed to do what is
most<br>
>> convenient for them, their families, and their
businesses? * Do you<br>
>> think that manufacturers should have the right to run
their<br>
>> factories à la a sweatshop in a Bangkok alley 50 years
ago or that<br>
>> big government should throw its weight around to assure
modern<br>
>> working conditions, with worker health and safety
standards? * When<br>
>> a prescription drug starts to kill or harm more and more
people,<br>
>> who should decide when to pull it off the market: Big
Government or<br>
>> the drug's manufacturer? * Are you glad that food
packages list the<br>
>> details of ingredients and nutrition? Who do you think is<br>
>> responsible for that? * A huge number of Americans would
be facing<br>
>> serious hunger if not for their food stamps; more than 40
million<br>
>> receive them. Where do you think food stamps come from?
No, not<br>
>> from Sarah Palin. * And where, pray tell, do you think
unemployment<br>
>> insurance, housing subsidies, and Medicare come from?
(There were<br>
>> of course, lord help us, the Teaparty signs: "Keep your
government<br>
>> hands off my Medicare,"^13<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-13"><http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-13></a>
while<br>
>> simultaneously ridiculing Obama's push for "socialized
medicine".)<br>
>> Some of you would probably rather see widespread hunger,
poverty,<br>
>> homelessness, and illness in America than have people
dependent<br>
>> upon the BigGovernmentMonster. * Do you think that big
government<br>
>> is no match for the private sector in efficiently getting
large and<br>
>> important projects done? Big government in the United
States has<br>
>> created great dams, marvelous national parks, an
interstate highway<br>
>> system, the peace corps, social security, the National
Institutes<br>
>> of Health, and the Smithsonian Institution; it's also
landed men on<br>
>> the moon, wiped out polio, and built up an incredible
military<br>
>> machine (ignoring for the moment what it's used for), and
much<br>
>> more. * Do you know that twice in recent years the
federal<br>
>> government undertook major studies of many thousands of
federal<br>
>> jobs to determine whether they could be done more
efficiently by<br>
>> private contractors? On one occasion the federal
employees won more<br>
>> than 80% of the time; on the other occasion 91%. Both
studies took<br>
>> place under the Bush administration, which was hoping for
different<br>
>> results. ^14
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-14"><http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-14></a><br>
>> <br>
>> We have to remind the American people of what they once
knew but<br>
>> seem to have forgotten: that they don't want BIG
government, or<br>
>> SMALL government; they don't want MORE government, or
LESS<br>
>> government; they want government ON THEIR SIDE.<br>
>> <br>
>> I think the Teapartyers are motivated primarily by two
factors: 1)<br>
>> they don't have the intellectual competence or
ideological<br>
>> independence to place the blame for the sick economy
where it<br>
>> belongs: the recklessness and greed of Wall Street, the
banks, and<br>
>> other financial corporations; and so they blame the
president and<br>
>> his "socialist" policies; 2) the president is black.<br>
>> <br>
>> *Mark Brzezinski, son of Zbigniew, was a post-Cold War
Fulbright<br>
>> Scholar in Poland: "I asked my students to define
democracy.<br>
>> Expecting a discussion on individual liberties and
authentically<br>
>> elected institutions, I was surprised to hear my students
respond<br>
>> that to them, democracy means a government obligation to
maintain a<br>
>> certain standard of living and to provide health care,
education<br>
>> and housing for all. In other words, socialism." *^*15*<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-15"><http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html#note-15></a><br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html">http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html</a><br>
</span><br>
</body>
</html>