"Everyone knew how Rumsfeld acts," another key 41 assistant said. "Everyone knew 43 didn't have an attention span. Everyone knew Condi [Rice] wouldn't be able to stand up to Cheney and Rumsfeld. We told them all of this, and we were told we don't know what we're doing."That any American still naively believes that politicians act out of conscience is frightening, but that they can be so utterly bamboozled by power-mad fiends with no conscience at all is even more frightening.
We've got to quit acting like children looking for a daddy or a mommy to make our world safe. Democrats, Republicans, independents, all politicians are corrupted by the electoral process, and owe their offices to focused special interests, not to the people who elected them. Politicians respond to the will of the people only when they fear the people. That's how power works.
And yet, despite the debacle we have entered thanks to arrogant power, we do not see people in the streets.
When I was in Leipzig, Germany, earlier this year, I spent some time in the Stasi Museum which documents the abuses of that internal security mechanism against the citizens of the state. The Stasi was perhaps the most efficient and widespread internal security operation in history. In October of 1989, however, the people got fed up. A paving stone in the town square commemorates the event when the people surrounded the secret service headquarters that now houses the museum and began chanting, "Stasi raus!" The Stasi officers barricaded themselves inside the building, genuinely fearing for their lives.
You know the rest of the story. On November 9, the Berlin Wall fell. Less than a year later, the East German regime ceased to exist.
The memorial, that paving stone, is simply the impressions of different pairs of feet. Feet on the street. That's how people take back their power.
17 comments:
One of the most fascinating features of all this that I have a hard time wrapping my head around is why they continue to stick with the same tired old rhetoric, and why yeah, more people aren't taking to the streets. But who am I to talk? I'm not out there marching on Washington. What are our marches these days? There's news, and blogs, and information aplenty, but the physical presence of citizens is lacking. I wonder what the voter turnouts will be this Novemeber? Sadly, liberals have a horrible track record of not voting. Is it possible that being irritated by the effects of the elctoral system that you mention in this recent post are a cause for this? Might be true. But then again, frustration with a sytem does not make it go away. I'm always an idealist. And I don't want to say that's a fault (then I wouldn't be an idealist), but I keep hoping that pressure from the "march" as it were, might take hold enough, and bring some truly decent individuals to Washington. It's very plain to see that Bushco is so fucked up as to be incomprehensible. It's going to take a hundred years to sort them out. They're stubbornness to retract their own lies is itself an amazing power. They do it with the might of a silverback. Even though the branch has broken, and they're sitting on their asses under the canopy, they bang their chests and pronounce that the ground is not the ground at all, but some great big branch, the same one they've always been perched on. And 'we the people' watch and continue to wait, and say over and over again, "just two more years." I feel like I've been saying that for an incredibly long time, and I don't know if that's because, out of wishful thinking, I was projecting myself into a futre when it really was two more years, or if time is just moving incredibly slow right now. Either way, I really hope these tree hugging dirt worshippers (MB of course not included) can put down their falafel long enough to go out and take over the House and Senate this November. Okay, even with the Dems in office, things may not change much, but at least it will give a glimmer of entertainment in what has otherwise become a postmodern circus of banal rhetoric, lips painted with the same shade of bullshit that's been piped through mainstream channels like the Girl From Ipanema in an elevator that neither goes up nor down. All right, fuck it. I'll march on Washington. Just see if I won't...
Put down their falafels? Isn't that Bill O'Reilly's favorite sex toy?
Anyway, I'm guilty too. I marched in 2002 and 2003 and 2004, and then the marches stopped and I stopped being publicly irate and started blogging in 2005. And perhaps everyone is just holding their breath, thinking that if the Dems take the House and Senate, then we'll totter back from the cliff edge that the Chimperor and his handlers are so desperate to push us over. But if they rig elections (and I think 13 states have no-paper-trail electroning voting machines from right-wing-owned companies) there sure as hell better be some uprising about it, like in the Ukraine.
And there's something really sad in that--that the former East Germany and the Ukraine are now examples we might admire for being where people asserted their authority over politicians.
olaf said: And speaking of Bush 41, he and his cabinet members now must bear the burden of the idiot son, Bush 43, completely fucking up the Middle East and generally weakening the United States in every arena.
so tell me olaf, are you really that fucking stupid, or just that blinded with your hate for bush?
yes, the middle east was nothing but parades and puppy dogs before the evil bush came along!! seriously, are you that stupid?!?!?
So, Mr./Ms. Anonymous, you think that things are better now? Israel vis-a-vis the Palestininans, is that situation improved since Bush and company disengaged upon assuming office? Do we have more or fewer enemies in the Middle East now? Do we have stronger or weaker relationships with our traditional allies now? Is Russia more or less authoritarian now? What were the trends in those areas prior to the Bush reign?
Who's fucking stupid? Fucking trolls like you who can't engage in rational discourse. Go back to your compound and polish your swastika, dipshit.
Ah the Ad Hominem. Such a delight...
anon #2,
first of all, how in God's name is the hamas election the fault of bush? because that is why the israel/palestinian issue is worse. please explain. and yes, we do have less enemies than before. the taliban regime is out of power. saddam is gone. iran and syria have always been enemies no matter who was in office. Russia being more authoritarian, please explain how this is bush's fault. and fuck you on your little rant. how from my first post you got that i am a neo-nazi is laughable. you sir/maddam are an even bigger fucking idiot than olaf.
Two question, not particularly related to the above comments or each other:
1. Are Americans not in the streets because things aren't bad enough--yet?
2. Whom do you expect to be lambasting after the 2008 US presidential election?
Who do I plan to be lambasting after the 2008 election? Why anyone with the desire to wield power. Jesus, does anybody read the heading of this blog?
Do you think I am going to be happy that Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House? She's another gangster in a well-tailored suit as far as I'm concerned.
Look, right now the lobbying firms all up and down K Street are hiring Democratic Party-connected lobbyists so they can continue to do business at YOUR expense in THEIR interest. Money goes through K Street to campaign coffers and comes back through K Street into whatever projects have the most power behind them. Oh, your district will get thrown a bone or two to keep you voting for your own Congressional representative even if you hate Congress, but please be well aware that even if the Dems cut back the waste in Iraq, they've got a shitload of their own pet projects that won't be in your interest either. Think you'll see 100% health care coverage for all Americans? Ha! Think that Medicare will be saved? Do you think that the Social Security's remaining surplus won't be raped to enrich well-connected capitalists? Will anyone start talking about poverty in this country and then actually do something about it? Will we ever have a sane, enforceable immigration policy that can't be politicized? And on and on.
Anon 1,
Bush disengaged from the Israel/Palestinian conflict, which effectively removed the only diplomatic force that had any chance of brokering a deal. Again my question--did that decision result in a better or worse situation?
In Russia, Bush said he saw into Putin's soul, and since then the Bush admin has led a hands-off policy with regard to Russia's attempts to control the Ukraine, brutally suppress Chechnyan uprising, and use their energy resources to blackmail Georgia and the Baltic states, all the while suppressing dissent at home. Again I ask--is this situation there better or worse in the last 6 years?
If you don't like being called names, then review your first post, where you did nothing BUT call names, offering absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. That's characteristic of totalitarian thinking. If the shoe fits, tie the laces before you trip on them.
And I stand by referring to you as "Dipshit."
anon 2,
bush disengaged AFTER the brilliant people of palestine elected hamas. look at their charter moron. they refuse to regognize israel's right to exist, and have vowed israel'e destruction! yes let's sit around the campfire with them and sing kumbaya. we HAVE tried since to get hamas to reconsider which they flatly refuse. abbas (of the fatah party) seems to seek peace, but with out the hamas backing, negotiation is futile. you really are a dolt aren't you? but i guess to answer your question, yes relations have gotten worse, but this was no fault of any american official.
with rgards to russia, yes, the situation is worse, russia has made some bad moves. but yet again HOW is this the fault of bushco? just because we talk or don't talk, does not mean that we have this great influence over every nation. to think so is naive.
i have no problems being called names, when it is justified. you made poor ASSUMPTIONS when you went on your little tirade. look back, i called olaf stupid, which i feel his post was indeed that. when you look at an issue from ONLY ONE SIDE, you open yourself up to harsh comments. your are entitled to your opinion that i am a "dipshit". fair enough. i still consider you a blithering idiot, who refuses to look at the big picture and look for root causes of the problems. it's easy just to balme bush for EVERYTHING.
Well, all I can say is..."two more years..." Sigh...
The US is the world's current only superpower, and Bush is its chief executive. We insinuate our power in every corner of the globe and therefore assume responsibility for our influence there. Bush, contrary to your assertion, disengaged from the Israeli-Palestinian issue the day he assumed office. You can look it up.
Russia, as you may not remember, once formed the core of the greatest threat this country every faced in its history, and we should not be idly standing by as Putin does everything in his power to reconstitute that threat. Don't forget that Russia still possesses the means and the will to deliver catastrophic destruction to us far in excess of Al Qaeda's most demented fantasies. For Bush to have declared that Putin was a good guy because he's seen into Putin's soul was tantamount to saying, "You wanna be the new Stalin? Go for it, Dude!" If you fear the terrorists more than you feel a well-armed nation-state with designs on retaking its place on the world stage, then Bush is your guy, because he is simultaneously weakening us as an economic, diplomatic and military power while Putin arranges the chessboard in his favor while we're so terribly distracted.
I'm sorry, I can't resist...
Anon said: "i have no problems being called names, when it is justified. you made poor ASSUMPTIONS when you went on your little tirade. look back, i called olaf stupid, which i feel his post was indeed that."
Whether you feel it's justified or not, calling someone stupid is not an argument. Moreover, I happen to know that Olaf is NOT stupid at all. He's actually quite intelligent, both in terms of the various academic degrees conferred upon him, and in terms of real world/practical intelligence. Since I don't know anything about Anonymous 1 or 2, I cannot speak for their intelligence(s).
What I WILL say is this: When Bush announced in front of the Flying Spaghetti Monter and everyone that his little "war on terror" was a "CRUSADE," I don't think he helped our cause much, especially in the Middle East.
this is anon 1,
olaf may not be stupid, but his remark saying that bush (43) has made a mess in the middle east implies that it was just fine prior to his admin. taking over, which it clearly wasn't. that statement was not exactly too bright in my opinion. the middle east has been a mess for decades if not centuries. listen, i know bush has made several blunders, but the argument that everything is bush's fault just for the sake of bashing him is one sided, and therefore not real intelligent.
Logical fallacy cop chiming in here. Um, saying that Bush has really made a mess of the Middle East, does not imply it was perfectly fine before. Wee bit of a slippery slope there. And it's not Bush bashing "just for the sake" thereof. There are legitimate concerns here. Serious ones. Implying that is all that is happening here is a logical fallcy known as a strawman. i.e. misrepresenting someone else's arguments, claims, and methods. It is also an oversimplification of the rhetorical strategies being employed. Yes, there is a certain audience in this dialog that commiserates with the message being spoken. The rhetorical strategy of using frustration and sarcasm in what is oftentimes a humorous way has a specific function. I believe that function is to 1) dig up dirt and get it out there to those who are similarly interested and concernec, reveal stories from credible sources that are blurred or ignored in mainstream media and 2) to make subjective connections. Olaf's connections are always insightful in some way, illuminating, funny, and certainly open to debate. And as MB hints, the guy has been around the block a few times. He might know some things. He might even be a crafty old bastard. I believe he employs his particular brand of rhetoric to this debate to emphasize the frustration many voices feel right now. This frustration is far too ubiquitous in this country and abroad to not contain some validity. That validity, through certain rhetorical devices, is present in these posts. And yes, if someone stumbles onto this sort of thing who is a Bush fan (there are still a couple out there, I think), they will likely have an emotional response. That is healthy to the nation, if not the individual.
oh strawman, like anon 2 calling anon 1 a neo-nazi based on???? i guess it is not a two way street is it? this blog is comical. and great as long as you agree with the author. i don't see any genuine debate going on here at all.
If I can intercede here, I'd like to point out that Anon1's initial post, his first words in fact, after quoting me, were "so tell me olaf, are you really that fucking stupid, or just that blinded with your hate for bush?"
So who initially decided to go ad hominem here, eh?
So now Anon1 whines that Anon2 called him a new-nazi...well, actually it was that he should go polish his swastika. You could argue that just because someone polishes a swastika doesn't mean they believe what it represents, or perhaps the writer used "polish your swastika" as a variation of "choke your chicken" or "flog your dolphin" or "pull your pud," any other onanistic act of self-indulgence, the target of which is simply pleasure.
Lighten up, man.
Post a Comment