My only question is why are these people "SURPRISED"?
Why is anyone surprised that Barack Obama would renege on his campaign promises about "change"? Why are people surprised that Obama has decided NOT to repeal George Bush's tax cuts for the rich after promising that would be his first order of business upon being elected? [3] Why is anyone surprised that Obama has retracted his promise to remove our troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office? [4] The guy hasn't even been inaugurated yet, and he already looks at least as "presidential" as any other crook who ever held the office. The people in this country have heard more than 200-years of these lies.
So why is anyone still "SURPRISED"?
Every single election -- every four years (or however frequently people participate in this fiasco) -- everybody seems "SURPRISED" by the inevitable outcome. Candidate promises "change" -- candidate gets elected -- campaign promises are discarded -- nothing changes for the better -- so the electorate writes nasty editorials in his general direction for the next four to eight years.
What KIND of "change" are hungry "Americans" looking for?
"Gee, I'm tired of getting screwed-over. Seems like it's time for a CHANGE"?
This is about as far as most "Americans" get in the thought process with regard to "change". It comes somewhere between “Damn, the baby’s screaming again”, “Sorry I burnt the turkey, honey”, and “Get that thing away from me! I told you I have a head-ache!”
This is probably as far as anybody gets in this thought process, because most of us are forced to spend all of our waking hours either working or handling family problems (or usually both) under the structures of the current socioeconomic system. Along with "Monday Night Football" and "Debbie Does Dallas", these "life challenges" demand our attention and keep us distracted from thinking about political and socioeconomic issues that most deeply affect our lives.
While many Americans still seem afraid to admit it, I think the kind of change we need in this country would legally prohibit passive "ownership" from siphoning unearned income from the active participation of hard-working people in terms of both production and consumption. Unfortunately, we're probably still a couple light-years away from that kind of "change".
But a wise man told me a long time ago -- "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch". You take a risk, there's a chance you might fail. That's how the system works, right? With great risk comes potential for great reward and for dismal failure -- unless -- you're "too big to fail". How can anyone or anything be "too big to fail"? What's the measuring stick for this? What is the criteria for being "too big to fail"? Being born into the right family? If you're big enough to screw-over most of the homeowners in the United States, and throw them out in the street, does that suddenly make you "too big to fail"?
Where I come from there's another saying: "The bigger they are, the harder they fall". Repeatedly kick the bastards in the nuts as hard as you can -- until they "fail" to bully you any longer.
With his "Uncle Tom" theory, Ralph Nader is probably one of the few living "Americans" in this panty-waist country who is NOT "surprised" by Barack Obama's criminal cabinet appointments. [5] Noam Chomsky suggests it's no "surprise" that the nature of an election when it's run by the business world is to undermine democracy just as commercial advertising seeks to undermine the market. The goal of both is to create an uninformed public that makes irrational choices. [6] Susan Rosenthal provides some additional insight:
"No matter who is elected, the war will continue to take American and Iraqi lives. The economy will be continue to be floated at the expense of working people. The environment will continue to be destroyed for profit. And more Americans will lose access to health care. That's because most of the people who run this world are not elected: executives and bureaucrats, bosses and landlords, bankers and generals.
"Our hopes and dreams for a better life do not fit in their ballot boxes. McCain and Obama have (slightly) different views on how to run a capitalist system that can function only by running our lives into the ground. I want a completely different system, one that meets people's needs. That won't happen until we stop accepting what we don't want and organize and fight for what we do want." [7]
So what's the point?
The 2008 election did not usher in a new President of the United States. The recent election did not usher in any new policies. The same people are in power now as have been in power for the past 150-years or more, regardless of whose face we see on the TV screen or on the front page of the newspaper. We’ve still got the same “leadership” and the same dysfunctional "policies" we’ve always had -- and it's utterly ridiculous for anyone to be "SURPRISED" about the fact. The problem at hand and the solution at bay is to usher in a new system that prohibits the possibility of any form of centralized power and control.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
