I think Chris hedges has pretty much nailed it, in terms of the diagnosis.
However, Hedges is a Marxist and a card-carrying member of the cultural Left. His father was a Presbyterian minister, and he (the father) championed “inclusion” of homosexuals in his church, a cause Chris Hedges has adopted as his own. Hedges originally studied for the Presbyterian ministry, but withdrew from seminary, because his church wasn’t “radically left” enough to suit him. In other words, he is a liberal Protestant, which, in my book, is far worse than an honest atheist.
So, the best I can say about Hedges, is that he and I have a common enemy. However, if ever the corporatocracy collapses, USSR-style, he and I would be on opposite sides of the fence on nearly every other issue under the sun.
@Michael:, he and I would be on opposite sides of the fence on nearly every other issue under the sun.
Interesting. In my case, its almost the opposite. *EXCEPT* for his rather ridiculous ideas about Christianity (including his view of homosexuality), I find myself in agreement with pretty much everything else he says, at least judging by what I read by him. But then, my politics are much closer to the far left than to any other schools of thought, at least if by “politics” we talk about labor issues, economics, finance, etc. I don’t much care for the Left/Right reference system, but to the degree that it means anything I would say that I am on the “Left of Labor, Right of Values” as the French author Alain Soral wrote.
One of the more wryly amusing facets of the quadrennial clown show we call a presidential election is seeing a couple of politicians who can’t be told apart without a micrometer trying to insist that there are huge differences between them. Just as Obama campaigned as the Un-Bush and then gave us George W. Bush’s third term, if Romney gets in we’ll have Obama’s second term anyway.
@Robert: if Romney gets in we’ll have Obama’s second term anyway.
That is absolutely true. The fact is that the US policies (internal and external) are remarkably consistent and not at all affected by elections. It is rather amazing that anybody would still seriously believe otherwise.
I think one of the biggest disappointments about Obama as president is that so many thought he really was different; the combination of his minority race and his avowed liberal beliefs was compelling. He would likely say now, as many say for him, that he inherited a wrecked economy and he had to make deals to try and fix it. There might even be an element of truth in it, as he did propose a number of beneficial initiatives before it became clear that lockstep Republican obstructionism was going to make bipartisanship impossible. But the Obama that campaigned would have taken his case to the people rather than try to negotiate using the rules of the system. Whatever other truths come from this, there’s the fundamental; Obama was not the man he appeared to be.
Whether he is as bad a choice as Romney is debatable; I would say not. But if he is chosen instead, Americans are still not going to get what they wanted when they voted him in. They are faced with a choice of someone who might ruin America incrementally, or someone who will burn it out in a great supernova of greed and aggressiveness.
Nemeis: the saga continues. No military expert so can’t say whether this is plausible but I suspect it’s inevitable that China will become a military match for the Empire eventually
Of course if and when the US is defeated chances are that the new Chinese Empire would be every bit as ruthless and predatory as Uncle Sam. Meet the new boss same as the old boss
I think Chris hedges has pretty much nailed it, in terms of the diagnosis.
However, Hedges is a Marxist and a card-carrying member of the cultural Left. His father was a Presbyterian minister, and he (the father) championed “inclusion” of homosexuals in his church, a cause Chris Hedges has adopted as his own. Hedges originally studied for the Presbyterian ministry, but withdrew from seminary, because his church wasn’t “radically left” enough to suit him. In other words, he is a liberal Protestant, which, in my book, is far worse than an honest atheist.
So, the best I can say about Hedges, is that he and I have a common enemy. However, if ever the corporatocracy collapses, USSR-style, he and I would be on opposite sides of the fence on nearly every other issue under the sun.
@Michael:, he and I would be on opposite sides of the fence on nearly every other issue under the sun.
Interesting. In my case, its almost the opposite. *EXCEPT* for his rather ridiculous ideas about Christianity (including his view of homosexuality), I find myself in agreement with pretty much everything else he says, at least judging by what I read by him. But then, my politics are much closer to the far left than to any other schools of thought, at least if by “politics” we talk about labor issues, economics, finance, etc. I don’t much care for the Left/Right reference system, but to the degree that it means anything I would say that I am on the “Left of Labor, Right of Values” as the French author Alain Soral wrote.
One of the more wryly amusing facets of the quadrennial clown show we call a presidential election is seeing a couple of politicians who can’t be told apart without a micrometer trying to insist that there are huge differences between them. Just as Obama campaigned as the Un-Bush and then gave us George W. Bush’s third term, if Romney gets in we’ll have Obama’s second term anyway.
@Robert: if Romney gets in we’ll have Obama’s second term anyway.
That is absolutely true. The fact is that the US policies (internal and external) are remarkably consistent and not at all affected by elections. It is rather amazing that anybody would still seriously believe otherwise.
Cheers!
I think one of the biggest disappointments about Obama as president is that so many thought he really was different; the combination of his minority race and his avowed liberal beliefs was compelling. He would likely say now, as many say for him, that he inherited a wrecked economy and he had to make deals to try and fix it. There might even be an element of truth in it, as he did propose a number of beneficial initiatives before it became clear that lockstep Republican obstructionism was going to make bipartisanship impossible. But the Obama that campaigned would have taken his case to the people rather than try to negotiate using the rules of the system. Whatever other truths come from this, there’s the fundamental; Obama was not the man he appeared to be.
Whether he is as bad a choice as Romney is debatable; I would say not. But if he is chosen instead, Americans are still not going to get what they wanted when they voted him in. They are faced with a choice of someone who might ruin America incrementally, or someone who will burn it out in a great supernova of greed and aggressiveness.
Nemeis: the saga continues. No military expert so can’t say whether this is plausible but I suspect it’s inevitable that China will become a military match for the Empire eventually
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-it-could-happen-part-two-nemesis.html
Of course if and when the US is defeated chances are that the new Chinese Empire would be every bit as ruthless and predatory as Uncle Sam. Meet the new boss same as the old boss