Beyond Brand Obama
Nothing against Barak Obama, but we'd be mistaken to consider his politics a complete break from the past, a renaissance in participatory government, or the realization of an Internet-enabled "open source" democracy. He's pretty damn good, don't get me wrong, and he may just represent the closest thing yet to a GenX, post-boomer, anti-sentimental and a-mythic candidate for president. But there are a few ways in which his candidacy also reinforces some of the branded, celebrity-based, and charismatic techniques of traditional politics. To make the most of his candidacy and, hopefully, his presidency, we'll have to distinguish one from the other.
When Obama was first emerging into national awareness, he showed both promise and predictability. I watched his speech to the Democratic Convention in 2004, and saw pretty much what the Democratic party wanted me to see: a hopeful young politician who appealed to people beyond their classic demographic divisions. He spoke of a "one America" beyond blue-state/red-state classifications. Like Mario Cuomo's convention keynote speech of a decade earlier, he cast the Democratic Party as the party of higher ideals, greater compassion, and a more united people.
Obama's speech was also calculated, however, to neutralize the "hot-button" politics of the right. Karl Rove and other right-wing strategists had by then almost perfected the technique of micro-casting specific, emotionally charged messages to the people whom they wanted to hear them. Their direct mail experts sent letters to fundamentalists explaining that John Kerry wanted to make the Bible illegal. They sent others to southerners who owned pickups threatening the banning of the Confederate flag. This inspired many of them to hold protests side-by-side with white supremacists and Nazis.
If the Republican party would be the party of divisions, the Democrats would - at least officially - be the party of unification. The less factions saw themselves as special interests in competition with one another, the less those emotionally charged, hot-button issues could be made to work. The Democratic party would be about transcending division, while the Republicans could keep fighting in the gutter. Problem was, at least in '04, most of America was still angry and desperate enough to choose division and self-interest over any other possibility.
The primary season pitted unifiers against factionalists again - so far, with different results. While Huckabee ran for the religious right and Romney ran for the wealthy conservatives, McCain ran as a guy with ideas he thinks are good for the country. Although not explicitly a unifier, he's not particularly tied to any of the special interests that make for good hot-button politics. That's why the conservatives hate him: he's not strong enough on abortion or gun control or Jesus for them to make convincing and polarizing arguments over these issues. In if they're not sufficiently activated, the crazies may just stay home.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, ran a similarly divisive campaign against Obama. It's probably why the two of them ended up surviving the longest: she best represented the politics of splinter demographics, while he best represented the ethos of united-we-stand. While Clinton broke down the party into Hispanics, whites-who-really-work, and even caucus vs. primary states, Obama sought to address everyone at once. Clinton most effectively thwarted Obama by recasting the electorate as a set of separate tribes with mutually exclusive goals.
Her argument for maintaining this stance was that the real world is a combative and terrible place. In a dog-eat-dog world, only a mean dog can lead. This is why she ended up selling herself as a "fighter." She would fight against Obama and the Republicans, and thus prove her ability to fight against the bad guys out there in the Arab countries or even Europe.
That Obama represents an alternative to this divisive, target-marketed pandering is certainly a step in a great direction. That the American electorate is capable of seriously considering him as a viable candidate and leader is a leap in the same one. Both McCain and Clinton pose "you're either with us or against us" dualities. McCain does it because he's promoting a neoconservative ideology dependent on simple black and white dichotomies. Clinton did it in a cynical effort to pander to the people she believes are stupid and angry enough to respond to divisive, faux-populist rhetoric.
Obama alone (well, actually he, Kucinich, and Biden) presents a more complex understanding of the challenges facing America. It's a "GenX" sensibility, really, that depends less on emotionality and choosing sides than on a post-ideological clarity, and an ability to embrace seeming paradoxes. One can disagree with certain things Reverend Wright says while still embracing his message and influence. To the post-boomer audience, this is not weakness but strength. The alternative, as outlined by right-wing extremists such as Sean Hannity, is that candidate Obama Hussein secretly agrees with Wright, Farrakhan, and black militants which is why he cannot condemn the preacher. He hopes to turn over America to the Muslims. But if Obama were involved in such a secret agreement, then wouldn't he have just condemned Reverend Wright from the beginning?
In all these respects, Obama does offer a non-polarizing and inclusive alternative to traditional political engineering, and we must embrace the possibility that America is ready to engage with itself and the rest of the world in this way. True, it would make it more difficult for us to drop bombs on other countries because we might see them as real people. But it might also make it less necessary to drop bombs on them, or even to kill or starve them in other ways. This is all good.
Where the Obama effort has always disturbed me, however, is in how branded it all feels. From the beginning of his candidacy, I felt as if the Obama name and image represented a new way of doing things more than it exemplified it. My own sense of cynicism reached a peak when Oprah Winfrey began campaigning for him. I've watched her similarly enthused by fakers from Tom Cruise to the founders of The Secret. Oprah's "energy," if you will, is that of national branding. Oprah + (insert your product here) = MegaBrand. Using Oprah to push Obama feels a bit like using rock to push religion. But it's not fair to criticize Obama for letting a powerful media celebrity attempt to teach her followers why he'd be good for the country, is it? He needs to get elected, after all.
Then there's Obama's efforts to reach out to new audiences online. And for sure, Obama's Facebook/YouTube/website representation is far beyond anything Howard Dean and his folks did last time out. Where Dean's people inserted their stock candidate into an online fund-raising campaign, Obama's message and media are more organically related to one another. His message is about invigorating bottom-up, grass-roots, community organizing - and the Internet is that, if anything.
Still, a closer look at Obama's online effort reveals many opportunities for work, and few opportunities for what I consider to be intelligent participation. We can sign up to make phone calls, send emails, volunteer in the streets, or become precinct captains. But where's the participatory democracy wiki? Where do we get involved in the conversations that help shape his policy positions? How is he incorporating the massive intelligence of his support network into his philosophy of governance? BarackObama.com is a great example of crowd-sourcing, but it's a far cry from even a fledgling effort at open source democracy.
Then again, by the very design and scale of national politics, no presidential campaign could offer more than a wink and a nod to true participatory politics. Activism isn't something that happens on TV for a general viewing audience, but at home with real people who aren't watching the tube at all. While a president can provide some inspiration - Oprah-style, if need be - for a whole lot of people, the executive isn't the locus from which real change occurs. As president, Obama could enact policies that make activism easier to accomplish, jobs easier to create, and corporations more easy to resist - but this activity itself would have to come from us.
Brands were invented primarily to replace local commerce and social activity with mass produced goods and corporate-provided services. Brand mythologies alienate people from one another and insert themselves in the place of real relationships. Instead of buying meat, corn, drugs, or soap from local producers, we buy them from A&P, Green Giant, Wal-Mart or P&G. These national brands have great mythologies, but serve to disconnect us from one another, and distribute power to those with capital and away from people who actually do work.
The danger in Brand Obama is that our focus on a heroic or mythic presidency could easily distract us from the hard work and reality of creating change ourselves. "Hard working" democrats loved listening to Hilary Clinton talk about how hard she was going to work for them because it made it seem like the president is in position to stay up all night and, through the extra effort, get food on our tables or money in our bank accounts. It just doesn't work that way, and Obama's refusal to, say, cut gas taxes over the summer to cater to this mentality speaks volumes.
The best thing about Obama is what appears to so many people to be his hesitancy. For many, it tarnishes his brand. As I see it, this is not lack of resolve at all but his greatest strength. He stutters and stumbles - but usually because he's trying to answer a question in a way that doesn't make himself out to be the answer to an abstract and collective problem. He understands that the presidency is itself a social construction, and that agreeing to "play" president is a mutual agreement - not a genuine ascendance. TV's West Wing may have done more damage to the Left than we know. It gave us undeserved solace during the darkest Right wing presidency in history, and created false hope of how much the White House could accomplish with the right leader in the Oval Office.
Those of us hoping to build communities, improve our schools, invigorate our local economies, restructure our land use, or reduce our energy dependence mustn't equate a presidential campaign with substantive change. Obama may be a convenient conceptual placeholder for these concerns, as well as a person capable of dismantling a good amount of America's more fascistic and militaristic infrastructure. But the only way he'll even have the latitude to behave in a slightly more enlightened manner than his predecessors will be if we, the actual people on the ground, have chosen to live more consistently with those goals. If he's president of a nation of fast-food-eating, bigoted, and selfish SUV drivers, he'll prove as powerless as Cheney was malicious. And the results will be the same.
Obama can help legislate some of the structural changes that will make it easier for us to renegotiate our civic, social, and commercial relationships with one another. But the job of actually changing society and its priorities will happen from the bottom up. He can help write laws that make it easier for us to build transportation alternatives, but we have to actually go do it. That's how representative democracy works; they represent our interests, but we do the actual stuff.
Yes, I'll be voting for Obama and, assuming enough votes are counted, will be happy to see him as our next president. But I'll also remember that this will only mark the beginning, not the conclusion, of my participation in the democratic process.
This article originally appeared on Rushkoff.com.
Image by MotherPie, used courtesy of a Creative Commons license.
Tweet
- 6-11-08
- Douglas Rushkoff's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Doubt
I’m not sure America, as it was originally conceived, still exists; therefore I don’t think you actually have a say in who gets to lead – as a business the rules are non negotiable – especially as it’s feeding time for those already bloated after decades of self-serving. Yes of course, you’ll be offered all kinds of conciliatory tit bits but the decision has already been hit upon.
I don’t mean to sound negative (or even superior – we’ve lost control in the UK also y’know), but American culture is steeped in all kinds of divisive fairy tales – from the ‘persecution’ of the pilgrim fathers (good riddance to miserable pious gits) to the ‘Muslim’ problem (a fiction very convenient for imperialism – we’ve been there before), and this is another in a long line.
Personally, if I believed in any of our establishment constructs any more, I think it would be great for America to have Obama in (at least we wouldn’t have to look at the clown show that is Bush anymore, notwithstanding the fact that he is only the court jester sent to perform and divert eyes from the crime), but I’d be surprised if it happened. Don’t get me wrong, I think he’ll be chosen by the people but somehow denied.
Well anyway, I’m not the most qualified person to comment – I just wish more of us would wake up and reject the manipulations. I love Reality Sandwich because of the fresh insight it always grants on a variety of important, and very pertinent, issues and the community that assembles here – this is the future of America and it is bright. You have so much to celebrate and so much talent.
None of the old ways work
Look back further
With regards to fellow
With regards to fellow journeyers
I have to admit, I agree with somantics. Also not trying to be negative, but it seems that "america" as it stands is generally beyond saving without some sort of social breakdown. I think between the materialism plaguing the population and our need to do anything to feed the habit, we are beyond "the point of no return". No one man is going to be able to change that, especially not by being placed in a system thats already broken. It's impossible to relate all the problems in the world to one single issue, I think America is the driving force behind it (or at the very least played a huge part in it). We created a game where you either join or are left in the dust, and the rest of the world was forced to play. At the point we're at, I believe the only way any change is going to come about is after a total breakdown in society as we know it. Due to our selfish-greed, we've treated this planet as if we were crack addicts, only our drug of choice is resources. Over the years of robbing our planet of everything it calls it's own it's starting to fight back and people can't seem to get a grip on it. A total breakdown is nothing short of inevitable. But who knows? Anything's possible, I could be completely wrong and Obama could change everything. Only time will tell"total breakdown in society"
hi pshults,
i think you need to stretch your thinking a bit further toward what might be possible. The concept of a "total breakdown" is a bit simplistic, as well as creating fear and paralysis that interrupts any effort to prepare for what could be ahead. Even if the traditional institutional forms start to collapse, this will not be a "total breakdown," as some institutions will survive and new forms will also be created to fill the gap. This is what happens when Empires collapse, whether Rome or the Soviet Union. Of course, I don't know that the US will topple in the same way, but there are some compelling indicators that suggest this is possible.
In the time that we have now, it would be great to create that alternative communal infrastructure that could help people if some level of social breakdown does become a reality. It would be great to have some visceral connection to locally grown food and water, and for more people to begin to grow their own food, and access alternative energy that is not linked to the grid. Indigenous people are great models of sustainable life-ways that outlive the hypertrophied growth and sudden collapse of Empires. Communities have a much better chance of survival than individuals.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
Business-as-Usual
" It does not matter who you vote for, the government still gets in."
Brand Obama is a good way to put it because thats what he is, a brand. Anyone who thinks that he is going to change things one bit is basically very naive. What will Obama do to change things if he gets in? Absolutely nothing. People who believe the hype are going to be very disappointed when their hero turns out to be just another...gasp, politician!. Right now he is the perfect marketing ploy. After 8 years of 'goosestepping' on capitol hill we are now offered a saviour. A kinder gentler machine-gun hand if you will. It keeps people from realizing that there is no difference between republican and democrat. Its just like the Muppets. You see Grover or Ernie, but in fact its the same people pulling all the strings. Politics just another branch of the entertainment industry. The 'president' is just the talking head you see. The real power lies elsewhere. Believe in the political system if you want to. I dont. Remember after Papa Bush we got Clinton Mk1., another supposed saviour. After Bush Mk2 we get Obama. It will be interesting to see how he deflects the whole Larry Sinclair, gay sex and crack smoking thing, the first of I'd say many skeletons to come tumbling out of the closet. It will be a good first test of St. Barak's teflon coating if nothing else.
"It is necessary that the prince should know how to color his nature well, and how to be a hypocrite and dissembler. For men are so simple, and yield so much to immediate necessity, that the deceiver will never lack dupes."-- Machiavelli - "The Prince" (1513)
check out Obama's first book
When I read your comment and others with a similar tone, I feel that the aggressive tone of hopelessness is also something that has been constructed for you by the culture of mediation, leading to an omnipresent sense of disempowerment. In actual fact, people are very powerful, and "politics" is never going to disappear, even if this particular political system collapses.
You might want to check out Obama's first book before you utterly write him off. The sense I get is that he understands much about the situation and is doing his best to help.
In the same way that it creates a great environmental impact if Walmart introduces some organic products, it would be very powerful if the US President began to tilt the military empire machinery in a different direction.
I think that Obama has been a great poker player so far. I think that "Yes We Can" is a brilliant slogan - what he is pointing out is that he can't do anything but what the grassroots movement behind him empowers him to be able to do. As I said in a previous piece, whatever happens, it will be very instructive and important, and I think we owe him respect for putting himself in a position where martyrdom is a distinctly real possibility.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
I love Obama, no kidding...
Its a shame he got into politics when he actually could have amounted to something. (Still not kidding)
The position of president of the United States of America is an odd one in as much as it grants the ability to screw many things up entirely, but not much in the way of opportunity to actually DO anything of any real consequence. If more people read the job description they would realize this, its really true, absolutely NOT kidding about this! So the best we can hope for from Obama is that he really won't screw things up much more. I have some amount of faith that he won't. I'm not sure though that he couldn't have done something more for humanity if he hadn't gotten bogged down in the circus sideshow of political aspiration, maybe they'll just let him work part time and he can do great things anyway...
It is not the individuals, but the positions and institutions.
Nothing will change as long as "The Presidency" exists as it does. Obama will offer minor reforms, a small band-aid to a gangrenous sore, and nothing else.
This 'Change' theme is farcical, juvenile, and ridiculous.
Nothing will change in the United States or any other state, until their autocratic, authoritarian, and oppressive institutions crumble under the will of the masses. Otherwise, we are all doing just as Naugahyde says, watching the theatrical (and cynical) entertainment program that is world and state governance.
We have no choice, but those choices we are are forced to make.
The system must be crushed.
I'm glad I read this just
There's a third choice for President: Cynthia McKinney
www.runcynthiarun.org/
McKinney's press release about Obama
(Excerpt)
I hope it is clear that the desire for change is so deeply felt because it is deeply needed. Politics, through public policy, can address all these issues and more in the favor of the people. We do not have to accept or tolerate such glaring disparities in our society. We do not have to accept or tolerate bloated Pentagon spending, unfair tax cuts, attacks on our civil liberties, and on workers' rights to unionize. We don't have to accept or tolerate our children dropping out of high school, college education unreachable because tuition is so high, or our country steeped in debt.
The 21st Century statistics for our country reflect a country that can still be characterized as Dr. King did so many years ago: the greatest purveyor of violence on the planet.
It doesn't have to be that way. And the people know it.
* creating a Department of Peace that would put forward projects for peace all over the world, deploying our diplomats to help resolve conflicts through peaceful means and overseeing the orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from the more than 100 countries around the world where they are stationed, and an immediate end to all wars and occupations by U.S. forces, beginning in Iraq and Afghanistan, and slashing the budget for the Pentagon.
McKinney
I LOVE Cynthia McKinney.
Why haven't people caught on to her?
Oh thats right, because of the media blacklist ordeal (she merely questioned 9-11 and was essentially shamed out of Congress)
She doesn't back down. She schooled Rummy back in the day, face to face, for about 20 minutes.
Considering the gender and race dynamics of this race, her voice will HAVE to be heard, and Obama will HAVE to recognize it, and it likely either drive him farther right or left, and I think that the chess move he makes there really will tell us a lot about this reincarnated holographically projected pharoah will
Also the idea that he's just a Zionist puppet is pretty clear because of the media's LOVE of him, combined with his recents statements on Isra-El (the name literally meaning ascension to the god/Saturn for those in the Judeo-Christian faith) as Jordan Maxwell would break it down)...
Point being, maybe all these cats are getting ready to bounce out from this main point on the energy grid in 2012, but the event that needs to happen FIRST ....
Uniting Fundamentalist Islam and Fundamentalist Christianity, the strains of this mutation of the parasite virus of modern religion that's leeching the world's resources and draining the peoples' blood.
Which gets me back to Obama --- CJ had great analysis on his name, and he may be, as David Wilcock recently exclaimed, reflective of the 4th density consciousness rolling into this reality. But he also would be key in uniting these two strands, the red and white horses so to speak.
Who knows, maybe there will be lots of ascencions/raptures/abductions happening simultaneously.
And maybe, MAYBE we will have a Golden age if everyone who thinks they're going to be "raptured" (in my opinion abducted into some crazy controlled dimensions...)
Either way, I want a Black Woman to be president when shit hits fan and it's time to FINALLY create and build without resistance. No doubt about it.
At the very least, she will help this consciousness along by being in the race and the public mind.
Comparing Brand Obama to Cynthia McKinney
The Organizer Newspaper, March 14, 2008
Straight to the Source
1) Want REAL Change? Support Cynthia McKinney's Power to the People Presidential Campaign!
* * * (more at source)
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_10919.cfm
The Media
I marvel that articles like this are still being published in alternative media. Rushkoff suggests that we are actually being offered a slight alternative to our present governmental system. The proverbial elephant in the room, however, is being ignored: lobbyists and corporations.
Sadly, on the day that Obama was officially selected as this country's Democratic nominee, he stood on front of America's most powerful lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), whipped out the war bravado, and blessed the state of Israel...with barely a nod to the Palestinians. As Chris Hedges recently wrote, "Obama’s stance is the moral equivalent of assuring the Johannesburg government during the apartheid era that one would support their repressive efforts to punish the restive blacks in the townships."
Obama is bought, just like Clinton and McCain. (I marvel over how this article makes some distinctions between Clinton and McCain, as if they were so different from one another). Many knew that Obama was on the gravy train all along, but others were shocked to see Obama make a spectacle of it. Obama's speech to AIPAC, which was also riddled with threats to Iran, was his way of declaring his loyalty to America's most powerful lobby, with the underlying message that an individual cannot get elected in this country without paying loyalty to them. It's called being bought...
Bought by a lobby that supports some pretty controversial plans of action; a lobby that many Americans, if they were properly informed, would most likely oppose.
Kucinich didn't stand a chance. I ask you why? And I'm glad someone brought up Cynthia McKinney...
On a related note, I greatly appreciate Somantic's comment above, where he writes "American culture is steeped in all kinds of divisive fairy tales – from the ‘persecution’ of the pilgrim fathers (good riddance to miserable pious gits) to the ‘Muslim’ problem (a fiction very convenient for imperialism – we’ve been there before)…"
Ah, the Muslim problem indeed...A group so thoroughly demonized in the media that a man cannot board a plane with Arabic script on his t-shirt, and a famous Chef/tv personality can't appear in a Dunkin Donuts commercial with a scarf that looks Arabic. The Media is a plague. And make no mistake, it is a tool used by lobbyists, corporations and their shills (i.e. McCain, Clinton, Obama). Media is the Great Brainwasher. But I'm sure most of you know this; perhaps that's why you're visiting a website like this and not CNN or the New York Times. So I won't go on. I will, however, leave you with one last note...
When Rushkoff, in writing about Hillary Clinton, states "She would fight against Obama and the Republicans, and thus prove her ability to fight against the bad guys out there in the Arab countries or even Europe" I become very concerned. Rushkoff may have been writing in jest or with some sarcasm, but it is lines like this that bolster media brainwashing tactics.
Rushkoff, as someone who is apparently well-versed in matters related to the media machine, should be more careful. If he was writing in jest, he should have taken as much care with that line as he did with this one about Oprah: "I've watched her similarly enthused by fakers from Tom Cruise to the founders of The Secret. Oprah's "energy," if you will, is that of national branding." In that sentence, Rushkoff certainly was very careful to relinquish any possibility that he subscribes to "energy" as something other than literal branding (as opposed to the way that "energy" is often spoken of on this website - i.e. as an ephemeral or spiritual force). Rushkoff, as someone who wants to keep a veneer of intellectualism propped up, makes sure to put "energy" in quotes followed by the words "if you will".
So I ask you - if he didn't agree with FOX or CNN about the "bad guys out there in the Arab countries" couldn't he have taken the same care as he did with his "energy" line? For example, he could have written: "She would fight against Obama and the Republicans, and thus prove her ability to fight against the "bad guys" out there in the Arab countries, or even Europe". But Rushkoff didn't.
So I ask you - was this lack of care, or does Rushkoff agree and contribute to (however subtly) the mass media brainwashing machine? Are you, as readers, soaking up just a little more brainwashing when you read lines like that? Do you take care to see how an author might toss in lines like that to bolster a larger agenda?
More about Obama, AIPAC, Palestine, and Iran, etc: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080608_the_iran_trap/erstate
very interesting comments
Hi Veronica,
Very interesting comments. I hope Rushkoff will reply to your precise, mediacological parsing of his word and quote choices.
I have noticed with several of my writer friends that they write as if they are shaping their work not just for themselves but for some larger constituency that they feel their work extends out to encompass. It is as if their work is a compromise between their personal view and what they feel can be said, judiciously, to connect with this projected audience which is presumably more "mainstream" and therefore conditioned by mass culture rhetoric and assumptions.
At the same time, I think that everyone does this to some degree or other. I recently read some interesting books by Ernst Laclau applying Lacanian deconstructive thought to politics. Laclau argues that "populism" is always based around an empty space, a cypher, which is a space of projection. Obama clearly does this - carefully leaving most of his positions undefined, so that populist energy can be magnetized to the vagueness of his pronouncements.
I don't feel a great need to defend Obama, and I agree the political system is a hornet's nest. But I do think we could see nonjudgmentally that, having chosen to enter that realm, Obama is taking the absolute necessary steps, such as placating the Israel lobby, that are required for his own political and perhaps personal survival. I would still see tht Obama is seeking to be a positive agent of transformation - and yes, how he reacts to McKinney would be interesting, but once again, in order to preserve the mainstream credibility necessary to win the presidency, he is probably going to completely ignore her.
I suppose one compromise tends to automatically lead to the next, bigger compromise, until the "empty cipher" which is any individual has been changed beyond recognition. I return to Arendt's perspective that "politics" has to be revalorized as the negotiation of freedom between free individuals, and this does not require state authority to take place.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
Compromises
I have toyed around with this idea of hyper-conformity until you get to the point where you can create mass-scale positive change, but does one lose her/his-self in the process?
Politics still looks like Poly-Ticks or Politricks to me.
It's seems like a discourse vacuum most of the time.
Still, though---Rushkoff is bomb.
I highly recommend "The Persuaders" -- PBS-- google it.
-wanderlust
:-)
Obama=Tiger
There's a synchromystic connection between Tiger Woods & Barack Obama methinks. Obama's building off the same type of hype that Tiger created a few years ago. They're both a bit shocking in that they're minorities (mixed-race even) that compete well on "old boys" turf. I could totally see Obama getting a sweet sponsorship deal with the political equivalent of Nike. Someone should stylize his mug, and slap it on some hats & sweatshirts with a snazzy logotype. You'd make millions. Good article, btw.
With relief, with humiliation, with terror, he understood that he too was a mere appearance, dreamt by another. - Jorge Luis Borges, The Circular Ruins
IE:
curious what you think about the visual synch of obama/pharoahs?
wanderlust
Wanderlust- Obama does
Wanderlust-
Obama does have a bit of Pharoah in his eyes, as does his wife. I've also seen expressions of fatigue & uncertainty in his face, though. He's most definitely a refreshing change from what we usually get. Hope he knows what he's getting into!
With relief, with humiliation, with terror, he understood that he too was a mere appearance, dreamt by another. - Jorge Luis Borges, The Circular Ruins
I agree
But we do gotta respect folks who are trying to change the system from within and do our part on the local level...obama can't do a damn thing in our communities...but hopefully he can help us by taming some of these fucking snakes.
wanderlust
More succintly, I liked the
More succintly, I liked the fact that this article reminded us that at best the electoral process can reflect the movement on the grassroots ie individuals combining their efforts and trying to affect the rest of the world or their own lives.
We need to do this regardless of whether or not Obama wins or loses, and that is where I could place any hope, but hope by itself is worthless, just like voting. If we remain passive consumers and don't start making the choices that we value and changing our lives and those around us we aren't going to change anything.
Elitism anyone?
I appreciate everyone that is involved with sharing their thoughts here.
I really appreciate the mentioning of the media and its key role in our social/political system.
The media is the key, the sword of Elitism. Thats the subject I would like to see more people discussing, for this is the reality that I have come to know. That the world is not run by governments but rich families whose power goes back through history. This is not just conspiracy theory here. There are deeper intentions at work by these powerful people.
If we give too much "energy" to the surface level political frenzy, with too much intellectual bickering; I feel we may be waisting our time. We need to become more familiar with their tactics...and make conscious choices. How do you maintain power... By creating an illusory opponent. That is the story of a two-party system.
Pay more attention to the whole and how it all connects than to the components... I mean the opponents...excuse me...I mean the puppets.
If your interested in Media Politics,
-Things worth researching:
Trilateralism
Free Time Rule
The election between JFK And Nixon, The role of TV and Politics
"When the power of LOVE overwhelms the love of power, the world will know peace" - Jimi Hendrix
political stances
Just in case anyone wanted a visual representation of the political stances of some of the candidates and former candidates running for President in 2008 check out:
http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
I had to write a little paper on it for Cultural Anthropology class.
I'm glad someone is talking about this
Erin
Yes, Obama is a brand, but...
Speaking as someone who has not voted for many years and generally considers conventional politics (and nation states) to be anachronisms, I still think we should remain open-minded about Obama.
To those who believe that society and the planet need radically different economic, political and spiritual paradigms, it's difficult to see another presidential election as even relevant. But, I think it is. Even if "The President of the United States" is mainly a symbolic title, it still has power. Even if the real work is going to be done by relatively unknown people at the local level, it still makes a difference who fills the archetypal role as "leader" --even as we hopefully transition to a place where hierarchical notions of leadership fade away or at least change drastically.
It's easy to make generalizations, like "they're all the same," "they all serve the same interests," etc. Even if this is basically true, there are other levels, beyond the exterior ones. Not everyone will believe this, but individuals, movements and groups all have certain energies around them. Even those who try to ignore politics will have to see the president's face on newspapers, magazines and online for the next four years. So if one of the candidates is even a little better, this can result in a more aesthetically and spiritually nurturing (or less oppressive) atmosphere for everyone else.
Of course, even if this is true, the question remains whether Obama is one of "them" -a member of the power elite, the military industrial complex or whatever you want to call them. I found the following blog interesting. It was posted by David Wilcock, a metaphysical researcher who has created some pretty out-there but fascinating material.
http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=390&It...
Brand Obama
BHO 1 9 1
The next puppet.....
"Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you." -George Carlin
One of the funnier workings of the Obama hype is the recent wave of New Age articles, where Obama is being put on a pedestal as a lightworker, sent down by some Archangel to "save this nation". Not much to say to that.
Nobody seems to realize that his politics are essentially the same as Bush's (or who control him), just in different words and appearances. Obviously he's a better actor. The power of hype and hypnotic slogans is quite apparent here. As an example for his Bush-iness, and once again showing his true colors, is this recent report:
"Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, announced Friday that he would support the bill passed by the House of Representatives rubber-stamping the Bush administration's illegal program of widespread electronic surveillance and wiretapping.The bill passed the House Friday and the Senate is expected to follow suit before the Fourth of July holiday. The Democratic-controlled Congress will thus mark Independence Day with a major attack on the democratic rights of the American people, justified, as so many other crimes of the past seven years, in the name of the struggle against "terrorism".- from www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/obam-j23.shtml
Indian philosopher Jidduh Krishnamurti said it well, over forty years ago, in regards to politicians, voting and belief systems. Paraphrased from a talk he gave:
"It is like you are in a prison cell and all you do is re-arrange the furniture, maybe put up a new tapestry, but essentially you are still in prison, though for the moment it may seem new and fresh, but you are still behind walls. How about breaking out of the prison and seeing what's up on the mountain, behind that forest, down that lake…….?"
People just keep re-decorating their prison cell based on illusionary security their government promises them. But let's not get caught up in a political debate. The roots of the problem are deeper than choosing a puppet on election day. We all KNOW that, but as good ol' George Carlin said:
"If honesty were suddenly be introduced into American Life, the whole system would collapse! No one would know what to do. Honesty would fuck this country up."
Very true words. If people would realize that they have been living a lie for the majority of their lives, they wouldn't know what to do. They rather deny it than face it. It's like a psychological unconscious defense mechanisms to avoid truth.
Obama supports terrorist nation Israel.He doesn't question 9/11 and he sees Al Qaida as a REAL threatHe full on supports this phony war on terror.
ANY politician who supports these issues I cannot take serious, nor am I willing to project any "hopes" based on wishful thinking.This is not being negative on my part, just common sense when looking at the world more objectively and the issues we're dealing with.
We can all intellectualize or romantisize Obama and the political system.....but in the end I just see what he supports, what he says and how he acts behind his slogans of "we can, hope and change"......and so far it isn't any different than any other candidate in his position. Sure on the surface he "seems" different but surface/image/superficiality is always something America had valued more than depth and integrity.
He's just better looking, with better charisma and a better actor...he's black too, so people buy into that as well.....but in the end he's a wolf in sheep clothing.
This article puts it well:
As the author writes in the article below:
We don't need hope based on wishful thinking.
We need hope based on cold, hard facts and cold, clear-eyed realism.
We need hope based on an understanding of how this system actually works and how political power is actually exercised.
Of Whales and Worms: The 2008 ElectionsDennis LooCounterPunchMon, 16 Jun 2008 21:42 EDT
Many people regard Obama's upcoming nomination for president as a sign that change is underway and that the nightmare of Bush and Cheney will be over beginning in late January 2009. New York Times columnist Frank Rich, for example, sees Obama's emergence as a changing of the guard. Others have cited Obama's campaign as indicative of millennials beginning to take the political stage. Millions are pleased that finally an African-American is going to be nominated by one of the two major parties and see this as in and of itself a step forward.
For the well-meaning people who are feeling this way, I have this question: How can the same Democratic Party, and the same specific individuals, who have co-operated in, permitted and/or legalized the Bush regime's atrocities - including torture and war crimes - now tell us that the candidate that they endorse is the solution to the horrid things that this system and these individuals have themselves facilitated and colluded in?
This is like the offspring of the Alien mother in the movie Alien coming out not hellishly grotesque looking and drenched in saliva but instead a fuzzy Beagle puppy.
This is like George W. Bush delivering a poetic and surpassingly beautiful two-hour speech extemporaneously.
This is like a worm giving birth to a full-grown whale.
If Obama really was a solution, why has a White House in open defiance of the law been allowed to go on for eight years unsupervised, unrestricted and unsanctioned?
vIf Obama really was a solution, then why have we been told to wait while more than a million Iraqis and tens of thousands of Americans are tragically dead (thousands of Americans killed in action plus eighteen per day committing suicide) in a war based on lies, with no penalty for the perpetrators of these war crimes whatsoever?
If Obama or McCain really were a solution, then why have they personally stood by while innocent people have been tortured and habeas corpus was abrogated? Since when has morality and justice depended upon whether you have the votes to stop a horrid bill? That's what a filibuster is for. Had either Obama or McCain done anything to stop any of the White House's crimes for the last eight years, would there be a need for the change that Obama and McCain say we should vote for them to carry out?
If Obama really were a solution, then why should we expect him to have an awakening upon taking office if he's been slumbering, morally and legally, all of these years?
If Obama really were a solution, and did have such an awakening in the White House, why would the same system and same individuals who cooperated all these years with the monsters running our country let Obama do an about-face in the White House?
If elections really were a solution, then why hasn't the Democratic majority in Congress, ended the war, the torture, and the massive, warrantless surveillance over all of us and impeached the sorry excuses for human beings in the White House? Pelosi and Reid claim that they haven't had the votes to stop the war. Nancy and Harry: that's what your leadership posts are for. You don't need the votes. All you have to do is block the funding bills from coming out of committee. If you don't like the telecommunications amnesty bill or the spy-on-all-Americans bills, then all you have to do is keep the bills from coming up for a vote. You can kill these bills in the same way you've been killing the impeachment resolutions against Cheney and Bush. But then, Nancy and Harry already know this.
If elections really were a solution to these towering, world-historic crimes, how can it be so simple to fix these horrors as pushing a button and electing a new president and vice-president?
Why aren't real collective efforts and civil resistance by the American people needed in a time when both major parties and the mass media have betrayed the people, when lie after lie after lie pass without comment, the liars caught red-handed are excused, when unjust wars and unspeakable practices are routine, when reason and science themselves are under attack, and when the country is in more danger than the conditions that sparked the American revolution and when the fate of the planet hangs in the balance?
Many people think that because Obama is black that his nomination by one of the two major political parties means that something extraordinary has happened.
It is extraordinary that in a country with a long history of white supremacy that finally there will be a presidential nominee who is black.
But what's most extraordinary here isn't his coming nomination.
What's most extraordinary are the circumstances giving rise to his nomination.
The Rupture
The Bush regime has been spearheading an extraordinary rupture from the norm, de jure and de facto, much of it in the shadows, but increasingly in the open, and the majority of people of this country are deeply disturbed by it.
This is in spite of the fact that only a fraction of the people are aware of the magnitude of this rupture because the mass media and the Democratic Party have been actively minimizing and/or concealing this.
In addition, all too many Americans are "opting out" of taking responsibility for the barbaric acts being committed in our names because they themselves are anesthetized by their material comforts.
The rupture's dimensions, nonetheless, are so far-reaching that it is impossible for this country's leadership class to conceal entirely the jagged rips and tears going on.
The distress among the people has not been openly expressed enough - far from it - but the dismay, frustration and anger, even based on very partial and incomplete knowledge of what's going on, are evident just beneath the surface.
It has not only been apparent in the polls that show this presidency to be the most unpopular since polling began; it is also evident around the water cooler, on the neighborhood stoop, at the coffee shop, in the classroom and baseball park, everywhere you go, in people expressing worry, concern, desperation, grief, and among tens of millions, fury.
You especially hear it if you say something - or display something - that opens up the conversation to them and that shows people that you feel strongly about it.
Then it comes pouring out from folks.
They say: I feel the same way! I can't believe they're still in office. I can't believe they've been getting away with it all! What's wrong with America? What's wrong with all of us? What can I do?
Some say: I wish I could do something that would really matter.
Some say: I did something. I marched. I wrote letters. I voted. But it's still all going on.
Others, and sometimes the same people that said the preceding, also say: I can't do anything. It's too big. Why aren't other people doing something?
And some say, indeed, millions say: Maybe a new president will change things. Bush and Cheney will be gone soon. Hopefully, things will change.
We don't need hope based on wishful thinking.
We need hope based on cold, hard facts and cold, clear-eyed realism.
We need hope based on an understanding of how this system actually works and how political power is actually exercised.
People have to get over naïve ways of seeing the world.
Just because he's black, he's going to change things?
Just because he's smart and Bush is stupid? Just because he's hipper than Dick Cheney and flatfooted George Bush? Just because he can write books and Bush needs a coloring book entitled The Presidency for Dummies?
Is this - true though these things are - what ultimately, decisively, matters?
If you
think so, think again, because so much is at stake.The whole world is at stake.
It's at stake now and over the next several months, before the November 2008 election.
We're talking here about who's going to lead the sole remaining imperialist superpower. We're talking about the head of state of the most powerful country in a world in which the richest 451 individuals have more wealth than the bottom half - more than 3 billion people - of the world's population combined. We're talking about the president of an empire that spans the globe and that has over 700 military bases abroad. We're talking about the commander and chief of a country that spends more on its military than all of the other countries in the world combined. We're talking about an immense bureaucracy that rests upon and exists to protect and expand that empire. We're talking about a campaign for president that has lasted over fifteen months to date and that has required a quarter million dollars per day per candidate to be sustained.
Thinking Outside the Ballot Box.
Some people will allow what I have said in the preceding but then say: so you're saying we should elect McCain?
People have to get outside the suffocating confines of electoral politics and see that real political power isn't exercised based on it and public policy isn't made by their votes.
In 1964 the Democratic candidate, Lyndon Johnson, ran against the Republican nominee, Barry Goldwater. Johnson defeated Goldwater in a landslide, propelled in particular by the widespread belief that the GOP candidate was a warmonger and that the Democratic candidate would keep us out of war. That time, a mushroom cloud threat was also invoked, against the GOP candidate.
What did LBJ, the peace candidate, then proceed to do? Escalate inexorably the war in Vietnam, leading to the deaths of some 2,000,000 Indochinese and over 50,000 Americans. He did this even though, according to historians, he didn't even like the idea or believe that it would ultimately work. But he was hemmed in by the institutional forces around him and by what the military told him.
Why would today's "peace candidate" Obama be any different? Because he's black? Because he's smart?
Many people want to believe Obama when he says that he's against the Iraq war. They want to believe that voting for him will restore sanity in Washington. But people need to pay closer attention to what Obama is actually saying and to what he has done as a Senator.
Some people hope that in spite of words of Obama's that worry them, he's really a stealth candidate.
Obama's a stealth candidate all right, except that he's a stealth candidate for a wing of this country's leadership class. His political views are carefully crafted, canny, and consistent. Like John Kerry, Obama's differences with Bush and Cheney are over execution, not goals.
Obama claims, as did Kerry, that he can do a better job than the current White House of accomplishing the same ends and that what is wrong with Bush and Cheney isn't that they have been waging wars (of conquest and domination) but that they've been carrying them out poorly. "I'm not opposed to all wars," Obama said in October 2002 about the Iraq war, "What I am opposed to is a dumb war."
Obama took the same line on the Military Commissions Act. He should have characterized the very idea of legalizing torture as monstrous and the elimination of habeas corpus - a right that dates from the Magna Carta, almost 900 hundred years ago - as unthinkable and he should have blocked its passage by filibuster, a step that the New York Times called for: "If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it." Instead, Obama merely voted against it, allowing it to pass, and objected to the MCA in his remarks as "sloppy."
On July 27, 2004, while running for the Senate, Obama said about Iraq: "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." The Chicago Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation, a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."
While Obama has since this promised to draw down troops from Iraq, as one of Obama's former policy advisers, Samantha Power, said in April 2008, "Obama would weigh security conditions in Iraq in implementing a withdrawal. She told a BBC interviewer Obama 'will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or U.S. senator,' and he would take into account the advice of generals on the ground."
Not "rely on some plan he's crafted as a presidential candidate."
As the New York Times reported on May 16, 2008: "Mr. Obama has likened his foreign policy approach to that of the so-called pragmatists in the administration of the first President George Bush... 'I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush,' he said. 'I don't have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm.'"
Obama openly admires Ronald Reagan for bringing us together.
The "excesses of the 1960s and 1970s" included the civil rights movement, without which a black man, such as Barack Obama, wouldn't have had a chance to run for the US Senate and now have a chance to become the President. It included the women's movement, without which Hillary Clinton wouldn't have had a chance at the presidency. It included the anti-war movement, without which - and the other "excesses of the 1960s and 1970s" - this author would likely not have been able to imagine the idea that there is an alternative to this hellish nightmare and type these words.
Obama wants to restore "American power and influence" by which he means pursuing the Empire's interests, including waging unjust and illegal wars on other countries. As a very sharp and recent indication of this, right after securing the nomination he spoke to AIPAC and dramatically adopted the entirety of the fraudulent rationale being offered by the Bush gang for a war on Iran, telling them, in off-the-text remarks: "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything."
Obama opposes impeachment. On June 28, 2007 he said: "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the President's authority."
When Obama was asked about holding the Bush gang responsible for torture - certainly a "grave, grave breach" if there ever was one - on the very day that Bush finally admitted that he had approved waterboarding - i.e., torture - of a detainee, Obama said this:
"[O]ne of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances."
Thus, according to Obama, what's wrong with torture isn't that it's barbaric and against the law, and on top of which, as any intelligence officer and anyone who has survived torture will tell you, it doesn't work in getting you good information. What's wrong with torture, according to the man who wants to be our president, is that it's "dumb."
As I wrote in my blog: "What country has Obama been living in? What presidential actions has he been following? What is more grave a breach of authority than torturing people and making this policy? Launching an immoral, illegal, unjust war based on lies? Refusing Congressional subpoenas, issuing hundreds of signing statements that negate Congressional acts, spying on hundreds of millions of Americans without warrant and without cause? Savaging FEMA, undermining New Orleans' levee system by slashing funds for repairs, allowing private interests to destroy necessary marshlands that are natural protectors against storms, allowing a fabled and storied city to be ravaged by Hurricane Katrina and not coming to people's aid in a timely fashion, then lying about what you did and knew? Military threats based on lies against Iran? Censoring science, breaching the Church/State divide? What more do you need?"
Yesterday's GOP vs. Today's GOP
The choice the two major parties are offering us is between the proto-fascist GOP candidate or the GOP-lite, late 1980s, early 1990s, GOP president. The choice on the ballot says "Democrat" v. "Republican." But the choice is between present-day GOP v. latter-day GOP. This is what this system, left to itself, is giving us.
That's all this system, left to itself, is capable of giving us.
You can either go back to the old, old model - McCain, who is old in more than one way - or you can have the slightly less old model, in brand new packaging.
The whole question of Obama or McCain, Ron Paul or Obama/McCain or even Nader or Obama, misses the main point.
All too many people are wrapped up debating whether there are enough lifeboats on the Titanic while the Titanic hurtles towards an immense iceberg visible to the naked eye. One candidate/captain is offering us a few more lifeboats. That's the difference. Both candidates are, moreover, telling us that that iceberg is Iran and the ship is strong enough to slice into that iceberg, so we're headed straight for it.
The point isn't who gets elected. What happens in the next four to eight years isn't going to be principally determined by who is in the White House.
If there is anything else to come from the horrors that have come to characterize Washington, a mass movement among the people that is independent of the plans of both major parties and that drastically alters the overall political atmosphere must arise.
If the social and political atmosphere is changed, then who is in the White House actually doesn't matter very much. It would, in fact, be better to have a mass movement in the society and in the streets and a Republican in the White House than a Democrat in the White House and no mass movement. I'm not advocating that McCain be elected. I'm pointing out that what really matters here is whether or not there's a mass movement of the people, independent of electoral campaigns and electoral politics.
Some people say, well, then, the situation's hopeless because there aren't going to be millions doing that.
Well, why not?
IF a black man can get the Democratic Party nomination for president because he's skillful at parlaying the thirst of tens of millions for a "change" from that brought to us by the government,
IF there is enough of a groundswell of desire for something so different that the powers-that-be had to put forward and actively and intensively promote a black man this time for the first time in history in order to divert people's attention from the fact that Bush and Cheney are still in office and their policies are still being carried out and getting more extreme by the day,
IF they had to start the presidential race much earlier than ever in order to distract people from that fact,
IF there is that much dissatisfaction that even in the Party of the Plutocrats that the "maverick" GOP candidate got the nomination,
IF, for the first time in history, not only a black man but a woman stood a chance of becoming a major party presidential candidate because "change" is so much the desire for a majority of Americans,
IF this government is on the verge of yet another invasion of another country - Iran - and the possibility of a convulsive, possibly apocalyptic, storm that rebounds from the Middle East to the U.S. to Pakistan and beyond is staring us pointblank in the face,
THEN why can't something else emerge from this than a recycling of the same old monstrousness?
If tens upon tens of millions of people are going to vote and millions are contributing money and time and energy to back their favored candidate, in other words, crossing their fingers, hoping that this will make a difference, that their votes will be counted this time and not be stolen like the last two presidential elections, then why can't three or four million do something that will make a difference?
Why can't 1% of the American people, three million, do something that actually means something?
In the 1960s, as Henry Kissinger, who served under Nixon, said in his memoirs, SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) exercised influence far exceeding its actual (and relatively small) numbers because there was a credibility gap: most of America didn't believe what the government was saying. LBJ would say something in a national address and most people would say: he's lying. Nixon would say something in a national address and most people would say: he's lying.
It's deeply immoral for the Democratic Party and the mass media to countenance torture and "pre-emptive" wars based on fraudulent premises. Obama and Pelosi and McCain are fully aware of this. They want us to follow their lead and get us to act as if this isn't the present reality - that we should ignore their collusion in crimes against humanity and support them as fellow colluders.
That is what these elections are really about: herding people into supporting crimes against humanity and declaring that it's the people's will.
Is that what you want? Is that the kind of person you are? Is this the legacy we want for our children and future generations - that we stood by and let tyrants and monsters ravage the planet?
Even if you now think that Obama should be "given some slack" for what he's saying, do you think it is proper to put your faith in one person and faith in the same party that has betrayed us all? Even if you plan to vote for him, do you think that simply voting discharges your responsibility to protest, everyday from now until it is no longer necessary, the moral outrages being committed by our government?
The Moral High Ground
Why can't a relatively small group of people take the moral high ground and by so doing, spark the actions of much larger numbers of people, beginning at this point, in relatively small numbers and then growing on the basis of their stand, determination, the facts and the truth - so outstandingly lacking from the other side - into eventually much larger numbers, thereby creating a similar situation to that which was so distressing and worrisome to Kissinger?
Why can't 1% of the people, beginning from a much smaller number now, but spreading, wear or display orange daily to show their solidarity with those being tortured in our names, and as a public statement of their repudiation of our government's policies? Why can't and why shouldn't people be giving their money and/or their time to groups such as World Can't Wait that seek to hold torturers such as John Yoo and the Bush gang accountable, to expose military recruiters for their lies to young people, and to build mass mobilization against both the war on Iraq and the pending war on Iran?
If this happens, if a movement of a few million, representing the desires of the majority, comes into being, then anything and everything is possible.
If such a movement does not materialize, then nothing but terrors await.
Ask yourself: what is the moral - and realistic - choice to be made here? Has closing one's eyes to truths too terrible to tolerate ever led to a good outcome? Hasn't such a strategy always resulted in people being engulfed in horrors beyond their imagination?
Every single person who reads this and who steps forward does so in the name of millions of others and creates the conditions for many, many others to step forward.
Don't we as individuals have a personal responsibility to take a stand against grave injustice and not pass that responsibility on to others to take care of it for us? The people who many people think are supposed to take care of things are obviously not doing it.
So what are you waiting for? Yes, you.
Dennis Loo is an associate professor of Sociology at Cal-Poly Pomona. He is the co-author of Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush and Cheney.
Listen to your heart
Es gab schon viele Hoffnungsträger...Blieb leider allzu oft doch alles beim alten... Und zwar wegen der Systemimmanenz....es stimmt...ein Richtungswechsel in intellektueller Hinsicht wird nicht viel ändern. The moral highground... Kampf Gut gegen Böse wird ja von allen Seiten beansprucht. Alle müssen runter von diesem "moral thing"...wer definiert die ethischen Grundwerte der amerikanischen Gesellschaft? Die amerikanische Seele müßte sich ändern. Weg vom Ego...weg von der eigenen Wichtigkeit. Change the soul first, mind and body will follow. This a principle I would like to suggest to reactivate the american dream. Listen to your soul first....read for example the wonderful book "soul wisdom" by Dr. Zhi Gang Sha. And than lets join hearts and souls together and lets give back the land to the people. Peace. Love and Harmony for ever!!!
WOW