I have noted of late a great deal of discussion concerning news of certain groups moving away from the traditional political alignment of two (sic) parties toward the idea that an alternative is required, desired, and possible. The most vocal sector of this opinion that I've seen is - oddly enough - Fox News, which has been focusing a great deal of attention on the topic, claiming all the while that Wall Street is the real interested party.
On Saturday morning {if anyone knows where to locate the transcript, please contact me at writerealist[AT]earthlink[DOT]net!}, for example, there was a discussion on Fox concerning this topic. The "experts" were four women and two men, and the impression I was getting from this rapid-fire recitation was that the women were floating the trial balloons in their comments while the men were sticking pins in them before they got too high in the sky.
Now, this Sunday morning, Fox is touting the January 7th gathering of so-called "moderate" Democrats and Republicans to meet with former-Democrat and former-Republican and current Independent Mayor Michael Bloomberg and "other independent candidates" and discuss the possibility of fostering an environment much more friendly to bipartisanship. Among those reported to be attending are former Democratic Senators David Boren and Sam Nunn and former Republican Senator John Danforth. Also attending is incumbent Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.
Normally, I would be very much in favor of such a gathering, but considering that Bloomberg changes his stripes with the shift of the political wind, and that Hagel is under a bit of a cloud for his ownership stake in both ES&S and a company owned by his campaign finance director, Michael McCarthy, which also owned ES&S stock at the very time Hagel was winning his election to the Senate [more here], I'm hearing my alarms ringing. Despite Hagel having gone on record as opposing Bush's Terror War Against Terror, he has yet to earn my trust that he isn't just taking advantage for personal gain of whatever type or the satisfaction of personal ambition. I suspect Bloomberg of similar attributes.
But perhaps the most believable reasoning for this sudden conversion of formerly-staunch Republican economic power brokers to the Third Party Army comes from Wall Street organ Bloomberg business news (once owned by Mike Bloomberg), which points out:
Wealthy Republicans have a new political nightmare that may be scarier than Hillary Clinton: Mike Huckabee. He calls himself the candidate who isn't a 'wholly owned subsidiary' of investment banks, decries large executive-pay packages and says the party needs to shift its focus from Wall Street to Main Street.
I happen to agree with Huckabee's position that Wall Street wields far too much influence over the affairs of the nation, but I'm not ready to surrender that influence to someone like Huck who claims contact with an ethereal being who seems to only converse with those who hold certain beliefs so strongly that nothing else is considered important or valid in any way. I thus in principle support the move by Wall Street not to align themselves with either party's likely (as of post time) nominee.
Article comments
1 - troll
your theory is that Mike hasn't been vetted by the Bildeburger Group I guess...
the notion of the 'fascist state' is such a bogey person...how can 'class war' be avoided (if that's one's goal) without an 'all powerful' state controlling the tendencies to excess that both classes exhibit - ?
2 - Baronius
Realist, which current candidates do you see as the strongest allies/foes of corporatism, and why? You and I don't usually agree, but I'd be interested in seeing your choices.
3 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
From the time I was about 10 years old, (Eisenhower's farewell speech) until about 1998, I was always hearing warnings of fascism looming up on us. By 1998, it was obvious that corporations controlled so much of America and American life, snuffing out privacy behind the smile of a girl running your credit card though a modem to be checked, and snuffing out individual rights by firing people for what they said on their internet messages - even when those messages were not work related - that there no longer seemed any intelligent reason to talk about freedom in the United States. It was something that did not exist there anymore. Liberty hadn't even died with a whimper. It has disappeared under the arrow of a cursor and the beep of a pager.
Which leaves me to my next basic point.
What is the purpose of this article? Or of any of the articles dealing with what are jokingly call "elections"? There is no possibility that any of the little pups running for the "presidency" of your country will be able to restore what the corporate beast has seized in its jaws and gobbled up - individual liberty. In fact, none of these fools realizes that individual liberty has already been digested in the belly of the beast, and no longer exists - period.
Finally comes my other basic question? If your government was instituted to secure liberty for you and you posterity - and that liberty is irretrievably lost - why bother with the bullshit?
Be honest with yourselves. Admit to yourselves that you are no longer free and just stay home and watch the boob-tube. Just keep your noses clean and you'll stay out of trouble - maybe.
4 - troll
Ruvy - you are idealizing a past that never existed: individual liberty is a work in progress...and what makes it such a balancing act is that we know that the freedom to starve is part of the package
teach your kids to question authority - anarchy is the way
5 - Clavos
"individual liberty is a work in progress...and what makes it such a balancing act is that we know that the freedom to starve is part of the package"
Quoted for Truth.
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Troll,
individual liberty is a work in progress...and what makes it such a balancing act is that we know that the freedom to starve is part of the package.
In 1923 or so, my father, determined to make some money, went down to the DMV and told them he was 16, and got a license to drive. Today, I could not do that if I wanted to.
Individual liberty is not some abstract concept, it is a very real thing. It is built on each person being his own self, not ruled or controlled by an organization, not recorded and organized. My mother's brother left the Bronx, changed his name and became a successful furniture salesman in the southwest. Because in 1930, there was no database of names, numbers and identities, he could do that. Today, this is impossible to do. The liberty to re-invent yourself no longer exists in your country, and that liberty was often at the bottom of many successful people's accomplishments.
I'm not romanticizing anything.
My uncle fled a life of fleeing a pissed off landlords because my grandma could never pay rent. She couldn't work, and my mother could not find a job in 1930. They sold pencils in the streets and barely got by. They burned furniture in the apartments because they could not afford gas....
A person cannot just pick up and leave in America anymore. For all the other losses in freedom, only the freedom to starve and be homeless remains. That I know from personal experience.
So, given that you have lost all your liberties, you have no privacy, except at the good graces of the police, your every move can be monitored if you use a cell phone, why bother with the bullshit? Just admit that your democracy is nothing more than a well paying game show for the rich - with you as the prize.
7 - Clavos
"Because in 1930, there was no database of names, numbers and identities, he could do that. Today, this is impossible to do. The liberty to re-invent yourself no longer exists in your country..."
Just simply not true.
Plenty of people "reinvent" themselves by going back to school, starting new careers, etc.
The type of "reinvention" you describe was as illegal then as it is now, just easier and less costly.
But, if you want to "reinvent" yourself to that degree today, there's a thriving cottage industry in new identities, whereby with enough money, you can purchase everything from birth certificates, SS cards and passports, to credit cards and drivers licenses to start over with.
All it takes is money (or the participation of the Federal government, as in the Witness Protection Program); it's not difficult at all.
As for retaining your privacy: it's a little harder, but not impossible. There are thousands of people doing it in this country; there are even "how-to" books: How To Be Invisible is one; Invasion of Privacy: How To Protect Yourself In The Digital Age is another.
The truth is, Ruvy, that for the average unparanoid citizen, things are not nearly as bad as you think they are.
8 - Jacob
There's nothing new under the sun.
Things are as bad as you think they are -- or as good as you think they are...
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us...”
-- Charles Dickens, 1775
9 - troll
check your date dude
10 - Clavos
picky, picky, picky, troll. He's only off by 84 years...
What's a lifetime, between friends?