Policies of Fear »
Posted By Shana4Liberty 9 months, 3 weeks ago in NewsMost Americans, whether on the left or right of the political spectrum, feel a natural repugnance when confronted with the thought of government controlling businesses. In other words, we want government to regulate business but we don’t want government to run it— we did learn, after all, about the horrors of fascism and communism over the past 50 years. Or something like that.
Or maybe not. Because things are different now.
Read Full Story at unitedliberty.org »
556 Views Share Story 37 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Shana4Liberty
I'm a stay-at-homeschooling mom of 4 living in central Alabama, but a native of south Texas. Feel free to friend me and send me ...
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 37 (view all)
-
codgerpriceComment removed: Retracted by user10 Replies
-
20%
hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do not see much sign that Obama will change our military-industrial colonialism. He is too indebted to such circles for his election and has appointed too many prior war criminals to his administration. Get ready for resumption of the politics of fear with slightly different words (we have to do "good" instead of we have to punish "evil" - our actions will be the same).
Reply
Gaza: Israel, Hamas and the logic of colonial power
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/01/02/gaza-isr...
The international community is directly guilty for this latest massacre. Will it remain immune from the wrath of a desperate people? So far, there have been large demonstrations in Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. The people of the Arab world will not forget. The Palestinians will not forget. "All that you have done to our people is registered in our notebooks," as the poet Mahmoud Darwish said.
...An American journal once asked me to contribute an essay to a discussion on whether terrorism or attacks against civilians could ever be justified. My answer was that an American journal should not be asking whether attacks on civilians can ever be justified. This is a question for the weak, for the Native Americans in the past, for the Jews in Nazi Germany, for the Palestinians today, to ask themselves.
Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel, America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims' struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and terrorising them was the purpose.
Counterinsurgency, now popular again among in the Pentagon, is another way of saying the suppression of national liberation struggles. Terror and intimidation are as essential to it as is winning hearts and minds.-
20%
hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors. The danger in this excessive use of legality actually undermines legality, diminishing the credibility of international institutions such as the United Nations. It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.
Reply
...A Zionist Israel is not a viable long-term project and Israeli settlements, land expropriation and separation barriers have long since made a two state solution impossible. There can be only one state in historic Palestine. In coming decades, Israelis will be confronted with two options. Will they peacefully transition towards an equal society, where Palestinians are given the same rights, à la post-apartheid South Africa? Or will they continue to view democracy as a threat? If so, one of the peoples will be forced to leave. Colonialism has only worked when most of the natives have been exterminated. But often, as in occupied Algeria, it is the settlers who flee. Eventually, the Palestinians will not be willing to compromise and seek one state for both people. Does the world want to further radicalise them?
Do not be deceived: the persistence of the Palestine problem is the main motive for every anti-American militant in the Arab world and beyond. But now the Bush administration has added Iraq and Afghanistan as additional grievances. America has lost its influence on the Arab masses, even if it can still apply pressure on Arab regimes. But reformists and elites in the Arab world want nothing to do with America.
-
-
-
-
88%
uncle-dave9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
Reply
“Before Hitler could mobilize resources and support for his Lebensraum-oriented war machine, he first nationalized businesses, turning them from entrepreneurial market ventures to servants of the state. But what does that have to do with us?”
This is false. Hitler worked hand in hand with the barons of industry to tighten his grip on pre-war Germany.
According to the article cited below Hitler did what he could to destroy labor unions as did the Bush/ Cheney administration.
Protecting the public from the excesses of corporations is the duty of the government. The politics of fear will end on January 20th at noon.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
“Hitler did not nationalize industry, but he destroyed the labor unions and his finance ministry worked closely with banks and industry. During the war an alternative state economy was created under the SS (headed by Himmler)” -
-
88%
sarahturner9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since the government has never been noted for it's business abilities I for one would rather they keep out of the business world. Politicians stay in office by doing favors, not by running a tight ship or a profitable business. Politicians are best at spending money, not saving money. This may get me in trouble with some members but I just don't trust most politicians to do anything that's not in their own best interest. That's not to say that there aren't any good politicians because there are some good ones. Just not enough. Lastly, in my opinion, things are no different now than they were in the past. Just the semantics have changed.
Reply -
100%
mmrhe9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The main obstacle is the same as it ever was....
Reply
Money and it's corrupting influence.
Government has to balance the good of the people vs the unmitigated profit motive of private enterprise.
In one sense, it is one and the same.
It is a matter of concentration of wealth that MUST be avoided as that is what got us into the current mess! -
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned7 Replies
-
-
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
60%
jordan119 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is to Sandmonster; Your tirade about poor little bush is ridiculous, and this is why;
Reply
There's one problem with your attempt to make bush look good. He was warned in August 2001 of the 'chatter' of planes being used to attack. What did he do? Nothing. What would you do? Nothing? Could bush have called for a high level of security at all airports? Could bush have assigned undercover military police/US Marshals to high level flights? (You know, being proactive about where they might strike?) Could bush have warned the flying public? Could bush have made it known to terrorists we were 'preparing' for their attack? Could bush have considered the use of small planes, and thought to have a swift investigation of those who hang out at small airports or rent small planes? Could any of that have led to the terrorists? Would high level alert have found the box cutters? Would it have found the terrorists through investigating the small airports/flight schools? We'll never know because bush did nothing. He did nothing. One more time. HE DID NOTHING! -
50%
mmrhe9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are credible people who say Bush was warned repeatedly and that he characteristically didn't listen.
Reply
I will give Bush credit for the past seven years if he's willing to accept the fact that 9/11 happened on his watch!
And the most dangerous financial meltdown since the Great Depression.
You would think that a President stepping down amid all this turmoil would convey some sense of regret or disappointment at his farewell speech.
It speaks volumes that this one would not or could not do that.
He Will Not Be Missed! -
More News
LA Times
A story of shock, chaos and bravery unfolds in Ft. Hood shooting
Historic healthcare overhaul passes House
Afghanistan government says foreign officials are interfering
Unemployment rate rises above 10% ; Obama signs jobless benefit extension
Jason Rodriguez : Shooting at downtown Orlando office building leaves 5 hurt, 1 dead
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.