You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Ayn Rand' tag.
I don’t know what’s scarier, the fact that zombies could rise (are there Bibilical implications?), or the fact there are actually people out there that can’t wait for it to happen, so they can just start loading up with guns, get on their motorcycles, and raise even more hell.
For the record, I like Zombie movies.
Well… Maybe it’s that fact that I like to think about Zombie movies, and what I might do if faced with a mindless horde of flesh devouring meat bags. Rifle or machete?
I’ll submit we can also compare the interest in surviving a zombie apocalypse to people preparing for a Soviet invasion of America in the 1980s after the film Red Dawn was released.
Does this mean people don’t have enough opportunity for true adventure in their lives? I have. So, I’ll not allow myself to get bogged down in anything particularly meaningful with this particular post. Instead, I’m relishing the news that, one of my favorite books World War Z (Seriously… But, I’m not comparing it to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged or Edmund Morris’s The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, mind you) is in film production!
NOTE: Consider marking your calendars now. Do it! The movie is set for a 2010 release date.
So, I’ll draw from other reviews, here, and add some of my own thoughts. Go read the book. You can order it here. It’s fun and epic. Do it!
In any event, World War Z, written in 2006, is the “sequel” to author Max Brooks’ The Zombie Survival Guide, which offered “complete protection from the living dead”.
Never mind The Zombie Survival Guide is a one-joke, tongue-in-cheek book in which that one joke got tired in short order. It’s, at best, a read (if at all) as a companion piece to World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War. I like the title with it’s sub text for best effects. I’ll leave it that, if you want to be the Boy Scout equivalent of the Zombie survivalist, and be prepared, this is the book for you.
World War Z is one of those fictional books that pretends to be non-fiction. It’s fun, for me anyway, to ponder what aliens scavenging the remains of our dead culture civilization will make of all this one day! In summary, in the event you don’t want to read this agonizingly long post, it tells the story of a zombie plague that nearly wiped out mankind when governments and armies are initially unable to control the global infestation, and the aftermath ten years later.
Those ten years after the war ended, a reporter, author Max Brooks, on assignment for a global news paper, interviews various people across the globe about their experiences during World War Z.
You might, but let’s not get lost, just yet in the point, want to know that, Brad Pitt and Leonardo diCaprio almost broke their banks dueling over the rights to film the story and play the role of the reporter (although I should add here, that Max Brooks did an awesome job voicing his own work in the audio-book).
A critic once remarked of George Romero’s seminal 1968 zombie flick Night of the Living Dead that it is a science fiction movie pretending to be a horror movie.
The same goes for World War Z. It is more science fiction than horror because I think Brooks is less interested in chills than in recounting how this future world, with it’s various governments, societies filled with a post-holocaust mind-set, fail to cope with a virus that turns the recently dead into mindless cannibalistic creatures – that in turn infect the living. But, the devil is in the details,eh. And, a gruesome attention to detail and social, economic and geographic relevance is one of many elements of this book that make it compelling as well as chilling.
Interestingly, providing you care about such polarizing change process, it is only geographically isolated, authoritarian societies such as Israel, North Korea and Cuba that copes best with controlling the outbreak. For example, in a stunning reversal of fortune, Cuba and Israel becomes the world’s economic leaders because their population and infrastructure remain largely unaffected during the outbreak (because Castro’s secret police early on threw the zombies into prison camps!). The Cuban coastline is, ironically, besieged with North American refugees seeking salvation. Open democratic societies have a much tougher time halting the spread of the disease and coping with the zombie hordes within their own borders. Brooks holds no punches in sharing his views of government lapse. He especially has it in for incompetent government bureaucracies (which keep the public uninformed of the rising threat in an effort to prevent any large-scale panic) and huge multinational corporations that cynically produce a zombie “inoculation” that doesn’t work. However, he balances much of this out with an embedded message of hope. For example, the trailing storyline where Cuba embraces many refugees, blending them into it’s new culture while embracing skill sets and innovation.
Brooks outlines the glaring fact that our governments will have a tough time coping with a large-scale zombie infestation. So, don’t let yourself be fooled into somnolence believing, not for a minute, that any of this is possibility covered by Civil Defense planning.
This is galvanizing stuff. It reminded me of Tom Clancy’s Red Storm Rising. The zombie invasion alters the Earth’s geopolitical map. Pakistan and Iran nukes one another; China becomes a democracy following a civil war; and Russia becomes a scary theocracy. World War Z is pretty darned serious. So, I’m genuinely curious how the movie will be handled.
In my view, much of this works quite well except for one or two odd moments. In one rather daft segment a blind Japanese pensioner becomes an adept zombie-slayer. On the other hand, in another South Africa the government repurposes an old Apartheid-era plan that was meant to be a last possible resort to deal with a full-scale uprising by its native Black population. This is brilliant perspective, in my opinion. The plan ends up saving the world, thanks, ironically, to Nelson Mandela (not named but clearly represented) – the “Great Reconciler” – who insisted upon it being used even though it was dreamt up by a racist apartheid apparatchik!
The good and gripping outweighs the bad and camp by far. There are several action pieces that makes me really look forward to seeing them sequenced in a movie. For example, one is in an “interview” in which a US soldier tells of the epic “Battle of Yonkers”. The battle was supposed to be a showpiece by the U.S. military to illustrate that it is indeed ready to simply blow away the zombie threat utilizing existing military doctrine. But, the soldiers are trained for conventional warfare against, well, the living (my own training realized itself as I read the book and I had found myself thinking set-piece battle operations would be futile against a mindless horde of creatures that knew naught fear, hunger nor exhaustion – and, attrition amongst their ranks was never an issue). Being engulfed by hordes of the undead that can only be killed by headshots wasn’t exactly something NATO planners considered a possibility during the Cold War. Soon they are overrun by the living dead despite their massive firepower. So, the battle is, instead, a demoralizing setback that almost unhinges the American defense grid.
Another great action scene is one in which a lone female pilot ejects from her malfunctioning, state-of-the-art aircraft, and parachutes into hostile zombie territory (the Louisiana bayou, no less), and must fight her way to a safe zone. In retrospect, this is likely my favorite part of the book. And, it will be interesting to see how it’s done in the movie. My friend Wayne thinks Drew Barrymore should play the role of the female pilot. why not, says I.
Other “interviews” or segments include a soldier telling of the extreme disciplinary measures taken by the Russian military when soldiers refuse to leave doomed civilians to their fate; a Japanese computer geek escaping his infested apartment block using sheets tied together like in a, er, movie; divers having to clear the ocean bottom of “live” zombies; and so on. Although the garish scenes invoked on the beaches of a Japanese ship yard may yet invoke the most epic footage for a movie. Ponder thousands of refugees clawing their way onto overcrowded and capsizing ships and surrounded by a literal “sea” of zombies.
Sure, some of it is your typical post-apocalypse stuff that will be familiar to anyone who has seen 28 Weeks Later, I Am Legend or even The Happening, but Brooks lends an unexpected emotional resonance to the material at hand by taking it all very seriously. so, let’s be clear… This isn’t Shaun of the Dead. Which is probably how Brad Pitt’s production company (who obtained rights to the novel by finally outbidding Leonardo diCaprio’s company).
By the way… Marc Forster is set to direct the movie. Forster is a very “serious” film-maker (The Kite Runner, Monster’s Ball, Stranger Than Fiction) who is sometimes criticized for his ham-fisted approach by film critics. But, for me, he has proven himself capable of directing larger scale action blockbusters. For example, the recent Bond movie, Quantum of Solace. I will add, here, that hopefully Forster has been reading some reviews, and will drop some of his annoying tricks, mostly from the Bourne movies, such as jerky cam movements, incoherent editing and the like (and, his his attempts at being “deep,” which in Quantum resulted in a laughably pretentious action scene set in an opera house.). I think the book and it’s own theme can carry that through ably enough for any director.
I’ll add that J. Michael Straczynski, best known for Babylon 5, has written a script for World War Z. There are two ways for a film-maker to present the material at hand: a fake documentary approach which echoes the mockumentary “interviews” in Brooks’ book; or a straight-forward narrative in which several of the characters in the book are condensed into one or two central figures. Wisely enough Straczynski tells me that he’s opted for the latter adaption. After all, did we really need yet another zombie movie filmed in the style of Quarantine?
Somethiing that I find interesting is that Straczynski convinced Forster (with buy-in from Brooks – although I’ve not confirmed that element) to liken the planned movie to ‘Seventies conspiracy thrillers such as All the President’s Men. Straczynski in turn has compared the movie to The Bourne Identity, and remarked that World War Z will have a large international scope while keeping the film as political as the book was (I think this is absolutely critical to help underscore Brooks’ efforts to draw attention to government policies and hijinx).
Still, whatever the end product may be: World War Z is a worth-while read that even those tired of zombies would want to check out. It really does make for terrific dinner party banter. The whole zombie plague destroying mankind thing may be a cliché, but Brooks still manages to make something worthwhile out of the premise. It’s different and “fresh” because he does such a fantastic job outlining current real world government and societal policies against eventual and likely realities.
A final note: Fans of “End Times” literature should check it out before the film hits the big screen.
Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.
Brian Patrick Cork
I was corresponding with Andrew Tilghman this morning. He had been reading Undaunted Courage (which must needs be followed up with Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson and the Opening of the American West), and I found myself offering the following:
Keep exploring [Thomas] Jefferson. His mind allowed the outline of our Constitution to inspire the genius of his fellows.
I think this current thinking, on my part, was inspired primarily around Jefferson’s timeless sense of judicial balance measured against his keen sense of curiosity (why), and secondarily, through my mounting concerns that Barack Obama’s leadership and situational awareness might prove flimsy, at best. Obama seems lacking in a list of fundamental qualities consistently demonstrated by leaders. And, he genuinely appears clueless in terms of how things work (but then, of course, he went from being an events coordinator to a raconteur Senator prior to becoming president of the United States).
It’s likely a matter of “home training” (a notion one of my nannies, and of course, my Mom, instilled in me), I believe. He seems less interested in why things should work under best-business-practices, and more focused on them being done his way.
Dr. Pappas would likely have muttered “sophomoric” under his breath.
That runs full in the face of federalist theory, democratic ideals and objectivism - or, the theory, formation and, possibly the best result of the Constitution, assuming you care about such matters.
I do.
I also believe that, once he stopped spinning in his grave, Thomas Jefferson might scold Barack Obama, in public, for putting his own personal agenda before that of the American people, and Ayn Rand would rub-out her cigarette on his blackberry.
As an aside, we have some genuine anguish in-and-amongst the House and Senate regarding Healthcare reform. I sense that both sides have come to the bleak conclusion that Obama is more like a chimpanzee with a shotgun – as opposed to a rally-worthy leader. It does not even matter if “Obamacare” has any semblance of merit. This is not about “We The People” so much as the new Obama/ Pelosi/ Reid rat pack driving a $2.6 trillion debt down our collective throats that will drive this country into bankruptcy to the tune of Frank Sinatra’s “I Did It My Way”. If he says he wants something, it’s almost as if everyone decides to move to the other side of the room. This is already very different than the Obama-bandwagon of just two hundred fugue-drenched days ago.
If that isn’t how it works today, it certainly will by the end of Obama’s first term.
So… what does Obama do? He takes off for Martha’s Vineyard (he is such a poseur). This guy really believes he can play with the Kennedy’s.
Brian Visaggio once referred to me as a “Randian” – almost as if he were somehow scandalized by the notion. However, that is something I would value providing I distance myself from the associated socialist undertones. Joe Lieberman (“I” for Independent – but caucuses with the Democratic party) – Conn., says that I am a “Federalist”. That is fine by me because I am not convinced he used a dictionary before he said it (for the record, it means I would be a supporter of the Constitution under it’s earliest foundation). I don’t want to be an Obama-basher. I sincerely don’t want to be an Obamacrat. I am, absolutely, a patriot with Jeffersonian ideals.
So… I understand Obama might be in that part of the country (on Martha’s Vineyard) for a photo-op with Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy (D) – Mass. And, Senator Kennedy has been a long-time fighter for broad healthcare reform. But, the irony is that aligning yourself with Obama may be considered political suicide. Or, in Kennedy’s case, a legacy killer (and considering Chappaquiddick, this is saying a lot).
Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.
Brian Patrick Cork
Me! Pick me!
This is me raising my hand, possibly stating the obvious, but, willing to make something of a statement, while certainly asking obvious questions around what, need not, be that proverbial elephant in the crowded room.
Sadly, for me any way, the appropriate amount of public outrage over, what is, categorically, a dark chapter in our nations history (you will appreciate this also represents a canny pun as you read on) has already faded into the subconsciousness of a jaded American culture.
In terms of outlining my concerns, where should I begin? What we do know for sure is, the end result certainly includes a U.S. President whose legacy will now include endless mirth around his beer barrel diplomacy.
I am already dueling with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel over this. So, let’s just wade in, shall we?
Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a pre-eminent Africa-American scholar at Harvard University was arrested while trying to force open the locked front door of his rented home near Harvard University Thursday, July 16, 2009.
That, in some respects, was unfortunate.
However, as luck, whacky providence, coincidence – or, perhaps fortuna (eh, Dr. Pappas?) would have it, professor Gates is black.
He was arrested by Sgt. James Crowley, a decorated veteran of the Cambridge police department called into action while responding to a 911 call from a local woman that two men were forcing there way into a house on her street. The front door had been damaged from a previous burglary attempt (the police probably knew this).
Officer Crowley appeared on the scene, and after some fairly well documented “debate” that included a stubborn refusal to initially identify himself (other than his strident insistence he was now a “victimized” black man) Gates was booked on a disorderly conduct charge after police said he “exhibited loud and tumultuous behavior.” This apparently included his brandishing his cane and threatening a wide-range of law suits.
According to a police report Gates shouted to a police officer:
“this is what happens to a black man in America”.
Certainly when you act stupid with cops any way.
In any event, Gates was released later that day on his own recognizance and clearly eager to rally a great deal of attention, media and otherwise, to his misadventures. An arraignment was scheduled for Aug. 26.
However, that arraignment never took place. You can read some, but certainly not all, details around that here.
It should be noted that Gates’ attorney is fellow Harvard scholar Professor Charles Ogletree, a black man in his own right (that reads funny and I am going to leave it as such because there is a pun there if you really put some effort into considering it), is currently working on a book, as coincidence would have it about the black man’s disadvantage in the American judicial process.
Brilliant timing. Better rush that tome to press!
I digress.
“Gates’s prominence played a dual role”, Ogletree said, bringing unflattering attention to Gates in the first reporting of the incident. “Then, it allowed him access to well-connected friends (umm – like the leader of the free world) and resources that got his case dismissed quickly.”
Apparently this also includes the Rev. Al Sharpton, who is a dingy q-tip headed idiot, and had threatening vowed to attend Gates’ arraignment.
“This arrest is indicative of at best police abuse of power or at worst the highest example of racial profiling I have seen,” Sharpton said. “I have heard of driving while black and even shopping while black but now even going to your own home while black is a new low in police community affairs.”
Meanwhile, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who is black, said he was “troubled and upset about the incident.”
Why is the governor of Massachusetts involved? I would prefer to hear more about his concerns over the fact that the State of Massachusets is third in the nation when it comes to teen-aged pregnancy.
Cambridge Mayor Denise Simmons, who, remarkably, also is black, has said she spoke with Gates and apologized on behalf of the city, and a statement from the city called the July 16 incident “regrettable and unfortunate.”
It sure is… Especially when influenced by race baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright.
And, all that bugs me.
According to witnesses, that are now being systematically harassed by “unnamed parties”, the clearly proud, composed and dignified professor Gates was also apparently inebriated and this fueled his belligerent behavior. I suspect that the “obamacratic”- oriented and politically corrupt confused – media does not want you to know this.
Allow me to add some perspective here that may draw some criticism, but is still relevant… If you have followed this mans achievements (and, I have because there is an underlying tone of Jeffersonian to his efforts), obviously Gates has done some fantastic things over the course of his academic career. This includes giving the Jefferson Lecture in 2002. That lecture, mind you, was in recognition of his “distinguished intellectual achievement in the humanities.” The lecture resulted in his 2003 book, The Trials of Phillis Wheatley - which was actually, pretty good, although not particularly balanced. This is meaningful to me. Consider my own views on Jeffersonian principles if you dare. It’s a daunting and tumultuous journey it’s own right.
However, Gates makes his living by drawing attention to racial strife in America. And, as the legendary fickle finger of fate or that wily notion of providence would have it, Crowley is a Police Academy expert on cultural diversity.
For the record, but not widely acknowledged by the media, Sgt. Crowley has taught a class on diversity for five years at the Lowell Police Academy after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black, said Academy Director Thomas Fleming. The course, called “Racial Profiling,” teaches about different cultures that officers could encounter in their community “and how you don’t want to single people out because of their ethnic background or the culture they come from,” adds Fleming:
“I have nothing but the highest respect for him as a police officer. He is very professional and he is a good role model for the young recruits in the police academy”.
Gates and his crew could not have seen that one coming.
Despite witnesses and audio evidence recorded during the arresting officers dialogue with a dispatcher, Ogletree disputed the claim that Gates, who was wearing slacks and a polo shirt and carrying that cane, was yelling at the officer. But, he did offer the lame excuse pearl:
“He (Gates) has an infection that has impacted his breathing since he came back from China, so he’s been in a very delicate physical state”.
So… Gates “medicated himself to thwart his “infection”? There was no medical prescription to be found on his person, and they never had the presence of mind to lay claim for such under scrutiny.
Meanwhile… Contemplating the above photo, I wonder what the black police officer involved in the arrest thought of all the action? I can’t find any public reference to that unique perspective.
Gates has said he was “outraged” by the arrest. He said the white officer walked into his home without his (Gates) permission (which is part of the scary job of being a policeman) and arrested him only as the professor followed him to the porch, repeatedly demanding the sergeant’s name and badge number because he was unhappy over his treatment.
Gates was in the house and was uncooperative in identifying himself. When Crowley was explaining to Gates his reason for being there, which was he was responding to a burglary in progress, Gates shouted, “why, because I am a black man in America?”
At that point Gates is the one interjecting race into the situation
So, considering his own testimony, Gates, clearly leveraging his skills as an orator, kept mouthing off to a cop who probably has more important things then a short, whiny and tipsy black man to deal with daily, and got himself hauled-off to jail to cool off.
It only gets worse because, some how, even miles away, President Barack Obama, the Commander-In-Chief himself, who it’s starting to appear fancies himself a kind of J.F. Kennedy any way, decides to forget the vital lessons around laissez-faire, channels Carl Marx, and gets involved in the melee.
Ayn Rand is spinning is her grave, and we can hear the howls of John Adams across the void.
Obama triggered an uproar because, exhibiting his razor-like wit that was apparently honed while never holding down a real job before he became our president, Obama stated decisively, before he had been fully briefed over the incident, mind you, “The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.”
He went on to say that, “…anyone of us would be pretty angry and that it is a fact that African-Americans and Latinos are being stopped disproportionately by law enforcement in this country.” He made those statements without knowing the facts of the case.
But seriously, what would you expect from a career Community Organizer?
After a stunned silence that only a Secret Service Agent could fully appreciate, Obama back-pedaled furiously, after some (thinking) member of his staff probably grabbed his Blackberry, and, via tele-prompter, stated he hoped “cooler heads would prevail”. To be sure he got a “WTF” from a hovering, head-in-hands Michelle Obama as well.
He then institutes the Public Relations nightmare of the century and invites Gates and Crowley to the White House saying he wants to turn this episode into a “teachable” moment while all of them get together over a beer.
A beer?
Gates has demanded an apology from officer Crowley, the entire nation, and while he is considering his options, probably God Himself. When asked how he felt about distracting attention from Obama’s efforts on Capital Hill around national Healthcare reform, Gates responded: “what happened to me is important. Its important for black men. But, the president has many very important matters he must deal with every day.”
How, utterly, gracious.
Okay… So, why am I picking on poor professor Gates?
Well… Because this was all just really stupid. Some black dude who happens to be a college professor, is lit after a long plane ride, loses the key to his rented house, and breaks down the front door with the help of a burly cab driver. When he is approached by police, he does not have the common sense to keep his mouth shut and decides he is entitled to threaten one of them with a cane.
So… Apparently, because he is black, and, therefore, not required to cooperate with the authorities (now being dramatized as “The Man”) he decides it’s time to make headlines. Along the way, his belligerent demeanor aside, the arresting officer is some how supposed to divine that he is a book writing college professor and ignore police procedure.
The police department said that Crowley tried to calm Gates, but that the professor would not cooperate and said:
“You don’t know who you’re messing with.”
Indeed.
No one that I can read or see is stating the real obvious here… All Gates had to do was start the encounter off with a little respect for the uniform, and make sure they knew he was the rightful renter of the property, with proof in his luggage. But, he did not do that. He got himself all high-and-mighty, and started mouthing off because it was his position in life – not his race that was being challenged. This is not about racial strife – or, ANY type of profiling. This is about a mans EGO. At worst it might be about the collective black mans ego.
As a result, Gates raises tensions amongst the races that Obama’s administration might have, otherwise, helped take huge steps in resolution. It’s true. But, no one wants to be the one who says it was the black guys fault.
I will do it.
Lets pause, only for a moment, to ask a few obvious questions…
Is Harvard University going to apologize for one of it’s senior Faculty being an obnoxious ass?
What is actually being taught in the Gates class room?
There was, at least, one black police officer at the scene while the arrest of Gates was underway. Has anyone asked him if the appropriate police procedures were properly followed?
Would Barack Obama be this tuned-in if the professor were white? Where was president Obama when (now) former Senator Ted Stevens was politically profiled by corrupt prosecutors?
Why the outrage? Why the anger? The police were doing their job. Gates was the one who escalated the situation. What would they have said if it was not Gates but actually burglars in the house and the police let them go, or were slow to respond? Also I would not be angry for the police doing their job in trying to protect my property.
Is Obama is using this as a diversion because he is getting his ass kicked on capital hill because his plan sucks?
Of all possible forums, why would Obama endorse beer drinking as part of a way to solve problems?
What label of beer was consumed? Was it Modelo? And, if so, what can we now expect from the Mexican authorities?
Who paid for this obnoxious and extravagant example in self-importance and reverse bigotry?
What lessons have we learned Mr. President? What have you taught us? If Ronald Reagan were still with us and president, he would have quietly (yes, quietly with Nancy warmly and sincerely at his side) admonished you that the Hollywood maxim: “only no publicity is bad publicity” isn’t necessarily true – and, certainly not for everyone.
It’s obvious to readers that I am so very disappointed in Professor Gates. He abused the system, and Obama enabled him. In the end, Gates converted a brilliant academic career into a cheap (race) card trick. He will almost certainly get another book deal. But, now, instead of an opportunity to illuminate the brilliant works of others as he did in The Trial of Phyllis Wheatley, he will be a sad and pathetic little footnote inspired by self-pity, and ironically, ignorance.
Perhaps wore… He made the problem worse for black people by clearly demonstrating that the black elite hold a special place and power in our country. The average black man would not have Jesse Jackson and the Governor of Massachusetts, lets alone the (black) President of the United States rush to his aid if he was caught in an awkward legal situation.
Some of you will likely be gnashing your teeth for some time over this post. But, allow me to remind you that I reside in Alpharetta, Georgia. This is a hot bed for super wealthy white Christian bull-shit (also high-tech development, but never mind that for the moment) (I am not saying Christianity is bull-shit. I am saying there are here, like everywhere, a lot of people that pretend to adhere to Christian principles). Every day you see black dudes being pulled over to the side of our well manicured roads and streets by our white majority police department and the token black police officers (actually, I am not sure we have any of those because I can’t recall ever seeing one). And, I believe that, some where in the scheme of things is actual racial profiling.
As saddened as I am by these tragic events, and disappointed in Professor Gates and President Obama, I have, very much enjoyed chronicling all of this for you, reader. And, I am afraid, in a manner of speaking, this tale, but only for now, must draw to a close.
Next: bill maher can invite me onto his show.
Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.
Brian Patrick Cork
____________________________
So… History does not refer to it as a “Police State”, but that could aptly describe the the American Colonies under British rule.
That view, and it’s merely a (substantiated) view, sets the stage for my thinking today.
“When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
“Change – yes we can!”
“Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House.”
As you read this Blog post further, I am going to ask you to watch a “position” documented by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that offers insight into an emerging perspective on the future of President Obama’s administration and what it portends for the American people.
I better point out now that I don’t support Al Qaida, or what we think are global terrorists. But, I do recognize the objectives and intents of Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers as they architected the Constitution. Mind you, the signers of the Declaration of Independence likely felt as if they were signing their own death warrant. They were often hunted down and imprisoned without trial of due process. They were terrorists after all – right? But, the more the British pushed us down, acted like bullies, and upset our collective sense of fairness, the more strident became our call to action for freedom – and, the world (even the French) rallied to us.
Certainly things have changed.
Americans have a tendency to conceive of our country as an exception to the rules, or to the laws of human nature, that govern other nations. This notion is sometimes called “American exceptionalism”.
Sometimes, it takes the form of believing Americans are entitled destined to be a free people. When we see the difficulty so many other peoples have realizing their freedom, it often confirms our notions that what is happening to them cannot, or should not, happen to us.
For example, we might fully support the Iranian people in their struggle for democratic elections, but our support for them is seldom qualified by the thought, “That could happen here.”
But, it did happen here. And, it might needs happen again.
Put differently, we appear to struggle with learning, or the notion of learning from other countries (another example is Norway and Healthcare). Very few Americans think Iran has anything to teach us about our own democracy. After all, we are, an exception to the rules that govern countries like Iran (we can also nuke other countries, and then dictate who is allowed to own nuclear power).
Did I use the work dictate?
Sometimes the notion of American exceptionalism takes the form of believing our leaders can breach with impunity the checks and balances that have traditionally limited their power over us.
Richard Nixon seems to have expressed that opinion when he stated that if the President does something, it’s not illegal. Ultimately Nixon was impeached – but, only because he was blatant, blunt, undiplomatic, considered unsavory (compared to the mob boss John F. Kennedy) and generally (in retrospect) unable to deliver a flowery speech like Barack Obama.
In any other country, unchecked power soon becomes tyranny. But not, we think, in America. In America, only the nut cases (or terrorists, or insurgents, or patriots) warn us against allowing our government to have unchecked powers.
Patriots?
As promised earlier, here is a Youtube video demonstrating how President Obama has declared his intention to indefinitely imprison people without trial.
The notion that a free people can grant their government the power to imprison them indefinitely and without trial is absurd. Ayn Rand is likely spinning so fast in her grave that the world is in danger of spinning off of it’s axis, and falling into the sun. There is nothing in the long history of our species (long time readers of this Blog know I am always looking for a way to sneak Charles Darwin into the mix) to suggest that is at all possible, let alone likely. Any people who condone grant their government tyrannical powers will, before too long, enjoy a tyranny – and, this is evidenced by history.
How long before people like myself – controversial figures that speak our minds, end up in prison (okay, for me back in jail) for exercising free speech against the machine?
“But we are different”, says the American exceptionalist.
Or, maybe we reconsider the word entitled and call ourselves “entitleists” (I probably made that word up – I do that a lot on this Blog). That sort of sounds like “elitist”. And, Americans like to believe we make the rules.
But, if we use the idea of our Constitution as a blunt edged weapon it becomes abuse. I think that changes the spirit that inspired Thomas Jefferson and that hardy and ferocious crew of rabble rousing non-conforming Founding Fathers, and that will in turn change the karma attached to our two hundred and fifty year national history.
Men like Barack Obama are called the Anti Christ by nut-cases right? People that speak out against him are not cool and certainly politically incorrect. We might even be viewed as racist.
Come on… We have to ask hard questions. Truth and light, I say. You gotta watch the carnie’s hands performing the card tricks. So, to wit, additional food for thought (this could have – maybe should have, been a separate post. But, I want everyone thinking about all of this. And, I know this post os going to be widely circulated.
It seems that Barack Obama is carefully priming the pump for dropping a unpleasant surprise on our collective “we the people” (yes, more video evidence). As you recall, he (that would be Obama) promised once that no one making less than $250,000 a year would see any tax increases. In fact, those people would enjoy tax cuts, he carefully promised.
But, to be fair, that was only an empty promise made by a naive candidate whose only business experience spanned that of a non-profit lawyer.
But with his health-reform plan, which will likely add another $1.6 trillion to the deficit, there won’t be any way around new and higher taxes on everyone (and several future generations of Americans, who will be paying through the nose fifty and a hundred years from now solely on account of 2009 spending).
Is that the kind of change Obama would talk about while on the campaign trail? I suppose he was really referring to all the change he was going to pull out of our pockets.
You may Recall Obama’s Presidential Campaign slogan:
“Change – yes, we can.”
The new updated version is:
“Can you spare some change? Sorry, I’m not asking – I’m telling you!”
One of my (hardly articulate) points here is that, over the next five and a half years (by then Obama will be under a lot of fire and hopefully it won’t be too late), you are going to get a lot more taxation without representation.
Just be aware that the rules are being changed subtly. One day, if you squint your eyes, tilt your head to the left, stand on one foot leaning against a wall, you can see that many of our Constitutional rights have been chipped away, and laws may be be leveraged that benefit an ever growing minority.
It’s what you don’t understand or see coming that will kill you. On the other hand, if you see a problem and don’t do something about it, you become part of the problem.
Right there you become the catalyst or footnote for evolution or revolution.
Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.
Brian Patrick Cork
The Treasury Department has asked the Obama Administration for clearance to control the Derivatives Market.
In a two-page letter sent Wednesday to congressional leaders, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he wants to create a central electronic-based system that would track the buying and selling of derivatives. He also wants to ensure that financial firms selling the instruments have enough capital on hand in case they default and subject them to stringent standards of conduct and new reporting requirements.
Geithner wrote in his letter:
“All (over-the-counter) derivatives dealers and all other firms whose activities in those markets create large exposures to counterparties should be subject to a robust regime of prudential supervision and regulation.”
[...]
Obviously regulations, control and transparency sound great. However, Wall Street – and, certainly Global finance is most efficient when it’s manipulated and controlled by power mongers brokers and illuminati hand-picked insiders.
Look what a disaster Sarbanse-Oxley has been for the markets.
Seriously.
Wall Street began to second guess itself about the time socialist regulators began to enforce lop-sided audit controls. Sarbanse-Oxley became, literally, it’s own industry over night. Only some of you noticed that, as “options” for inside trading and the dissemination of related information became more difficult, short-sellers were able to step in and confound institutional traders.
Change and rules might be good. But, too much government is not.
The violent, lathe-like spinning of Ayn Rand in her grave threatens to throw the Earth out of its orbit, and hurl us screaming into the sun.”- Nick Milne
Note: I lifted that, in part, from Nick Milne (and, freely admit, changed a few words, and it’s very context) with naught but the best of intentions.
In any event…
Good or bad – and, always depending on where you stand in the equation, our national and the global financial markets have always been manipulated with the plan being steady growth, with most of the profits fueling a multitude of strategies that benefit a relatively select few.
When I am writing about things like this, it always takes me back to when Grandad would talk about “defending the mountains of Hemingway’s Spain”. More on that later – maybe.
Obama likely means well (in a sophomoric sort of way). And, many people that support him (for now) were not the beneficiaries of that accumulated wealth and power. However, the system probably can’t work off of Democratic ideals for long (notice how Wall Street can’t get a sustained run going?) and global markets keep looking for excuses to put more authority in the hands of a shrinking number of banks.
This sets the stage for revolution.
Watch how in the next fifteen years key families, their familiars, and other elites work through certain banks (including the sinisterly named Bank of America) to amass wealth, and become more blatant about deploying it strategically.
I don’t know yet if Obama will go down in history as the Anti Christ; there are too many views, (in terms of cultural nuance) to define what that might look like. But, it sort of feels like a significant part of his legacy will be that of having set the stage for anarchy and the foundation for a greater Brazil-like gap between the wealthy and the desperately poor.
Gawd… The irony is almost delicious. It’s the aftertaste that will have me concerned.
To be more clear… What we see happening now appears to be common sense changes to equalize the financial process. But, global finance can’t work that way. The result will be a broken system that can only be righted through financially incentivized leadership.
So, ironically, more rules will result in greater chaos, and set the stage for a power elite that only Thomas Jefferson could have imagined when he designed our Constitution to allow for separatist (like) rules.
Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.
Brian Patrick Cork
Recent Comments