The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I'm also not sure what the search figures reveal. All I know about Valerie Jarrett is that she's an old friend of Obama's from Chicago who is now a senior advisor and part of his kitchen cabinet - whereas Rahm, as the White House Chief of staff, is perhaps the second most powerful person in the administration - with a large say in appointments, control of access to the President, and, crucially, control of congressional strategy - which makes him the central figure in the current health reforms debate. I'm not therefore surprised he gets mentioned more and I don't necessarily see this as evidence of an anti-Semitic agenda. notes from no w here
Reason number one that it was a dumb appointment. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Valerie Jarrett is that she's an old friend of Obama's from Chicago who is now a senior advisor and part of his kitchen cabinet
Is that not consistent with your quotes? I have no doubt she is, and has been for a long time, a member of Obama's inner circle, but at the moment, particularly with health care centre stage, Rahm's position is more pivotal within the administration, and I am not surprised he is getting more airtime both on blogs and in the MSM. notes from no w here
Valerie Jarrett is that she's an old friend of Obama's from Chicago
This description is an inadequate answer to the question, Who is Valerie Jarrett? This person is a life quite apart from Mr Obama. And one's examination of that person's life history, modus operandi and political achievements, precedes any characterization construed from "friendship" with Mr Obama or her familiarity with "his kitchen" appliances.
So. Beside a fifth-degree connection, I selected and read those articles to which the pull-quotes are linked in order to entice readings from ET subscribers. Have you read? Are you the least curious to learn more about who is Valerie Jarrett?
I should think so, if you care to substantiate this claim: "Rahm's position is more pivotal within the administration" than Valerie Jarrett, sous chef. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
If you feel Valerie's role deserves greater prominence and exposition, please write a diary about her and I will be happy to read it. I only wish more USians would display a similar sympathetic curiosity about Irish or other politics around the world. notes from no w here
But I asked you a simple question. Did you read the stories to which the pull-quotes are linked? There is detailed, factual information in the stories which obviate any need for my "exposition" of Ms Jarrett's biography, persona, or appointed rôle, director, Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, in a "diary".
I resurrected the ET search results in response to this statement.
The actually powerful figures who surround the President, such as Valerie Jarret, are ignored - not surprising that a black woman disappears from view.
I'll not read for you. I'll not package an opinion. That is your responsibility and judgement.
And don't group me with "USians". I click through all the links provided by innerboobz writers including yours. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
I resurrected the ET search results in response to this statement. The actually powerful figures who surround the President, such as Valerie Jarret, are ignored - not surprising that a black woman disappears from view.
I didn't make the comment you reference, and don't know if the authors contention - that there may be sexist/racist implications behind her omission is correct. I don't read the World Socialist Website. Perhaps you may wish to scold me for that as well? notes from no w here
I'll not read for you. I'll not package an opinion. That is your responsibility and judgement. And don't group me with "USians". I click through all the links provided by innerboobz writers including yours.
And don't group me with "USians". I click through all the links provided by innerboobz writers including yours.
I don't read the World Socialist Website. Perhaps you may wish to scold me for that as well?
I assume Frank referred to:
Kitchen Cabinet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In colloquial use, "kitchen cabinet" refers to any group of trusted friends and associates, particularly in reference to a President's or presidential candidate's closest unofficial advisers. Clark Clifford was considered a member of the kitchen cabinet for John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson before he was appointed Secretary of Defense. Robert Kennedy was uniquely considered to be a kitchen cabinet member as well as a Cabinet member while he was his brother's Attorney General.
And not:
Kitchen cabinet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kitchen cabinets are the built-in furniture installed in many kitchens for storage of food, cooking equipment, and often silverware and dishes for table service. Appliances such as refrigerators, dishwashers, and ovens are often integrated into kitchen cabinetry. There are plenty of options for cabinets today.[1]
Because the latter would not make any sense. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
The actually powerful figures who surround the President, such as Valerie Jarret, are ignored - not surprising that a black woman disappears from view.... If you look at the articles, you'll see it's worse than that - although to be fair, Hilda Solis might be ignored because she's in the Department of Labor not because she's a latina.
If you look at the articles, you'll see it's worse than that - although to be fair, Hilda Solis might be ignored because she's in the Department of Labor not because she's a latina.
Because the latter would not make any sense.
Oh, it does, when speaking metaphorically of the functionality of certains persons engaged informally to act as the president's agents, ex post or <ex ante</i> and during ... meals.
Clifford is a funny (peculiar) example, a Cuisine art "food processor" perhaps.
The Nation called Truman "inept" and Walter Lippman declared Churchill's speech and Truman's obvious approval of it --the president applauded several times during its delivery-- were an "almost catastrophic blunder." Although Truman bobbed and weaved through these volleys of criticism in a style FDR would have approved, he was reassured by the polls of what American people were thinking about the Soviet Union. .... In 1948 Henry Wallace ran for president as the candidate of the Progressive Party.
In 1948 Henry Wallace ran for president as the candidate of the Progressive Party.
By '44 Boss Kelly, FDR appliance sine qua non, had concluded Wallace was a liability no matter how much praise the Nation and New Republic heaped on his anti-isolationist rhetoric and spectacular fights with Jesse Jones, corporate rustler. Truman was more suave.
His chief plank was a call for reconcilliation with Russia. In the campaign, all Wallace's flaws and past failures returned to haunt him. The Hearst newspapers got their hand on the Roerich letters and had them authenticated by a handwriting expert. Unable to call them foregeries, Wallace simply refused to discuss them, dismaying even his supporters in the press. He defended the Soviet seizure of Czechoslovakia in early 1948 and sent an open letter to Stalin with a six-point program for peace that the Soviet dictator accepted, all but smacking his lips over such an easy propaganda victory. ...Even his original sponsor, Eleanor Roosevelt, deserted him and declared for Truman. On election day, Wallace got 1,157,140 votes --2.37 percent of the national total-- and failed to prevent Truman's victory, the real purpose of his bizarre campaign. [Fleming, 554-555]
Clifford was in the kitch for the MIC, I think, history has concluded. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
is he not trying to do more or less what he campaigned on
a lot less, imo, tho i do continue to support his being a lesser evil.
i knew his rhetoric would be hard to match in reality, but i'd kinda appreciate it if he levelled with us more about why he has backtracked on so many vital issues, such as his vociferous endorsement of a very different health care system than is emerging, for a start.
weak tea, so far, torture still continuing, and what i find really galling, his not giving up bush's executive powers, yet not using them to slice through a bunch of gordian knots first.
even a simple ' i really thought i was going to be able to do more, but i decided staying alive was more important' would do much to help to see him as less omnipotent than the role confers, and help people hang in there with him as he makes slow, good, incremental changes, but only after stroking all the assholes who have foxed themselves into being heavy hitters, while the middle class crumbles.
or a candid admission that his speeches were calculated to please and motivate a whole bunch of hopiated followers who then could be jettisoned like ballast which is slowing him down in the business of empire. haha.
i think his approval poll numbers might be a whole lot higher if he explained the kind of forces pressuring him better, to those, like myself, who wonder if we have been mightily hoodwinked by a very classy act, but largely just an act.
'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
When Obama named him, I immediately assumed a defensive posture viz. what would come, policy-wise, and appear to be correct in that posture. It signaled that little progress would be made, and we see this in the inherited wars and Obama's reticence to finally do the right thing and withdraw US troops. We see this on economic and fiscal policy, which is essentially are "more of same," money for bankers and little for everyone else, with even the much vaunted stimulus package wasted on the sorts of tax cuts the right-wing cherish while real stimulus measures such as aid to states was stripped out. We see this on bankrutpcy "reform" We see this on various civil rights issues (e.g torture, illegal detention, gay rights to name a few examples) as well as authoritarian creep (embrace of Bush's executive-branch prerogatives).
And, of course, we see Rahm's fat fingers all over healthcare "reform". The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
But there is no Left in the US. Hasn't been for years--perhaps since the 1960s.
Ah, health care reform! But you can no more reform health care than you can reform Wall Street. Worse, the Medical-Industrial Complex is to be the next big bubble. The one key provision of the health care bill will be the one requiring you to pay money to the insurance companies whether you want to or not. Whether they will pay claims or not. Obligatory insurance payments is how the bubble is to get started.
It is indeed foolish to get angry at Obama. He is doing exactly what his employers want him to do. Understand who THEY are and everything becomes clear.
Hint: We are encouraged to think that we hired Obama, but we didn't. The Fates are kind.
so true, why attack the puppet?
shame the string-pullers, much better use of energy. 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
And a functional bribery law would do wonders at effacing the lobbyists...
We never hear about Sudan. We never hear about Congo. We never hear about Myanmar.
All would be somewhat fair. But I have been deluged with Uganda news from the American left, ever since that anti-gay law and the links to American evangelicals came to light.
The left will be the left, as Booman says. It will talk about things that fit into left wing frames. The right will do the opposite.
From what I perceive there is less of a basic concern about the truth on the right, certainly the American right that's writing stuff online, so I'm less able to get information from them.
rootless 2 A: You can't, so everyone who disagrees with the main domestic and foreign policies of the Obama administration is an anti-Semite and a racist.
Dumb, trollish. fairleft
A radical argument would focus on the structural power of finance capital. A reactionary argument describes a betrayal, a shadowy cabal, etc.
Arendt might argue that betrayal isn't a valid accusation to be leveled on "leaders" by persons of a political standing amounting to powerlessness. Conspiracy, on the other hand, especially given unresolved suspicions of criminality that envelops regulation of social conduct by government, generally, is entirely germane to an examination of any common enterprise and reasons to consent to participation in realizing it. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
And really, fascism as being rightwing? Totalitarian movements are neither inherently right or left. See: national socialist Germany and real socialist Russia. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Following your authoritarian model, it still needs some structural underpinning. People believe things through psychological mechanisms, and I tend to sort them into external authorities outside the psyche/genome/culture, or inside.
As time goes by, external authoritization through leaders' use of supernatural morality as bulwark for their pronouncements might be reduced. Or not.
I'm very wary of the current trends in propaganda, because all propaganda is based on authority. It hardly seems that propaganda that tells you to trust your own derivation of truth through observation and falsifiability is propaganda at all, but that's what it's being called now. viz, the climate change denial movement. discredit the scientists.
Trust Nothing is not the formula for social happiness. Align culture with our nature. Ot else!
Others I respect have given up on him before now. I can see why. His backtracking on the treatment of torture (and photographs of torture), his hesitations to give up on rendition, on detentions, on military commissions, and on signing statements, are disheartening continuations of George W. Bush's heritage. But I kept hoping that he was using these concessions to buy leeway for his most important position, for the ground on which his presidential bid was predicated. There was only one thing that brought him to the attention of the nation as a future president. It was opposition to the Iraq war. None of his serious rivals for the Democratic nomination had that credential--not Hillary Clinton, not Joseph Biden, not John Edwards. It set him apart. He put in clarion terms the truth about that war--that it was a dumb war, that it went after an enemy where he was not hiding, that it had no indigenous base of support, that it had no sensible goal and no foreseeable cutoff point. He said that he would not oppose war in general, but dumb wars. On that basis, we went for him. And now he betrays us. Although he talked of a larger commitment to Afghanistan during his campaign, he has now officially adopted his very own war, one with all the disqualifications that he attacked in the Iraq engagement. This war too is a dumb one. It has even less indigenous props than Iraq did. Read more...
There was only one thing that brought him to the attention of the nation as a future president. It was opposition to the Iraq war. None of his serious rivals for the Democratic nomination had that credential--not Hillary Clinton, not Joseph Biden, not John Edwards. It set him apart. He put in clarion terms the truth about that war--that it was a dumb war, that it went after an enemy where he was not hiding, that it had no indigenous base of support, that it had no sensible goal and no foreseeable cutoff point.
He said that he would not oppose war in general, but dumb wars. On that basis, we went for him. And now he betrays us. Although he talked of a larger commitment to Afghanistan during his campaign, he has now officially adopted his very own war, one with all the disqualifications that he attacked in the Iraq engagement. This war too is a dumb one. It has even less indigenous props than Iraq did.
Read more...
I surmise, Mr Wills's sense, his vote for Obama was betrayed, arises as much from an apprehension that Mr Obama is not a prinicipled person as from the senseless human sacrifice for which he now stands. Mr Wills possesses an extremely refined appreciation for tell-tale traits of transcendentalism in political speech. I would not argue, Mr Wills is opposed to "just war" or any war, merely that he finds Mr Obama's methods and rationale unpersuasive.
Lincoln at Gettysburg is a very interesting book. It accomplishes two tasks through a literary critque of Lincoln's dedication of the battlefield cemetary: (i) to query the moral premises of martial law evoked by Lincoln; and (ii) to execavate patriotic myths (Aeschylus, Pericles, Plato, etc) of the polis operating in Lincoln's epitaphoi and, one could argue, American presidential rhetoric ever since.
Sponsored by either republican or democratic party. Now that America's battlefield is boundless.
[4.] Athenians differ from all others in their death because they live in a different way, with a chracteristic regimen (politeia).... [6.] So the fallen heroes in the Kerameikos advance their nobility (eugenia) by going to school to the polis and its values (politeia). Thus, by their death, they teach others to live, making their city [cf. Raygun] a training (paideia) for the whole civilized world. [1992:56-58]
[6.] So the fallen heroes in the Kerameikos advance their nobility (eugenia) by going to school to the polis and its values (politeia). Thus, by their death, they teach others to live, making their city [cf. Raygun] a training (paideia) for the whole civilized world. [1992:56-58]
etc etc Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
LOL. Tiny indeed. From hug-the-state socialists to destroy-the-state libertarian wackos.
Still it's fortunate for the American economic elite that the PC-left worries so terribly much about ethnic things. Yes, the banksters are evil. Lots of banksters are Jewish. Does this mean Jews are evil? Of course not. Well, some are. But that has nothing to do with them being Jewish. Indeed, the fact that so many bankers (and others in the elite) are Jewish have simple cultural and historical explanations, ironically based in the fact that Jews faced lots of antisemitism historically speaking and were forced into certain professions, professions that made them far more prosperous than people in general.
The facts remain. Obama stabbed progessive Americans in the back. He has flooded the White House with people from GS. He has donated vast amounts of taxpayer cash to banks. But I guess me saying this makes me a racist, an antisemite (ask shergald if she thinks I'm one) and I will become persona non grata among all my politically correct friends in academia. Good thing for me I don't have any. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
He has much to say about the holiness of Holocaust, and the trained kneejerk responses that slap the label of 'anti-semite' on anyone who dare mention the possibility of ethnic cohesion of the Cohens.
If Jews want to stick together and raise smart kids and take over the reins of government, that's not a bad thing. Somebody's got to. Why not smart people with skills in the business of government business?
So they bought Obama? Was it a good purchase? The left is so purist and fragmented it can't function. Why shouldn't some group get together and say "we can do it better".
Perhaps the question is who was running the country when the Savings and Loan bubble burst, and who repealed Glass-Steagall, and who turned a blind eye to derivatives so complex they couldn't be understood?
It was a huge con job, but I tend to look for stupidity before I assume evil. I don't think anyone running the financial system wanted it to fail. I think the tragedy of the commons will suffice.
I'd dismiss the Angry Left and substitute the ideological left.
trained kneejerk responses that slap the label of 'anti-semite' on anyone who dare mention the possibility of ethnic cohesion of the Cohens.
What bothers me is the antisemitic label slapped on anyone who criticizes Israel.
But "ethnic cohesion" and "Jews want to stick together and raise smart kids and take over the reins of government" are something else again.
Kevin Macdonald (a considerable presence on white America site VDARE), says of the book you reference:
The Culture of Critique series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
People often say after reading the first book that they think I really admire Jews, but they are unlikely to say that about the last two and especially about CofC.
I wonder what kind of "people" Macdonald talks to?
Anyway, I'll give him and his books a miss.
Again?
this is profoundly true, unfortunately.
watching the news about the arbeit macht frei sign theft, they showed the camp, and mentioned the decision to leave it intact rather than destroy it.
the sight moved me deeply, there were a few trees, and this death factory. the horror of what humans reduced themselves to hit me so hard, it was nauseating, dizzying.
that wasn't so long ago, yet fascism polishes its boots here in europe under our noses, (never mind the USA), seeing brutality and unpunished collusion between industry, government and criminality, right now, and then it hit me that i kept waiting for israel to quit punishing the palestinians for what the germans had done, instead of paying more attention to the everyday racism that is semi-hidden in many outwardly 'normal' people.
indeed i suspect the sign was stolen for its collector value, some sick, evil person will celebrate his unholy treasure.
seeing the mussolini memorabilia on sale in the antique shops, his sayings lovingly repainted freshly on village buildings, then his newly minted portraits in shops, i wonder why the holocaust was horrible enough for some people, so afraid of modernity, change, freedom, creativity, just soullessly addicted to brute power.
we can't judge israel without first facing down and denouncing fascism right here.
my local gas station attendant, a nice guy, (to me), had a fucking swastika up in his office, next to a pic of berlusconi!
what do you do? collar him and try to 'educate' him?
i chose to go to other gas stations, as if that helps!
i get the feeling that liberality could flourish only in boom years, and i fear the return of 'la miseria' as government cheats so much its people return to the poverty and want they lived with before the sixties, the beginning of the vespa and fiat 600 years, when even the poorer had some hope of bettering their lives with some consumer novelty.
now we contemplate the peopling of europe with immigrants to pay our pensions, which would be less necessary if we treated these poorer countries right and hadn't caused so much need for immigration in the first place.
and this incites more racism and wastes more nergy that could be used for really dealing with our problems at home, spending the country's wealth more fairly.
this is the antidote to fascism, imo.
when a country's wealth is drained off to foreign corporations and international criminals, how can it pick itself up out of the mud, no matter how rich or influential it was in the past?
italy has not really _processed _ its deal with the devil it made, and its role in the causative chain that ended up with auschwitz, (the closest it got was benigni's 'la vita e bella').
that's why the EU is so important, it's our local UN, and by grouping together these old battle-scarred nations we can set a global example of how we believe the whole world could be.
with all its flaws, obvious and otherwise, its aspirations are more enlightened than anywhere, though i am also in admiration of many aspects of latin american socialism.
my dream is that in 20 years they'll 'meet in the middle', but we'll have to see. 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
European Tribune - Comments - Ideology of the Anger Left in the USA
It's impossible to understand the destructive role of the "anger left" as represented by Taibbi, Rosenberg, Firedoglake, and others in American politics without applying some class analysis. First, consider the cohesive underlying political message of this group - which can be boiled down to We, the people, have been betrayed by a weak, unqualified Obama who is under the control and inimical influence of a shadowy Rahm Emmanuel and too close to bankers like Ben Bernancke. All you have to do is fill in the ethnicity of the characters, which everyone knows, and you've produced something from the traditional language of the far right.
We, the people, have been betrayed by a weak, unqualified Obama who is under the control and inimical influence of a shadowy Rahm Emmanuel and too close to bankers like Ben Bernancke.
All you have to do is fill in the ethnicity of the characters, which everyone knows, and you've produced something from the traditional language of the far right.
I.e.:
There are just grounds for disappointment Obama's decisions, even acknowledging that he himself is no progressive. The administration's inexplicable adherence to the Bush "security" doctrine is perhaps the most egregious example.
Secondly, from a European perspective, the criticisms of HCR do not even sound particularly "leftist". Indeed, only a very small slice of the European political spectrum - the Economist neolibs - would count the current senate HCR proposal as "decent reform of medical insurance". The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
If that left had been less angry and had limited themselves to intellectual deconstructions of power structures, it's a reasonable bet that the power structures would have remained in place.
In fact it's very much a leftist failing to believe that all you have to do is criticise something with enough mature rationality, and it will magically stop functioning, stunned into irrelevance by the power of a clever and insightful argument.
It doesn't seem to work like that in the real world.
As for the anti-semitism - what? Where?
What are you talking about?
There is plenty of anger amongst the electorate, but in times of danger, people, and especially sheaple, tend to revert to craving a strong traditional leader, like moths to the flame. Real change involves breaking the hold of the financial elite over Washington, redistributing large portions of their ill-gotten gains to the sheaple they have fleeced and de-legitimating the noxious rhetoric that has, by now, been written into the brain structures of at least two generations of voters.
The best hope for accomplishing those goals is to mobilize and direct that anger and despair into a political movement that is capable of accomplishing that change. From a psychological point of view, anger is a road out of depression. The key lies in channeling that anger into constructive actions.
The danger is that violence perceived to originate from political opponents of the existing order plays into the hands of right wing leaders by alarming their followers and recruiting back into their fold loosely affiliated "independents". "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
If Obama had done half as much during his first year as Roosevelt did in his first two months, nobody would be complaining.
Well, except the Teabaggers. But they're insane.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Now that's actually quite an interesting conspiracy theory, as in an entertaining one. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
But, there is in fact a critical/analytical basis for opposing, from the left, the Obama administration and for undermining what passes for social democrats in the US.
Careful to not paint everyone with the same broad brush. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
by rifek - Apr 7 1 comment
by gmoke - Apr 3
by rifek - Apr 1
by rifek - Mar 30 1 comment
by gmoke - Mar 29
by gmoke - Mar 22 1 comment
by Oui - Apr 12
by Oui - Apr 716 comments
by rifek - Apr 71 comment
by Oui - Apr 6
by Oui - Mar 313 comments
by Oui - Mar 3110 comments
by rifek - Mar 301 comment
by gmoke - Mar 221 comment
by Oui - Feb 2810 comments