Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Sunday, July 29, 2012

THAT billboard

There's one aspect of this controversial billboard that really, really, really bothers me: I don't like that Libertarian crap about "statism." After 2008, when we learned that our bankers used deregulation as an all-purpose excuse to rip off everyone in the world -- and after global warming has been confirmed by a study funded by the Kochs -- I'd say that what this world needs is a little more FDR-style "statism. Make that a lot more.

There's another aspect about this sign that really, really, really, really bugs the hell out me: Although Obama's foreign policy has been hypocritical and needlessly violent, Romney has made no secret of his desire to attack Iran. His team has announced plans to bring a new generation of bloodthirsty neo-cons into power. Romney's foreign policy may well kill millions.

At one time, the Libertarians themselves would have quickly admitted this latter point. Back in the 1970s, I rejected their philosophy while admiring their honesty -- and their lack of conventional partisanship. They had their own party. These days, Libertarianism is simply a mechanism to get Republicans into power. Did any Libertarian see fit to erect a public advertisement of this sort when Bush prosecuted his ludicrous war in Iraq?

Other than those two criticisms, I don't have any real problems with this comparison of James Holmes and Barack Obama.

To those who say "It's too soon": George Bernard Shaw once used the Jack the Ripper murders to illustrate a political point -- and he did so while the killings were going on.
Whilst we conventional Social Democrats were wasting our time on education, agitation, and organisation, some independent genius has taken the matter in hand, and by simply murdering and disembowelling four women, converted the proprietary press to an inept sort of communism.
Compared to a statement like that, the billboard pictured above is demure.
Dear Cannonfire.
RE: THAT billboard
"...Did any Libertarian see fit to erect a public advertisement of this sort when Bush prosecuted his ludicrous war in Iran?.."
Should read: Did any Libertarian see fit to erect a public advertisement of this sort when Bush prosecuted his ludicrous war in Iraq?

No need to post this, just wanted to let you know.
Greenwald cites Jeff Goldberg's argument that Obama is more likely to attack Iran than Willard Romney.

Could go either way.

Did you mean Bush's war with Iraq above?

Every Big Media Clear Channel radio talk host clown supported the Iraq War and most called themselves libertarian conservatives, some even simply libertarians while they were doing it. Repulsive.
Sorry for the typo. I fixed it.

Jeff Goldberg is all wet. Mind you, whoever wins in November, we must do everything we can to prevent another war.

There were some genuine Libertarians who opposed the Iraq invasion all the way. Justin Raimondo comes to mind. The rest are just GOP shills.
I would note the timeline problem with the billboard claim.

Obama had not particularly launched the ramped up killing he's responsible for (the escalation in Afghanistan, and the drone attacks in Pakistan and elsewhere) as of the time he received the Nobel Peace Prize.

The prize committee apparently awarded him the prize as an aspirational award, not for anything he'd done at the time (and specifically, not after his ramped up violence).

It recently dawned on me that the U.S. Elite are siphoning ONE BILLION DOLLARS A DAY from the 3 trillion in credit card and student loan interest rate charges.

Obama has done nothing about that, and by doing nothing about that, he has placed unnecessary fear into millions of americans, who in turn worry about themselves moreso than the planet.
Allesandro, I try to be realistic about Obama's shortcomings, but his laudable actions as well. (That's realism!)

The two things you mention were things he DID take some actions on.

For student loans, he took out the banks' middle man position (and markup), putting the extra money saved into more loans (at the lowered rates). That didn't make the banks happy, as they were losing guaranteed money.

On credit cards, there have been substantial Obama reforms as well. No longer can 'universal default' be declared, where lateness on something other than the card in question makes it jump to a default higher rate. Rate hikes are not allowed as much, and for fewer reasons. Games played as to when the grace period ended and interest accrues were ended, and etc.

Whether these are all worthy changes, or enough, are worth exploring. But it is simply false to claim as you did that he's done nothing about either.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic