Contact information for companies that advertise in the LA Times *CONTINUOUSLY UPDATED*
Bookworm on Oct 26 2008 at 4:08 pm | Filed under: Media matters
Ymarsakar is right — contacting the editors at the LA Times to get them to release the video showing Obama cheerfully consorting with radical Islamists is pointless. They don’t care what you and I think. However, as he said, the advertisers and owners do (or, at least, should) care.
With that in mind, here is a list of contact information for some of the advertisers in the LA Times.* Please be civil. We don’t want to look bad. Our goal is to make the LA Times look like a failed journalistic institution that will inevitably be abandoned by thoughtful, informed (and polite) readers.
City National Bank — a commenter says that City National states that it has no ads running in the LA Times, although I found this contact page by clicking through their ad in the Times. To keep civility alive, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Cars.com, and here is some executive contact info
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (sadly, I could only find multiple phone numbers, not an email form)
Estrella (again, only a phone number — 1.877.386.6100)
ING Direct or, better yet: ombudsman@ingdirect.com
CapitalOne (pick a department, any department, because it’s impossible to find a contact for corporate headquarters — although I’m still looking)
Windemere (again, another phone number site: 925.556.6000).
CIT (lots of phone numbers). This is the corporate fact sheet for CIT Group, which may be the umbrella organization, but I don’t guarantee that.
Air France. Here’s the corporate fact sheet, with executive email addresses, so I hope your French is up to snuff.
Kaiser Permanente (good luck figuring this one out and, since it’s a medical care provider as well as a business, you may want to approach this with caution, so that you don’t tie up resources dedicated to patient care). Here’s the umbrella Kaiser organization corporate fact sheet, with executive email addresses.
Verizon. This is probably the umbrella corporation, and there are executive contact emails here.
British Petroleum (which had a very nice website when it came to figuring out how to contact the company). Here are some executive emails too.
Levi.com (not a great contact form, since it’s geared to purchasers, not members of the public). Got it! Here’s the corporate headquarters fact sheet, with executive email addresses.
Weight Watchers (no email, but telephone contact info). Here’s the corporate fact sheet, with executive email addresses.
Netflix (again, phone numbers, since the website is geared towards advertisers, customers and the media). Here’s the corporate fact sheet, with executive email addresses.
GMC. Here’s general GM contact information (including executive emails)
Lexus (a nice contact page)
Bank of America. Here’s the corporate fact sheet, with executive email addresses.
Treasure Island Hotel in Vegas
Go Hawaii (the State’s official tourism site)
Citibank (a miserable website for finding useful contact information for our purposes, but they promise at this link that “No matter what you need help with, no matter where you are, you can always reach us.” I took them at their word when I provided this link.) This is probably the correct corporate fact sheet, but there are so many “Citi” entities, I really don’t guarantee it.
Loma Linda University Medical Center
UC Berkeley Haas Business School/Columbia Business School — although I suspect that, given their known campus politics, both schools may be on board with the Times’ approach to “reporting”.
American Express customer service (and corporate info)
Southern California Chevy Dealers — who don’t have a direct contact, so here’s general GM contact information (including executive emails)
Cabo San Lucas Luxury Real Estate (snail mail and phone contact only)
Time Warner Cable — corporate fact sheet with executive email addresses
Virgin Mobile USA — corporate fact sheet with executive email addresses
Also, you may want to contact the LA Times’ parent organization:
The principle involved here is an important one. Americans, who have the great blessing to live in a free state with free speech, are entitled to support radical Palestinians and fellow-travelers, so long as they’re not active terrorists. However, it would seem to me, naïve though I am, that Americans also have a right to know that their Presidential candidate is consorting with radical Palestinians and fellow-travelers. Despite (or, one could say, because of) the fact that it might not reflect well on Obama in the minds of many Americans, it is news.
Here’s the letter I’m currently sending out. Any suggestions for or improvements to this letter are welcome:
I noticed that your company advertises in the LA Times. The LA Times has admitted that it is withholding from the public a newsworthy video of Barack Obama consorting with known terrorists as well as representatives of the American Muslim community who have expressed violent hostility to Jews and to Israel. This is media malfeasance of the highest order.
Until the LA Times begins to practice journalism and not partisan politics, I will refrain from reading it, and I will refrain from doing business with companies that advertise in it.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
By the way, for those who may fear that the tape’s existence is a myth, it’s not. In April 2008, the LA Times was already writing glowing words about the get-together, and boasting about the tape’s existence: “The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.”
UPDATE: Welcome, Little Green Football readers.
________________________________
*You’ll notice a certain haphazard quality in the contact info: some links are for generic contact forms, some are for the corporation’s fact sheet, and some are for both. The problem is that it’s not always easy to figure out by following an advertising link which umbrella corporation actually matches up with the website I’m viewing (as, for example, with Capitol One or ING Direct). In those cases, it’s easier and safer to use the linked website’s own contact form. My goal has been to give you as much information as possible, without inadvertently deluging with email an entity that has a name similar to that of an LA Times advertiser.
Email This Post To A Friend
97 Responses to “Contact information for companies that advertise in the LA Times *CONTINUOUSLY UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Big corporations loathe controvery. That’s how to get their attention. Express regret that [the advertisers] would want to associate themselves with a publication that is sure to alienate half the population.
Rather than threathen the advertiser, helpfully suggest that they might do better spending their scarce advertising budget in a less biased publication — one that respects the views of all.
The best way to contact them is via either their Investor’s webpage link or “In the News” webpage link.
If you go to the coporate website, usually, About us — find the link to Investor’s Relations, and email from that link, you will get their attention because they ususally don’t get email’s about ‘customers’ being upset about their product, advertising, etc… the other place to check is if they have a “In the news” link on their webpage. If you contact them from there, it goes to the people that are responsible for getting ‘good publicity’ out there and are very concerned when there is a negative response to their company/product.
For example, here is the Verzon Investor’s webpage, with actualy names!
http://investor.verizon.com/contactus/index.aspx
I can’t do this for your entire list, but it is a start….
Mary in San Diego –
Portfolio.com is also a good place to find phone numbers and contact names: http://www.portfolio.com/resources/company-profiles/
For example, I found the CEO of City National:
Russell D. Goldsmith
CEO/Subsidiary Chairman of the Board/President/Director
City National Corporation
400 North Roxbury Drive
City National Center
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (310) 888-6000
Fax: (310) 858-3334
Spend a few bucks, buy a couple shares – make the annual meeting memorable. As a shareholder you:
1.) Have a right to be there,
2.) have a right to speak,
3.) can ask pretty much any question,
4.) cannot be thrown out,
5.) having asked the question, can damn well demand an answer.
It can be fun, too.
I wonder if the LA Times had a video of Sarah Palin consorting with a secessionist group like the Alaska Conservative Party, they would withhold the video lest the American people develop a distorted view of what she really stands for?
Here is the Bank of America list, from a post on Consumerist.com
ken.d.lewis@bankofamerica.com, colleen.haggerty@bankofamerica.com, britney.w.sheehan@bankofamerica.com, nicole.nastacie@bankofamerica.com, joe.price@bankofamerica.com, keith.banks@bankofamerica.com, michael.jones@bankofamerica.com, liam.e.mcgee@bankofamerica.com, brian.t.moynihan@bankofamerica.com, jeffrey.r.carney@bankofamerica.com, amy.brinkley@bankofamerica.com, steele.alphin@bankofamerica.com, liam.e.mcgee@bankofamerica.com, bradford.r.dinsmore@bankofamerica.com, michelle.shepherd@bankofamerica.com, diane.morais@bankofamerica.com, maryellen.baker@bankofamerica.com,
donna.m.soos@bankofamerica.com
Carpet their emails.
wonder if the LA Times had a video of Sarah Palin consorting with a secessionist group like the Alaska Conservative Party, they would withhold the video lest the American people develop a distorted view of what she really stands for?- Brian
There is such video, and CNN aired it, but it was roundly criticized.
I tried to find the CNN report on YouTube, but’s it’s been removed.
Ozzie,
That was a rhetorical question.
I know the answer.
I wonder if the LA Times had a video of Sarah Palin consorting with a secessionist group like the Alaska Conservative Party, they would withhold the video lest the American people develop a distorted view of what she really stands for?- Brian
Still trying to find that CNN clip, I found this on the left-leaning site Crooks and Liars and it seems tht the LA Times blased CNN for airing the piece on Palin and the AIP:
Here’s what they said:
The L.A. Times’ James Rainey took out after CNN’s Rick Sanchez this morning for his segment yesterday in which he interviewed me about the Salon piece I co-wrote with Max Blumenthal about Sarah Palin’s past dalliances with Alaska’s far-right fringe crowd.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/cnn-sarah-palin-and-la-times-giving-
But if you doubt that it exists, YouTube has a video of “Palling Around with Seccessionists,” which includes Palin’s address to the AIP (among other things):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eniG9l_7its&feature=related
Ozzie,
That was a rhetorical question.
I know the answer.
- Brian
I misunderstood.
I thought that you thought the LA Times would be unfair to Gov. Palin and be eager to spread such a story.
Yet they criticized CNN for airing the piece and came to Palin’s defense.
Yet they criticized CNN for airing the piece and came to Palin’s defense.
Quote where they did that or paraphrase their claim and evidence.
If you contact them from there, it goes to the people that are responsible for getting ‘good publicity’ out there and are very concerned when there is a negative response to their company/product.
One of those people actually commented here back when Book did a post calling for a boycott campaign of (forgot name but I believe it was the insecticide O something). The PR guru said that the newspaper in question had violated one of their contracts (which isn’t surprising given how fake liberals will do all kinds of things if they believe they can get away with it).
It would make sense that if they had violated the contracts why a PR guru would be searching the internet for things related to that ad space in the publication.
The truth is that people hire Democrats all the time based upon their professional history and conduct but are now realizing that for those Democrats that prize ideological purity over professional loyalty, you are going to get stabbed in the back. Look at the Atlantic for an example when they hired a Democrat photographer to take pictures of McCain and the photographer posted doctored pics of McCain, contrary to her contractual and professional expectations, with a savage set of fangs and shark teeth dripping blood.
NY Times sits on Obama and Terrorist Meetings…
via LGF: Andrew McCarthy picks up on the Los Angeles Times’ outrageous suppression of a potentially…
Yet they criticized CNN for airing the piece and came to Palin’s defense.- me, regarding the LA Times
Quote where they did that or paraphrase their claim and evidence – Ymar
CNN bid to tie Palin to secessionists is a stretch
The cable news network fails to show that Sarah Palin embraced the call by some in the Alaskan Independence Party to sever their beloved state from ‘the Lower 48.’
By James Rainey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 15, 2008
‘Who is Todd Palin? What is his influence?” CNN’s Rick Sanchez asked urgently Tuesday afternoon, just before a commercial break. “What is his tie to AIP, the Alaskan Independence Party?”
The anchorman’s serious tone and dancing eyebrows — not to mention a “The Palins and the Fringe” banner across the bottom of the screen — suggested big surprises. Must-see TV! And all of it coming “right after the break.”
So I holstered the remote for a couple of minutes and waited to see what CNN was up to.
The answer: no good.
for full article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia15-2008oct15,0,2147926,full.story
FYI, I got this response from City National Bank:
Nice try, Ozzie.
Rainey is a writer. Not editor. Last time I checked, and it was probably the case at your father’s paper, Editors, not writers, decide editorial policy.
That was great of Rainey to see the CNN smear for what it was, he appears to go against the grain and be even-handed. I applaud him for that.
The list:
Sam Zell apparently has controlling interest of The Tribune Company.
David Hiller is the publisher.
Meredith Artley is the executive editor.
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2008/07/times_bloggers_told_not_t.php
Russ Stanton is the editor. He had been editor of the web edition.
Sam Newton is editor of the Editorial Pages board.
Tony Pierce runs the Times 25 blogs.
http://www.laist.com/2007/11/30/tony_interview.php
I’m not sure who edits the online version.
The paper endorsed Obama, the first time the paper has endorsed a presidential candidate since 1972.
Click on the link below Artley for an interesting sidebar.
The paper endorsed Obama, the first time the paper has endorsed a presidential candidate since 1972.- Brian
That’s happening all across the country, Brian. And the “Palin pick” is largely cited as the No. 1 reason why.
Editor and Publisher has been following this trend and found that “Even in ‘Red’ States Obama Has Big Lead Over McCain in Newspaper Endorsements.”
The Latest Headline:
MONDAY Tally Of Newspaper Endorsements — Obama Widens Lead to 194-82
And then there’s this. . .
“At least 38 papers have now switched to Obama from Bush in 2004, with just four flipping to McCain. The latest majors to flipflop to Obama: the papers in Providence and Fort Worth. In addition, several top papers that went for Bush in 2004 have now chosen not to endorse this year, the latest being the Indianapolis Star in key swing state Indiana.”
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875230
The paper endorsed Obama, the first time the paper has endorsed a presidential candidate since 1972.- Brian
Just to make sure I got it right, here’s Editor and Publisher from last week:
“. . . But here is another measure: the brutal criticism of that pick in newspaper editorial endorsements of his opponent — from GOP-leaning papers that endorsed George W. Bush.
Many of them cited his Palin pick as a key reason for switching sides this time around. As the Chicago Tribune, which backed a Democrat for president for the first time in its history, frankly declared, “McCain failed in his most important executive decision.”
Yet McCain said today, referring to Palin, “I think she is the most qualified of any that has run recently for vice president.”
Here is a gallery of some of these comments, all from Bush-backing papers in 2004.
Check out our running list of all endorsements, updated continually here.
*
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
“McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate–but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin’s exposure to the public. But it’s clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment’s notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.”
ASBURY PARK PRESS (NJ)
“If McCain, who is 72 and has a history of cancer, should die in the presidency, he would be succeeded by Sarah Palin, whose selection as the vice presidential candidate calls McCain’s judgment into serious question. She is not qualified to lead a nation facing its toughest challenges in decades.”
SALT LAKE TRIBUNE (UTAH)
“Then, out of nowhere, and without proper vetting, the impetuous McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She quickly proved grievously underequipped to step into the presidency should McCain, at 72 and with a history of health problems, die in office. More than any single factor, McCain’s bad judgment in choosing the inarticulate, insular and ethically challenged Palin disqualifies him for the presidency.”
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
“Perhaps the worst mistake McCain made in his campaign for the White House was the choice of the inexperienced and inflammatory Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. Had he selected a moderate, experienced Republican lawmaker such as Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison with a strong appeal to independents, the Chronicle’s choice for an endorsement would have been far more difficult.”
STOCKTON (Ca.) RECORD
“If elected, at 72, [McCain] would be the oldest incoming president in U.S. history. He’s in good health now, we’re told, although he has withheld most of his medical records. That means Gov. Sarah Palin could very well become president.
And that brings us to McCain’s most troubling trait: his judgment.
While praiseworthy for putting the first woman on a major-party presidential ticket since Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, his selection of Palin as a running mate was appalling. The first-term governor is clearly not experienced enough to serve as vice president or president if required.”
PASADENA STAR-NEWS (CALIF.)
“His selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as running mate, a move intended to energize the ticket and galvanize the Republican party, has rallied some supporters, but left others, including some in his own party, wondering whether McCain had put politics ahead of prudence.”
MASON CITY GLOBE GAZETTE (IOWA)
“McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as running mate rang of desperation; an attempt to appeal to Democratic female voters upset that Hillary Clinton is not their party’s nominee and to make the Republican ticket seem more change-oriented by having someone that’s about as far removed from Washington as possible. Palin is talented in many ways, and we admire her regular-gal persona. But is she the person we want as president if something happens to the person we elect Nov. 4? Absolutely not. Although she plays well to the Republican conservative base, she leaves others gasping incredulously at McCain’s choice.”
HAMILTON JOURNAL NEWS (OHIO)
“As much as we respect the loyal and courageous service of Sen. McCain in the military and in Congress, his record of supporting the Bush administration’s policies, particularly his support for the costly and unnecessary war in Iraq; his impulsive and improvident selection of an ill-prepared running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin; and his negative, conflicted and uneven campaign lead us to believe that he is not the man to lead the nation at a time when extraordinary change is needed.”
THE COLUMBIAN (WASH.)
“As for judgment, Obama chose a running mate who neither hurt him in the polls nor diverted the spotlight from the main man on the ticket. McCain’s choice has done both. McCain tries to masquerade this recklessness as the virtue of a maverick. Would he use that same recklessness in appointing Supreme Court justices and Cabinet members?”
YAKIMA HERALD (WASH.)
“Sarah Palin. The governor of Alaska took the national political scene by storm, and by surprise, when McCain picked her as his running mate. Palin has obvious appeal to the conservative wing of the Republican party, and her outspoken, folksy ways brought her a lot of attention for a while. But her 15 minutes of fame in the national spotlight are over. On the campaign trail, we’re not seeing the kind of substance, depth and breadth of experience that’s necessary in someone a heartbeat away from the presidency.”
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003876408
[...] · No Comments Via LGF: We’re calling on LGF readers to contact the Los Angeles Times and their advertisers to demand that the Times release the videotape they are concealing, showing Barack Obama at a party [...]
I wonder how many of those references you cite, Oz, are males. I see statements of “she’s not qualified”, “he passed over others who are more qualified” “his choice was impulsive and improvident”… but none of them offers a more qualified candidate. Ok…Kay Bailey Hutchison. But she’s another lawmaker…Palin has executive experience. Biden isn’t any more qualified. Obama himself isn’t particularly qualified…so what’s the basis for their evaluations? Hutchison is an outstanding lawmaker – but she hasn’t any CEO experience, and I sincerely doubt she’d electrify the base like Palin has…so how would she be _better_?
My guess is that they simply prefer a black male over a female of any color.
wonder how many of those references you cite, Oz, are males. – suek
To, me, it doesn’t matter. And I’m not impressed when a Republican lawmaker carries water for the team. .
“My guess is that they simply prefer a black male over a female of any color.’ – suekl
That’s the charge being leveled against Colin Powell, but Christoper Hitchens, who backed Bush in 2004, was sent over the edge by Palin.
“This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year,” he wrote, “It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus.” He concluded that, “On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity.”
He also harps on the religious angle and warns against “theocratic bullies.”
Here’s a taste:
Sarah Palin’s War on Science: The GOP ticket’s appalling contempt for knowledge and learning.
“. . Videos taken in the Assembly of God church in Wasilla, Alaska, which she used to attend, show her nodding as a preacher says that Alaska will be “one of the refuge states in the Last Days.” For the uninitiated, this is a reference to a crackpot belief, widely held among those who brood on the “End Times,” that some parts of the world will end at different times from others, and Alaska will be a big draw as the heavens darken on account of its wide open spaces. An article by Laurie Goodstein in the New York Time gives further gruesome details of the extreme Pentecostalism with which Palin has been associated in the past (perhaps moderating herself, at least in public, as a political career became more attractive). High points, also available on YouTube, show her being “anointed” by an African bishop who claims to cast out witches. The term used in the trade for this hysterical superstitious nonsense is “spiritual warfare,” in which true Christian soldiers are trained to fight demons. Palin has spoken at “spiritual warfare” events as recently as June. And only last week the chiller from Wasilla spoke of “prayer warriors” in a radio interview with James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who said that he and his lovely wife, Shirley, had convened a prayer meeting to beseech that “God’s perfect will be done on Nov. 4.”
This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just “people of faith” but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity.”
for more: http://slate.com/id/2203120
The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape…
Andrew McCarthy at National Review: Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of……
“This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just “people of faith” but theocratic bullies.”- Ozzie (channeling Hitchens)
I don’t mind someone calling me a fanatic and an ignoramus. And I was with him when he said I wasn’t anti-elitist, whatever that means. I am kind of messy. But accusing me of being envious of him is too much!
He’s no longer my favorite athiest!
>>but Christoper Hitchens, who backed Bush in 2004, was sent over the edge by Palin. >>
Tough. Ask me if I care what Hitchens thinks.
What religious beliefs/practices has Palin enacted/forced on the people of Alaska?
To Oz in 14, thanks.
What religious beliefs/practices has Palin enacted/forced on the people of Alaska?
Obviously the high rate of approval is indicative of mass brainwashing on sarah’s part, akin to Jesus Camp, suek.
“But accusing me of being envious of him is too much!
He’s no longer my favorite athiest!= Brian
I dont think he was referring to you. I think he was referring to the “theocratic bullies” (who you dont believe exist) with a Christian Nation agenda (which you dont believe they have)..
“What religious beliefs/practices has Palin enacted/forced on the people of Alaska?”- suek
None. It would be unconstitutional for her to do that. For now, anyway…
But if she were in the White House and we had another Congress like we did in 2004-2005?
The Religious Right had extremist legislation pass in the House back then. Thank God the Sentate wasn’t as nutty.
But Chris Hedges made the case for how America’s Chrisitian Fascists could win out.
The formula goes something like this:
Major Crisis + Relgious Right Congress + Relgious Fantatic as President = A Christian Nation
It’s becoming less likely that such a thing will happen.
But I wonder if John McCain isn’t kicking himself for choosing Palin.
Ozzie says,
>> This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. >>
Thank you, Ozzie. You repeated what Hitchens says. It makes it clear that he, and you, have an absolute, uncompromising hatred of the religious. Of those with faith. Even I, an agnostic, treat them with more respect than you – who claim to have faith! What a strange, strange thing it is.
I’m becoming more and more convinced that the anti-Palin hatred is in truth fueled by a hatred of the religious.
Let me be perhaps mean: When you reference “prayer warriors”, why don’t you supply the full quote? And let us judge for ourselves the seriousness of the quote. Because there’s no there there, I bet, or because you were too lazy to look it up. You are either hiding it, or you made assumptions you should not have made. I’m sick of it. Not necessarily from you, but from the whole set of people that you seem representative of. Ooooooh, “James Dobson” and “prayer warriors”, in the same sentence. I shake in my shoes! Ooooooh! The soul quakes with dread, the neurons themselves shiver in fear! How lazy your argument at this point; what a terrible abandonment of logical argument. What a shame. At least your summary of editorials against Palin showed initiative.
What’s the full comment on “prayer warriors”, please?
Sarah Palin is a proad, boastful ignoramus? My God! I have heard so many attacks against her that match that description. I have found her cautious and careful at all times in never claiming to speak for God. You have heard her speak that she would never throw a woman in jail for an abortion, haven’t you? You are aware that there is a long-standing legal tradition in this country that she is PERFECTLY in alignment with? Yet she is the ignoramus. For shame.
As to the *witch doctor*, I refuted that silly argument quite clearly. He was a guest speaker at the church for a week, among many guest speakers; he did his thing; he blessed her; he left. As a *former* member of the congregation, she among nearly all probably knew nothing about him than that he was an African Christian. As with Mexican Christians, there are things she surely knew she would disagree with him about (idolatry); and African Christians would surely have more things to be in disagreement with. “Begone, foul heretic!” you would have had her stand up and cry, in ALL the forms of intolerance that you claim she actually holds! And yet she did not. I say again, Ozzie, for shame!
“And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just “people of faith” but theocratic bullies”- Hitchens
“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly realms.” Eph. 6:10-12
“I dont think he was referring to you. I think he was referring to the “theocratic bullies” (who you dont believe exist) with a Christian Nation agenda (which you dont believe they have)..”- Ozzie
Actually, I think he should go back on his medication.
I never said there aren’t people who would like to establish a Christian Nation, just that the scenario you describe is fantasy, both theirs’ and yours’.
It comes from not really knowing them, just having them described by people whose only importance comes from creating straw men for the left to revile.
Dominionist groups are separatists, which by there very nature prevents them with joining with others that don’t identically share their beliefs. This view of scripture prevents them from gaining the following necessary to have real influence.
Mike,
I think you may have misunderstood my attribution of that quote to Ozzie. Ozzie just just quoting the Hitchen’s piece. I attributed that to her adding the channelling Hitchens as a jab at her, since she presented the quote.
I shouldn’t have intimated that she said it, even if they might be her sentiments.
Oh, My God, then I offer my complete apologies to Ozzie. To accuse someone of laziness in a quote and then have failed to do my own due diligence is shameful.
I should have realized my mistake when I knew that such a quote coming from Ozzie would be very, very strange.
I apologize with all sincerity and completeness for both putting words into your mouth, Ozzie, and then harshly criticizing you for what you did not say.
Brian, thank you for attributing that to Christopher Hitchens. The religious-level fervor of the hatred of Palin for her religious faith remains as the valid part of my anger and my complaint.
By the way, Sarah Palin’s religious faith is not something that I *support*. It simply doesn’t bother me a whit. It’s perfectly fine. For many other conservatives who will be in the coalition of the looming conservative revolution, it *is* important, and I recognize that clearly. For me, what will be important is that she learns a good chunk of the vast supporting material that underlies conservatism. She’s got a solid, clear understanding of core conservative principles, but she does need to spend time understanding more of its roots.
And should a better candidate for 2012 emerge, I’ll have no hesitation changing my allegiance. This admiration that I have is no Obama-like faith in a demagogue.
Mike,
sometimes I’m too clever for my own good.
I’ll be more careful in the future.
This on Palin is interesting – surprising – coming from a liberal.
Former Ms. magazine editor in chief Elaine Lafferty — a pro-choice Democrat — probably didn’t anticipate that after spending time with Sarah Palin on the campaign trail, she’d be writing the post I’m linking to: Sarah Palin’s a Brainiac.
An excerpt (emphasis by Ms. Lafferty):
Now by “smart,” I don’t refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don’t really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I’d heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.
Thank you, Ozzie. You repeated what Hitchens says. It makes it clear that he, and you, have an absolute, uncompromising hatred of the religious- Mike
I have a complete distrust of those with an agenda to impose their ideology on this country.
Some people (including those from traditional Catholic and Protestant backgrounds) see it, others dont.
It may seem silly, but the poltically active Christian Right is a much more real threat than the threat of Marxism, (though, judging from what’s happened to my life savings, a “redistribution of wealth” has already occured).
It comes from not really knowing them, just having them described by people whose only importance comes from creating straw men for the left to revile- Brian
I’ve paid attention to the legislation, Brian, and that’s been enough for me.
If Muslims got legislation passed in the House, which would pave the way to turn America into a Muslim nation, I’m guessing you’d be concerned.
And I’m also assuming it would have nothing to do with “hatred of religion.”
This on Palin is interesting – surprising – coming from a liberal. – Mike
I read today that there is a “Palin litmus test.”
If you dont agree that she’s wonderful and the next Ronald Reagan, you’re out.
David Frum wrote a wonderful post on this bizarre new era of American “conservatism” and how such nonsense will make the GOP irrelevant.
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGZiODc3MThiOTg3ODZjNjM5ODk4NWJmMTU4ZDNmMmI
I think it’s time we focus on the strengths of John McCain and the benefits of electing McCain.
In the last week of any campaign, the focus must always shift to making a positive case for the candidate, not attacking the opponent. This is the strategy that has been proven to work.
What can we do at the blogs and in blog comments? We have to focus on McCain’s strengths. We can do comparisons against Obama, without devolving into attacks on Obama. Keep em short and simple.
This means in particular that we can’t let our comments devolve into controversies over Palin and Republican-blame-games. LET’S SAVE IT FOR NOV 5TH, PLEASE. Anyone still making up their mind, if they arrive at our comments, will read the controversial stuff here and it will only hurt us.
I remain unconvinced whether Ozzie is a deliberate disruptor – astroturfing – or is simply always being honest with us. If she hangs around after Nov 4th, then she’s for real and we can trust her going forward.
If Ozzie disappears after Nov 4th, then she was a deliberate disruptor, whose purpose – probably paid – is to ensure that any voter visiting us will see the back and forth controversy and get turned off on McCain and on Republicans. I personally think Ozzie is real, because she puts a lot of effort into many comments, but in any case, this last week is better spent being positive and not being diverted.
The last week is always supposed to be positive for candidate and party; let’s try to keep it that way! I would say, Please, let’s save the negative stuff for after Nov. 4th.
So, no, I won’t discuss David Frum and Sarah Palin. It can wait.
If you dont agree that she’s wonderful and the next Ronald Reagan, you’re out.
people who are voting for Obama are out because of everybody else’s decisions except theirs, neh?
I remain unconvinced whether Ozzie is a deliberate disruptor – astroturfing – or is simply always being honest with us.
She’s a real nihilist in my opinion. Meaning not paid. Take that view, with my attached interest in psychological warfare, how you will.
“It may seem silly, but the poltically active Christian Right is a much more real threat than the threat of Marxism, (though, judging from what’s happened to my life savings, a “redistribution of wealth” has already occured).”- Ozzie
“Major Crisis + Relgious Right Congress + Relgious Fantatic as President = A Christian Nation”- Ozzie
I’ve refuted this ad naseum, but Ozzie isn’t interested in reality.
In fact, at this point in history, Ozzie’s representations are harmful, since she persists in raising scenarios that are by several factors removed from reality.
I will give Ozzie a scenario that is real, and will have real consequences.
Major Crisis + Democratic Congress + Marxist President=A Socialistic Nation
Here’s why this scenario is more dangerous at this point in time than the scenario Ozzie seems to be terrified of.
Since you brought up your life savings, and consider what has happened in the last month as more damaging than Marxism, let’s analyze that.
The leftists in Congress have proposed confiscating your 401k and replacing it with a fixed 3% government bond.
Let’s assume you start with $1000 invest $100 a month for 40 years with the 3% return your government is promising you. At the end of the 40 years would have $98,000. Because of inflation, your buying power would be somewhat less.
Taking the same scenario, but earning 7% a year for the same time period would result in $280,000. That’s quite a difference. Let’s assume that the in the 40th year your investment lost 50% of its value because you weren’t prudent and didn’t move the investment to safety. You would still have $140,000.
Worldwide from 1900 to 2000, stocks have averaged a 9.2% return and 10.1% in the United States. This includes the crash of ’29 and ’87, the 70’s, the Asian and Russian crisis in the 90’s. We are in a period classified as a secular bear market and I don’t think 10% is likely for the next 15-20 years, but 7% is achievable, assuming the government doesn’t do something stupid. But we are about to do something stupid.
When we make our laws reacting to crisis, we always overreact, and that’s one of my fears. Sarbannes-Oxley was a reaction to Enron and increased the cost of business, but certainly provided no benefit to the current credit crisis.
In an effort to “protect” the investor, Congress may put in place rules that will stifle innovation and growth—they most certainly will increase taxes on the producers which stifle growth, but I’m concerned in this heightened climate of protectionism, they will seek protectionism in trade and protectionism in investments, which could hasten the global depression we’re trying to avoid.
Investing involves risk. You were told that if you invested in the stock market, whether it be a high flyer like a biotech or supposedly secure ABS. No guarantees.
What we have seen over the last 10 years should be a wake up call to what happens when the government tries to influence the market.
Home ownership was certainly a laudable goal. But when the market becomes distorted by government mandate, we end up with too much money going into consumption (in this case homes), and not enough investments in production.
And with a horribly liberal government (if Obama wins), what are the chances we will seriously look at the contribution of government policy to this crisis. I’ll even stipulate that Wall St. greed contributed, but we will never examine the effect that refusing to reduce subprime loans, and not properly rating the risk, had on the economy.
The effects of an Obama presidency represent an immediate danger to our economy, much more real than the scenario Ozzie fears. And the consequences will last for decades.
I remain unconvinced whether Ozzie is a deliberate disruptor – astroturfing – or is simply always being honest with us. If she hangs around after Nov 4th, then she’s for real and we can trust her going forward.
If Ozzie disappears after Nov 4th, then she was a deliberate disruptor, whose purpose – probably paid – is to ensure that any voter visiting us will see the back and forth controversy and get turned off on McCain and on Republicans. I personally think Ozzie is real, because she puts a lot of effort into many comments, but in any case, this last week is better spent being positive and not being diverted.- Mike
A Deliberate Disruptor? Are you serious?
People are getting turned off by McCain and the GOP without my help. Even McCain camapign staffers have gone from calling Palin a “diva” to a “whack job.”
Between scrubbed voter roles and confusing ballots, McCain/Palin might “win.”
But more and more, people are expressing concerns about Plain, with Alsaka’s largest daily newspaper endorsing Obama and saying Palin isn’t ready.
I’ve refuted this ad naseum, but Ozzie isn’t interested in reality- Brian
Because, Brian, I’ve researched this extensively and have made up my mind.
I’ve watched how you come to your conclusions and feel that the myriad of authors who have written about this are right, and that you are wrong.
The other day, for example, I posted an article about one of the dangers posed by the Religious Right and you decided it was from a left wing source.
I explainded that the author was an associate editor of “the American Conservative” and you decided, on your own, that he only wrote one article for the American Conservative, back in 2005.
How or why you came to this conclusion doesn’t even matter. You declared it the truth, and I think, actually believed it.
The author is still with the American Conservative, and I imagine, after writing abut this subject on several occassions, still thinks the Relgious Right is a threat.
I’m only expaining a view that I and a host of others, share.
I am not trying to get you to believe it.
I’ve refuted this ad naseum, but Ozzie isn’t interested in reality- Brian
“Because, Brian, I’ve researched this extensively and have made up my mind.”- Ozzie
What process do you use to revaluate your beliefs?
“I’ve watched how you come to your conclusions and feel that the myriad of authors who have written about this are right, and that you are wrong.”- Ozzie
Everyone has a right to be wrong. I think you and they are overstating the dangers dispensationalists pose.
“The other day, for example, I posted an article about one of the dangers posed by the Religious Right and you decided it was from a left wing source.”- Ozzie
Foreign Policy in Focus is an arm of Institute for Policy Studies, a left wing organization, according to David Horowitz.
“I explainded that the author was an associate editor of “the American Conservative” and you decided, on your own, that he only wrote one article for the American Conservative, back in 2005.”- Ozzie
I went to the American Conservative website and did a search using author Jon Basil Utley. It returned one article, written in 2005.
“How or why you came to this conclusion doesn’t even matter. You declared it the truth, and I think, actually believed it.”- Ozzie
Based on the evidence, yes I believe it. All you have to do is link me to other articles he wrote for The American Conservative. It would be odd to be an associate publisher for The American Conservative, and never write any articles for them.
Here’s who he claims to be: Jon Basil Utley is Chairman of Americans Against World Empire.
http://www.iraqwar.org
“The author is still with the American Conservative, and I imagine, after writing abut this subject on several occassions, still thinks the Relgious Right is a threat.
I’m only expaining a view that I and a host of others, share.”- Ozzie
I’m certainly not disputing that you believe it. And I’m not disputing that Jon Utley believes it. In fact if you go to his website, you will find a page that lists nothing but articles about Armeggedonism, using his link The Armegeddon Lobby. It contains over 200 links to other articles about Christian Zionism, Christian Kookism and other assorted evils of the Christian Right.
But the articles that I found written by him were not on The American Conservative website, but the Mises Foundation website, which is a libertarian group.
“I am not trying to get you to believe it.”- Ozzie
I gave up trying to get you to re-evaluate your position some time ago. I think anyone reading your posts should realize the extreme nature of your position.
Here’s who he claims to be:
Jon Basil Utley is Chairman of Americans Against World Empire. http://www.iraqwar.org
“Once again, Brian, from the piece I posted, which was written in 2007:”- Ozzie
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4630
But this link is an article he wrote for Foreign Policy in Focus.
Ozzie, here is an article in The American Conservative about the movement of Christians away from the GOP. Rick Warren is certainly gaining influence, and is not part of the Religious Right.
Leftward Christian Soldiers
By Darryl Hart
With a new generation of leaders preaching social justice over cultural concerns, the Religious Right may not remain an automatic Republican constituency.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/jan/29/00024/
I’ve refuted this ad naseum, but Ozzie isn’t interested in reality- Brian
“Because, Brian, I’ve researched this extensively and have made up my mind.”- Ozzie
What process do you use to revaluate your beliefs?
“I’ve watched how you come to your conclusions and feel that the myriad of authors who have written about this are right, and that you are wrong.”- Ozzie
Everyone has a right to be wrong. I think you and they are overstating the dangers dispensationalists pose.
“The other day, for example, I posted an article about one of the dangers posed by the Religious Right and you decided it was from a left wing source.”- Ozzie
Foreign Policy in Focus is an arm of Institute for Policy Studies, a left wing organization, according to David Horowitz.
“I explainded that the author was an associate editor of “the American Conservative” and you decided, on your own, that he only wrote one article for the American Conservative, back in 2005.”- Ozzie
I went to the American Conservative website and did a search using author Jon Basil Utley. It returned one article, written in 2005.
“How or why you came to this conclusion doesn’t even matter. You declared it the truth, and I think, actually believed it.”-Ozzie
Based on the evidence, yes I believe it. All you have to do is link me to other articles he wrote for The American Conservative. It would be odd to be an associate publisher for The American Conservative, and never write any articles for them.
Here’s who he claims to be: Jon Basil Utley is Chairman of Americans Against World Empire. http://www.iraqwar.org
“The author is still with the American Conservative, and I imagine, after writing abut this subject on several occassions, still thinks the Relgious Right is a threat.
I’m only expaining a view that I and a host of others, share.”- Ozzie
I’m certainly not disputing that you believe it. And I’m not disputing that Jon Utley believes it. In fact if you go to his website, http://www.iraqwar.com you will find a page that lists nothing but articles about Armageddonism, using his link The Armageddon Lobby. It contains over 200 links to other articles about Christian Zionism, Christian Kookism and other assorted evils of the Christian Right.
But the articles that I found written by him were not on The American Conservative website, but the Mises Foundation website, which is a libertarian group.
“I am not trying to get you to believe it.”- Ozzie
I gave up trying to get you to re-evaluate your position some time ago. I think anyone reading your posts should realize the extreme nature of your position.
“Once again, Brian, from the piece I posted, which was written in 2007:
<>”- Ozzie
But this link is the article he wrote for Foreign Policy in Focus.
Ozzie, here is an article in The American Conservative about the movement of Christians away from the GOP. Don’t know to what extent it describes the current state of affairs, though Rick Warren is certainly gaining influence, and is not part of the Religious Right.
Leftward Christian Soldiers
By Darryl Hart
With a new generation of leaders preaching social justice over cultural concerns, the Religious Right may not remain an automatic Republican constituency.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/jan/29/00024/
What process do you use to revaluate your beliefs?- Brian
I read books, I listen to interviews, I watch documentaries, I read articles, I pay attention to legislation. (which was the biggest factor for me) Over the course of 5 or 6 years, I’ve come to conclusions, based on the research I’ve done.
“Foreign Policy in Focus is an arm of Institute for Policy Studies, a left wing organization, according to David Horowitz” _ brian
If you go to their Web site, you can see a host of places they are affiliated with. But instead of reading the article (which included the author’s bio), you made an assumption, which was wrong.
“It would be odd to be an associate publisher for The American Conservative, and never write any articles for them.” – Brian
Maybe you should write to the American Conservative and ask why, as of this month, he’s still claming to be an associate publisher. If they reply that he is lying, then you might have a basis for your claims.
“I gave up trying to get you to re-evaluate your position some time ago. I think anyone reading your posts should realize the extreme nature of your position.- Brian
You think I’m extreme and I think anyone calling Obama a Marxist is extreme.
The truth of the matter is that Palin is a problem, for me and for a host of others (including reasonable conservatives who are laughingly being threatend with bansihment from the GOP).
John McCain was not wise to pick her.
And yes, I think Christopher Hitchens nailed it when he referred to the “theocratic bullies” Palin appeals to, whether you see it or not.
Bookworm, Beware of LGF. I know, they say all the ‘right’ things. However they shoot good people. They shoot in the back of the head, those who bring up even tiny points of dissent. Over and over again, LGF behaves as if they are a fifth column, even while saying all the ‘right’ things.
I fully understand they are a a private site that can do what they want with what they have. No problem there.
I hope I’m wrong.
They are cult like in how they ‘admonish’ ‘dissent’. I’m being far too polite.
Trust but verify.
Ozzie, here is an article in The American Conservative about the movement of Christians away from the GOP. Don’t know to what extent it describes the current state of affairs, though Rick Warren is certainly gaining influence, and is not part of the Religious Right- Brian
I think that was true when this article was written, back in Jan 2007.
I mentioned David Kuo in previous posts, but his 60 minutes interview, where he disclosed the contempt White House staffers actually had for Evangelicals, changed the dynamic considerably.
Begining on 2006, Evangelicals started abandoning the GOP in droves.
I was relieved. Religion and politics dont mix.
I believe that the Palin pick was a calculated and cynical move designed to bring those Evanglicals back.
[...] calling on LGF readers to contact the Los Angeles Times and their advertisers to demand that the Times release the videotape they are concealing, showing Barack Obama at a party [...]
Ozzie. As a Jew with funny curly hairs growing faster and constantly from above my ears, how would you explain the Israeli choice of Olmert and Livni? That is even more stupid than America choosing Barrack.
The free world has earned Barrack, we deserve him. You. Ozzie. Have made my point. The LGF great leader hates Palin but is afraid to say so because it might affect ad sales.
I hope Charles has good friends. I expect him to dump Palin and all things Palin if Obama wins.
Ozzie, I really do not mean to be mean. The opposite of Palin is Carter.
Free people who live in first world nations need to decide who to stand with.
Ozzie said:
Does Sen. Obama have an agenda to impose an ideology on this country? How about Reps. Pelosi or Frank, or Majority Leader Reid? It seems that the issue is not having an agenda, but which agenda. You fear theocracy (the substance of which has been the source of many comment threads here…); many others here fear that an Obama/Reid/Pelosi triumvirate will usher in a Marxist-oriented social structure.
Oops! Did I say ‘Marxist’?
Ozzie, how would you define a Marxist? Marxism covers a broad variety of social causes and effects, so that’s a difficult question. My own functional definition (in relation to this election’s rhetorical battle) is that Marxism is a view of social organization that inexorably links social justice to equality of economic result. A statist Marxist would couple that vision with the use of governmental authority and force to ensure a just society.
In such a sociological scheme, equality of opportunity is meaningless without equality of result, and the government must use it’s power to attempt to ensure equality of economic result. Hence:
Or, to paraphrase:
I call Sen. Barack Obama a Marxist. And a statist.
Sen. Obama, or any person who advocates for redistribution of wealth via the tax code, or spreading the wealth, or having government attempt to ensure that those who follow behind have the same “opportunities” as those who have worked for the economic benefit of themselves and their families, is a Marxist by my definition.
Sen. Obama wants to redistribute the wealth. He wants to spread it around. He wants to take a larger share from those already bearing the vast bulk of the income tax burden (those who make more than
$250$200$150 thousand a year) and give it to those who are not paying income taxes at all.Am I an extremist for calling a blatant redistributionist a Marxist? I guess so. I’m hoping that as election day draws near, truth-tellers all over America will proudly stand up and claim the title of extremist (or at the very least, slink furtively into the voting booth and act as an extremist must).
In post 37, Mike said:
You, of course, are right Mike. So, while not retracting my post 52, I’ like to say:
Sen. McCain is an American hero who, though exhibiting human flaws and making mistakes, has proven through decades of service (including placing his own body between his homeland and the war’s desolation) that he loves this country and believes that it is the land of opportunity – a city shining on a hill.
(And, of course, by my definition Sen. McCain is NOT a Marxist
)
Bonzo
Oz believes there is no real diff between Dems and Repubs, however. Just that Palin is very very dangerous.
Check this out for some of my comments on Hitchins. Could be valuable for those arguing about him as the thread is also about Hitchins.
Replying to BobK #53,
BobK, comparison and contrast is a *fantastic* way to beat the drum for your candidate.
What’s bothering me is the internecine warfare between conservatives; or between Ozzie and conservatives. The week before an election is perhaps not the best time, in case we attract via a search the “independent voter” looking for information.
Via dissension, or arguments about 2010 or 2012 on internal Republican warfare, is only providing pages and pages of dissent and argument and information that a confused, searching voter will recoil from, or simply won’t be able to wade through looking for information relevant to the vote. That’s critical because it is an undecided or swayable vote.
Pointed commentary on Obama such as yours (especially if with contrasts to McCain) I think would be awesome! But that’s just tactics and we’re all free here to do what we want, and it’s enjoyable as always. I just wanted to make a suggestion is all.
Does Sen. Obama have an agenda to impose an ideology on this country?
He’s taken more money from wall street than John McCain has, so he very well could.. but I dont think Socialism/Marxism is in the cards.
I view Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets (and Rush Limbaugh) as propaganda vehicles, and think this is a scare tactic by the McCain campaign, which is heartly passed along by FOX news and the Wall Street Journal.
Here’s another take on Obama on Redistribution of Wealth:
“As Orin points out below, Drudge is highlighting excerpts of a 2001 interview Barack Obama did with Chicago public radio, in which he advocated “redistributive change.” The context was a discussion of the Supreme Court and constitutional law.
Before getting to the controversy, the whole interview is worth listening to for another reason: Obama gives a very impressive performance as a constitutional scholar. Even though he was holding down other jobs while teaching at Chicago, he clearly had thought a lot about constitutional history, and how social change is or is not brought about through the courts. Among other things, I was impressed that rather than accept the rather cartoonish view that often prevails about the practical significance of Brown v. Board of Education, he knew that very few black students in the South were attending integrated schools as late as the early 1960s (almost a decade after Brown), and that it was only the threat of a cutoff of federal funds that really got desegregation moving. Being realistic about the practical effect of Brown is heresy in some circles, but Obama is correct. Relatedly, Obama was clearly influenced by Rosenberg/Klarman thesis that the Supreme Court rarely diverges much from social consensus, and can’t be expected to.
On the issue of whether Obama endorses redistribution of wealth through the courts, it certainly sounds to me like he thinks the Rodriguez case (holding 5-4 that unequal funding of public schools does not violate the Equal Protection Clause) was wrongly decided, and that state courts that have mandated equal funding for public schools are correct. But he also seems to think that it was a huge error for activists to try to achieve more general redistribution through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (In the waning days of the Warren Court, there was a movement to try to constitutionalize a right to a minimum income.) Co-interviewee Dennis Hutchison even suggests that in pre-interview conversation, Obama agreed with him that Goldberg v. Kelley, establishing procedural protections for welfare recipients, was wrongly decided, or at least promised much more than it could possibly achieve.
Based on this interview, it seems unlikely that Obama opposes constitutionalizing the redistributive agenda because he’s an originalist, or otherwise endorses the Constitution as a “charter of negative liberties,” though he explicitly recognizes that this is how the Constitution has been interpreted since the Founding. Rather, he seems to think that focusing on litigation distracts liberal activists from necessary political organizing, and that any radical victories they might manage to win from the courts would be unstable because those decisions wouldn’t have public backing. The way to change judicial decisions, according to Obama, is to change the underlying political and social dynamics; changes in the law primarily follow changes in society, not vice versa. Again, he’s channeling Rosenberg and Klarman. And this attitude on Obama’s part shouldn’t be surprising, given that he decided to go into politics rather than become a full-time University of Chicago constitutional law professor, as he was offered. Had he been committed to the idea that courts are at the forefront of social change, he would have been inclined to take a potentially very influential position at Chicago. (And judging from this interview, he would likely have been a great con law professor, both as a teacher and scholar, and, had he been so inclined, legal activist.)
All that said, there is no doubt from the interview that he supports “redistributive change,” a phrase he uses at approximately the 41.20 mark in a context that makes it clear that he is endorsing the redistribution of wealth by the government through the political process.
What I don’t understand is why this is surprising, or interesting enough to be headlining Drudge [UPDATE: Beyond the fact that Drudge's headline suggests, wrongly, that Obama states that the Supreme Court should have ordered the redistribution of income; as Orin says, his views on the subject, beyond that it was an error to promote this agenda in historical context, are unclear.]. At least since the passage of the first peacetime federal income tax law about 120 years ago, redistribution of wealth has been a (maybe the) primary item on the left populist/progressive/liberal agenda, and has been implicitly accepted to some extent by all but the most libertarian Republicans as well. Barack Obama is undoubtedly liberal, and his background is in political community organizing in poor communities. Is it supposed to be a great revelation that Obama would like to see wealth more “fairly” distributed than it is currently?
It’s true that most Americans, when asked by pollsters, think that it’s emphatically not the government’s job to redistribute wealth. But are people so stupid as to not recognize that when politicians talk about a “right to health care,” or “equalizing educational opportunities,” or “making the rich pay a fair share of taxes,” or “ensuring that all Americans have the means to go to college,” and so forth and so on, that they are advocating the redistribution of wealth? Is it okay for a politician to talk about the redistribution of wealth only so long as you don’t actually use phrases such as “redistribution” or “spreading the wealth,” in which case he suddenly becomes “socialist”? If so, then American political discourse, which I never thought to be especially elevated, is in even a worse state than I thought.
UPDATE: At Overlaywered, Walter Olson and Ted Frank (in the comments) talk about how all this might impact Obama judicial nominations. There are two basic possibilities. One is that Obama might believe that appointing far left Justices to the Court would be unlikely to accomplish much in the long-term, and could ultimately harm the progressive agenda, and his own presidency, by reviving “unelected judges imposing their will on the American people” as a Republican campaign theme. The other possibility is that Obama, intoxicated by victory, and having the very healthy ego that all successful politicians have, will decide that the election of a very liberal African-American president, along with large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, signals that the social and political winds have shifted sufficiently that the Supreme Court could successfully launch an activist liberal agenda, and he will nominate justices accordingly. But there is nothing in either Obama’s radio remarks, his voting record in the Senate, or his public statements on judges to suggest that he objects in principle to the equalitarian “living Constitution” of Brennan, Warren, et al., and there is much to the contrary.
FURTHER UPDATE: Obama advisor Cass Sunstein tells Politico’s Ben Smith that Obama wasn’t referring to redistribution of wealth in general,but “to the narrower forms of redistribution — education, legal filing fees, legal representation, and other issues –that had been discussed in the case Obama cited and in discussions around it.
That’s very hard to swallow, if one looks at the transcript.
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
Later, a caller asks, “is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”
Obama responds, “You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.”
http://volokh.com/posts/1225104785.shtml
Oz believes there is no real diff between Dems and Repubs, however. Just that Palin is very very dangerous.- Ymar
I believe there are differences between Barak Obama and John McCain, but that both parties were bought and paid for years ago.
Just today, USA Today had an article about how states are cutting out health care to the poor, which is a trend that will continue regardless who is president. Nobody cares about the poor which is why David Kuo (an Evangelical who truly seemed to understand the teachings of Jesus) was so disgusted with the Bush administration.
I also stumbled upon this interview with David Talbott regarding Sarah Palin’s Theocratic Leanings, and why she’s the candidate the Religious Right has been dreaming of for decades:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzsSTfI7bcA
>>Nobody cares about the poor>>
Whose “job” should it be to “care about the poor”?
>> which is why David Kuo (an Evangelical who truly seemed to understand the teachings of Jesus) was so disgusted with the Bush administration.>>
So David Kuo thinks it is the government’s job to care for the poor? How can the government do that? Where does the government get the funds to care for the poor?
The government does not produce anything. It can only obtain funds by taking them from others who _do_ produce.
There is certainly an obligation placed on those who claim to be Christians to care for the poor. It is a moral obligation. It can not be fulfilled by delegating it to the government.
David Kuo has forgotten that the teaching of Jesus the carpenter was to “render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s”. Kuo’s empathy is no doubt admirable, but that does not justify theft. If he would not mug the rich guy in town to get dollars for the poor, then he should not attempt to justify taking from the rich guy by using the biggest bully on the street – the government.
>> He’s [ Obama has ] taken more money from wall street than John McCain has, so he very well could.. but I dont think Socialism/Marxism is in the cards. >>
The author of that blurb apparently doesn’t realize that socialism is about ultimate government power and therefore ultimate corruption.
If you thought McCheneyHalliburton represented corruption, you have not seen anything yet.
If you thought the Democrats/FannieMae/FreddieMac/Moodys/InvestmentFirms represented corruption, you have not seen anything yet.
No government “takes over” an industry. They simply ensure that they control it, by putting their toadies in charge. One way or another. The toadies are already *mostly* in charge of the investment firms and banks; thank you to the current administration for that.
Remember what Paulson told the Wells Fargo President when he called the bankers together to present the first round of bailout moneys:
He told the Wells Fargo chairman he could accept the government’s money or risk going without the infusion. If the company found it needed capital later and Mr. Kovacevich couldn’t raise money privately, Mr. Paulson promised the government wouldn’t be so generous the second time around.
GENEROUS!?!?!?
That is as raw an expression of power – and the threat of its use – that you’ll ever see outside of a banana republic or a Godfather movie. Welcome your new socialist overlords.
SueK wrote,
>>Kuo’s empathy is no doubt admirable, but that does not justify theft. If he would not mug the rich guy in town to get dollars for the poor, then he should not attempt to justify taking from the rich guy by using the biggest bully on the street – the government. >>
Your whole post was awesome, Sue!
And it’s good to remember that for all that empathy, government redistribution always fails to help the poor in the long run. It *can* alleviate temporary misery temporarily. It never succeeds beyond that. The poor in America are richer than the poor anywhere else because of free enterprise, individual responsibility and initiative, individual freedom, and, yes, property. Obama stands against that and he therefore stands against success and hope for the poor. We must *never* forget that. For all of his so-called empathy, he guarantees their misery.
>>And it’s good to remember that for all that empathy, government redistribution always fails to help the poor in the long run.>>
I’m in favor of giving people a hand up – but they have to be willing to invest their own effort or forget it.
Education is important. Why are schools today turning out students who are less qualified than students of 50 years ago? How long have there been teacher unions? Have students benefitted, or just teachers? We’re always told that better pay will produce better teachers which will result in better students – has that been borne out?
It would be a good study to try to determine why the poor are poor. There are so many reasons…some actually are reasons that I think a society that has the means should attempt to address with government intervention at some level (local rather than national would be preferable)…that would be primarily for those who are incapable of functioning for some reason. There are those who function at a low level – society denounces “stigmatizing” the “retards”…but the fact is that that’s what they are. A kind society would see that they have honorable work commeasurate with their abilities and are over seen to ensure that they have food and a roof over their heads. I’d be willing to see government intervention in both of these classes of people if their immediate families were unwilling or unable to give them adequate care.
Generally, other than those two classes of people, most who are poor are poor because they are unwilling to work or have personal character defects that prevent them from succeeding. Society should not encourage them by caring for them. In fact, if I’m going to have government intervention, it’s going to be one of sterilizing them or taking children away so that they can’t pass on their personal failings.
And personally, I don’t want a government that is willing and able to do that!
Hope I haven’t just messed up my “awesome” post! Stars and “attaboys” are always welcome!
Whose “job” should it be to “care about the poor”?- suek
I didn’t say it was anyone’s “job.” I said that David Kuo believed that Bush would help the poor and was disappointeed that he didn’t.
This is what former Reagan staffer David Gergen said, regarding Ronald Reagan’s legacy:
Gergen: Now, one of the most effective popular programs we’ve had in the last three decades. It’s called the earned income tax credit. It’s a program whereby, if you’re a working person, a working couple and you’re below the poverty line, the government will actually give you money. That’s a redistributed program. It’s a program which takes money from the upper classes and gives it to the lower — to the working poor.
Now who started that program? The earned income tax credit? Ronald Reagan. It was one of the — it was an achievement of the Reagan administration that Bill Clinton then built on.”
This was President Eisenhower, in 1953:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms in not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Liberals think in terms of “empathy, community and fairness.” Arguments that appeal to these ideas will resonate with them.
A liberal would say “it’s only fair that people that can afford it should pay the medical bills for someone who can’t afford it, because we’re just part of a community and I know how it feels to be poor.
A conservative might say, “it’s only fair that someone who engages in risky behavior that affects their health should pay some of the costs of treating a condition caused by that behavior. It’s one thing to pay for someone sick through no fault of their own, but not for someone who caused their illness.”
The difference? Consequences. Liberals would like to create a society where no one suffers any consequences, a land where one can put their hand on the stove and not get burned.
The liberal pragmatists recognize a limit to soaking the rich, a tipping point beyond which the economy falters, recessions deepen and everyone suffers. In the aftermath of the 70’s OPEC embargo, the Saudi’s realized that. It’s still be to calculated what effect the extreme world oil prices had on the latest financial meltdown, but it is sure to have contributed. The true leftist, the ideologue, isn’t concerned about such trivial matters, since the downfall of capitalism is their stated goal.
The more pragmatic liberals realize that they can extract the money to fund their welfare agenda only as long as the capitalism remains viable. Like parasites, they realize there is a point at which the host dies. Which leftist camp will control the decision makers in government? Will the Obama-Pelosi-Reid nexus drive capitalism over the edge appeasing their ideologues?
Obama doesn’t appear to be an ideologue, but he has certainly surrounded himself with them. In fact, one gets the impression that Obama will be the more pragmatic of the three.
But then do we really know Obama or is he just a cipher of the radical left?
Americans are playing a dangerous game of unsure hope and unknown change. Sometimes too much fairness can have devastating consequences.
The author of that blurb apparently doesn’t realize that socialism is about ultimate government power and therefore ultimate corruption. – Mike
Most Americans realize we’re in a mess, but we disagree on the cause.
For me, this sums it up:
“Four sorrows, it seems to me, are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative effect guarantees that the U.S. will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a spreading reliance on nuclear weapons among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from a co-equal “executive branch” of government into a military junta. Third is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens..”– Chalmers Johnson
Sadly, I dont see this changing under a McCain or an Obama presidency. I think it’s our destiny, as laid out by Presidnt Eisenhower decades ago.
Once again, I’m pessimistic about America’s future.
But I don’t want homegrown relgious zealots (i,e the ” Theocratic Bullies” Christopher Hitchens referred to) capitalizing on our misfortune.
>> The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. >>
The cost of not building one modern heavy bomber is this:
a non-modern straw hut school with a dirt floor, in more than 30 cities, mandated by your foreign rulers; a school for your children to be sent to, miles and miles far away from their parents, for indoctrination. And if the kids are lucky, the parents won’t have been murdered or “disappeared” while they were gone.
“Now who started that program? The earned income tax credit? Ronald Reagan.”- Ozzie.
Actually the Earned Income Tax Credit began in 1975 to offset the effect of the payroll tax on the poor. It was expanded in the 1986 Omnibus Tax Act.
“Sadly, I dont see this changing under a McCain or an Obama presidency. I think it’s our destiny, as laid out by Presidnt Eisenhower decades ago.”- Ozzie
That Chalmers Johnson quote is sounding suspiciously like prophesy. Ozzie, I’m shocked!
Ozzie, in reply to # 64,
Perhaps the true bipartisan consensus around which we all could agree, is a return to limited government, so none of us would have to worry about our political opponents seizing the reins of the vast corrupted government machinery by which to rule us all.
If we all agreed to this, we could finally remove our fear of “the ruthless opponent” who has total power. Because granting *your guy* unlimited power simply means that eventually the other guy is going to have that unlimited power, too.
>>Obama doesn’t appear to be an ideologue,…>>
Probably because he has very carefully managed access to information that would make his positions clear. I think his associations have told you what he chooses to be…and that _is_ an ideologue.
>>Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens..”–>>
Actually, the reverse is true – the potential bankruptcy today is due not to ever more grandiose military projects, but rather over “investment” in education, health and safety of the citizens. Compare the mandatory social services budget percentages with the percent of the budget used for defense purposes. Then I’d also recommend that you remove from the defense budget the dollars that are used defending other countries and peoples around the world, and the charitable acts carried out by the US military in circumstances of dire disasters around the world. I suspect you’d end up with a defense budget about 2/3s of what it purports to be. I don’t know that, but I’d guess it isn’t insignificant. If those dollars are _not_ included in the defense budget, then perhaps foreign aid. We could certainly cut that one out…even if we only cut it from unfriendly governments. Instead, Obama wants us to donate – actually pay as a form of global tax – some 7% of our GNP to the UN for distribution to the world. The UN – which exceeds even our own Congress in corruption.
- From the Volokh article Ozzie quoted
It’s true that the first income tax was progressive. 1% on income between $3,000 and $20,000 up to 7% above $500,000, but redistribution wasn’t the aim. Fair allocation of the burden of the federal government was. It was “From each according to his ability”, but was NOT “to each according to his need”.
Whether or not Americans are “stupid”, it certainly seems appropriate to remind people what the left means when they use these slogans such as “right to health care”. They no longer limit their desire to “share the wealth” to welfare, commonly referred to as “the safety net”, but to a of new list of created “rights” in the redistributor’s goodie box.
The left is finally announcing their intention to make good on the Marxist mantra- “to each according to his need.”
Here’s a description of welfare pre-depression:
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-14-3-a.html
>>Obama doesn’t appear to be an ideologue,…>>
“Probably because he has very carefully managed access to information that would make his positions clear. I think his associations have told you what he chooses to be…and that _is_ an ideologue.”- Suek
I was reminded of an interview with Charlie Gibson, where Obama said that capital gains taxes needed to be raised even if it reduced revenue to the government. It was the right thing to do.
There may be an ideologue hiding in there somewhere.
That Chalmers Johnson quote is sounding suspiciously like prophesy. Ozzie, I’m shocked!- Brian
Why are you shocked? He studied history and worked for the CIA and brings an understanding of both to the table.
Here’s another “prophet”:
From 2006:
Decline and fall
Kevin Phillips, no lefty, says that America — addicted to oil, strangled by debt and maniacally religious — is headed for doom.
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/03/16/phillips/print.html
Ozzie,
You know how to tell if someone is a liberal?
They have no sense of humor.
You know how to tell if someone is a liberal?
They have no sense of humor.- Brian
I thought that’s how to tell if someone is a feminist.
Ozzie,
Very elegant response in post 57 that fails to address the specific point of my post: that Obama brings an ideology to government, that it is Marxist, and that that necessarily includes the redistribution of wealth.
Ozzie said:
Ozzie, WHY isn’t Socialism/Marxism in the cards. How is the blatant redistribution of wealth, either through the courts or the legislative process, not Marxism? Isn’t it still the government trying to ensure equality of economic result without regard to individual effort or contribution?
I’d appreciate it if the answers came without a reference to a YouTube video or Salon.com post – honestly, I’d rather hear your ideas than a quote or clip from someone else.
Ozzie, WHY isn’t Socialism/Marxism in the cards. – Bobk
Because I believe that both political parties were sold out to corporate interests long ago.
Did you see the report on 60 Minutes this week re: the financial crisis?
I highly recommend it.
Also, from From Aug, 2008, before the Sept. 15 crash:
Candidates for Sale
What do Obama and McCain have in common? The same big donors, who will expect to have their way no matter who wins
“. . . A big chunk of the $1 billion in cash that will be spent on the presidential race this year represents Wall Street’s desire to make sure that both candidates can be counted on to make the short-term bailouts large and passionate, and the reforms gentle and halfhearted. “They want to make sure there’s socialism when they need it — bailouts — and capitalism when they need that,” says Pollin.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/22210615/candidates_for_sale/4
.
Michael Medved raised a good point today…he said that wealth redristribution was inaccurate – that actually we’re talking about wealth _concentration_ – with the wealth being concentrated in the hands of the government. The government then may distribute what it chooses to whom it chooses. Obviously, a considerable percentage will be siphoned off in the process due to the cost of the bureaucracy needed to “evaluate” the needs and distribute the stash.
You know how to tell if someone is a liberal?
They have no sense of humor.- Brian
I thought that’s how to tell if someone is a feminist.- Ozzie
So you’re a feminist also?
Ozzie, WHY isn’t Socialism/Marxism in the cards. How is the blatant redistribution of wealth, either through the courts or the legislative process, not Marxism?
I think the Marxism/Socialism charge is nonsense and the that system wil continue to work as it always has.
When Obama talks about “sharing the wealth,” he’s not espousing Marxism or Socialism, but placing higher taxed on those making over $250,000 and closing loopholes for corportations.
I’l lbe surprised if he does it, to tell you the truth..
The progressive tax system isnt new, though,, but people are acting as if we’ve had flat taxes for years.
And in the 2001 interview, he was discusing the civil rights movement, and isn’t threatening to take your stuff and give it to someone else.
Do I think Obama is going to betray his big $$ donors to install Communism and Socialism? Not on your life.
Michael Medved raised a good point today…he said that wealth redristribution was inaccurate – that actually we’re talking about wealth _concentration_ – with the wealth being concentrated in the hands of the government.- suek
What was the bailout, then?
You’re all acting as if the sky is falling and I think it already has.
(I also think it’s going to get worse, by the way, regardless who becomes president)
OZZIE SAID: “.. wealth redristribution was inaccurate – that actually we’re talking about wealth _concentration_ – with the wealth being concentrated in the hands of the government.- suek
What was the bailout, then? …”
——
What about liberty, rule of law, property rights, freedom to dissent, i.e. the very oddity of America? American Exceptionalism?
What about liberty, rule of law, property rights, freedom to dissent, i.e. the very oddity of America? – Bonzo
Are you aware of the changes that have occured under President Bush? Dissent has been criminalized and he signed an executive order which grants the President the right to seize assets. Thanks to Dick Cheny, there has been e return to the imperial presidency and with the stroke of a pen, the president can decree that he’ll ignore the law.
Oh, and Posse Comitatus has been removed and a brigade which recently returned from Iraq will now have a permanent role patroling the streets of America.
You act as if it wil happen under Obama. It’s already began under Clinton and picked up steam under Bush.
Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens..
Oz posted that before. As was true then, it remains true: Oz doesn’t care whether the US goes bankrupt or not.
>>What was the bailout, then? >>
That was the government taking the concentration of wealth in its hands, and that which was not yet in its hands, and giving it out as it saw fit. Do you object?
Do we seem to have any say?
What does that tell you?
>>Oh, and Posse Comitatus has been removed and a brigade which recently returned from Iraq will now have a permanent role patroling the streets of America.>>
Cite, please.
>>Oh, and Posse Comitatus has been removed and a brigade which recently returned from Iraq will now have a permanent role patroling the streets of America.>> Me
Cite, please.
- suek
From the Army Times:
Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1
3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army
By Gina Cavallaro – Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Sep 30, 2008 16:16:12 EDT
“. . . They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.
from the Navy Times
ACLU questions homeland role of active unit
By William H. McMichael – Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Oct 23, 2008 7:14:31 EDT
The American Civil Liberties Union is questioning the use of an active Army brigade as an on-call federal response force within the U.S., arguing that the military is barred from any role in civilian law enforcement and that the force could be used to help the Pentagon conduct domestic surveillance.
The ACLU filed Freedom of Information Act requests Tuesday with the Pentagon and Department of Justice asking for “any and all records” related to the decision to align the unit under U.S. Northern Command, which is responsible for homeland defense of the U.S., and the “ongoing and possible use” of the unit, “including but not limited to contemplated functions; duties; surveillance activities; and relationship to existing civilian agencies or personnel or the National Guard.”
The ACLU FOIA request cites a Sept. 30 Army Times online story, “3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission,” and a U.S. Army North news release, as its sources for the information.
And Salon.com’s take:
Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the “Homeland”?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/24/army/
That was the government taking the concentration of wealth in its hands, and that which was not yet in its hands, and giving it out as it saw fit. Do you object?
Do we seem to have any say?
What does that tell you?- suek
We dont have any say.
And we can work hard and save our money and it can disappear just like that.
There is a reason that McCain and Obama received campaign donations from the same donors, who want capitalism when it comes to profits but socialism for their losses.
But Obama isnt going to take away anyone’s stuff and give it to poor people.
“Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens..”
This distortion that the military budget comes at the expense of other federal spending is nonsense.
Since 1962, the national defense spending as a percentage of GDP has averaged 5.5%. In 2007 it was 4%, well below the 9.5% at the height of the Vietnam War.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S7-Despite-War-Costs-Defense.html
Since 1962, the national defense spending as a percentage of GDP has averaged 5.5%. In 2007 it was 4%, well below the 9.5% at the height of the Vietnam War.- Broan
This doesn’t include all the hidden costs.
Also from Chalmers Johnson:
The economic disaster that is military keynesianism
Why the US has really gone broke
Global confidence in the US economy has reached zero, as was proved by last month’s stock market meltdown. But there is an enormous anomaly in the US economy above and beyond the subprime mortgage crisis, the housing bubble and the prospect of recession: 60 years of misallocation of resources, and borrowings, to the establishment and maintenance of a military-industrial complex as the basis of the nation’s economic life
“. . . It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military. The Department of Defense’s planned expenditures for the fiscal year 2008 are larger than all other nations’ military budgets combined. The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not part of the official defence budget, is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. Defence-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. The US has become the largest single seller of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth. Leaving out President Bush’s two on-going wars, defence spending has doubled since the mid-1990s. The defence budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since the second world war.
Before we try to break down and analyse this gargantuan sum, there is one important caveat. Figures on defence spending are notoriously unreliable. The numbers released by the Congressional Reference Service and the Congressional Budget Office do not agree with each other. Robert Higgs, senior fellow for political economy at the Independent Institute, says: “A well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon’s (always well publicised) basic budget total and double it” (1). Even a cursory reading of newspaper articles about the Department of Defense will turn up major differences in statistics about its expenses. Some 30-40% of the defence budget is “black”,” meaning that these sections contain hidden expenditures for classified projects. There is no possible way to know what they include or whether their total amounts are accurate.
There are many reasons for this budgetary sleight-of-hand — including a desire for secrecy on the part of the president, the secretary of defence, and the military-industrial complex — but the chief one is that members of Congress, who profit enormously from defence jobs and pork-barrel projects in their districts, have a political interest in supporting the Department of Defense. In 1996, in an attempt to bring accounting standards within the executive branch closer to those of the civilian economy, Congress passed the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. It required all federal agencies to hire outside auditors to review their books and release the results to the public. Neither the Department of Defense, nor the Department of Homeland Security, has ever complied. Congress has complained, but not penalised either department for ignoring the law. All numbers released by the Pentagon should be regarded as suspect.
In discussing the fiscal 2008 defence budget, as released on 7 February 2007, I have been guided by two experienced and reliable analysts: William D Hartung of the New America Foundation’s Arms and Security Initiative (2) and Fred Kaplan, defence correspondent for Slate.org (3). They agree that the Department of Defense requested $481.4bn for salaries, operations (except in Iraq and Afghanistan), and equipment. They also agree on a figure of $141.7bn for the “supplemental” budget to fight the global war on terrorism — that is, the two on-going wars that the general public may think are actually covered by the basic Pentagon budget. The Department of Defense also asked for an extra $93.4bn to pay for hitherto unmentioned war costs in the remainder of 2007 and, most creatively, an additional “allowance” (a new term in defence budget documents) of $50bn to be charged to fiscal year 2009. This makes a total spending request by the Department of Defense of $766.5bn.
But there is much more. In an attempt to disguise the true size of the US military empire, the government has long hidden major military-related expenditures in departments other than Defense. For example, $23.4bn for the Department of Energy goes towards developing and maintaining nuclear warheads; and $25.3bn in the Department of State budget is spent on foreign military assistance (primarily for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Republic, Egypt and Pakistan). Another $1.03bn outside the official Department of Defense budget is now needed for recruitment and re-enlistment incentives for the overstretched US military, up from a mere $174m in 2003, when the war in Iraq began. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently gets at least $75.7bn, 50% of it for the long-term care of the most seriously injured among the 28,870 soldiers so far wounded in Iraq and 1,708 in Afghanistan. The amount is universally derided as inadequate. Another $46.4bn goes to the Department of Homeland Security.
Missing from this compilation is $1.9bn to the Department of Justice for the paramilitary activities of the FBI; $38.5bn to the Department of the Treasury for the Military Retirement Fund; $7.6bn for the military-related activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and well over $200bn in interest for past debt-financed defence outlays. This brings US spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year, conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion.
Military Keynesianism
Such expenditures are not only morally obscene, they are fiscally unsustainable. Many neo-conservatives and poorly informed patriotic Americans believe that, even though our defence budget is huge, we can afford it because we are the richest country on Earth. That statement is no longer true. The world’s richest political entity, according to the CIA’s World Factbook, is the European Union. The EU’s 2006 GDP was estimated to be slightly larger than that of the US. Moreover, China’s 2006 GDP was only slightly smaller than that of the US, and Japan was the world’s fourth richest nation.
A more telling comparison that reveals just how much worse we’re doing can be found among the current accounts of various nations. The current account measures the net trade surplus or deficit of a country plus cross-border payments of interest, royalties, dividends, capital gains, foreign aid, and other income. In order for Japan to manufacture anything, it must import all required raw materials. Even after this incredible expense is met, it still has an $88bn per year trade surplus with the US and enjoys the world’s second highest current account balance (China is number one). The US is number 163 — last on the list, worse than countries such as Australia and the UK that also have large trade deficits. Its 2006 current account deficit was $811.5bn; second worst was Spain at $106.4bn. This is unsustainable.
It’s not just that our tastes for foreign goods, including imported oil, vastly exceed our ability to pay for them. We are financing them through massive borrowing. On 7 November 2007, the US Treasury announced that the national debt had breached _$9 trillion for the first time. This was just five weeks after Congress raised the “debt ceiling” to $9.815 trillion. If you begin in 1789, at the moment the constitution became the supreme law of the land, the debt accumulated by the federal government did not top $1 trillion until 1981. When George Bush became president in January 2001, it stood at approximately $5.7 trillion. Since then, it has increased by 45%. This huge debt can be largely explained by our defence expenditures.
The top spenders
The world’s top 10 military spenders and the approximate amounts each currently budgets for its military establishment are:
Rank Country Military budget
1. United States (FY 2008 budget) $623bn
2. China (2004) $65bn
3. Russia $50bn
4. France (2005) $45bn
5. United Kingdom $42.8bn
6. Japan (2007) $41.75bn
7. Germany (2003) $35.1bn
8. Italy (2003) $28.2bn
9. South Korea (2003) $21.1bn
10. India (2005 est.) $19bn
World total military expenditures (2004 est) $1,100bn
World total (minus the US) $500bn
Our excessive military expenditures did not occur over just a few short years or simply because of the Bush administration’s policies. They have been going on for a very long time in accordance with a superficially plausible ideology, and have now become so entrenched in our democratic political system that they are starting to wreak havoc. This is military Keynesianism — the determination to maintain a permanent war economy and to treat military output as an ordinary economic product, even though it makes no contribution to either production or consumption.
This ideology goes back to the first years of the cold war. During the late 1940s, the US was haunted by economic anxieties. The great depression of the 1930s had been overcome only by the war production boom of the second world war. With peace and demobilisation, there was a pervasive fear that the depression would return. During 1949, alarmed by the Soviet Union’s detonation of an atomic bomb, the looming Communist victory in the Chinese civil war, a domestic recession, and the lowering of the Iron Curtain around the USSR’s European satellites, the US sought to draft basic strategy for the emerging cold war. The result was the militaristic National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) drafted under the supervision of Paul Nitze, then head of the Policy Planning Staff in the State Department. Dated 14 April 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman on 30 September 1950, it laid out the basic public economic policies that the US pursues to the present day.
In its conclusions, NSC-68 asserted: “One of the most significant lessons of our World War II experience was that the American economy, when it operates at a level approaching full efficiency, can provide enormous resources for purposes other than civilian consumption while simultaneously providing a high standard of living” (4).
With this understanding, US strategists began to build up a massive munitions industry, both to counter the military might of the Soviet Union (which they consistently overstated) and also to maintain full employment, as well as ward off a possible return of the depression. The result was that, under Pentagon leadership, entire new industries were created to manufacture large aircraft, nuclear-powered submarines, nuclear warheads, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and surveillance and communications satellites. This led to what President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address of 6 February 1961: “The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience” — the military-industrial complex.
By 1990 the value of the weapons, equipment and factories devoted to the Department of Defense was 83% of the value of all plants and equipment in US manufacturing. From 1947 to 1990, the combined US military budgets amounted to $8.7 trillion. Even though the Soviet Union no longer exists, US reliance on military Keynesianism has, if anything, ratcheted up, thanks to the massive vested interests that have become entrenched around the military establishment. Over time, a commitment to both guns and butter has proven an unstable configuration. Military industries crowd out the civilian economy and lead to severe economic weaknesses. Devotion to military Keynesianism is a form of slow economic suicide.. . .
Our short tenure as the world’s lone superpower has come to an end. As Harvard economics professor Benjamin Friedman has written: “Again and again it has always been the world’s leading lending country that has been the premier country in terms of political influence, diplomatic influence and cultural influence. It’s no accident that we took over the role from the British at the same time that we took over the job of being the world’s leading lending country. Today we are no longer the world’s leading lending country. In fact we are now the world’s biggest debtor country, and we are continuing to wield influence on the basis of military prowess alone” (8).
Some of the damage can never be rectified. There are, however, some steps that the US urgently needs to take. These include reversing Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy, beginning to liquidate our global empire of over 800 military bases, cutting from the defence budget all projects that bear no relationship to national security and ceasing to use the defence budget as a Keynesian jobs programme.
If we do these things we have a chance of squeaking by. If we don’t, we face probable national insolvency and a long depression.
for full article: http://mondediplo.com/2008/02/05military
Ozzie said:
I would agree that special interests have ‘invested’ in both political parties, but that doesn’t change the differing ideologies the candidates are bringing to the table.
However, you did not answer the second question (with its semi-rhetorical followup):
Possible reply to Ozzie #82,
I have no idea about the extravagant claim of suspension of Posse Comitatus, but this story I’ve been saving for awhile *does* concern me. Just one guy’s opinion, but it does concern me.
———-
Army Taps Brigade for Homeland Defense
For the first time, the U.S. Army has designated an active-duty unit stationed at
home to serve as a federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.
The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, which has spent 35 of the past 60 months in Iraq, began its new assignment on Oct. 1.
It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home, the
Army Times reports. “In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.
“But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts.”
Soldiers with the 1st Brigade Combat Team will be stationed and trained at Fort
Stewart, Ga. When its 12-month mission is completed, another yet unnamed active-duty brigade is expected to take over the mission, which will be a permanent one, according to the Army Times.
The unit could be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control, or to
deal with the chaos following an earthquake or a chemical, biological, radiological,
or nuclear attack.
“I can’t think of a more noble mission than this,” said Col. Roger Cloutier, the
brigade’s commander.
“We’ve been all over the world during this time of conflict, but now our mission
is to take care of citizens at home.”
———-
First it is humanitarian missions to “help out” the poor survivors of a tsunami, then the next thing you know, our military troops are put into action IN FORCE, within our own borders, to “police” our own citizenry? Not exactly a conservative position. I instinctively rebel against this.
“I can’t think of a more noble mission than this” ??? I could care less about “noble”, myself.
Allow me to highlight that last phrase.
but now our mission is to take care of citizens at home
Say WHAT?
Ozzie,
How about a synopsis of the major points and then a link.
“Robert Higgs, senior fellow for political economy at the Independent Institute, says: “A well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon’s (always well publicised) basic budget total and double it””
Since the policy has long been to hide the defense budget, the comparison stands. Let’s assume that the military budget has always been twice what is stated, so the average for the last 45 years was 11 percent of gdp. The budget in 2007 woud be 8%, still below historical averages.
“The US has become the largest single seller of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth. ”
I hope all those sales get credited to the defense department budget.
In the last 45 years, Democrats, who control the nation’s purse strings, have controlled one or both houses of Congress, during the time when all these shennaigans that Chalmers laments occurred.
“In the last 45 years, Democrats, who control the nation’s purse strings, have controlled one or both houses of Congress, during the time when all these shennaigans that Chalmers laments occurred. – Brian
Have you read “Rebuilding America’s Defenses?” Or paid attention to military spending while the GOP ruled the roost in 6 out of 8 years?
But Johnson sees it as a bi-partisan problem, and says that neither party is likely to buck the system.
From another recent post:
“Bringing the opposition party to power, however, is not in itself likely to restore the American republic to good working order. It is almost inconceivable that any president could stand up to the overwhelming pressures of the military-industrial complex, as well as the extra-constitutional powers of the 16 intelligence agencies that make up the U.S. Intelligence Community, and the entrenched interests they represent. The subversive influence of the imperial presidency (and vice presidency), the vast expansion of official secrecy and of the police and spying powers of the state, the institution of a second Defense Department in the form of the Department of Homeland Security, and the irrational commitments of American imperialism (761 active military bases in 151 foreign countries as of 2008) will not easily be rolled back by the normal workings of the political system.”
Allow me to highlight that last phrase.
but now our mission is to take care of citizens at home
Say WHAT?- Mike
Scary, isnt it? The Army Times article also mentioned that the military might be used in cases of civil unrest or crowd control.
In April, 2007, the American Conservative pointed to “The Defense Authorization Act of 2006,” which paves the way for president to declare martial law (”even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly. . . “)
You might find this interesting:
Working for the Clampdown
What might the president do with his new power to declare martial law?
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/apr/23/00026/
“the institution of a second Defense Department in the form of the Department of Homeland Security…” – Chalmers Johnson
-reported during the 2004 election.
Remember how he was lambasted in the press for this?
>>Obama doesn’t appear to be an ideologue,…>>
Neo-Con has a great article on just this.
http://neoneocon.com/2008/10/29/will-the-real-obama-please-stand-up/