Blaming Bush alone undercuts your effort.

[marcus_b]

There is much more at stake than Bush and his adminstration. Or should I say the administration and their Bush?

Don't forget that the real issue is not Bush's "tough love", or his gross incompetence at anything that requires brain cells. The real issue is the corporate agenda of dismanteling the government and the privatization of profits while socializing the costs.

It doesn't really matter if Bush, Blanco and/or Nagin are to blame. Probably they all are, plus a dozen of other people. A quote comes to mind from John Dewey:

"(politics is) the shadow cast over society by big business... talk of democracy has little content when big business rules the life of the country through its control of the means of production, exchange, the press and other means of publicity, propaganda and communication."

This is the root of the problem, and you must get to it, and quickly.

Rahul Mahajan wrote this on empirenotes.org:

"The particularly disgusting autocratic, incompetent, reflexively government-destroying Bush administration is particularly to blame for this response. But blame is shared much wider, as well. This is an indictment of late American neoliberal capitalism in no uncertain terms and of the reflexively individualistic bent of this entire society. The most striking example is the fact that there was no evacuation plan – the residents of New Orleans just left in their cars, clogging up the highways and, even though there was plenty of space in those cars, leaving behind the 100,000 least able to ride out the storm – but there are many others. This is also the first opening we've seen to talk about the systemic problems with capitalism, instead of just the symptoms."

[JugDack]

1. Blaming Bush at all is spitting into the wind.

I love your quote, but US society is in no way interested in having that debate, no matter how much the facts suggest we should.

[marcus_b]

11. I think there is a huge untapped potential.

You say "US society is in no way interested in having that debate", but I don't see how you could come to the conclusion. The facts suggest a vastly different picture to me.

Now, don't misunderstand me. There are huge obstacles. The media won't transport your message. When you point out the real problem, Murdock won't point with you. The political elite will not represent your opinion. When you call for representation, you will not be heard. The corporations will try to resist any change. If you try to push, you will get pushed back. You have to struggle against decades of brain-washing propaganda, too.

But I wouldn't equate the media and the political and corporate elite with "the US society". The majority of the US is on the other side of the equation, and the wall that keeps them from realizing this is thin, and very transparent. The majority of people are disenfranchised. They don't vote, because they know the elections are a sham. They don't believe what politicians, journalists, or corporations tell them. The public distrust in any of these three categories is rising, and already overwhelming. The only institution that actually enjoys raising confidentiality are NGOs like Amnesty International etc. There is absolutely no labor representation in Washington. In fact, thinking about these facts makes me think that the debate is essentially over. It is only a matter of letting the facts and obvious conclusions sink into the public mind.

There is a huge resource. It can be tapped. The US electoral system suggests that building up a third party as a viable alternative is a rather hopeless strategy. But this is not the only form real change can occur. You can also reform one of the existing parties, let's say the Democrats, from within.

I think that if a movement is organized that really leads such a debate, it will sweep country. Howard Dean's success in the run-up of the 2004 election will look like nothing compared to that. The potential is there, but it needs to be tapped. People need to see genuine and convincing leadership, and they will stand behind it.

Maybe I am too optimistic. But only if you don't fight at all is the outcome a guaranteed one, namely a failure.

[JugDack]

34. I just don't hear anybody but DU'ers....

...saying we have to get to the bottom of why this happened. Everybody seems to be satisfied that, whatever went wrong at first, everything is going gangbusters now, and they're already tuning this out. I think many people believe it's essentially a local story - doesn't impact them directly, unlike 9/11, where every little Burg and Hamlet had to develop anti-terrorist plans for the band of bombers that was feared to be lurking in every dark alley. Nobody in North Dakota is too concerned that they'll have to rely on hurricane relief plans being up to snuff.

Otherwise, your post is talking about a movement within the Dem (or other) party that would sweep the country. Maybe, maybe not. I'm hopeful that you're right, but in my gut I'd say no. You mention Dean, but remember what happened to him. His movement was co-opted by the mainstream and he was run out of the race for being "too scary".

Too much change frightens people, and while many might support your argument in theory (myself included), in actual practice, we tend to go with the "safe" choice.

You say you think "the debate is over". Sadly we agree here, but I think it's over because the public has already begun to shut its mind to this story.

[marcus_b]

65. I never said it is easy.

You are in for the long haul. Hang in there.

This struggle is 1000 years old. Not only in the US, but in Europe, too, and elsewhere. I am not saying you only have to press a button and reap the fruits.

Howard Dean was destroyed, but he was a surprise success before that moment, which shows what is possible. It didn't succeed at the end, but there is a lesson to learn from that: You need your own communication network, because the mainstream media will trample you down, and it has a huge influence. So it is not so much a failure of Dean, as a success of the mainstream media to suppress him.

When I say the debate is over, I mean that all the facts are already on your side. You "only" need to communicate them. The majority of the people is already on your side, and you "only" need to reach out to them.

[Imagevision]

22. Not to blame Bush? -- maybe not for now -wait for body count

know even the architect is having problems with his pupil.

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

[liberalitch]

40. It is not spitting in the wind....

because at least it makes me feel better

[LisaLynne]

2. That's an interesting point.

BushCo has been criminally incompetent, however, you're right -- there is a bigger picture here. They are following the tenets of the conservative movement and this is exactly how those play out. The inability to respond to a natural (or other type of) disaster is what has to happen when budgets are cut in favor of tax cuts for the rich and corporations. When the vastly rich and corporations are the ones with the resources, no one is there to help when tragedy strikes. When the federal government does not have the power or funding to act and respond, people die. This is what their philosophy gets us. I agree that we need to ram this point home as loudly as we can.

[Clark2008]

21. So, should the argument focus more on the tenets

of conservatism - i.e. less federal government, even if it means not taking care of our citizens during catastrophes - and less on Bush, the man?

I mean, there will be no convincing some people that Shrub is an incompetent fool, particularly with the media constantly propping him up, but we can certainly argue that his policies have created massive problems by cutting funding for our infrastructure so that we can cut taxes for the wealthiest who may or may not hire Americans while simultaneously spending billions on an elective war.

[gratuitous]

3. You blame the president you have, not the one you wish you had

And all of these "political" choices, particularly Brown and Chertoff, were made under the penumbra of the crony capitalism so beloved by the corrupt Bush administration. But the facts of these men's total incompetence is obscured in the public mind.

Yeah, it would be nice to open the top on the whole corporate can of worms. But it's immediate and impactful with the public's attention actually focused on something bad for Chimpy to blame Chimpy. It's an easy case to make, the spinners are out in force trying to deflect that blame (a sure sign that it's getting some traction), and Chimpy himself is flailing around, reinforcing the perception.

A scandal like this has layers. The first, outermost layer is breaching Chimpy's media invulnerability. The media, like the floodwaters in New Orleans, will follow that breach and find their own level.

[linazelle]

5. Agreed. Going after the entire neocon base is ludicrous. n/t

[marcus_b]

56. I like the "layers" picture.

It's very true: There are layers to it, and it may be a good tactic to first crack open the layer at the surface and demystify Bush. Any cracks in this layer can then be used as a lever to attack deeper layers.

I think what I want to say can also be expressed using this picture: You really need to attack lower layers as well to solve the problems, otherwise the surface layer will be replaced and nothing is won.

I wouldn't count on "the media" though. They are an essential part of the establishment. For example, look at "the media" versus COINTELPRO as compared to "the media" versus Watergate.

[linazelle]

4. I don't agree. I have a personal problem with the man himself.

He has opted to become the figurehead of the movement you cite. He opted to take corruption in American politics beyond anything I, those here and people around the world could have imagined. For these reasons, and the fact that this man is a modern-day political Houdini, I say blame BUSH. BUSH is RESPONSIBLE. There may be more like him lined up, but I'd be satisfied to start with him.

[dogday]

6. Bush is so responsible for this mess

I do blame him and not just for this but for all the mistakes and there are many that he has made.

[linazelle]

8. Amen. You can't blame everybody and everything. You can blame one man

and BUSH is that man.

[expatriot]

7. My take: Conservatism on so many fronts have invested EVERYTHING into Bush

For so many Americans, Bush IS this super-conservatism and the conservatives have consciously portrayed him as such. I have often said that George W. Bush is the Marlboro Man of politics, he is the face that America knows and that they "trust (or did)." I mean conservatism is all image and packaging, when W. falls it will take conservatism as we know it a long time to recover.

[marbuc]

9. Well said

although I don't think the problem lies in capitalism necessarily, but in the extreme version of federalism the administration and their ilk seeks to implement. Katrina is a perfect example of why we need a capable federal government to coordinate the efforts on the ground.

The affected area includes multiple jurisdictions, most of which do not have the resources to undertake the necessary effort. These jurisdictions need a centralized entity to lead a coordinated response. The evacuated need a place to go, and as we've seen (but I don't completely understand or agree with) they are being sent far and wide to unfamiliar jurisdictions.

In a crisis situation, should NO be expected to coordinate seamlessly with Houston, Dallas, etc., when this type of arrangement has never been executed? The answer is no, but the federal government has jurisdiction over each of these cities, and the wherewithal to organize an effective evacuation plan.

[oasis]

10. Bush doesn't get blamed enough for his failures. That's been the problem.

[marcus_b]

12. Do you blame an actor for the script?

I understand the argument made here that Bush is a symbol, and if the symbol is destroyed, then that also projects onto the content what the symbols stand for. It can be a good short term tactic. I surely hope it will succeed.

But beyond that, as a tool, what sense does it make to blame Bush? He probably doesn't even understand half of the words he is reading from the speeches they write for him. He is, quite literally, a dress-up doll in the hands of the powers behind him. He doesn't decide policy. He is a smoke-screen.

This is why I think that blaming Bush will fail short: Bush can be replaced easily by some other face, without changing any of the substance.

[etherealtruth]

14. I blame the actor if he wrote the script....

... or approved the script, promoted the script.

If you position yourself as the leader of a "movement" and that movement is a fraud or a failure ... Where does that leave you?

[dogday]

20. Bush hired Brown for this position.

Instead of giving him the job based on merit and experience. He gives for payback for something Brown did for him. Now Brown has a lot of experience in horse training, but not in Natural Disasters.

How could our President carelessly and recklessly appoint someone with no experience to be in charge of something this catastrophic. Bush needs to answer for that one.

Bush took too long to sign the papers to move the guard from other states and thus left NO to fend for itself. I would say that was a huge mistake.

Fema which represents homeland security which is a department created by Bush, (there's that name again). Obviously Bush does not follow up on the departments to make sure they are on top on things. Wouldn't it of been great had FeMA already been in NO like it was in New York?

Finally we all know if Bush had wanted to, he would of sent help immediately, whatever Bush wants, Bush Gets. I can't believe he just sat there day after day pretending the situation did not exist....

Bush is so much in this picture, it can't be hidden, only in your mind is he not responsible. In the real world, he is crap....

[marcus_b]

24. You are giving him too much credit, I think.

You say Bush did this, Bush did that. But let's face it: Bush spends his time on exercising and on vacation, and reading funny words he doesn't understand and can't pronounce into a camera, when he is asked to do so.

How the president could appoint someone with no experience to be in charge? He himself is someone with no experience to be in charge! He just signed something that some aide hold under his nose who said that he should sign it. Bush gets what he wants as long as that is OK within the narrow range of options the real policy makers give him. If he steps out of line, he is called back. If he would refuse to not step out of line, he would be dropped and replaced by somebody else.

He is in the picture so big, because that is his job! His job is not to stay hidden, but his job is to hide everybody else. You say: He is responsible. He is certainly "responsible" in the sense that he should be held accountable. But check out what else that word means:

responsible (WordNet)
2: being the agent or cause; "determined who was the
responsible party"; "termites were responsible for the
damage"

Bush is not the agent or cause of his policies. If you believe that Bush is that, you may be one of those persons who believes those people in white gowns in the toothpaste advertisment are REAL doctors.

[dogday]

31. And who would you say is the agent ?

I believe there are forces unseen in the background pulling the strings. I however choose to try to put as much muck on the guy the people of the US thinks is responsible. It is important that they know and understand who is what. To blame someone else would confuse them. Whether he is responsible or not, he is seen as the President and that icon is very much tarnished...

[marcus_b]

55. The "masters of the universe"

... to paraphrase Adam Smith.

They are the rich and powerful, owners of huge private corporations, the modern tyrannies, unaccountable and influential.

This is not a homogenous class. There are divisions, for example between labor-intensive low-tech manufacturers and high-tech, knowledge-intesive industries. But they all have one thing in common: Lots and lots of cash, and places to put it.

I don't claim to know what is a good tactic. I certainly would love to see George Bush dethroned, it's a laudable goal and it will certainly have a positive effect. But although it would certainly bring a lot of relief, I hope that nobody thinks that this would actually solve anything in the long term. Think about it: You got rid of Nixon, but got Bush.

[oasis]

52. Bush has provided us with a "politically correct" model with which we can

make future comparisons. "Bush=Hitler" has been viewed as unacceptable so we had to drop that tag.

Reviled despots of the 21st century will be compared to Bush.

[emulatorloo]

15. and DU just loves to let him off the hook -- over and over again

never bush's fault. . .

[Catchawave]

13. R U watching his cabinet meeting gigglefest on the news now....

He's smiling and laughing way too much :scared:

[DistressedAmerican]

16. America Os Fucked Because Americans Let It Get Fucked...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4660781

[Doctor_J]

18. True

crude, but true. After Theft 2000, we should have been prepared for 2002 and 2004, but weren't. Now we're well and truly fucked.

[mattclearing]

17. This is all true. Nominated.

I mentioned it last week that the Government's failure to respond was symptomatic of the fallacy of the Conservative movement, which is that you can have a competent government and not have to pay for it.

[Quixote1818]

19. Bush made one mistake after another on this

1. Cut funding for the levies that Clinton had allocated
2. Dismantled FEMA and put it under control of homeland security
3. Played golf the day after the hurricane
4. Was slow to respond and lift a finger
5. Did fake photo ops disrupting relief efforts
6. Probably worst of all he put in a green horn who knew nothing at all about disaster relief.

We have had a Corpocracy for many years now but didn't have these kinds of problems. Oh yes! I blame Bush almost exclusively!

[linazelle]

35. Thank you for the obvious Quixote. You can't blame NOLA on

an ideology in a court of law. You can hold BUSH accountable though. Only his supporters don't want him blamed IMHO.

[Individualist]

23. Bloody George won't get a pass this time

The "don't blame Bush" meme isn't working, and even some of the willfully ignorant are beginning to see that the emperor has no clothes.

[jane_pippin]

25. Ok, but remind me again where the buck stops?

Because for the last 4 or so years it's been stopping all over people who were victims of his policy decisions. I see your point and agree that corporatism is a driving force in the problems we now have. But who facilitated that, ultimately?

Remember, this is the "CEO" administration. They were proud of that. They've had their chance to show how that philosophy is better than others, and they failed miserably at it.

I don't blame Bush "alone." I blame his policies, his appointees, his advisors, his philosophy and those that sell it, etc. He is the face of so-called "compassionate conservatism." He is the face of all these failed policies.

He could have been the face of "uniting, not dividing." You don't know how badly I wish he would have been. He chose to be something else altogether.

I don't think asking for a little personal responsibility from the personal responsibility party is too much to ask. So when it comes down to it, yes I blame Bush for these failures, and yes, I want him held accountable. Now!


edit: clarity

[marcus_b]

27. It's also a structural problem.

You are right to ask for personal responsibility, and demand personal accountability. I support you in that. It is a good short term tactic. Hopefully it will succeed. But there is a difference between tactic and strategy, and you shouldn't lose sight of the long term goals, if you want to be effective in what you do.

Take for example the CEO of the Shell corporation. He may himself believe that he is a good and caring person, and that he can use the power he has to change some things for the better. But in the end, he will have to implement the immoral and corrupt policies of the corporation, or he will be replaced. This is because the corporate structure prevails over the acts of individuals.

The point here is that if you have ruthless and immoral structures and organizations and laws, then what you get are rutheless and immoral policies, irregardless of who implements or represents them.

The only way to "fix" this is to dismantle the structures and organizations, and replace them with structures that work into another direction.

The right knows this very, very well. This is why they are constantly organizing on wreaking havoc to the structures, for example by resisting the international criminal court, attacking the health care system, "reforming the UN" or trying to block the world bank. They are aiming for the long term effects, which will have trickle-down effects in years to come. What they break now can take decades to rebuild.

They will happily sacrifice a couple of figureheads if that gets the public of their tails, so that they can continue to push their agenda.

Compare this with the tactic of a salamander: It wiggles with the tail, so that the attacker doesn't strike at any of the vital body parts. It can even lose its tail and grow a new one if it is caught in a tight situation.

[jane_pippin]

32. Oh, I understand what you're saying and

and I do agree with it, don't get me wrong.

It's just that right now, when people have been dying on my Tee Vee for a week thanks to the choices this president made, then yeah, I tend to focus on the short term accountability stuff.

But again, I think you make a good point and I'm not really disputing it so much as saying "yes, but right now..."

(Welcome to DU, by the way. :hi: )

[endarkenment]

64. I agree

Sure there is a bigger picture and certainly while we are holding bush and the rest of cabal's feet to the flame we should be pointing out that their whole ideology sucks and led directly however many tens of thousands were murdered by criminal negligence in New Orleans, but we should, we must, hold their feet to those flames and hold them personally accountable for their crimes.

[necso]

26. The problem is a complex one.

And while neocon (or "neo-liberal" or "neo-socialist") corporatist governance is at the heart of our current mess (the corporate oligarchs have to concede certain policy issues to their assorted flunkies -- or use certain lines of attack (and division) to rally them, at least for a time -- and this accounts for most of the rest of the mess), this is not something that can be easily isolated or contained -- this poisonous weed now sprouts in far too many fields.

For instance, some form of this political (social) theory (and practice) has been worked into the belief system of various "religious" groups -- as part of their (tenaciously-held) "religious" beliefs. And likewise, some form of it has become (been made) a fundament of the unenlightened (and largely unenlightenable) selfish (hence the neocon fixation on immediate rewards in the form of tax cuts (ie, eating the seed corn) -- longer term consequences be damned).

Moreover, many on our side have swallowed the sugared-coated (but poisonous) pill of corporatism under some guise (like "free-trade"), and they believe (or pretend to, at least) that somehow this will miraculously result in a better world for everyone (at some yet-to-be-determined future date) -- and this in a world where resources grow ever more scarce -- and readily available, cheap (desperate) labor becomes ever more available (in practice) -- and real differences of national interest persist.

But as a previous poster has noted, Americans are not (do not appear to be, perhaps more properly) ready to have this conversation. And, personally, I think that the best that we can hope for is to create alternative thinking that our people (and other peoples) can reach for after the coming ruin.

Because, in my opinion, we aren't very likely to stop short of the coming precipice -- be this distant one year, or ten years, or twenty.

People are generally creatures of habit, rather intellectually lazy and set in their ways. And about the very last thing that they are prepared to do is to admit that they have been wrong, toss out the useless crap in their heads, and start over again from the bottom up, reexamining, reevaluating, repairing or replacing anything as needed -- including reshaping their own self-image to better match how they really act (that is, who they really are). (And hey, this ain't easy -- but it's possible.)

[bvar22]

28. Blame "Compassionate Conservatism" and the Republican Party!!!!

I realize it is hard to focus on something other than the figurehead of George Bush*, and he certainly deserves the criticism directed at him. But there is something that is much more important. The disaster in New Orleans is the product of a political and economic philosophy. George Bush* is NOT solely responsible. Directing anger and blame at George Bush* is not productive.

Trickle Down Conservative Compassion is responsible for the disaster in New Orleans!

George bush* will be gone, hopefully before the rest of his term . It is MORE IMPORTANT to lay the blame for THIS disaster, the Disaster in Iraq, the Energy Disaster, and the Economic Disaster where it belongs...The Conservative Philosophy as personified by george bush* and the REPUBLICANS!!!

The REPUBLICANS have been in TOTAL CONTROL of the US for over 5 years. The REPUBLICANS and Compassionate Conservatism IS the problem, not just george bush*. The Republican Party and their friends in the CorpoMedia are beginning to realize that Bush* is a liability and are abandoning him like scurrying, frightened RATS.

Don't let the Republican Party scapegoat George Bush* and distance themselves from him.
They WILL try to save themselves and the Conservative Philosophy by blaming George Bush in 2006.

*Starving Government until it can be drowned in a bathtub IS the problem!

*Tax Cuts for the RICH and Corporate Welfare for the RICHEST Corporations IS the problem!

*Redistributing money TO THE RICH instead of funding programs necessary for the National Security IS THE PROBLEM!

*Privatizing essential services and Utilities IS the problem!

*Dismantling our Social Services IS the problem!

*Corporate Merges and the growing POWER of the Corporate Owners IS the problem!

*the inherent RACISM and CLASSISM of the Republican philosophy IS the problem!

*The Dream of the RICH to Corporatize the WORLD IS the problem!

*Faith Based initiatives that direct public money to Private Pockets IS the Problem!

*Control of the Media and Communication in the hands of a few MEGA RICH Corporations IS the problem!

*Wal-Mart (generic) destruction of the economic base for communities, towns, and neighborhoods IS the Problem!

*Corrupt politicians (BOTH Partys) with obvious and transparent Conflict of Interests IS the problem!

*Trade Organizations the exist Outside and Above National Governments and Borders that DO NOT ANSWER to the PEOPLE IS the problem!

*The LACK of a Political party that represents Minorities, the Working American, and the POOR IS the problem!

*The RICH (top 1%) come first, FUCK everyone else IS the problem!


Don't just blame george*.
Blame the Republican Party!
Trickle Down Conservative Compassion IS the PROBLEM!
Blame the RICH WHITE CONSERVATIVE ASSHOLES who OWN bush*!

BLAME COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVES!!!


The Republican Ownership Society




The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[DURHAM D]

30. I agree - just read the thread and thought I might have to say

something but you said it all. Blame the Republicans.

Nothing they have done for the past 35 years has been about anything other than beating up on the poor, people of color and women while helping the upper class. This is not my America but it is their America.

[H2O Man]

29. That depends on who

your audience is. If you want to communicate with people, you have to speak the language they understand.

I think it is safe to say that one will reach a significantly larger audience with messages about the Bush administration's incompetence, and the resulting cruelty, than with a message about corporate agendas, and the problems with capitalism.

[Bridget Burke]

33. Do you think that getting Bush is our #1 effort?

As much as I hate the unelected idiot, my main thoughts right now are with those saving the living, collecting the dead & helping the evacuees plan their next steps.

But the Bush & Co are definitely to blame for lack of planning & lack of response. Their first thoughts were: "How can we benefit from this politically?"

The abstruse discussions about "the systemic problems with capitalism' can wait.

[txaslftist]

36. Hard to impeach "late American neoliberal capitalism" though.

pesky problem that it is.

[Greyhound]

37. You're right to a point, however this is just the end-game to a

fundamental restructuring of our government that has been going on since long before any of us were born. It is the result of the truly long term planning of our true ruling class.
Someday, I will find the time to lay it all out, but the major milestones were

The 13th Amendment, in conjunction with the Supreme Court ruling of 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

The practical elimination of the formerly common practice of States revocation of Corporate Charters. (this is attempted from time to time but invariably is denied by political office holders of both parties).

The hundreds of ruling from courts at all levels denying that corporations bear responsibility for their actions.

The (formerly) slow consolidation of corporate power and wealth, and the reversal of the national tax burden from the corporations to the people.

Raygunz initial dismantling of the "New Deal" (continued by Bush, Clinton, and finalized by Shrub).

If it were not for that infamous traitor to his class, Teddy Roosevelt, we would have found ourselves in this situation 3 or 4 generations ago.

We don't seem to understand the true Ruling Class always makes truly long-term plans. Let the corporate apologists flaming begin. :hide:

[warrens]

38. The buck stops at bush

He'd like nothing better than to toss Brown or someone overboard, say he was let down, then get back to lying and murdering and corrupting. Keep it on the fake's head. Of course an incompetent thug is going to hire other incompetent thugs. But he is the main thug and if you give him an inch, Rove will turn it into a 30 foot hole for him to wiggle through.

[Pacifist Patriot]

39. Bush is a puppet and the tip of an iceburg.

Blaming Bush for everything is like blaming a crystal of ice that landed on the hull of the Titanic. Something big had to hold that ice crystal in place. And 70% of it is out of public view.

On the other hand, he is a monumental fuck up as a president and the buck stops somewhere. He theoretically has the power even if he doesn't know how to use it.

[Festivito]

41. CONs vote together and should go down together. nt.

[katinmn]

42. Are you kiddin???!!! Bush created this mess. Drove America

to the depths.

Of course he is responsible. He's the frikkin' pretzeldent who placed a horse association FAILURE to run our national emergency response team.

Don't tell me the buck doesn't stop with him.

I know what you are trying to do.

Welcome to DU.

[moof]

43. There need to be many more threads on this topic

As H2O man points out the discussion has to be adjusted to the audience
but as this thread illustrates more than framing the discussion you first have to determine the knowledge base of the audience.

There are so many strawmen erected by those in power it is very hard to
explain what is going on without losing the attention of the audience by the confusion caused by simply laying out what is going on.

People are so programed to see things as a contest between two opponets
they seem to have a hard time understanding that all their Icons have been coopted in a war against them.

Personally one of the most dishearting realizations is that you can no longer just trust anyone. You have to examine their history, friends, enemys and family. Where they came from how they got were they are and the most
difficult to decide how easily will this person fold, sellout, be intimidated, blackmailed or otherwise threatened.

The path forward looks to be very long, very dark, very dangerous
and quite possibly without end
but this type of thread is at least a single step in the right direction.

[Just Me]

44. The Republican party represents the military/industrial complex.

Under the leadership of this party, America is a corporatocracy, period. The Republican party fails to have the strength of character to manage power; it is so weak in greed and gluttony and exploitation that it abuses power.

[snot]

45. AGREED --

We need to hold Bush et al. accountable; but we must also publicize WHO are the financial backers that finance neo-con candidates, media, institutes, etc. and WHAT is their real agenda.

[glitch]

46. Exactly - blame them all, backers, puppetmasters and puppets.

framers, collaborators and propagandists.
bush will be blamed, but we sure as hell won't stop with him.

[nashville_brook]

47. thom hartmann mentioned today that "callers" are out in FORCE

carrying the message that it is the state and local responsibility. here we see a new twist: "that new orleans didn't have an evac plan."

well, that's simply UNTRUE
http://www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=3

don't carry even a drop of water of the administration.

[ElectroPrincess]

49. These people have no shame especially that a**hole OSGOOD!

Man, talk about your paid political hacks, that Charles Osgood makes me cringe. Bastard!

One thing I KNOW about people from New Orleans is that they're scrappers till the end. Those jerks better make sure "all the figurative bodies" are paid off or buried. The good people of New Orleans will NOT forget how the Federal Government a la Bush-Co. and FEMA bureaucracy let their people DIE. This is criminal and should be independently investigated.

[MisterP]

48. you might wanna change "alone" to "just"

makes it sound like attacking the God-Emperor hurts our cause

[marcus_b]

57. Point taken, but too late.

Thanks for the correction. As a foreign speaker, I appreciate it!

Unfortunately, the edit period has expired. Everyone, please consider it changed to this:

"Blaming just Bush undercuts your effort."

[LaPera]

50. Bush is untouchable, Teflon man. Protect Bush at all cost...and we'll take

the blame. As long as we have our King we will be fine.

Bush will pardon us, promote us to higher offices and take care of us...BUT, we must shield him and take the blame so he can continue...

THIS IS WHY WE CAN NEVER HIT BUSH HARD ENOUGH AND DESERVEDLY SO!!!


(I had to post this again, for people who just don't get it).

[porphyrian]

51. Where does the buck stop?

Whatever.

[Gregorian]

53. Can I take it a step further?

Some of us here spend tons of time on detailed facts. I'm one of the other types. I see long into the future. I see the big picture. And I don't mean that in a braggadocio way. I just have long view vigilance. I totally agree with your post. But I look at the driving force. And here's where the majority of people lose me. I maintain that the driving force is our demand. We used to do things for ourselves, whether it was at our own farm or within the local community. That changed when we became mobile due to petroleum. We are now dependant upon corporations to do what we once did. Soap is just one example. Meat, eggs, etc. The critical factor in this equation is the number of people who are demanding the goods. It is perfectly obvious to me, but many people don't see that, or don't want to see that. I mean, if you have kids, it's painful to look at it. And the other facet of that is that WE'RE HERE. What's the alternative, one asks. So regardless of what I have to say, the problem is fixed, and it's here. So why am I posting? Why should I post at DU any longer? Because we are dependant, and it's not going to change. Not fast, and not in a big way. This might as well be my last post here. I honestly don't know what to do, or what to say next. Electric cars? Where is the energy going to come from. Solar, maybe. If you study this as hard as I have, it looks very very bleak. I got a degree in mechanical engineering not for a job, but so I could fully understand the modern world. In 1989 I took an advanced course in thermodynamics which addressed the issue of the peripheral costs revolving around production of gasoline. People are only just starting to realize the implications. Let alone global warming.
All I am saying is I agree with your post. And I don't know what we're going to do. Solar or fusion could be a way out for our energy demands. But that is only a fraction of the requirements of our societies. I'm at a loss. All I see is a cliff.

[marcus_b]

63. Important point, let's talk about it.

You say that our demands are a driving force behind the policies. But I don't think that is quite accurate. The reason I think that it is not so easy is the fact that consumer demands can be created, and the real demands can be suppressed.

You give an example, cars and fuel. But here is a question: Do we really need two oil-based cars in each family? The immediate answer is "yes, of course", but if you look closer at it, then you can unravel the apparent reasons and see that there are indeed alternatives. Why do you need a car at all? Because public transportation sucks. Because the shopping mall is not reachable by feet. Because you don't trust your neighbors and thus don't want to share a car park in your community.

But transportation and urban design are policies that can be changed. And the feeling of distrust and isolation is carefully crafted by corporation. Corporations who have a huge interest in finding consumers for the shitload of goods they create which nobody needs. We are literally swamped in goods. We have a massive over-production. How do you get kids to buy yet another video game? By telling them, via advertisement, that they are ugly fat farts who will never get a girl friend if they haven't the cool new toy that, hey, how lucky you are!!!, you can buy for only 15.99$ at the next walmart.

While we are talking about kids. Yes, kids are especially suspectible to this brainwashing, and this is why they are an easy prey and desired target for advertisement. Look into any children magazine to see what I mean, or watch children TV. All of those desires are created. If the kid wouldn't see the advertisment, or if other kids wouldn't have the latest gizmo, nobody would ask it. Billions and dozen of billions, indeed hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on advertisment every year.

OTOH, how much research and funding goes into projects that people really want to see? How much funding goes into research how you can organize public health care for everybody? How much research and funding goes into ecological projects? We already can build cars that use 3 litre of gas on 100 kilometers, that's almost 80 mpg. And this is achieved without broad public pressure to do even better than that. Similar for many other problems.

There needs to be a huge rethinking. Our energy consumption must be reduced vastly. Is this possible without lowering the living standard? I think that it will even increase the living standard! But you can not attack these problems by looking at one thing in isolation (only cars, only urban planning, only food, etc), but at the whole functioning of society.

[Gregorian]

67. A few more thoughts

Even if every American gave up their automobiles, we still have many many times that number who are just beginning to join the modern world. There is one huge problem, right there.
Plus, many of us don't live in the city. Much of the country is in rural locations. It's just a fact. I could move back to San Francisco. But if we all tried to do that, there just isn't enough land for us. Having said that, if one is healthy, they can ride a bike with a trailer behind it for a long distance. OR we can just go back to horses. It used to be a two day journey for people to go to the store, in places where I've lived recently. In fact, it's pretty interesting to stumble upon an old abondoned farm in the middle of nowhere. One just sits and wonders what it was like.

I am only addressing the issue of goods that are required. Yes, the amazing plethora of stuff that is unneccisary is mindblowing. I'm not part of that world. I left it before I ever got there. I come from a family that has never done anything that wasn't neccissary. We didn't even watch tv, except for the brilliant stuff like Laugh-in. I say that in jest, but those were pretty good shows.

I totally agree on the rethinking. Our standard of living may increase in ways that we don't realize. But one thing is for sure, it will slow down. Petroleum sped everything up. And there is little good about that.

Someone posted how just bashing Bush can only get us so far, and we have to begin creating a new vision and a new plan for this country. And you have hit on something that gives me hope. Things have gone way too far in one direction for my happiness. But it's not over. And as long as we're here, we might as well begin the improvements. But they are going to have to be global. And it's not going to be easy. Just simple things like the fact that the average fruit in the market travels over 1500 miles before it gets there. That is going to mean a significant reduction in variety, right there. Our standard of living is not going to be as rich nor as rapid.

Another thought is that there is an absolute requirement for petroleum that we cannot divorce ourselves from. Heavy transportation can only be done by trucks and trains. Manufacturing is the same way. For every hurricane, comes deforestation to replace the wood studs, etc. We have unnaturally placed ourselves into a corner. I see no way out. and there are now 6.5 billion since six billion day in 1999. It's increasing. And modern living (ie. BTU's) is increasing.

One last thing that really worries me is that there are so many who are dependant. For example, how is a mortgage banker going to grow his or her own corn? I have acres of land, several year round creeks, a barn. But I have not the faintest idea how to raise cattle or crops. We have let the knowledge go. We've lost something. That is the cliff I talk about. Our families split when we became mobile. And the passing down of information stopped right there.

I want to be optimistic. About the best thing I can say is that you have the only alternative way of thinking. Do what we can with what we have. But I see that like rearranging deck chairs on the you know what. I want to be wrong so badly. Even if technology makes a quantum leap, as in carbon nanotubes, we still need water for people. And even that is going to be increasingly difficult. But I'm already hoping there is a nanotube desalination idea that could come along. Bleak, man.

[marcus_b]

68. "What can't go on forever, won't."

That's a sobering thought for you: "What can't go on forever, won't." Obviously, our unsustainable life style can not go on forever, it's physically impossible. So, it won't. It will go down, it is just a matter of time.

This doesn't mean there are no options, though. We can choose: We can try to hit the breaks and go slower, or we can keep accelerating and hit the wall with force speed. The changes in society likewise can come in gradual peaceful reforms, or in violent revolts.

It is true that there are masses of people who are yet to enter the phase of increased consumption. But, if we develop new technologies and strategies to find a sustainable way of living, we can sort of "lift them" out of the situation, thus softening the impact of the development of the other parts of the world. They can sort of "skip" a couple of steps. A practical example, although not really "sustained development" related, is the prevalence of wireless communication in third world countries, and almost complete lack of copper cables. The "everything is cabled" phase is simply skipped in favor of the better option, wireless communication.

Yes, this requires global cooperation. It is thus an imperative that the US drops its policy of abusing the UN to further its own selfish interests and starts to take up a leadership role in bringing the world together to face the immense problems the world faces. The Kyoto-protocol was a simple test, and the US failed it horrendously.

I am not so much worried about inter-dependence as you seem to be. I don't see us stopping to cooperate. Specialization can increase productivity and efficiency, and thus can help to reduce the cost of production, including the environmental cost. So the problem is not so much that we are interdependent, but of what we are dependant.

And yes, our dependency on oil draws a pretty bleak picture. Is it too late to reverse the trend? Is it too late to hit the breaks in order to not hit the wall ahead? I don't know. But we only have one earth, it's our only chance, and we have to take it.

BTW, to get a bit of meat out of the discussion: You say you studied this topic. Are there any books, studies, researchersm institutes you can recommend for more information? What's the standard references for "sustainability" and global analysis of dependencies, balances and developments?

[welshTerrier2]

54. great post, marcus_b !! - RECOMMENDED

your message is dead on the money ...

too many DU'ers in this thread just don't get it ... they heard "don't blame bush for this mess" in your post but that is NOT what you said ...

if we don't fight, as a party, for reclaiming our democracy from the clutches of big business, they will control the agenda, and the outcome, of every single battle we engage in ...

playing politics without fighting for control against the "real enemy", is little more than a game of pretend ...

welcome to DU, btw !!

[Q]

60. But Bush is the ringleader....the CEO of this cabal...

...that has taken over our government and given the key to the treasury to his cronies and donors. We must fight the individual who represents them...and that is Bush. You can't fight an ideology. That would make as much sense as Bush's 'war on terrorism'.

I agree that we must fight as a PARTY...but that's not going to happen. Do you really think that the awkward silence coming from the DLCers who run our party is simply a coincidence? They are allied with Bush behind the scenes.

We've already witnessed certain 'leaders' within our party help coverup Bush's crimes in the past. The so-called 'bipartisan commission' that supposedly investigated 9-11 was nothing but a sham...especially after they agreed not to include the Bush WH in the investigation.

Before the party can accomplish anything towards restoring Democracy...they must first get rid of the traitors and sellouts that are protecting Bush and encouraging us to 'move on' and not to point fingers.

[welshTerrier2]

71. a few points ...

"But Bush is the ringleader....the CEO of this cabal..." that's interesting but probably beyond the scope of this thread ... i AGREE that bush is the symbolic ringleader ... it's not clear who the real ringleader is ... my candidates are bush I, Cheney, or maybe even James Baker but who knows ... anyway, I have no (i.e. ZERO) disagreement with your statement that "we must fight bush" ...

i have a huge disagreement, however, with your statement that "you can't fight an ideology" ... perhaps i'm misunderstanding your intent here ... if the Democrats think they can battle the republicans on a candidate by candidate basis rather than putting our "movement" (and its ideology) up against the republican "movement", we'll continue to start each campaign season way behind ...

i agree with your views on the DLC and won't elaborate further in this post ... we need to get them "goned" from our ranks ...

my overall point is that we have to start telling the American people the truth ... i think we are on the brink of a global catastrophe as peak oil, global warming and two massive emerging economies in India and China all converge at the same time ... and rather than react to this in a pro-active way by encouraging alternative energy, conservation, global cooperation and respect for national sovereignty, we have thus far allowed big oil to lull us, and the Democratic Party, to sleep ...

there is just not enough innings left in the ballgame to defer the truth-telling any further ... by all means target bush ... he's the worst president we've ever had ... but don't ignore the catastrophe that is surely coming our way ... this is not an either/or situation ...

[Joe Chi Minh]

61. You're preaching to the converted,

but you and Marcus can't seem to grasp temporal priorities at all. Bush is currently the lynch pin of corporatism. When he goes down, the damage to and disgracing of corporatism, world-wide, will be immense.

[welshTerrier2]

70. OK ... let's go around one more time ..

maybe we'll wind up in the same place; maybe not ...

I am NOT saying that we shouldn't do everything in our power to target bush ...

what i am saying is, for example, let's say we could actually get bush impeached and removed from office for his failure to respond to the warnings he received in advance of the hurricane ... let's say we could even convince Congress and the American people that he should be held responsible for the 1000's of unnecessary deaths ...

so bush is gone ... we applaud ... we are jubilant ... and we failed to make any progress on the enemy hidden "behind the bushes" ...

i'm not arguing that it's wrong to target bush; far from it ... i'm arguing that we have to nail him for the "right crime" ... yeah, getting him out of there would be a day for unrestrained rejoicing ... and we would still be in Iraq (with the support of many Democrats) helping the oil companies make even bigger record profits than they've already raked in this year ... and we would still be going after Chavez in Venezuela ... and we would still be considering using nuclear weapons against Iran to "procure" their oil ...

i have no problem at all with targeting bush or using him as a symbol for the failed policies of the republican party or even just for good old political gain for the Democrats ... no problem at all ...

but it makes no sense to me, as long as we're trying to take down a regime, not to take it down for its real crimes ... the oil cabal has been strangling our democracy for many years before bush came to office ... if this doesn't get addressed, i'm afraid bush will just be replaced by the next puppet in the parade ...

this is not an either/or situation ... we can do both ... making a case to the American people to enlist them as a force to safeguard our democracy is not something that is going to happen overnight ... i see it as a long-term process of education ... but i see no argument that convinces me we shouldn't start as soon as possible ...

[Joe Chi Minh]

73. 100% correct,

but you are not a voice in the wilderness in the matter. Wild horses won't stop the people of integrity in politics in the US and world-wide, from bring down corporatism. But don't underestimate either, the damage this will have done to the far right, or the prospect of reversing the beast of corporatism in the US and the UK, it will very substantially facilitate.

[philly_bob]

66. Fixin' Blame: Republican decision to defund levee system

I support the idea that blaming Bush the individual is not smart in a tactical sense. Bush isn't running again. And when we talk about Bush, our anger often gets the better of us and we sound like Right-Wing radio callers demonizing the Clintons eight years ago.

Blaming Bush might make sense in an impeachment strategy, but I find it difficult to imagine that this Congress will impeach; and even if they did, is Cheney any better? Hastert?

To me it all comes down to the 2006 election. Come 2006, there will be loads of Republicans/Conservatives who suddenly remember that they knew Bush was wrong all along. McCain cultivates a phony anti-Bush image; Frist comes late to stem-cell science; even Santorum suddenly remembers he criticized Iraq war. In order to repair two decades of post-Reagan market-worship, we have to stop the next generation of Republicans by pointing at the mess the last generation of Republicans got us into.

One other talking point: the Republican decision to defund the levee system hurt everyone in New Orleans, rich, middle-class, and poor. The poor are on the television screens. But read Anne Rice's editorial in the Times (sorry no link) to sense the bitterness and sense of betrayal of NO's educated upper class. And the Republican decision to defund the levee system hurt the economy on everything from gas to coffee. It's not Republicans vs. Poor, or Republicans vs. Blacks, it's Republicans vs. Everyone.

And a no-talking point: Discussions about whether this is 'about' class or race are predictable and pointless, in my opinion.

Bob=
Philly_kid

[Joe Chi Minh]

58. That's right spread yourselves real thin,

on every possible front, boys and girls.

[stickdog]

59. Where does the buck stop again?

Bush is now a CONFIRMED murderer.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but confirmed murderers need to be incarcerated so they can't murder again.

[MichiganVote]

62. Shit rolls downhill and Bush is at the top of the shit pile.

[Mr_Spock]

69. True, plenty of blame to go around here...

Let's be fair and fire everyone...

[LittleClarkie]

72. Neoliberal = DLC

Damn, I knew it!


Actually, there was supposedly an evacuation plan. Whether or not folks followed it was a different story.