Obama’s Recovery: Partners or Predators?

Is the President playing “Go Fish” or Chess?

Teaching neo-cons that there can more on the table besides a “carrot or a stick.” 86

Americans listened, considered and agreed with the propositions for national recovery presented in the Obama campaign. If there were any confusion, we may now conclude it arose from the painstaking media grooming of its implied image of the depth and severity of the economic looting done under the cover of the Bush autocracy. Over the decades of “conservative” administrations such as Reagan or the senior Bush, we have grown passively accepting of a routine corruption which had been presented as an "acceptable" and entirely "American," neo-con "leadership" principle.

It has gone even further than that.

We have accepted these gradually growing insults piece meal (Remember the frog who jumps from the boiling water, but remains, comfortably, in the slowly warming, tepid pan?” Yum. Boiled frog.) Americans have slowly and patiently been convinced that a great number of reactionary, neo-con principles are American values or, even, make sense.. For example, in the past couple of weeks from this writing, an “American flag” ship was “piratized” off the coast of Somalia. Its legitimate and honorable “mission” there was the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian supplies to our national friends in Kenya.

But wait.

The reason that ship was flying an American flag -- it had been temporarily renamed after the State of Alabama -- was thanks to a UN ruling. For some reason, the goods of our well intentioned altruism had to be purchased in the US at a price eight times higher than the same commodities could be purchased in the region. For some reason, those commodities had to be transported in an “American flag” ship which plied the waters of the Middle East at eight times the cost of a local alternative.

For some reason? For what reason? The neo-cons have successfully imposed their idea that any good act should begin with a good profit.

The same things happen everywhere. The Indians were persuaded to quit producing generic AIDS drugs, making the Bush Altruism Initiative of aiding African states with that disease one which purchased only “full priced,” first line, American made pharmaceuticals for the effort. Coupled with the irrational neo-con -- and now, Papal -- condemnation of prophylactic supply, promotion and use, the pharmaceutical model of “altruistic” profitability was realized, lubricated and firmly saddled astride vacuous, failed premises of abstinence and other convenient, recent appliances of the prevailing mythology.

These points are presented as example of our amazing, well developed idea that men cannot do good for any reason if it excludes profit. The possibility of assistance, altruism or even cooperation must always be offered in conjunction with an appealing, “oh, by the way,” kind of suddenly and innocently discovered profit.

With this brief account of fundamental neo-con psychology, let us move on the matter of the stimulus and its unwilling participants -- partners and predators.

Why are these participants unwilling and why are these participants, well, even participants in the first place?

First, who are they? The list can easily be extracted from the tedious, frustrating denizens of the current news cycle. There were bankers who got money to make loans and then didn’t make loans. There were health care HMO’s who received an invitation to change their ways, then didn’t change their ways. There were car company executives who were told to rationally reorganize themselves who then proposed “changes” which guaranteed the continuation of their same ruthlessly destructive past policies. There were pharmaceutical companies who were told to release their legislatively protected extortion-strangle-hold on the medical franchise. There were Wall Street “hedge hogs,” oil speculators and investment bankers who were told that they had to “take a hit” on their inflated, imaginary profit and loss statements, who, instead, scrambled around to move their imaginary “profits” off shore so they could pay all of their attention to the looting of the stimulus money (“stay the course,” “cut the taxes,” “make me whole,” et cetera).

All of them were train wreck remnants of the “If anything good is going to happen, it is going to happen to me!” greed ideology of the past. Their obsession of the moment is an arrogant example of their hubris, that is, their absolute rejection of the new “change” and “cooperate” theme of the Obama administration -- and the electorate which created it. Naturally, the first step for these brain dead felons was to purchase some Senators, which they did. By the way, some of our Senators are simply too frightened or honorable to enlist in this outrage. It seems that the real bargains in the Senate are the bourbon drenched neo-con bigots -- hillbillies with an ill advised continuing allegiance to the previous regime of Bush protected avarice.

All these folks seriously believe that what is happening to us right now is nothing more than a current model of what has happened to us in the past. Although this may be more exciting than usual to these “geniuses of capitalism” who are managing the pharmaceutical, banking, health care and other no bid contracting interests, they remain convinced that Obama’s efforts to rescue our economy present nothing new, that is, simply more of the same opportunities which have served their historical extraction practices in the past. They expect and intend to emerge from this “difficulty of the masses” with even fatter pockets and the “ownership deeds” to even more Senators.

Did we ever imagine what feelings a vampire might experience after he sucked the blood from the last living human? In this case, he would convince himself that his last victim was actually not the last living human and fly off gleefully in search of his next prey.

Obama’s proffered gambit was simple enough. “Stop exploiting our economy. It cannot survive any more of your pretend version of free marketism. All of you parasites have done unacceptably well for yourselves at the expense of everyone else, and now, the 'everyone else' is staggering along, near death, as you contemplate your schemes to extract even more from the ambulance staff which has come to rescue them.”

He has asked the bankers to take his bail out money and change their ways, take a few risks for the good of the country (for them, country = their personal finances). Instead, they have been shopping to purchase each other in the hour of peril while sitting on their bulging coffers of bail out money. He has asked the health care moguls to reconfigure their extortion to include the interest of those in the electorate who might need a doctor. Instead, those same moguls have redirected all their discretionary profits to an ad campaign to wreck his Presidency.

Obama has asked the executives of GM and Chrysler to “bleed a little” and reconfigure their business plans to something remotely rational. Instead, they have collapsed to their road weary, inflammatory “swan song” of blaming the unions for everything. He has asked the Senators to, provocatively to them, think of the good of the country instead of their “astonishingly beneficent campaign contributions.” Instead, they -- along with their neo-con progeny in the House -- have marched lockstep in a dismal phalanx of denial and greed all the while hoping in their wet dreams for Obama's failure and destruction.

Does all this describe a foolish failure of a pollyanna in the White House? Has the new President continued to “walk into the props” of a superior neo-con meat grinder whose sole claim to fame is more experience at cynicism?

Maybe not.

Who is ready to characterize Obama’s rather formidable capacity for effective political strategy based on such a short sighted view of his leadership path as it has emerged thus far? If you have this inclination, perhaps you should consider lowering your voice for a few months. If you think his embarrassing rejection at the hands of the so-called House Republicans signifies evidence of a lethal miscalculation in his political tactics, perhaps you should wait for the next act in this play.

Still, it seems that every ambitiously honorable attempt by this White House has ended poorly, that is, all the entreaties “across the aisle” have resulted in another of his restorative plans being dragged behind the truck of guffawing and boisterously emboldened, medievalist Republicans and other corporate schemers. The “Fox Conclusion?” The President is, aside from being a socialist, fascist, traitor, Muslim, gun controlling, international relations appeasing, abortion financing, gay black man, a ninny. The Foxites believe that they have prevailed. The tea baggers think that their frenzied message, whatever it was, is compelling, that is, has gained traction. The bankers think that they will be vindicated in the future, elevated by their tenacious grip on their publicly financed “McDuck Money Bins” and their complete refusal to participate in the resurrection of the economy or the country, now in a mortal, death grip peril. The AIG boys assume that tax payers won’t remember paying the cash for the outrage of their bonuses.

On the other hand, we can create this model in another frame entirely.

Obama entered his position of power with ambitions to reconfigure the economy (and a long list of other things, too) in a way that would redirect some of America’s prosperity back to those who have patiently provided the resources which support it. He knew, even before his inauguration, that those who had developed a criminal “nutrition” requirement of vast tax money in their pockets would react violently to retain their previous parasitic advantages.

They have. Just listen to them. Today, their lies could be baled like hay at harvest time.

Perhaps President Obama, not really stranded and bewildered on a side track after the neo-cons so arrogantly humiliated his efforts at reconciliation, is actually right on target. These practiced criminals have invested very heavily in their program of promoting themselves as honest “partners” in the rescue effort while disguising their more factual qualities as looters and criminals, that is, “predators,” hiding in wait to loot the life blood from the stimulus money.

Money we have paid and allocated to trying to restore the damage of their past looting.

Obama could have swung the massive hammer of electoral outrage in the first few minutes of his administration in a sweeping correction -- think of it as chasing the money lenders from the temple if that analogy is not too messianic. However, if he had taken this approach, the validity of his plan would have been supported only be his claims of its necessity. In the minds of Americans there would have remained the question: “Are these wounded victims of his really this criminal? Do they really place the prosperity and safety of our country in such a low position of importance compared to their continued wealth extraction?”

No. Obama has let these “bottom feeders,” perhaps emboldened by the likes of Carl Rove, Joe the Plumber, Sara Palin, AIG, Wall Street, Newt Gringrich and other “tea-bagger-wanna-be’s” -- well, you are familiar enough with the pathetic denizens of this long list, emerge into the light. He has allowed them to “show their true colors,” their traitorous lack of commitment to the national survival driven by a narcotic, decades long habit of successful greed.

If we were describing a “trial” of this past behavior of his now screaming critics, what we have seen so far would be the “discovery phase.” The character of these criminals had to be exposed, finally revealed to their victims, in this case the American tax paying electorate. Obama has presented the evidence we lacked before, and that evidence seems quite capable of penetrating the thrall of the controlled media’s past efforts to keep us hypnotized.

No one believes he has cock roaches until they reveal themselves in the light.

Remain calm and hopeful. All this had to happen first. The crimes had to be exposed and defined. Our national situation is, most likely, going to collapse to a truly desperate state as 2009 proceeds. We taxpayers and voters will be confronted with Obama’s compelling evidence as he ultimately makes his case for change. That will bring us to our trial’s “sentencing phase.”

To think that the foundering mess we see at this moment is a truly representative preview of that probably means that we are slowly loosing our collective hope. If any of us has decided to take that path, take it without me.

For the "media view" of the economic recovery plan,

http://cbs5.com/campaign08/obama.economic.recovery.2.904768.html

and a background look at some of the criticism of the recovery plan:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/white_house/jan-june09/obama_03-24.html
http://www.newsmax.com/us/GOP alternative budget/2009/03/27/196690.html
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/02/05/president-barack-obama-fires-back-at-critics-of-economic-stimulus-plan.html

and finally, our traditional "Wiki" explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009


MeanMesa visitors who are not well acquainted with the economic recovery plan can find a wide variety of information available in the Google entry for this topic. As Americans we are spending an immense amount of our tax money in this effort to resuscitate our "critically ill" country now that the Bush parasites have been sent back to Texas. Its our money, our President and our future. Who could remain uninterested at a time like this?

The 3 "R's" - Responsibility, Romance and Rationality

Blog doc 16 Pro-Choice without the Lipstick

Just below the turbulent surface of the “No Choice” bunch, just peeking through the scum of self-righteousness, there is an abundance of their “most horrible nightmares.”

The “Greatest of the Nightmares” is not too far removed from the same bedevilments which visited the authors of Deuteronomy when they were confronted with the migration of their youth to Babylon. It was no secret that things in Babylon were actually a lot more fun compared to life in the sheep camps on the desert. They were appealing. We all know what teenagers like.

In fact, it is most likely the case that the shepherd boys and their girl friends were not as tormented by the sheep idea as by the incredible burden of the paranoia on the parts of the male dominated hierarchy. This prehistoric version of “shall not’s” ran the gamut through a thousand rules -- only a few of the choicest ones survive in the Old Testament. You know, rules about things that were an “abomination” to God, although little information about exactly how these ambitious elders came to know such a thing seems to be included. The juiciest came with automatic death penalties.

In a pre-Midieval sense, these old desert men were living in a Neo-Con paradise, basking in the joy of absolute, even divine, authority, surrounded with submissive wives and terrified teenagers. Maybe that connection drives itself the other way, that is, a mandate for desert rules in modern times. In any event, good psychological health of the day required thoughts of pious suicide if one were to accidentally glimpse his father’s wife’s brother-in-law naked.

These folks knew how desperate and obsessed one of their desert boys could get without the benefit of a girlfriend. For the more ambitious and romantic lads, the sheep were simply not the same. All sex must be managed by the rules of marriage, and there seemed to be a perpetual abundance of such rules rolling out of the tribal chief’s tent, along with other arcane but extremely useful ideas about sin and wickedness to be “bought into” lock, stock and barrel.

Boys from high-end families were habitually laid low, virtue-wise, by brazen temptresses from low end-families. In these cases, it was her fault. In the converse, when a high end girl was cruelly used by a low class boy, it was his fault. In due time, the true value of women was revealed. They were worth next to nothing. After that it was, for a long time, always her fault, and her problem. Were abortions available in secret places to these desert girls? Probably. If not there at home on the desert, they were certainly common in Babylon and the rest of Sumeria.

If such an abortion could be accomplished secretly or in some other socially acceptable manner, it would represent nothing less than an “escape hatch” to the endless appetite for control issuing from the tribal elders. By the way, around this time, children were great for sex because most of them weren’t sick, yet.

Well, Deuteronomy has had more than one fresh coat of paint since these ancient days. It is now back to the general idea that if an unmarried (uncontrolled) girl gets pregnant, it is because an equally uncontrolled boy got her in trouble. At this point, it is the full responsibility of Christian society to “get even.”

If it were a violent insemination, or even one which could be successfully represented as such, there was jail. Within its walls, such a boy could encounter new rules, also inspired by the desert, possibly something similar to what the ancient sheep were thinking. If the boy simply “got her into trouble,” it was assumed that the youthful innocence of the young lady was confounded in some critical moment by his advances. In these cases, there would be no jail, just extortion. Her family, seeing this incredible prehistoric opportunity to enslave the lad for twenty or so years, would insist that the child be born. It would fall to him to pay support, to hire lawyers to extract visitation as he was teased by these ambitious parents -- parents always citing one or another element of proof that he was, in fact, a vile, demonic sex monster unsuited to be in the company of the child, after all, just look what he did to their pure and lovely daughter.

Once his seed is set, the whole economy of his life becomes recompense for his misdeed. He will not prosper, become educated, live happily as is the normal joy of youth. He will have no choice because she will have the full force of the law. Can there be an alternative to this psychotic form of mass destruction of male youth? Perhaps.

So far, it has always been the young mother’s decision to bear the child. Its father has no say at all. If it were otherwise, how could he be properly punished? His unmarried wife will bear the horror of raising the child, while he is footloose and fancy free, possibly even creating repetitions of the same problem. The dog.

A true pro-choice law divides the responsibility of decisions about the future. The best, of course, is the case of coexistence, even family creation. That is surely the idea of a child in its essence. Otherwise, this fetus becomes a torpedo, ready to wreck the life of any man it is aimed toward.

Is it so far afield to think this way? When the conception becomes fact and ambitions toward the formation of a stable family are not in hand, abortion takes a seat at the table. If he calls for an end to the pregnancy, she can refuse. But if she does, the entire child becomes hers, no part remaining with him. The cost of raising the child, home, food, utilities, insurance will be entirely hers as the baby is entirely hers.

Should she want an abortion when he wants the child, she should not be able to refuse him, that is, get an abortion against his wishes. Once he child is born, however, he will accept the full responsibility to be a parent. He must be responsible for the cost of the birth, the provision of adequate care once the child is in his custody and all other necessary support. She would then receive complete freedom as if she were not related to the child in any way.

Is this entirely fair? No. Insisting that a woman bear a child may be a greater demand than his responsibility under the agreement. Nonetheless, at some tender moment in the past, about nine months in the past, all this responsibility was already present, divided, perhaps unequally, according to gender. The voices complain that such an equitable distribution of responsibility would encourage the very worst kind of sexual profligacy. The actual result would be an honest and compelling incentive toward honesty and realism. Perhaps King Solomon was not such an out-of-touch elitist after all.

The mythology of the no-choice movement is presently little more than a statue made of smoke. Can anyone honestly believe that those engaging in sexual acts are somehow inhibited by the possibility of the current awful consequences? Could such a wrenching process ever be substituted for birth control? Can a modern society continue to artificially isolate sexual and reproductive responsibility in such an arbitrary way as it is done now?

The statistics themselves defeat any counter argument based on “desert rules” from the ancient world. On a good day, 20,000 children die of disease, hunger and military violence. On a bad day, the grisly number reaches or exceeds 40,000. Issues of control and judgment make adoption processes advance at a snail’s pace compared to the creation of babies. No solutions are currently on the table. Instead, the social culture continues to be enslaved by the tantrum of modern “tribe leaders,” always pursuing their timeless insistence on control of others, brutally uncaring when considering the misery their insipid demands seem to be able to endlessly inflict on more normal people.

It is an industry perpetually fed by irresponsibility and hopelessness. The children grown under the care of the existing program can hardly be considered successes after watching their biological parents enduring two decades of absolute rancor in place of any possibility of the benefits of a family.

It can continue as it is, or it can finally embrace the needs of the children and the needs of the culture. It is explosive and destructive in its present “theo-neo-state” with a far greater capacity to destroy lives than to contribute to its alleged goals.

Everyone who reads this knows someone mired in this very ugly process. Is there any way to imagine that it is working?