Thursday, 9 June 2011

Your President is a Tyrant
(&btw also terrorst)

It's funny because it's true. Jack Crow says it brilliantly enough, but I'll put my own spin on it anyway. Or call it emphasis.

I'm gonna cheat and steal a couple of excerpts, because as Lupe Fiasco says at the beginning of the video at the bottom of this entry regarding social media: People don't go to the links. First Jack Crow:
Barack Obama is the president. It's his administration. These are his policies. He's the commander in chief.

His response to the crisis in Yemen - a crisis caused by the US backed militarization of the Yemeni state, transforming it into a dependent client in the War on Forever - is to...

...militarize some more.
I would only add that Libya, with full support from NATO and tacit support from non-participating nations like Germany, is virtually the same. The only difference is that they are putting their money on the guys who are still willing to give it back.

Money dictates all relationships. Period. There is no other factor. You can't have oil without the money. You can't have trade without the money. You can't kill people without the money. At least not legally. And so it goes.

Bo Rama doesn't care about "the rebel forces" or which side is gang-raping whose innocents. He, like his clients, cares only about ensconcing the side he's got his money on. Those Libyans looking to get out from under the boot of the tyrant are only desperately changing boots.

Again, as the truth Crows:
For this, Obama escalates direct US attacks, in full interventionist mode, in order to take advantage of stasis, crisis and instability engineered by the government of the US, and specifically the Obama Administration.

That makes Barack fucking Obama a very specific thing.

It makes of him a tyrant.
Pretty simple really. That he seems like such a nice guy in person has nothing to do with it. Not to the recipients of the payload at his disposal.

And since the progressive policy wonks and junkies can't keep up with the ever expanding military machine, all they can do is tweet their wavering beliefs regarding where tariffs should be, what Krugman thinks, or how "we need a jobs program".

And this is only if they aren't already blogging their fealty to the master with claims that "we are on the way". Though I hafta say that I prefer the latter to the ones who excuse their milquetoast journalism with "I have repeatedly criticized this administration on..."

The other night Bill Maher was fantasizing about (I swear to god) "what the president will be able to do once he gets his second term". What a funny guy.

To continue to try an' choose the lesser of two evils is simply an attempt to ease one's conscience, to postpone one's cognitive dissonance, to shift the point at which the trickle-down begins, to jockey for a better position in spite of knowing that there are those in the worst possible position imaginable and accepting that nothing is going to change that - so I gotta get mine (for the already wealthy Bill Maher, legal weed).

To downplay the significance.

The modern manifestation of democracy can be summed up with: Money dictates your relationship to the world. Give a homeless guy a buck, live with yourself for a day...

In the video below, the artist known as Lupe Fiasco says:
To me the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America. For me, it's like I'm trying to fight the terrorism that's actually causing the other forms of terrorism. The root causes of the terrorism is the stuff the US government allows to happen, and the foreign policy that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists.
This used to be the most popular foreign policy position amongst progressives under the previous American administration. Though they weren't calling themselves progressives then. Then they were Democrats. Now (apropos postponing cognitive dissonance) they refer to themselves as Progressive Democrats. If they'd only start a new party, one could choose the lesser of THREE evils! Not that that is gonna happen.

Lupe Fiasco goes on to say - much to the shock of his trending host - that he doesn't vote.
If I'm gonna say I stand behind this person, and write on a piece of paper that says, 'Hey, I stand for this person,' then I have to take responsibility for everything that he does, 'cause that's just how I am as a human being. Right? So, politicians aren't gonna do that. Because I don't want you to bomb some village in the middle of nowhere.
And in response to the interviewer's question as to what might happen if no one voted, he says, "Who knows? Let's try it out and see what happens."

Now that's what I call Rockin' the Vote!

But I do already know the answer to what would happen if no one voted: Nothing would change. As in: STILL, nothing would change.

Only money makes a difference in today's world. Maybe the money isn't real, or defined by those with the most of it. But those who dictate monetary policy are the dictators. And the last time I checked with America's endorser-in-chief editors at priNtin’t’fYT® media inc., the dictators are the tyrants. The dictators are the purveyors of state terrorism.

So maybe with the knowledge that it's the money that is the root of all evil, and in a desperate attempt to assuage some vestige of conscience, one might still assert that the president is neither tyrant, nor terrorist. Well, in that case, no president anywhere is a tyrant.

I'm with Fiasco and Crow on this one.