open Democracy News Analysis - plutocracy - Comments

Iron Mike on "Bye Bye Barry (satire)"

Iron Mike — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:11:00 +0100

I saw your essay got a shout-out from the Opinion Journal. I have to agree with them that Cynthia McKinney and a "wisely noting" anything is pretty much an oxymoron.

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/best_of_the_web_today.html?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb>

Iron Mike on "Bye Bye Barry (satire)"

Iron Mike — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:04:46 +0100

Joel,

That's one of the more interesting postings you've written. It was a welcome change from the cynical, boring, and poorly researched essays you normally offer. Please keep up the good work!

Ttrryosborn on "Poisonous Plutocracy"

Ttrryosborn — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:50:16 +0100

Sprawkiller;

"... violent revolution is an option"?

OD has more than its share of pompous statements.

BigC on "The Evolution of Evil"

BigC — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:57:58 +0100

Quote:

.... but in the meantime read my novel “Play it Again Uncle
Sam,” ....

Morty3 on "The Evolution of Evil"

Morty3 — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:17:23 +0000

Play it Again Uncle Sam Play what again? You know. The game. What game? The game called “Fuck you Buddy” that American society is based on. Who invented the game? A mathematician called John Nash who was working for the highly secretive Rand Corporation in the 1950s. Didn’t he suffer from paranoid schizophrenia? Yes he did. Is it wise to base an entire modus vivendi on such a cynical assumption? Read “Play it Again Uncle Sam” and find out. ****************The Rand [research and development] Program was initially set up by the US military to develop new weapon systems after the war. However in 1948 it separated out into a non-profit making body supposedly to promote world peace and democracy, funded by the Ford Foundation. Because of the secrecy surrounding its work, it soon aroused suspicion as to its real motives, which were not allayed when it was discovered that there were links between its sponsors, the Ford Foundation, and the CIA. One was Richard Bissell, an early President of the Foundation who went onto to join the CIA and oversee the U2 Spy plane program. JFK was later to remove him from office over the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Another was JJ McCloy, a personal friend of CIA Director, Allen Dulles. During the 1950’s Rand employed many top class mathematicians who developed a revolutionary concept called “Game Theory,” a system of strategies to be used by two or more players. The game could be applied to any potentially confrontational situation with the aim of achieving a state of “equilibrium,” from which neither player could better their position by deviating from their chosen stratagem. It was initially designed to predict Soviet responses to cold war confrontation but was later applied to all social interactions in society at large. One of its main architects was the mathematician, John Nash, an eccentric loner who had concluded that humans were ultimately selfish and devious creatures who schemed constantly to get one step ahead of each other. So cynical was he of “human nature” that he and his colleagues actually devised a board game called “Fuck you Buddy” to illustrate his paranoid hypothesis. Four players were given 7 coloured chips each with the ultimate goal of capturing all their opponents’ chips. Acceptable strategies included forming coalitions and agreements to cooperate, even though these would all eventually be reneged on. The winner was the last surviving player and the game seemed to work as long as it was understood that the modus operandi was to behave selfishly and outwit your opponents. But when the researchers initially tested the game out on their secretaries, they chose to cooperate, thereby ruining the ethos of the game, but this was conveniently ignored and even though Nash was exhibiting the early symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia, the game was still launched. Throughout the fifties and sixties game theory was used to justify the arms race and the US nuclear strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction [MAD] which, because there was no all out war with the Soviet Union, was widely believed to have worked. It was also applied to the war against Vietnam, often with genocidal consequences. But even more controversially the game was used to give credence to the ideas of right wing economists like Friedrich Von Hayek and James Buchanan. These men insisted that even elected leaders and their bureaucrats were only self seeking tyrants with no genuine concern for the public good, and therefore all power was to taken away from them and the populace exposed to unfettered market forces. This would provide one explanation for the witchhunts of the fifties, where any politician even thinking of tinkering with the free market was denigrated, and in some cases terminated. The idea of society or community was consistently rubbished and the citizens of America encouraged to believe they were simply mindless consumers, whose only meaningful interaction with their fellow man was in the market place. Their primary responsibility was therefore to themselves and their families who were encouraged to consume as conspicuously as possible. One of the end results of this game has been a rapid decline in social mobility where the income of the bottom 10% actually fell in real terms, with the middle class seeing a small rise in their living standards and the over class seeing a quadrupling of their assets. This, unsurprisingly, has led to a destabilision of society with rising levels of violence and other anti-social behaviour as the “have nots” battle the “haves,” for their slice of the American Pie. The winners get to live in gated communities while the losers are herded into the ghettos of the inner cities. But not content with experimenting on its citizens, the US has exported this dysfunctional model of social disharmony via the Military/Industrial Complex, which has usually imposed it on third world societies around the world under the banner of “globalisation.” This has been portrayed by the western media as a positive force, especially in those areas of the world deemed crucial to US business or vital resource interests, especially the oil states of the Middle East and the “banana” republics of Latin America. This was achieved by citing “expansion of democracy in the region” whilst forcing regime change and unleashing market forces. This has invariably led to an overclass lording it over long established tribal or community based societies, often with disastrous consequences, including vengeful acts of terrorism. So what has happened to those opposing the imposition of the game? Over the decades there have been many foreign leaders, usually elected, determined to stop their country being drained if its natural resources and its people used as cheap labour. This has been particularly true of the countries of Latin America, a region that the United States has always regarded as its backyard, a repository of riches to be raided at will. Unsurprisingly many leaders of these countries have tried to stand up to this blatant imperialism, often by attempting to nationalise foreign owned businesses to regain control of their economy. This has always been met by outright hostility from the CIA who have helped organise coups and in some cases, assassination, of such interferers in the game. One of the most successful of these leaders has been Fidel Castro in Cuba. He terrified American Corporations when he came to power in 1959, after overthrowing the US backed Dictator, Fulgencio Batista, and confiscating American assets on the island. They were worried that his example would be followed by others in the region, so the CIA was instructed to get rid of him as quickly as possible, using any means at its disposal. However the US’s involvement in this illegal act was to be hidden at all costs so they covered their tracks using the concept known as “plausible deniability,” the euphemism for framing someone or some group to take the blame. But all their attempts failed and eventually they had to turn to the professional killers, the Mafia, to carry out the contract. But amazingly they too failed. However CIA assets did manage to infiltrate Cuba to attempt to foment counter revolution from within, the likes of Frank Sturgis and E Howard Hunt, two men who, a decade later, would play a pivotal role in the Watergate scandal. However some of these men, who were being manipulated like pawns in a game, turned out to be, or pretended to be, double agents working both sides of the fence. One such Agent was allegedly William Alexander Morgan, a man who had been trained at the Atsugi Air Base in Japan by US Military and a few years later turned up on Cuba fighting for anti-Castro forces on the island. Ironically the men under his command initially assumed him to be a CIA plant, so were understandably confused when he suddenly gained the confidence of Fidel and switched sides. Back in the States, in a probably staged press release Morgan was stripped of his American citizenship and labelled a traitor. But one year on, when Castro discovered he’d probably been a CIA plant all along, he was executed. Following in Morgans’ footsteps was another probable double Agent, Lee Harvey Oswald who amazingly had also been trained at the US base at Atsugi, although a few years after Morgan. He was to make a high profile defection to Russia, only to return three years later, with a Russian bride, whose uncle just happened to be a high ranking KGB officer. Amazingly his passport and citizenship were quickly restored with few questions asked. There is now little doubt that Oswald, or his double, was being manipulated by CIA Agents involved with psychological operations, to play a key role in the assassination of Castro and then possibly to take the blame. But, like Fidel, he, or his co-conspirators, proved too clever and the whole operation was turned and President Kennedy assassinated instead. This whole cock up has necessitated the biggest cover up in the history of the western world, a smoke screen that is still being maintained today. It is high time the US Intelligence community came clean about its role in this disaster but in the meantime read my novel “Play it Again Uncle Sam,” which is based on these events.www.playitagainunclesam.com

Iron Mike on "Obama Hope Beating Clinton Help"

Iron Mike — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:17:37 +0000

The tighter the race, the dirtier the politics. Clinton has no choice but to go negative.

The democratic primary is a strange system with state variations and most state delegates awarded proportionally. In Texas, the folks will actually have the chance to vote TWICE...once in the primaries and then the same night in the caucus. Momentum and youth vote favor double-voting in Obama's favor. It will be a strange turn of events if Obama is NOT the nominee at this point. Sould Clinton fight her way to the convention and attempt to take the nomination by super delegates when Obama has the popular vote, then watch for the real fun to begin. Just remember to board up your windows first, because there will be riots in the streets.

owly on "Obama Hope Beating Clinton Help"

owly — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:39:01 +0000

I see the fight has turned a bit dirty - typical Clinton tactics.

Per The Times today she is ahead in both Ohio and Texas. Does she get all the delegates if she wins the vote or are they apportioned out ? I think I read somewhere that odd states don't opporate a first past the post system but a sort of proprtional one. Is this so ?

And who is willing now to predict who will gain the nomination ??

Felix Cohen on "Obama Hope Beating Clinton Help"

Felix Cohen — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:13:58 +0000

To see if threaded comments now work?

Cheers,

Felix Cohen

Tech Director - openDemocracy

Iron Mike on "Obama Hope Beating Clinton Help"

Iron Mike — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:57:01 +0000

Joel,

Quote:

The least educated, least sophisticated and least wealthy along with Hispanics are sipping Clinton’s fizzled-out drink. The most educated, most privileged, and most financially successful along with African-Americans are gulping down Obama’s charismatic pick-me-up.

Nice bit of race-baiting and generalizing, with a bit of class warfare thrown in for good measure!

Quote:

After two years it will be clear that the new president will have failed to extract the US from Iraq, will have failed to deliver universal health care, will have failed to address illegal immigration, will have done nothing to get a new and serious 9/11 investigation, will have done nothing to stop middle-class-killing globalization...

That's not a progressive agenda, it's a socialist one. But since you like neither socialist candidate, argue in favor of cynicism, and rail against anyone voting at all, you'll likely achieve your self-fullfilling prophecy and your agenda will fall on the dustbin of history. I'm encouraging all Democrats follow your example and let the rest of us elect President McCain.

You can be part of the process or a victim of it. You prefer the latter; I don't.

Iron Mike on "Obama Hope Beating Clinton Help"

Iron Mike — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:55:26 +0000

Quote:

As an Independent I think the Republicans have shown us what they have the last eight years and McCain is just a carbon copy of GWB so that would just be more of the same.

Not sure where you've been for the last 8 years, but McCain has hardly been GWB's biggest fan. He's been a thorn in the administrations side for most of Bush's time in office.

Lexi on "Obama Hope Beating Clinton Help"

Lexi — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:14:37 +0000

As an Independent I think the Republicans have shown us what they have the last eight years and McCain is just a carbon copy of GWB so that would just be more of the same. The Democrats are not much better but I would never vote for a candidate on the basis of their personal life. Because let's face it, no one's perfect on either side. Now the question is " Who does that leave to vote for"?
IMO we're in for another four years of what we have now, God help America.

owly on "Obama Hope Beating Clinton Help"

owly — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:06:19 +0000

I do not think (looking across the pond) that Hilary Clinton would make a 'satisfactory President'. Some of us remember her messing around in health care and the unworkable ideas she came up with. That lacked political sense, and it would seem from the campaign trail that she does indeed have little political sense. And also we have seen the nasty and evil minded nature of the Clintons clearly on display: they will do anything and say anything if it serves their ends. They are both basically sleazy, dishonest and dishonourable.

As to McCain I would agree with your remarks. Had I a vote I think he would get it. Right man, right time, right job.

Ttrryosborn on "Obama Hope Beating Clinton Help"

Ttrryosborn — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:28:51 +0000

Owly;

Last year I wrote that Clinton would be a satisfactory President, but McCain would be a great one.It still holds true.

HIllary is competent but has had the tendency to polarize people. She could polarize Democrats and Republicans especially if Pelosi and Reid are still the Democratic leaders in Congress stirring the pot.

Also, I don't think the Clintons are as popular within the party as one would think. They did nothing for the Democrats while they sat in the White House. The Democrats lost their majorities in Congress and VP Gore was not elected to succeed (Clinton did not carry his home state of Arkansas in 2000. Gore did not carry his state of Tennessee). That may be why Democrat bigwigs have not lined up en masse behind Hillary.

McCain is liked on both sides of the aisle (I did not say universally). He and Hillary are friends. He had the guts to criticize the Rumsfeld commitment to Iraq as inadequate and then approve the surge when no one else would. He hurt his campaign as a result. Now that the surge is working. he deserves the nomination.

owly on "Obama Hope Beating Clinton Help"

owly — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:06:02 +0000

Well if you want experience vote Republican !!

A return to the sleazy Clinton years is hardly what is needed now. Best that those two just become a dusty footnote in the history books.

Lexi on "Obama Hope Beating Clinton Help"

Lexi — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:52:37 +0000

The problem with Obama is that he has very little experience to go along with his so called "charisma" and America needs someone with the experience that can start working on the vast amount of problems we have on day one of their taking office. I don't think Obama is going to be able to do that. As an Independent voter I would have to go with the most experienced person even though that may not be a very good choice either.