After the morning after, after the night before . . .

[Moya]

I don't feel victorious. I don't feel like we won. I do think that these sentiments are particularly interesting after the early press spin that asked whether Barack was black enough and black people were ambivalent about the answer. Now he's one of us, our hero, our modern day Martin and Malcolm (please people let's really think about what these men did and who they were i.e. not politicians).

A friend's brother said that he's seen more racism on the internet in the last few days than in his whole millennial life, which is interesting in the wake of claims that Obama's win symbolizes a new epoch in racial relations in this country. What I see is power and hegemony at work. The election of a brown face that keeps the capitalist machine going, (not an uncle tom Nader; they all placate those corporations) albeit it a gentler, greener machine (we've been promised) that still does the work of US imperialism.

I wonder how our Indigenous brothers and sisters feel? Is it enthusiasm for the fact that a person of color has reached the white house or is it sadness that a person of color is at the helm of an empire that wrought such pain and destruction among their peoples?

I say person of color deliberately to note that Obama's African American-ness exist in another space than that of other African American's who have sought the nation's highest office (Chisolm, Jackson, McKinney, etc.). He is not marked with the north/south black/white paradigmatic binary we use to understand race in this country. He is not colored by the hallmarks of African American elite society like belonging to a Divine Nine fraternity or growing up in Jack & Jill. His Hawaiian, Midwest upbringing make him an exception to dominate codes of blackness which initially made black people suspicious and ultimately put whites at ease.

It was easier for me when the face of U.S. imperialism didn't look like mine. Will this stem the radical left's radicalness? Will we become complacent because Obama is the new president of the fundamentally illegal, stolen, and pilfered United States? I am worried because as bougie black folk celebrate and rejoice, there are still black people hurting. The "tragedy" in Jennifer Hudson's family captures national attention, even presidential (now) condolences, but how often is that story true for countless other black families living in this country and how often is that story told as one of tragedy rather than a rationalization of stereotypes long held about the black urban poor? Structural racism depends on the exceptions (Obama, Oprah, etc.) to hide the rule that is inequity.

Am I cynical for feeling ambivalent in this moment? I dare not share these thoughts with too many because the retribution is swift. There is no room for quirky black girls casting aspersions at this watershed moment in black history. But I must insist on raising my dis-ease in this moment, my fear for what this may seemingly absolve in the minds of many. And also what might it incite? "Disempowered racist white people can only actually harm people much less powerful than the president elect."

So I pledge to stay vigilant, critical and skeptical. I pledge also to be active, visible, and hopeful for the world I wish to see. It will take more than one man's rise to power to undo centuries old structural oppressions built along the axes of race, gender, sexuality, ability and age. The struggle continues.

Thanks to Summer M., Alexis P., and Ashon C. for helping me think on this and providing pieces of this analysis.

[SolShine7]

I'm glad he won even though I'm somewhat of a traditionalist and lean toward conservative views on certain issues. But it's hard to put a label on yourself because human beings are so complex. I don't fully subscribe to any political party so I consider myself an independent. I say a little prayer and pick the best person...sometimes it will be a Republican, sometimes it will be a Democrat and sometimes it will be someone from a completely different party. I wish Obama all the best in his term and I hope he does good things while he's in office.

[webdubois135]

hope is like love. you'll gain ten pounds (and more) before you realize that the sweetness of it all is in (some part) ruining you. to many, we're just the nagging friend or family member who "just doesn't realize" how much they [progressive idealist] are in love with the (idea of the) new President-elect.

less figuratively, i think there are people who are cognizant of the limits of hope, the dangers of blind trust, the regret of letting others control your destiny. definitely the sociologists fit this mold: the most prominent race scholars have been downright pessimistic about the outcome of the election, the presidential campaign, and change for the black community. see the discussion regarding the social significance of race at the sociological journal, Contexts. Instead of idealistic, many are painfully aware to the point of disenchantment of the gripping effects of colorblind racism (E. Bonilla-Silva) and the white racial framework (J. Feagin). And with good reason--the mechanisms supporting the American racist social structure have not changed (cited in previous post), and a symbolic figurehead cannot uproot the intergenerational drag of oppression.

Unfortunately, in this world we can never depend on our brothers and sisters to effect change--no matter how necessary the bonds of social integration are to human survival and uplift. Instead, we have to create opportunities. November 4th was just one opportunity. Instead, we have to challenge the status quo. This forum (and others) have filled that void. Instead, we have to conjole and persuade the masses into action. That is where I believe the paths are largely unpaved for our society today.

I am a firm believer in a multi-faceted, multi-sited, multi-headed social movement. The most successful social movements (i.e., they garnered the pervasive social policies, established well-endowed institutional resources, and captured the public appeal) have done this, and that is what this country needs today. Think of the struggle to have minorities, women, and children included in and protected by scientific research--this social movement was enacted by both professional scientists and laypeople, individuals within the federal government and those without, and coalitions crossing race, gender, and class divides (see Epstein 2007 for a more detail discussion and critique of this). I won't bore you any further but to say that our criticisms must become the fuel that ignites the engine of change. I would much rather have the ideas presented in this forum nipping at the heels of the Obama administration than the complacent (and often well-endowed) voices found on the other end of the table.

Deuces!


Z.Bediako said:

Medical sociologist? That is all kinds of awesome.
I enjoyed reading this piece. Thanks.
I, too, "dig the critical attitudes." And what continues to baffle me days after Obama's victory, is the amount of the self professed "progressive, intellectual, conscious" brothers and sisters who have given Barack Obama a pass! Yes, a pass. I depended on these brothers and sisters to join me in the ever so exiguous chorus. To join in with me & other critical black voices that break up the exceedingly harmonious support from black folks who are blindly singing his praises. These are the folk who before Obama transcended into a sort of second coming, were constantly critiquing "black leaders" or HINCs (Head Negros in Charge) like Sharpton, and West, and Jackson who weren't doing enough in the black community. What really disturbs me is the amount of them who seriously believe that Obama has this secret agenda. Which gives them a reason to give hum a pass. As if when his ass touches the seat of his thick leather chair in the oval Office he will simultaneously pull out this ambiguous black folder with the blue print to transform the black community. I seriously would like to know the reasons why so many of these " black progressives " believe that this undercover plan or secret agenda is imminent. Seriously, maybe there is some information I am not privy to. I guess i have just ascribe to the believe that if someone diminishes race to get power they will diminish race to maintain power. I guess I just believe that a group that gives 90-95 percent of the vote to a candidate should have some demands first without unquestioning support. And culture critiques, like myself -- have a responsibility to remain critical (not to be confused with cynical) and steer away from becoming complacent...

[Moya]

Fellow QBG Kameelah Rasheed's thoughts

[summer m.]

here's a thought: i wonder how many of y'all might be interested in reading marcuse's one-dimensional man. i've mentioned it to a few of you before. it's been a while since i read it, but part of me feels like the obama campaign, coupled with the commodification of obama (i just saw some quarters and a victory plate for sale; did any of you read about joan didion's concerns?) requires me to revisit it. this whole obama on plates and shirts thing makes me wonder: is obama a "false need"? i want to write something about bho's commodification, but i'm still thinking through it.

that said, i have a feeling that i'm a minority in stating the following opinion, but whatever, i embrace my position as the most cynical of the bunch. i have a general pessimism about the possibility of revolutionary action in our society. first, i'm apprehensive about protest and group behavior. second, i feel that this monster is so advanced that it allows "pockets of revolution" without really endangering its project. i guess its sort of like folks who claim they'd leave the country if bho didn't win, as if going abroad would allow you to escape the pain of this whole thing. i make no excuses for my inactivity, i guess i just see futility in getting my hands dirty, esp. when i just buffed my nails. maybe i just love sneakers too much.

however, my pessimism does lead me to believe that the monster will fucking kill itself, a la california circa 2024 (parable, anyone?). so i guess in the meantime i'll learn to shoot a gun, how to dress a wound, which leaves to eat, and adopt a german shepard. that said, i love qbg. i'll meet y'all in the wilderness.

[charing ball]

I wouldn't mine reading the book you suggested. I'm almost finished our other reading assignment (Octavia Butler rocks!), so I will be ready in about another week. Were you thinking of starting some sort of discussion on it?

summer m. said:

here's a thought: i wonder how many of y'all might be interested in reading marcuse's one-dimensional man. i've mentioned it to a few of you before. it's been a while since i read it, but part of me feels like the obama campaign, coupled with the commodification of obama (i just saw some quarters and a victory plate for sale; did any of you read about joan didion's concerns?) requires me to revisit it. this whole obama on plates and shirts thing makes me wonder: is obama a "false need"? i want to write something about bho's commodification, but i'm still thinking through it.

that said, i have a feeling that i'm a minority in stating the following opinion, but whatever, i embrace my position as the most cynical of the bunch. i have a general pessimism about the possibility of revolutionary action in our society. first, i'm apprehensive about protest and group behavior. second, i feel that this monster is so advanced that it allows "pockets of revolution" without really endangering its project. i guess its sort of like folks who claim they'd leave the country if bho didn't win, as if going abroad would allow you to escape the pain of this whole thing. i make no excuses for my inactivity, i guess i just see futility in getting my hands dirty, esp. when i just buffed my nails. maybe i just love sneakers too much.

however, my pessimism does lead me to believe that the monster will fucking kill itself, a la california circa 2024 (parable, anyone?). so i guess in the meantime i'll learn to shoot a gun, how to dress a wound, which leaves to eat, and adopt a german shepard. that said, i love qbg. i'll meet y'all in the wilderness.

[summer m.]

yeah, possibly. i need to be better versed in the frankfurt school. i should go about that slowly. i have so much to read already.

charing ball said:

I wouldn't mine reading the book you suggested. I'm almost finished our other reading assignment (Octavia Butler rocks!), so I will be ready in about another week. Were you thinking of starting some sort of discussion on it?

summer m. said:

here's a thought: i wonder how many of y'all might be interested in reading marcuse's one-dimensional man. i've mentioned it to a few of you before. it's been a while since i read it, but part of me feels like the obama campaign, coupled with the commodification of obama (i just saw some quarters and a victory plate for sale; did any of you read about joan didion's concerns?) requires me to revisit it. this whole obama on plates and shirts thing makes me wonder: is obama a "false need"? i want to write something about bho's commodification, but i'm still thinking through it.

that said, i have a feeling that i'm a minority in stating the following opinion, but whatever, i embrace my position as the most cynical of the bunch. i have a general pessimism about the possibility of revolutionary action in our society. first, i'm apprehensive about protest and group behavior. second, i feel that this monster is so advanced that it allows "pockets of revolution" without really endangering its project. i guess its sort of like folks who claim they'd leave the country if bho didn't win, as if going abroad would allow you to escape the pain of this whole thing. i make no excuses for my inactivity, i guess i just see futility in getting my hands dirty, esp. when i just buffed my nails. maybe i just love sneakers too much.

however, my pessimism does lead me to believe that the monster will fucking kill itself, a la california circa 2024 (parable, anyone?). so i guess in the meantime i'll learn to shoot a gun, how to dress a wound, which leaves to eat, and adopt a german shepard. that said, i love qbg. i'll meet y'all in the wilderness.

[summer m.]

there's a joke here about black people and low expectations. i'm working on it. see this article.

[Moya]

A Historic Moment:
>
> The Election of the Greatest Con-Man in Recent History
>
> James Petras
>
> December 2008
>
>
>
> "I have a vision of Americans in their 80's being wheeled to their
> offices and
> factories having lost their legs in imperial wars and their
> pensions to Wall
> Street speculators and with bitter memories of voting for a
> President who
> promised change, prosperity and peace and then appointed financial
> swindlers
> and war mongers." An itinerant Minister 2008
>
>
>
> Introduction
> The entire political spectrum ranging from the 'libertarian'
> left,
> through the progressive editors of the Nation to the entire far right
> neo-con/Zionist war party and free market Berkeley/Chicago/Harvard
> academics,
> with a single voice, hailed the election of Barack Obama as a
> 'historic
> moment', a 'turning point in American history and other such
> histrionics. For
> reasons completely foreign to the emotional ejaculations of his
> boosters, it is
> a historic moment: witness the abysmal gap between his 'populist'
> campaign
> demagoguery and his long-standing and deepening carnal relations
> with the most
> retrograde political figures, power brokers and billionaire real
> estate and
> financial backers.
>
> What was evident from even a cursory analysis of his key campaign
> advisers and public commitments to Wall Street speculators, civilian
> militarists, zealous Zionists and corporate lawyers was hidden from
> the
> electorate, by Obama's people friendly imagery and smooth, eloquent
> deliverance
> of a message of 'hope'. He effectively gained the confidence,
> dollars and
> votes of tens of millions of voters by promising 'change' (implying
> higher
> taxes for the rich, ending the Iraq war and national health care
> reform) when
> in fact his campaign advisers (and subsequent strategic
> appointments) pointed
> to a continuation of the economic and military policies of the Bush
> Administration.
>
> Within 3 weeks of his election he appointed all the political
> dregs
> who brought on the unending wars of the past two decades, the
> economic policy
> makers responsible for the financial crash and the deepening recession
> castigating tens of millions of Americans today and for the
> foreseeable future.
> We can affirm that the election of Obama does indeed mark a
> historic moment in
> American history: The victory of the greatest con man and his
> accomplices and
> backers in recent history.
>
> He spoke to the workers and worked for their financial overlords.
>
> He flashed his color to minorities while obliterating any mention
> of their
> socio-economic grievances.
>
> He promised peace in the Middle East to the majority of young
> Americans and
> slavishly swears undying allegiance to the War Party of American
> Zionists
> serving a foreign colonial power (Israel).
>
> Obama, on a bigger stage, is the perfect incarnation of
> Melville's
> Confidence Man. He catches your eye while he picks your pocket.
> He gives
> thanks as he packs you off to fight wars in the Middle East on
> behalf of a
> foreign country. He solemnly mouths vacuous pieties while he
> empties your
> Social Security funds to bail out the arch financiers who swindled
> your pension
> investments. He appoints and praises the architects of collapsed
> pyramid
> schemes to high office while promising you that better days are
> ahead.
>
> Yes, indeed, "our greatest intellectual critics", our 'libertarian'
> leftists
> and academic anarchists, used their 5-figure speaking engagements
> as platforms
> to promote the con man's candidacy: They described the con man's
> political
> pitch as "meeting the deeply felt needs of our people". They
> praised the con
> man when he spoke of 'change' and 'turning the country around' 180
> degrees.
> Indeed, Obama went one step further: he turned 360 degrees,
> bringing us back to
> the policies and policy makers who were the architects of our current
> political-economic disaster.
>
> The Con Man's Self-Opiated Progressive Camp Followers
> The contrast between Obama's campaign rhetoric and his political
> activities was clear, public and evident to any but the mesmerized
> masses and
> the self-opiated 'progressives' who concocted arguments in his
> favor. Indeed
> even after Obama's election and after he appointed every Clintonite-
> Wall Street
> shill into all the top economic policy positions, and Clinton's and
> Bush's
> architects of prolonged imperial wars (Secretary of State Hillary
> Clinton and
> Secretary of Defense Robert Gates), the 'progressive true
> believers' found
> reasons to dog along with the charade. Many progressives argued
> that Obama's
> appointments of war mongers and swindlers was a 'ploy' to gain time
> now in
> order to move 'left' later.
>
> Never ones to publicly admit their 'historic' errors, the same
> progressives
> turned to writing 'open letters to the President' pleading the
> 'cause of the
> people'. Their epistles, of course, may succeed in passing through
> the
> shredder in the Office of the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm
> Emanuel.
>
> The conjurer who spoke of 'change' now speaks of 'experience' in
> appointing to every key and minor position the same political hacks
> who rotate
> seamlessly between Wall Street and Washington, the Fed and
> Academia. Instead
> of 'change' there is the utmost continuity of policy makers,
> policies and above
> all ever deepening ties between militarists, Wall Street and the Obama
> appointments. True believer-progressives, facing their total
> debacle, grab for
> any straw. Forced to admit that all of Obama's appointments
> represent the
> dregs of the bloody and corrupt past, they hope and pray that
> 'current dire
> circumstances' may force these unrepentant warmongers and life long
> supporters
> of finance capital to become supporters and advocates of a revived
> Keynesian
> welfare state.
>
> On the contrary, Obama and each and everyone of his foreign policy
> appointments
> to the Pentagon, State and Justice Departments, Intelligence and
> Security
> agencies are calling for vast increases in military spending, troop
> commitments
> and domestic militarization to recover the lost fortunes of a
> declining empire.
> Obama and his appointees plan to vigorously pursue Clinton-Bush's
> global war
> against national resistance movements in the Middle East. His most
> intimate
> and trusted 'Israel-First' advisers have targeted Iran, Syria,
> Afghanistan,
> Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Palestine and Iraq.
>
> Obama's Economic Con Game
> Then there is the contrast between the trillions Obama will shower
> on the
> financial swindlers (and any other 'too big to fail' private
> capitalist
> enterprise) and his zero compensation for the 100 million heads of
> families
> swindled of $5 trillion dollars in savings and pensions by his cohort
> appointees and bailout beneficiaries. Not a cent is allocated for
> the long
> term unemployed. Not a single household threatened with eviction
> will be
> bailed out.
>
> Obama is the trademark name of a network of confidence people. They
> are a
> well-organized gang of prominent political operative, money
> raisers, mass media
> hustlers, real estate moguls and academic pimps. They are joined
> and abetted
> by the elected officials and hacks of the Democratic Party. Like
> the virtuoso
> performer, Obama projected the image and followed the script. But
> the funding
> and the entire 'populist' show was constructed by the hard-nosed,
> hard-line
> free marketeers, Jewish and Gentile 'Israel Firsters', Washington
> war mongers
> and a host of multi-millionaire 'trade union' bureaucrats.
>
> The electoral scam served several purposes above and beyond merely
> propelling a
> dozen strategic con artists into high office and the White House.
> First and
> foremost, the Obama con-gang deflected the rage and anger of tens
> of millions
> of economically skewered and war drained Americans from turning
> their hostility
> against a discredited presidency, congress and the grotesque one-
> party two
> factions political system and into direct action or at least toward
> a new
> political movement.
>
> Secondly the Obama image provided a temporary cover for the return and
> continuity of all that was so detested by the American people – the
> arrogant
> untouchable swindlers, growing unemployment and economic
> uncertainty, the loss
> of life savings and homes and the endless, ever-expanding imperial
> wars.
>
> Featuring Paul Volker, 'Larry' Summers, Robert Gates, the Clintons,
> Geithner,
> Holder and General ('You drink your kool-aid while I sit on
> Boeings' Board of
> Directors') Jim Jones USMC, Obama treats us to a re-run of military
> surges and
> war crimes, Wall Street banditry, Abu Ghraib, AIPAC hustlers and
> all the sundry
> old crap. Our Harvard-minted Gunga Din purports to speak for all
> the colonial
> subjects but acts in the interest of the empire, its financial
> vampires, its
> war criminals and its Middle East leaches from the Land of the Chosen.
>
> The Two Faces of Obama
> Like the Janus face found on the coins of the early Roman
> Republic,
> Obama and his intimate cronies cynically joked about 'which is the
> real face of
> Barack', conscious of the con-job they were perpetrating during the
> campaign.
> In reality, there is only one face - a very committed, very
> consequential and
> very up front Obama, who demonstrated in every single one of his
> appointments
> the face of an empire builder.
>
> Obama is an open militarist, intent by every means possible to re-
> construct a
> tattered US empire. The President-Elect is an unabashed Wall
> Street Firster
> – one who has placed the recuperation of the biggest banks and
> investment
> houses as his highest priority. Obama's nominees for all the top
> economic
> positions (Treasury, Chief White House economic advisers) are
> eminently
> qualified, (with long-term service to the financial oligarchy), to
> pursue
> Obama's pro-Wall Street agenda. There is not a single member of
> his economic
> team, down to the lowest level of appointees, who represents or has
> defended
> the interests of the wage or salaried classes (or for that matter
> the large and
> small manufacturers from the devastated 'productive' industrial
> economy).
>
> The Obama propagandists claim his appointments reflect his
> preference for
> 'experience' – which is true: his team members have plenty of
> 'experience'
> through their long and lucrative careers maximizing profits,
> buyouts and
> speculation favoring the financial sector. Obama does not want to
> have any
> young, untested appointees who have no long established records of
> serving Big
> Finance, whose interests are too central to Obama's deepest and
> most strongly
> held core beliefs. He wanted reliable economic functionaries who
> recognize
> that re-financing billionaire financiers is the central task of his
> regime.
> The appointments of the Summers, Rubins, Geithners and Volkers fit
> perfectly
> with his ideology: They are the best choices to pursue his
> economic goals.
>
> Critics of these nominations write of the 'failures' of these
> economists and
> their role in 'bringing about the collapse of the financial
> system'. These
> critics fail to recognize that it is not their 'failures', which
> are the
> relevant criteria, but their unwavering commitment to the interests
> of Wall
> Street and their willingness to demand trillions of dollars more
> from US
> taxpayers to bolster their colleagues on Wall Street.
>
> Under Clinton and Bush, in the run up to the financial collapse, they
> facilitated ('deregulated') the practice of swindling one hundred
> million
> Americans of trillions in private savings and pension funds. In
> the current
> crisis period with Obama they are just the right people to swindle
> the US
> Treasury of trillions of dollars in bailout funds to refinance
> their fellow
> oligarchs. The White President (Bush) leaves steaming financial
> turds all over
> the White House rugs and Wall Street summons the 'historic' Negro
> President
> Obama to organize the cleanup crew to scoop them out of public view.
>
> Obama, the Militarist, Outdoes His Predecessor
>
> What makes Obama a much more audacious militarist and Wall
> Streeter
> than Bush is that he intends to pursue military policies, which
> have already
> greatly harmed the US people with appointed officials who have
> already been
> discredited in the context of failed imperial wars and with a
> domestic economy
> in collapse. While Bush launched his wars after the US public had
> their
> accustomed peace shattered by an orchestrated fear-mongering after
> 9/11, Obama
> intends to launch his escalation of military spending in the
> context of a
> generalized public disenchantment with the ongoing wars, with
> monumental fiscal
> deficits, bloated military budgets and after 100,000 US soldiers
> have been
> killed, wounded or psychologically destroyed.
>
> Obama's appointments of Clinton, General Jim Jones, dual Israeli
> citizen Rahm Emanuel and super-Zionist Dennis Ross, among others, fit
> perfectly with his imperial-militarist agenda of escalating military
> aggression. His short list of intelligence candidates, likewise, fits
> perfectly with his all-out effort to "regain US world
> leadership" (reconstruct
> US imperial networks). All the media blather about Obama's efforts at
> 'bipartisanship', 'experience' and 'competence' obscures the most
> fundamental
> questions: The specific nominees chosen from both parties are totally
> committed to military-driven empire-building. All are in favor of
> "a new
> effort to renew America's standing in the world" (read 'America's
> imperial
> dominance in the world'), as Obama's Secretary of State-to-be,
> Hillary Clinton,
> declared. General James Jones, Obama's choice for National Security
> Advisor,
> presided over US military operations during the entire Abu Ghraib/
> Guantanemo
> period. He was a fervent supporter of the 'troop surge' in Iraq
> and is a
> powerful advocate for a huge increase in military spending, the
> expansion of
> the military by over 100,000 troops and the expanded militarization
> of American
> domestic society (not to mention his personal financial ties to the
> military
> industrial complex). Robert Gates, continuing as Obama's
> Secretary of
> Defense, is a staunch supporter of unilateral, unlimited and
> universal imperial
> warfare. As the number of US-allied countries with troops in Iraq
> declines
> from 35 to only 5 by January 1, 2009 and even the Iraqi puppet
> regime calls for
> a withdrawal of all US troops by 2012, Gates, the intransigent,
> insists on a
> permanent military presence.
>
> The issue of 'experience' revolves around two questions: (a)
> experience related to what past political practices? (b) experience
> relevant to
> pursue what future policies? All the nominees' past experiences
> are related to
> imperial wars, colonial conquests and the construction of client
> states.
> Hiliary Clinton's 'experience' was through her support for the
> bombing of
> Yugoslavia and the Nato invasion of Kosova, her promotion of the
> Kosovo
> Liberation Army (KLA), an internationally recognized terrorist-
> criminal
> organization as well as the unrelenting bombings of Iraq in the
> 1990s, Bush's
> criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003, Israel's murderous bombing of
> civilian
> centers in Lebanon…and now full-throated calls for the 'total
> obliteration of
> Iran'. Clinton, Gates and Jones have never in their mature
> political careers
> proposed the peaceful settlement of disputes with any adversary of
> the US or
> Israel. In other words, their vaunted 'experience' is based solely
> on their
> one-dimensional militarist approach to foreign relations.
>
> 'Competence', as an attribute again depends on the issue of
> 'competence to do what'? In general terms, 'The Three' (Clinton,
> Gates and
> Jones), have demonstrated the greatest incompetence in extricating
> the US from
> prolonged, costly and lost colonial wars. They lack the minimum
> capacity to
> recognize that military-driven empire-building in the context of
> independent
> states is no longer feasible, that its costs can ruin an imperial
> economy and
> that prolonged wars erode their legitimacy in the eyes of their
> citizens.
>
> Even within the framework of imperial geo-political strategic
> thinking, their
> positions exhibit the most dense incompetence: They blindly back a
> small,
> highly militarized and ideologically fanatical colonial state
> (Israel) against
> 1.5 billion Muslims living in oil and mineral resource-rich nations
> with
> lucrative markets and investment potential and situated in the
> strategic center
> of the world. They promote total wars against whole populations,
> as is
> occurring in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia and, which, by all
> historical
> experience, cannot be won. They are truly 'Masters of Defeat'.
>
> The point of the matter is that Obama appointed the 'Big Three' for
> their
> experience, competence and bipartisan support in the pursuit of
> imperial wars.
> He overlooked their glaring failures, their gross violations of the
> basic norms
> of civilization (of the human rights of tens of millions civilians in
> sovereign nations) because of their willingness to pursue the
> illusions of a
> US-dominated new world order.
>
> Conclusion
>
> Nothing speaks to Obama's deep and abiding commitment to become the
> savior of
> the US empire as clearly as his willingness to appoint to the
> highest position
> of policy making the most mediocre failed politicians and generals
> merely
> because of their demonstrated willingness to pursue the course of
> military-driven empire building even in the midst of a collapsing
> domestic
> economy and ever more impoverished and drained citizenry.
>
> Just as Obama's electoral campaign and subsequent victory will go
> into the annals as the political con-job of the new millennium, his
> economic
> and political appointments will mark another 'historic' moment:
> The nomination
> of corrupt and failed speculators and warmongers. Let us join the
> inaugural
> celebration of our 'First Afro-American' Imperial President, who
> wins by con
> and rules by guns!