Barefoot woman in pajamas
arrested twice in three days
for drunken driving.
Our Supreme Court has outdone itself in promoting our increasing evolution into a full-blown fascist state. Remember Mussolini’s definition of fascism as being a marriage between corporations and government, and that is what has been happening in the U.S. for quite a long time now. It was bad enough when the Supreme Court interfered in the 2000 election and illegally awarded the Presidency to the incompetent George W. Bush, but now they have topped even that. It is widely known that many of the problems the U.S. faces are a direct result of corporate lobbyists and the influence of corporate money in our political system. There were a few minor restrictions on such practices but now even they have been brushed aside as corporate money will flow into the pockets of our Congresspersons at an accelerated rate, the result of this absolutely asinine decision.
The idea that corporations should have the same rights and privileges as individuals, one of the foundations of these recent decisions, seems to me to be highly questionable (at best), and at worst is simply ridiculous. The idea that gifts of money are simply an exercise of free speech is itself somewhat questionable, but when there are no restrictions on the amounts of free speech that can be exercised, and when corporations obviously have so much more money than anyone else it, obviously means that those with the most money have a monumental advantage. The Supremes looked at a system that was terribly dysfunctional as a form of government and decided to make it worse. Why did they do this? Because they recognize they are themselves just little cogs in a system designed to take over the world in the (unstated) name of Fascism, once again the dream of empire, in this case the greatest empire ever to be established.
Undeterred by the election of a Democratic administration they are just basically ignoring it, knowing that basically it, too, will be swallowed up by this massive movement, financed by corporate interests and motivated by the quest for power and profit. Nothing will be allowed to stand in the way. The one hope to overcome this fascist movement would be to establish a system of public financing for elections, but this recent ruling will make that impossible, as their money will control what happens in Congress and elsewhere.
As Greg Palast has pointed out, there is another insidious feature of this decision that is of the utmost importance, but seems not to be mentioned. Namely, American elections will now be open to non-American interests. The corporations that control most everything are not necessarily just American, they are international in scope. With this ruling there is nothing to prevent the Russians or the Chinese, or any other country from exercising their “free speech” by donating money to influence political decisions that may affect them, as long as their donations come from corporations in which they have an interest. Some of these corporations already have annual incomes exceeding that of many, if not most countries. This means that a few giant corporations will in fact end up ruling the world, national and individual interests will fall by the wayside as they will be simply brushed aside if they do not coincide with the desires of these corporate giants. This is already happening and will result eventually in a two-class society, a wealthy “Upper” class, and a poor “Lower” class, that will exist only in so far as they do the bidding of the former. Is this not what is already happening in the U.S.? This is a situation far more serious than when Teddy Roosevelt fought the “robber barons” and may already have gone so far as to be impervious to change. Note that Obama didn’t even try to take on the Insurance giants, but instead attempted merely to influence a few of their rules. And if he somehow manages to change the banks you can be sure the changes will be mostly cosmetic. I’m sure he knows that if he rocks the boat too strenuously he will become a one term President. Will he sacrifice himself for the good of the country and truly try to change the system, or will he meekly do the bidding of the powers that be. The former spells greatness, the latter business as usual.
Interestingly, there is a third strategy open to Obama, one that I believe he is more likely to pursue. This is because there are areas in which Obama is probably pretty free to operate because these are areas in which the powers that be don’t really care about (unless at any given moment they want to use one of them to further divide the country). For example, I don’t believe these giant corporations have any particular interest in abortion. They don’t really care if women have abortions or not. Similarly, I doubt they have any major interest in “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Nor do they care whether gays marry or not, whether there is gun control or not, if states offer assisted suicides or not, “death panels,” and so on. That is, there are many issues that do not importantly impinge on profits, but about which many Americans hold strong beliefs, either pro or con. Obama can probably meddle in these areas, perhaps even bringing about some changes that will make him appear to have done something, and for which he could take credit without actually having challenged the more basic infrastructure of the “single party” strategy. Am I crazy? Perhaps.
Bipartisanship,
elusive temptress, evades
Barack Obama
Friday, January 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment