Wednesday, December 01, 2010


Definition of SABOTAGE
: destruction of an employer's property (as tools or materials) or the hindering of manufacturing by discontented workers
: destructive or obstructive action carried on by a civilian or enemy agent to hinder a nation's war effort
a : an act or process tending to hamper or hurt b : deliberate subversion

If one of two political parties sends a letter signed by all 42 Senate members of that party to the President of the United States stating unequivocally they will not allow any bills to pass until they are assured of obtaining massive tax breaks for the upper 2% of the population, why should that not be considered an act of sabotage and the Senators involved saboteurs? Among other things this involves two bills directly related to our armed forces and their effectiveness, DADT and the START treaty. Are these not involved in our nation’s war effort, even if the demand for unconscionable tax breaks is not itself directly related? I have said all along that the unprecedented organized effort by Republicans to block everything President Obama tries to do is, in my opinion, skirting the limits of treason, as it not only affects Obama but also our nation and its best interests.

Senator Kyl has indicated he will hold up the START treaty until he gets tax breaks for the very rich. The START treaty has to do directly with the nuclear safety of the U.S., as well as the rest of the world. I guess this is not considered as important as tax breaks for multi-millionaires and billionaires. Can you believe these Republicans? I have to admit I now am beginning to wonder just what it is they are trying to do. They already do not have the Black vote, they have now given up the Latino vote, they are pretty unlikely to get all other minority votes, and they might begin to sacrifice the women’s vote as well. So who do they think is going to vote them into office in 2012, older white males? This makes me think they have nothing but contempt for democracy and must have some plan in mind to secure a fascist oligarchy without having to bother about votes. Either they have something like this in mind or they are unbelievably short-sighted and stupid. Remember, they did get George W. Bush elected to the Presidency without enough votes, and there seems little doubt they have indulged in considerable hanky-panky with voting machines and other dirty tricks in many elections. They have still not settled on a candidate to run against Obama. It probably doesn’t matter as whoever it is will be picked on the basis of doing the bidding of the powers that be (corporations and the filthy rich).

I find it interesting that in spite of all the discontent on the part of so many there is little or no talk of revolution. A revolution is not something that is believed to be possible in the U.S., primarily, I guess, because of the belief that democratic elections take care of discontent, if things go badly the incumbents can be voted out of office, and the presence of two parties supposedly helps to keep things as they should be, especially as traditionally the Democrats have favored labor and the “common man,” whereas Republicans have favored the wealthy and management. But there is a growing suspicion that we do not truly have two parties any longer, just two versions of essentially the same thing. This has allowed unions to be downsized, corporations to grow excessively large, and wealth to accumulate among fewer and fewer, while at the same time the middle class has been increasingly squeezed and has seen their wealth decline. We have now reached what I believe is a very dangerous point, with massive unemployment, the greatest misdistribution of wealth ever (in the U.S.), and little reason to look to the future to improve things. Free market capitalism with its disregard for anything other than profit has reigned for a long enough time that its most negative attributes are becoming painfully obvious. It is, I think, pretty obvious that there will not be a genuine revolution in the U.S., but we could, perhaps, see a replay of the situation at the beginning of the 20th century, with strikes and riots, soup kitchens and a rise once again of unions. I wonder just how far the middle class can be pushed before they begin to truly object. Of course anything like this will be much more difficult now than it was in the early part of the previous century. First of all the conservatives have cleverly made socialism a dirty word, have taken over the mainstream media, radio, television, and newsprint, as well as most of the courts, including even the Supreme Court, have decimated our educational system, privatized things that should not have been privatized, and in general established themselves in an almost impregnable position. I think if anyone thinks that “happy days are (about to be) here again” they are going to be very disappointed. People can cope with depression for quite a long time, hopelessness is a much more serious matter.

Clouds appear
and bring to men a chance to rest
from looking at the moon.


No comments: