"Frankly,” she says, “there was a huge amount of intellectual dishonesty in the election campaign and it's weird that some people are still wearing T-shirts with a picture of the most powerful man in the world on them. They have to get over their crush and treat him for what he is - head of the largest military and economy in the world. In Italy, students are brandishing the slogan ‘We won't pay for the crisis' and that's the kind of dynamic that will lead to real change. In the US, the love for Obama is a real liability.”
Half right.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Well, she's fully right. For the Government to Control, it Absolutely Needs More Control.
No, she's half right. What she wants is for capitalism to go. Obama will do a great job at that.
She's fully right. For Socialism to Radiate [which is what she really wants] the Government Needs More Control.
Right now Obama can cripple capitalism and unfree all markets, but he can't be sure it won't come back to life. He can make us France, but Naomi is disenKleined to stop there when The Full Mayday beckons ahead.
No, she is half right: “There is a moral obligation for the Left to fill the vacuum left by the failure of market fundamentalism with an agenda for economic justice. Because if the gap isn't filled with progressive ideas, it will be filled with reactionary, racist ideas. If the Left don't rise to the occasion, the alternative is fascism.”
If only! The West is too flaccid and childless (cf. Steyn and Spengler) to produce a good, old-fashioned farmboy fascism with pitchforks and, let us say informal immigration officials.
No, instead all the violent youths would prefer to watch football or drink lattes on grandma's last sou.
There's not enough iron left in the blood of the West to do either.
It was, she argues, Bill Clinton who removed Depression-era restrictions that prevented investment banks from also being commercial banks; he and Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, who refused regulation of the derivatives industry; and Larry Summers, Clinton's Treasury Secretary and now head of the White House's National Economic Council, who structured much of America's failed economic policy. Duhhh. Of course. And let's not forget Robert Rubin, Bubba's Treasury Secretary, who went on to shamelessly make a cool $100 million at Citibank, while not lifting a finger there. Now John Q. taxpayer has sunk untold billions into Citi to prop it up, though it has become a zombie bank.
Down memory lane: channeling Pepe, Naomi goes all gaga for Muqtada.
Here's a Canuck who's not that impressed. So Ok, he's not a girl. What can I do.
No, she is fully right: Take the quote you offered:
“There is a moral obligation for the Left to fill the vacuum left by the failure of market fundamentalism with an agenda for economic justice. Because if the gap isn't filled with progressive ideas, it will be filled with reactionary, racist ideas. If the Left don't rise to the occasion, the alternative is fascism.”
An "agenda for economic justice" is just the typical CPUSA descriptor for hardcore Socialism.
The middle passage on "reactionary, racist, ideas", is the universal and vastly flexible catchall hardcore Socialism puts out for "Those against the program" [reactionaries, by their lights, certainly. Racism a propagandistic ploy with no substantial relevance]
The conclusion "If the Left don't rise to the occasion the alternative is Fascism" is a simple reminder that it is not enough to clobber democracies and free market, then Socialist Inc gotta fight it out with Socialist Nat. Red lost out to Brown in critical parts of Europe and South America in the 1920s and 1930s, and all good komrads should not forget that lesson now.
More Control, More Government, Now, is Needed if the alternative Socialism is to be defeated.
This is how Marxism [of many stripes] has used such code phrases throughout the 20th century and to this day. I'm betting her meaning is in accord with the track record.
You have just squeezed my half by insinuation and trying to get her real motives out. You may have a tiny point, but I don't think she's a traditional pinko though. She's not necessarily smarter, but her non sequiturs are kinda new and improved because they are post-modern.
They are novel to the Times broad that interviews her because they're new, really. Turning reality AND Marxist dogma on their heads simultaneously gives a new point of view with which to sell books to new pinkos.
The war in Iraq, says she, was not about stealing oil! Jesus! Who would say that? Some stinky old History professor at a State University? No! The Iraq war was a neocon design to extend unbridled capitalism! Yeah, that's it!
New! Improved! Bullshit!
What's up with commercialism? It's set to destroy women, not gullible fuck poor idiots! Who at Harvard really gives a shit about poor fucks? She's pissed at Manolo because her feet hurt and turning that into politics! New!
I don't think trying to force her into your Le Corbusier box will work. You need a Michael Graves teapot to understand this oracle of the new-thinking automaton.
I've talked myself into estimating your rightness at about 1/4 now.
This is an interesting discussion you guys are having. Each time I read a comment, I basically agree with it -- only to find out that you guys say you disagree with each other. Is this a failure of transitivity, or am I missing something?
It's AA twisting and diggin'.
Post a Comment