Archive for the ‘Thoughts’ Category

I’m not sure how it happened…

You see, there is this small group of people, I think they might be anarchists – at least that’s how they seem to act. They are all about destroying the existing order and making society go back in time hundreds of years. They say they have a vision, a pure vision of how life should be and they insist that I follow their ideals – or else. Oh, and here is a sign of their evil intent – they have a flag with a rattlesnake on it.


I should have known when I first saw it that it stood for their poisonous words and their venomous tactics. But I didn’t take them seriously; and to be quite frank, I don’t think anybody did. They were like a circus sideshow, you know a group of gaggling idiots and fools who could barely speak English. Whenever their supporters spoke in public (and there were a bunch of high level people like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann), I could never understand what they said. I mean their words simply did not make sense, at least in this Universe. Literally, these people would blather on, making absolutely no sense. They call themselves the Tea Party, although they have nothing in common with the heroes who initiated the American Revolution against the King of England in 1776). Yet, they somehow capivated the minds of the uneducated American people who think they are Christian religious fundamentalists, although I doubt that Jesus would recognize their teachings.

I know, I know. This whole thing makes no sense at all. It’s like a poorly written story. But it happened. It is happening. And now I’m being held hostage by these people. And so are a lot of other innocent people.

They say that if I (actually the elected U.S. government) doesn’t give them exactly what they want (anarchy) they will pull the plug on the economy, and we will all go over some sort of very high cliff. All of us! Frankly, I’m very afraid of very high cliffs because if you fall off you will get hurt really bad. The problem is that these People of the Snake aren’t afraid of falling off of the cliff. That can only mean that they are either very stupid, or they are insane, or both. I think some are very stupid and the rest are insane. And here I am ( and you too, by the way). Trapped. A prisoner of a very small group of religious/economic zealots who have seized power in a very Un-American manner by misusing Congress and refusing to let the majority rule. In essence, “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”.

I know. I know what you are saying. These are just bargaining tactics and it will all come out OK in the end. Really? Have you ever looked into the eyes of Michells Bachman? Have you ever listened to the thoughts of Sarah Palin? Have you read Ayn Rand’s books? (She is the patron saint the of the TP). These people live in some alternate reality, a parallel universe that combines patriotic rhetoric from 200 years ago and Bible thumping, backwoods snakeoil salesmen pitches. They think they are suffering now, but they have no clue of the enormous economic suffering they are about to inflict on the entire world if they get their insane way. You see, I’m not the only hostage in the room. We are all in this together, yes, you too – wherever you are.

I should have known. When these people chose the poisonous rattlesnake as their mascot, it was a clear sign that they cannot be trusted.

May God Save the USA from this insane group of people… because Congress can’t.

Read Full Post »

Recently, there has been much discussion of possible attacks on U.S. citizens by drones operated by the U.S. government. This became the “issue of the day” when Attorney General  Eric Holder told Congress that he would not rule out the use of drones to attack American citizens. This of course conjures up images straight out of films like War of the Worlds or Independence Day. Imagine unmanned space ships,or government drones, taking potshots at panicked and unsuspecting U.S. citizens. There would be no place for anyone to hide! And of course, that’s OK with Eric Holder, and presumably President Obama, for whom he works. The media of course loved it because it is a story sure to stir up emotions and then people will watch the television news or buy a newspaper and the sponsors and advertisers will capture a large audience and sell more product. It’s a great story and sure to sell as long as it remains in the minds of the public, which it is certain to do for at least a day two until they are distracted by something else, like maybe the resignation of the Pope, and then the media will have to find a way to turn that story into some sort of advertising or commercial success.

Meanwhile, I’m wondering. What about the drones? Will they be used against U.S. citizens in the future? I think the answer is this: No. There is a good reason for that – it doesn’t make sense. The principal advantage of a drone is that it doesn’t have a pilot, so it can fly into really dangerous skies and if it gets shot down by the enemy, there is no pilot to get killed. In the U.S. it is unlikely that criminals or others who are enemies of the state would be walking around with anti-aircraft weapons. So, the government can easily use a small piloted airplane or helicopter to watch people and launch missiles at them if they want to. However, it is more likely that airborne platforms would be used for surveillance and ground forces, like the FBI or State Police would be guided by the pilot to the location of the bad guys. That’s what happens now and it seems to work pretty well. It’s hard to see why a drone would be be any better.

The real thing people should be afraid of is not whether the government has the right to track down and apprehend criminals, either from the ground or the air, or whether the government has the right to shoot it out with a criminal. This happens all the time. There are even times when the government launches an attack that will likely kill a criminal when it is deemed too dangerous to try to capture the criminal alive. Just recall Bonnie and Clyde.

So, should we be afraid of the U.S. Government? You bet we should be. Should we be afraid of President Obama? You betcha there too. Why? Well, it’s not because of drones; its because of the law and the Constitution. Let me give you an example: the Iraq War. Let me give you another: The Afghanistan War. Let me give you another: Guantanamo. How about one more: locking up American citizens by the U.S. military on U.S. soil without a trial on order of the President. So what is wrong with these? They are all in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Only Congress can declare war according to the Constitution of the United States, yet Congress has not done so since World War II. Instead, Congress has sidestepped its responsibility and delegated authority to the various Presidents to do as they see fit whenever military action might be required.

Similarly, the indefinite imprisonment of people, whether they are U.S. citizens or not, without a trial is also a violation of the U.S. Constitution – something that the President and Congress seem quite comfortable with.

The recent uproar about the use of drones against American citizens is silly. It doesn’t even make tactical sense. If the government wants to come for you via the air, you can bet they will be using manned helicopters or maybe small spotter planes and a whole bunch of people on the ground. The drone thing is fiction. Unfortunately, the gradual dismantling of the Constitution by the current and several former Presidents, with the spineless acquiescence of Congress, is something we should all fear. Yet, the media never mention it at all. Could it be they are too afraid to bring the issue up?

Or is it just not the sort of news that will sell product?

Read Full Post »

The recent murders of school children and teachers at Sandy Hook have once again caused the American people to examine their “right to bear arms”. More specifically, the question has arisen is this, “Why do ordinary citizens need assault weapons”? The answer that is usually given is that the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment to the Constitution. The text of the amendment is brief, simply stating that: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. If one were to live somewhere far from the U.S., like perhaps on Mars, one might be forgiven having the understanding that the U.S. has a militia, i.e. volunteer soldiers who are normally just farmers and so forth, but who are ready to go to war at a moment’s notice. You might call such a group Minutemen and you would be right, although you would be off by a couple of centuries. Indeed, the United States was once protected by citizen soldiers who were called Minutemen and who were expected to be ready with a minute’s notice. For this reason every citizen had to have his own firearm handy in case he had to rush off to war against the British, or the French, or the Spanish, or even those pesky Native Americans who kept thinking they owned the land that the Europeans called America.

However, times change, and the reason for the second amendment has long passed into the dustbin of history. Which is why the supporters of “gun rights” always talk about the second clause of the second amendment and not the first clause. Nevertheless, one might argue that some sort of precedent exists, given that people have owned guns for over 200 years in the U.S. and that militia groups still exist, as in Texas; however, I don’t think that anyone could seriously contend that the militia groups of today are a serious defense against other nations who have nuclear bombs, ICBMs, and armies that number in the hundreds of thousands, if not the millions. The defense against those potential threats is relegated to the standing Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine forces of the U.S. The militias, such as they are, are of little to no value against modern threats from advanced countries. Even so, there are a lot of Americans who want their own guns, and not just guns, they want assault-style weapons. Why? One might ask. Surely you don’t need an assault weapon to defend yourself from a burglar who might break into your house in the middle of the night. Isn’t a pistol under your pillow much more convenient? Sure it is, and it was the typical solution for that problem for many Americans for many, many years.

An assault-style weapon can fire many, many bullets in a short period of time, perhaps 50-100 bullets in a minute. In comparison, a military assault rifle can fire close to 1,000 bullets per minute. So, the question must arise, why does the average American homeowner need an assault-style weapon? Surely, he’s not expecting to have a shootout with a burglar which requires the capability to fire 50-100 bullets in a minute, is he? Under what circumstances would the average American citizen need this firepower, let alone the firepower of a true assault rifle. Could it for hunting deer or maybe ducks? Imagine shooting a deer with 50 – 100 bullets, or maybe hitting a duck with all that lead. Does that make any sense? Could it be that the typical American gun owner is such a bad shot that he needs 50-100 rounds per minute just to hit a deer or a duck? I don’t think so.

The reason Americans want assault weapons – even multiple assault weapons – in their homes is this: they think they need them. Need them? For what? you say. The answer is found in the name of the weapon itself. They are used for conducting an assault – or for defending against an assault. Let us assume that most Americans are not planning an assault (with the exception of the numerous crazies out there who are clearly planning assaults with assault-style weapons). The typical American who wants assault-style weapons can only feel he has the need for one of these weapons if he is indeed fearing an imminent assault from someone else. From who? You say. Fidel Castro? No, of course not. It’s simple: it’s from THEM…. THEM…. Get it?

In case you are not familiar with THEM, THEM is the “others”, a group of people that is different from us, a group who wants our stuff, a group who, one day, will rise up and try to seize the property of TRUE Americans. That’s why Americans not only need assault weapons, it also why they need underground bunkers, a year’s worth of food and fuel, booby trapped properties, secret stashes of money, and so forth. It is a belief amongst the “haves” that the “havenots” are about to rise up in rebellion and take their stuff. Its a fear of class warfare. Its like a religious belief. It actually is a religious belief for some of these people. The end times are coming. The good and the bad will do battle – so the good need their assault weapons. It’s a combination of these ingredients and more that drive Americans to crave assault weapons.

So there you go… and you probably thought these people were just crazy or something.

Read Full Post »

When Charles Darwin wrote “On the Origin of Species”, he wrote about the difficulty of determining the actual mechanism of change in species from generation to generation. He was quite sure that the environment played a role in the final outcome of things via a survival of the fittest system. The problem in the theory of evolution was not that the strong thrive and the weak perish, because that is obvious. The problem is how does a species actually evolve? Darwin rejected the idea of incremental change over a long period of time as the likely cause of evolution. Instead, he looked at domesticated animals and observed how they could change over several generations by selective breeding. He thought that a mechanism similar to this, some sort of selective breeding that occurred in the wild, was the most likely mechanism of evolution. The “selective” breeding would occur between organisms that happened to be in the right place at the right time under the right conditions and they also happened to have the right genes for producing a successful hybrid. His theory was, in essence, that change in a species occurred due to a “natural” and chancy form of selective breeding. It wasn’t random change, it was more like lucky change. His theory then goes on to state the almost obvious: those changes that result in better adaptations to the environment result in better survival rates.

Darwin borrowed from the environmental theories of Malthus and concluded that as supplies of food increased in nature and animal populations thereby increased that those individuals most suited to the environment would prosper more than those who had been born slightly less suited. It was the principle of survival of the fittest. These survivors would then breed and the next generation would have the traits of the survivors. This was Darwin’s theory of evolution. The problem was, as Darwin admitted, how, exactly, does this generational change occur?

Many people take Darwin’s theory of evolution and proclaim that it is based upon random changes that occur in genes and those which help an organism to survive lead to successful adaptations while those random changes that hinder survival result in population declines. Darwin never advocated a theory of random change. His theory was more like a theory of natural selective breeding where the strongest get to breed and their traits are passed on to the next generation, very similar to what he observed in the farms of England.

Recently, genetic scientists have discovered that Darwin was wrong. It turns out that genetic change does not have to happen by selective breeding. It can happen by direct impact of the environment upon an organisms DNA. This new discovery states that the vast majority of our DNA, usually referred to as “junk DNA”, is not junk after all. Much of the human genome has been decoded so that we know where the code is in our DNA for blue eyes, or our blood type or even if we have a predisposition to some forms of cancer. Yet, the vast majority of our DNA is referred to as “junk”. That’s because scientists didn’t know what its function was – or if it even had a function.

In an article recently published in the New York Times , Gina Kolata writes that gene switches in junk DNA, “play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave”. She states that, “…the environment can affect disease risk. In the case of identical twins, small changes in environmental exposure can slightly alter gene switches, with the result that one twin gets a disease and the other does not.” It stands to reason that if the environment can change junk DNA and then cause a disease, it can also cause a change that results in resistance to disease or perhaps some other very different result. The real discovery here is that a mechanism has been discovered that can cause human DNA to rapidly modify itself in response to a factor in the environment. This must be the cause of evolution.

While the Times article is primarily focused on diseases being caused by exposing junk DNA to certain substances, it is only reasonable to ask whether this is in fact the mechanism of evolution. It is a direct connection between the body’s genes and the environment. Certainly, there will be cases where the environment contains toxins and these toxins will harm the DNA and cause disease. However, this is very likely the mechanism of evolution also. It is the way in which the body’s DNA senses that the environment is changing and tries to make the appropriate response. This is very likely the true mechanism of evolutionary change. It also explains why evolutionary change is, as Darwin noted, fairly quick and not a progression of minute changes.

It seems that Darwin’s notion of selective change occurring because of the coincidence of the right circumstances for the right individuals is not the likely explanation for evolution. It seems far more likely that our “junk” DNA is not “junk” at all, and it is this DNA (it actually comprises about 90% of our DNA) that results in “evolutionary” change. It seems that just as we are able to make conscious adaptations to our environment that there is another level of consciousness in our bodies, that we are unaware of, that is also continually working to optimize our body’s response to the environment and also that of the next generation of human beings.

Junk DNA is how evolution works.


Read Full Post »

Unfortunately, Capitalism is the de facto religion of America. I say this is our religion because one is pretty much considered to be un-American if you don’t believe in this economic system. It is equated with freedom itself – even though it is not freedom. To be opposed to Capitalism is to be considered a Communist in America. To be a patriotic American, one must BELIEVE.

The problem is: it doesn’t work. It’s that simple. The current collapse of the U.S. and world economy is not a one time thing – it is a recurring phenomenon in our history. Everyone knows about the Great Depression that began in 1929. But couldn’t that just be a weird coincidence? Two events don’t exactly prove that Capitalism doesn’t work, does it? No, it doesn’t. How about the Bank Panic of 1907? Would that help? That’s the one where J.P. Morgan had to use his private resources to save the entire country from financial disaster. Not enough? OK, how about the bank panic of 1893? Still not enough? How about the bank panic of 1873?  Let’s not even start with the recessions that come in between the depressions.

Even Alan Greenspan had to admit that his free market ideas were wrong and that they led to the collapse of the stock market. Yet, about half the country still worships the concept of a free market capitalist economy, refusing to see what is plain to see: American-style Capitalism is seriously flawed. As the Occupy Movement people point out, it is deliriously wonderful for about 1% of the population who own about 25% of the national wealth. It is the other 99% who suffer. The question we should be asking is this: why doesn’t Capitalism work for everyone? The answer is simple: it is literally out of control. The bankers of Wall Street control U.S. monetary policy. It almost seems that it has become a requirement these days that in order to be Secretary of the Treasury you first have to have a top position at Goldman Sachs – just so the government can be sure that you know how everything is supposed to work.

We have, in this country, a true oligarchy that cares only for the few wealthiest people in America. The one thing in America that the government feels compelled to protect is the wealth of the wealthiest. Consider the last collapse (not the one we are feeling right now – I mean the one George Bush created). What did the government save? The banks. Consider the situation in Europe now. The Euro zone is on the verge of collapse. Some countries, like Ireland, have already experienced a collapse of their economy. What was and is being saved in Europe? The banks. Why? Are these particular banks so crucial to the survival of mankind? Of course not. However, it is the extraordinarily wealthy people who own these banks who also own the governments of the major Capitalist countries.

The problem with Capitalism is that none of the wealthy Capitalists will acknowledge that it is not perfect and that it must be controlled. They hate the very idea of controls. (Good thing they’re not airline pilots.) You see, it cuts into their ability to make billions of dollars at the expense of the common man.  So…. we don’t have controls. And our economy periodically collapses. And the government saves the wealthy while letting the average citizens fend for themselves. After all, what do you expect from an oligarchy?

The time has finally come for the entire world to wake up and realize that uncontrolled Capitalism is horribly imperfect. It needs to be controlled. The wealthy people also need to be controlled. They must be prevented from grabbing control our government through bribery via lobbyists.  The governments of our “democracy” must be more democratically elected. Why is it that essentially every Senator and Congressman in our government is a millionaire? It’s because no ordinary person can afford to run for office.  We have a political system that perpetuates an oligarchy.

Capitalist greed has infected our banking system and our government to the extent that the people at the very top of government have lost touch with the people.  They only use the power of government to perpetuate their own wealth and – above all – preserve the banks. Preserve the banks at all costs, that is their mantra. That is literally their religion.

It doesn’t have to be this way. It shouldn’t be this way. The first step in fixing the problem is to nationalize all of the banks. Cut the head off of the snake. Banks should be operated only as a utility for the benefit of all citizens – so that all citizens can enjoy the fruits of Capitalism. The greedy moneylenders of America should be told to get a real job and stop being bloodsucking parasites on the 99%.

Gargantuan banks are not necessary for Capitalism to succeed. Indeed, they have been shown, time and again throughout our history, to be the cause of the failure of Capitalism. Monster banks, out of control, are an imminent danger to democracy and a free economy. History has demonstrated this time and again. So why doesn’t our government fix the problem? Because our monster banks own our government.

And that is why American Capitalism has had a history of recurring, catastrophic failures for well over 100 years.

Yet, we still believe.

Read Full Post »

In 1605,  Guy Fawkes and a group of conspirators attempted to blow up the British Parliament House, and, in the process, kill the members of Parliament and the Protestant King James. Their goal was merely political – they just wanted to restore a Catholic king to the throne. Fawkes was caught and ultimately put to death – after he confessed (under extreme torture) to treason and implicated the other conspirators. Guy Fawkes Day (November 5th) was then created as a reminder to the citizens of England of the horrific consequences, i.e. horrific torture, that would be dealt to any other persons who attempted to overthrow the government. Interestingly, Guy Fawkes Day now seems to be more a rallying day for people who despise the current government of England. It would seem that perhaps not everyone thinks that treason is a bad thing.

Which brings us to the current day.  Most of us are aware that over the past week or so the American public lost a great deal of money in the stock market. On August 8th alone the market lost over $1,000,000,000,000.00 (One trillion dollars). A good deal of this money was from 401k investments, upon the earnings of which many Americans hope – or had hoped – to retire. Now they have lost any not only the earnings they might have accumulated, but they also lost a good amount of principal too. How could this have happened? How could the entire world have become so frightened that a worldwide selloff was triggered? Was it simply because a rating agency (S&P) published an opinion that downgraded the U.S. from a AAA risk to a AAa risk? Or was it something else?

The events that led up to the S&P downgrade are indicative of a pernicious attitude among some people in our Congress. Clearly, one expects the opposition party to oppose the agenda of the majority party. That is the way democracies always work. However, our democracy is no longer a functioning democracy. The opposition gang decided to refuse to compromise until the 11th hour. They were playing “chicken” with the welfare of the country, like a bunch of ignorant children, unaware that they are playing with fire.  And the world is scared.

However, these were not children. They were intelligent men. They knew what they were doing. They were well aware of the potential catastrophic effects of their refusal to bargain in good faith for the “good of the country”. These men, who had all sworn to uphold the Constitution, had, with their eyes wide open, driven the bus over a cliff. Why? There is, of course, only one reason – wealth. The Party of individual wealth had decided that they owed nothing to the American people. Their loyalty was only to their own individual wealth – their businesses, their cronies,  and  their Party – loyalty to the Party was paramount (just like in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union). And they stayed loyal, until at the last possible moment – then they grudgingly made a miserly deal. But it was too little and too late. S&P had seen enough. These guys in the Party were not working for the people of the United States – in fact they were harming the people of the United States. And they didn’t care. S&P had no option but to advise their worldwide clients to beware because the U.S.A was no longer a stable country, and you could no longer rely on the government’s ability to pay its debt. All because of the uncaring, foolish zealots of the Party.

Today, the entire world is still feeling the aftershocks of this pernicious collusion in Congress. Today the economy of the U.S., Europe, and Asia are all weaker because of the fanatics who have been elected to Congress. The problem is apparent to the world. Congress has been seized by a group of fanatics, zealots,  and true believers in crackpot economic theories, and others who just want to profit from the collapse of the U.S. economy. How can a member of Congress, in good conscience, sell the U.S. economy short? How can these people, elected to do the will of the people, cause such economic devastation and still hold their heads high?

Legally, these activities are not treason in the U.S. However, they hardly indicate love of country, or a sense of duty. These people clearly have no feeling of empathy for the economic ruin their activities have caused and will continue to cause to millions upon millions of innocent Americans.

Call it what you will, but as far as I am concerned, T is for treason.

Read Full Post »

A few years ago, John McCain brought up the issue of “Class Warfare” while running for President. He accused Barack Obama of espousing economic policies that amounted to class warfare. Perhaps McCain was sensitive to the issue because economic class warfare had been the policy of the previous Republican Presidents Bush and Reagan. Of course their economic policies were never described as class warfare, they simply destroyed the economy in order that the relatively few number of people at the top of the food chain could enjoy an extreme prosperity at the expense of most of the American population. John McCain’s fear was that, as President, Barack Obama would put a stop to these policies.Unfortunately, McCain’s fears were misplaced. Obama has done virtually nothing to change the fundamental economy of the United States.

Class warfare is nothing new. It only takes a brief look at history to realize that almost all warfare is class warfare. Consider, for example, a classic case: the overthrow of the Czar of Russia by the Communists. In the early 20th Century there were two distinct classes in Russia – a ruling noble class that included the Czar (by the way, the word Czar is a corruption of the Roman emperor’s title “Caesar”). The problem in Russia was the economy, i.e. the Czar and his family owned just about all the wealth and the people had very little. The people rose up against the Czar and his family, killed them all, and implemented a completely different economic system based upon an ideal of equality.

If we look further back in time to 1776, the American Revolution was a response to England’s class warfare. The King of England believed he essentially owned America – and he may have been right. After all, weren’t they founded as colonies of England and weren’t all the inhabitants subjects of the King? So what was the problem? It was excessive taxation. The taxes extracted by England from the colonists were a heavy burden and ultimately America rose up in class warfare against the King of England and all the royalty that owned the various colonies in America.

It wasn’t long after the American Revolution that a rebellion against the ruling class began in France; it was the French Revolution and it was a rebellion against the class warfare of the royalty of France. Like the uprising against Russian royalty in the 20th Century, things did not go well for the wealthy people of France.

Recently, we have witnessed the “Arab Spring” in the Middle East. In these uprisings it has always been a case of the poorer people rising up against their wealthy masters. It has been class warfare. From these and many other examples of past wars, including World War II, it can be seen that wars are usually caused by economic iniquity. Wars occur when the divide between the wealthy rulers and the common man becomes too vast, and it is seen that a few people at the top of the economic food chain are prospering mightily on the backs of the general population. It is the story of history and it is instructive to note that John McCain was and is very concerned about an outbreak of class warfare in America. But why? Does he know something most of us don’t? Probably.

One of the things that Senator McCain probably knows very well is that all members of the U.S. Senate and many members of the House of Representatives are multi-millionaires. They are not your typical Americans. Another thing that Senator McCain probably knows very well is that the American economy was deliberately transformed by Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush and a willing Congress. This was aided by the appointment of key people, for example, Alan Greenspan, to work in the key financial sections of the government, such as the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, in order to make the transformation from a country where all men were treated equally to one where the wealthy were treated as a separate, entitled class. Few people know the whole story of the downfall of the U.S. economy and how it was the result of many years of Republican, wealthy family favoring, economic policies. This sad story has been exposed on Public Television – and as a result probably seen by relatively few people. It can be seen here: Frontline.

Frontline revealed that Greenspan and his henchmen virtually destroyed the U.S. economy. Interestingly, Timothy Geithner was part of this group of people that deliberately created an uncontrolled marketplace that was doomed to collapse while it made a few people immensely rich at the expense of the average American. Inexplicably, President Obama chose Timothy Geithner to be his Secretary of the Treasury, i.e. Obama knowingly put the fox in charge of the chicken coop. We are by no means in a stable economy, even though we have avoided a complete meltdown. The wealthy class still rules and the Republican party is playing a dangerous game of chicken right now with the economy, threatening to let the country default on its obligations if any attempt is made to tax the wealthy. It’s class warfare alright, and its being waged by the Republican Party in order to benefit a miniscule minority of extremely wealthy Americans.

Any reasonable person would see that the wealthy class is playing with fire, confident that the under-class will cave in and obey. However, that isn’t true, it has never been true. That is the lesson of history from the American Revolution and even before: economically oppressed people always rise up. Look at the Middle East, look at Greece, look at Africa, look at the history of South America and Latin America. The problem is that the wealthy, upper class Republicans are blinded by their own greed and stupidity. They believe their flawed economic ideas will work, but their ideas are nothing more than pouring gasoline on a fire – you get a big flame for a short time, and then the fire dies out. It may well be that we are facing a major economic implosion because the fundamental problems that led to the previous meltdown have not been corrected. Indeed, except for Greenspan, many of the perpetrators of the meltdown are still in the game.

McCain was wrong about Obama, he is not an advocate of class warfare, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. It always does when the wealthy class goes too far. Just look at history.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: