The Dem part grew to prominence if not dominance starting with the labor movement of the thirties, and reached its peak in the post-war boom. But while the rest of the world was recovering from the devastation of WW2, and rebuilding and modernizing their productive systems, the US squandered the advantages of that moment, and chose not to modernize. Rather, the "glory" of victory in war having captivated the American populace, instead of heeding Eisenhower's warning about the MIC, allowed -- embraced even -- a national policy of hegemonic militarism and the imperial acquisition of wealth through military dominance. In adopting the atavistic national policy of wealth acquired through coercive dominance -- theft actually -- rather than by maintaining a lead in the race for ever more efficient methods of production, the US squandered every bit of post-war advantage. The MIC, with the help of the US govt, parasitized/looted the nation on behalf of the one-percent, leaving the 99% where they/we are today: broke, indebted,unemployed, and uncompetitive. By throwing the working man overboard thirty years ago, and covertly siding with the one-percent, the Dems abandoned their central constituency: the working man/woman. Without this constituency, which Trump has now claimed as his base, the Dem party has finally achieved the inevitable result: its own looming political extinction. The Dem party is on the brink of death. What you see now is a warm and twitching almost-a-corpse. If Trump achieves any degree of economic recovery, the Dem party will breathe its last and retire to the dust bin of history. A fitting end to its craven betrayal.
From The Next Big Future, which I believe is Brian Wang's website/blog (I'm new at this stuff) , I find a piece entitled Terrorism is a subset of Murder http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/terrorism-is-subset-of-murder.html (asserting, if I get it right, that Terrorism is illegitimate by virtue of being criminal). One commenter, Gigi, responded: As I have already tried to say before, I consider any use of the word “terrorism” more or less pointless. In fact, reading much of the western media about “terrorism” there is almost nowhere any clear definition of the word “terrorism”, for the simple reason that for any kind of such definition many of the military actions taken by the West against unarmed civilians in, say, Iraq or Vietnam may well fall in this definition. Is this an action of terrorism? http://boingboing.net/2010/04/... Simply put it, if Hamas kills one Israeli civilian it is terrorism, if the US or Israel directly kill 10 or more Palestinian it is
Comments