Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Neoconservatism in the Obama Age (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/646 - broken link)
For those of us who believed that we had elected a peace president who would get us out of the middle eastern wars, we were sadly shocked when he selected neo cons for his cabinet. Not surprisingly after the selection, we are still there.
They control the government. If Beck wants to focus on a group that hides in the shadows and controls things from behind the scenes, maybe he should focus on this group. This group does not care who is elected. They are attached to both parties like leaches.
Interesting piece. I have pointed this line out myself on numerous occasions.
Quote:
"joined the song of praise being raised by neocons and faux-conservatives alike lauding Barack Obama's cabinet for its 'moderation' and 'centrism.' What that really means, of course, is that they are all recognizing that Obama will preserve the Bush status quo when it comes to foreign policy, a heady mix of American exceptionalism combined with muscular democracy promotion and interventionism."
meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
People in places like the Pentagon, advisory boards, think tanks, etc... far out live mere Presidents and while the influence of the Neoconservatives has waned, it is far from gone. If anything, they went to ground and are holed up in the deep weeds waiting patiently for the next administration to infect.
People in places like the Pentagon, advisory boards, think tanks, etc... far out live mere Presidents and while the influence of the Neoconservatives has waned, it is far from gone. If anything, they went to ground and are holed up in the deep weeds waiting patiently for the next administration to infect.
Apparently all empires go nuts with the war-mongering and militarism as they fall out of power, and America is all too typical. We could probably survive as a nation if we decided to focus on establishing a real, productive economy instead of burning America's GNP on the altar of the Military. Too bad our leaders are the least intelligent among us (that's what we get for choosing only those with no ethics). In Washington, an IQ in the low 90s (Obama) looks like genius compared the rest of them: to listen to our government in action is like going to Jury Duty. In our daily lives we associate with people generally on our own level, and it is shocking to face exactly how low the mean is.
It's time Americans stopped funding the infantile criminals that infest Washington and have reduced us all to slavery. Let them work for 20 years to earn the money to buy their own explosives and weapons, then let them and their families pack up and find some foreign nest of savages to charge into. They'd soon find that the reality isn't nearly as fun as the arm-chair speeches they spout as they are waited on hand and foot and treated like Gods.
Legislators should be required to spend 99% of their time (and I mean 40 hours, not a political aristocracy workweek of 2 hours and a bunch of alcohol-filled parties) playing "war" in some typical suburban neighborhood with the rest of the children. Apparently they were raised with such silver spoons in their mouths that they never got it out of their systems.
The best thing we could do would be to pick legislators randomly from those have spent at least 20 years working in a real productive job (not a lawyer, not a teacher) and been successful. Then give them all IQ tests and throw out everyone with an IQ less than 120. Then have them study Thomas Jefferson. Then, rank them all for how much they WANT to be a legislator, and put them in power in REVERSE order so that those who don't want power are the ones who get it.
Or, maybe just randomly select those with high intelligence, high work ethic, and high ethics and morals. No matter what method we were to use, it would be better than the current method, which promises choice for the people but produces clones who all do exactly the same thing--hasten America's precipitous drop from #1.
The best thing we could do would be to pick legislators randomly from those have spent at least 20 years working in a real productive job (not a lawyer, not a teacher) and been successful.
I would disqualify those who are CEOs of financial institutions or work in high level positions on Wall Street before disqualifying lawyers and teachers.
I would disqualify those who are CEOs of financial institutions or work in high level positions on Wall Street before disqualifying lawyers and teachers.
Of course, why would we want lawyers to actually write the law. Lets disqualify pilots from flying airplanes.
Apparently all empires go nuts with the war-mongering and militarism as they fall out of power, and America is all too typical. We could probably survive as a nation if we decided to focus on establishing a real, productive economy instead of burning America's GNP on the altar of the Military. Too bad our leaders are the least intelligent among us (that's what we get for choosing only those with no ethics). In Washington, an IQ in the low 90s (Obama) looks like genius compared the rest of them: to listen to our government in action is like going to Jury Duty. In our daily lives we associate with people generally on our own level, and it is shocking to face exactly how low the mean is.
It's time Americans stopped funding the infantile criminals that infest Washington and have reduced us all to slavery. Let them work for 20 years to earn the money to buy their own explosives and weapons, then let them and their families pack up and find some foreign nest of savages to charge into. They'd soon find that the reality isn't nearly as fun as the arm-chair speeches they spout as they are waited on hand and foot and treated like Gods.
Legislators should be required to spend 99% of their time (and I mean 40 hours, not a political aristocracy workweek of 2 hours and a bunch of alcohol-filled parties) playing "war" in some typical suburban neighborhood with the rest of the children. Apparently they were raised with such silver spoons in their mouths that they never got it out of their systems.
The best thing we could do would be to pick legislators randomly from those have spent at least 20 years working in a real productive job (not a lawyer, not a teacher) and been successful. Then give them all IQ tests and throw out everyone with an IQ less than 120. Then have them study Thomas Jefferson. Then, rank them all for how much they WANT to be a legislator, and put them in power in REVERSE order so that those who don't want power are the ones who get it.
Or, maybe just randomly select those with high intelligence, high work ethic, and high ethics and morals. No matter what method we were to use, it would be better than the current method, which promises choice for the people but produces clones who all do exactly the same thing--hasten America's precipitous drop from #1.
I don't disagree with the sentiment of your post, but you seem to mix low intelligence with ethics & morals.
I'd like to point out that "intelligence" is not so easily defined, and comes in many shapes & sizes - it manifests itself in many different ways. It's just not easy to accurately determine the intelligence of an individual. Add to this the fact that the "average voter" is the one who must make this determination. How does a person with a 90 IQ tell the difference between someone with a 120 and a 180? How can an idiot identify a genius? It's almost absurd to even suggest it could happen.
As far as ethics & morals go - who decides? What standards? Religion? Christianity? Islam? Common sense?
Ethics & morals are man-made, man-defined, and 100% subjective. It's wrong basically because we agree on it. There is no absolute right or wrong, good or bad, up or down. Add to this the fact that (like intelligence) it's almost impossible to accurately gauge a persons ethics. How could you do it? By planting some old ladies at a busy intersection to see who helps her across? With a survey?
While I agree with the basic premise of your post, actually putting it into practice is a bigger pipe-dream than any Cheech & Chong movie I've ever seen.
Of course, why would we want lawyers to actually write the law. Lets disqualify pilots from flying airplanes.
Pilots fly planes - engineers design them based on the laws of physics. You want a pilot to take over for the engineer? Disaster!!
Lawyers manipulate law - they should not write laws. We only end up with long-winded technospeak that assures them a career.
It's like hiring a hacker to write your code. You end up relying on the hacker because nobody else can interpret the mess he's made.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
