The Unbearable Lightness of Being Shallow

 

I love all of the hand-wringing, thoughtful analysis, speculation and prognostication surrounding Obama's public addresses.

Though the ADHD American public seems to little notice or be bothered by the lack of consistency or coherence to our president's policies on just about everything, pundits lately seem preoccupied with getting to the bottom of his erratic pronouncements. You know, those policy statements which seem often at odds with the best interests of the country, and even more baffling, at odds with themselves.

I hate to sabotage the good work all of the talking heads and pundits do. Moreover, I understand that they have to keep up the illusion they're doing something invaluable __ after all, we're talking job security. But this whole business of trying to find coherence in Obama's policies is a waste of everyone's time.

There never has been any consistency or sense to it. What can we expect? When he's talking to his "base", he spews progressive platitudes. When he deals with plutocrats, he morphs into the plutocrat he really is. When he pontificates about Mother Earth, now he's the great shepherd guardian of the environment. When he speaks at West Point, Obama becomes the mighty conquering hero, leader of the exceptionalist empire.

It comes down to this. Obama has no core principles, no political philosophy. Most of the time you can just, as they say, "follow the money". Of course, in our enlightened times, money is free speech. So sometimes it's about power and its manipulation. But there's always a "payoff" down the road __ voter support so he can continue wreaking havoc on what's left of egalitarianism and transferring the nation's wealth to his friends in the 1%.

Lately, there's been all of these noble attempts at analyzing why Obama is so hostile to Russia and Putin. The obvious answer is that he now fully subscribes to the nefarious vision of American hegemony embodied in Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard.

That may be true. But at the very core of Obama's Russophobic animosity . . . it's personal.
He hates Vlad the Impaler for upstaging him, not just aspiring to the higher moral ground __ shrewdly making some modest gains on the international stage __ but by Mr. Putin's actually achieving it in the eyes of the world. Putin's ratings soar. Obama's plummet.

Snowden . . . Syria . . . Ukraine.  There you have it, my puzzled pundits.

Obama now has a big chip on his shoulder and a very wounded ego. 

Despite a lot of lying, calculating and ruthless propaganda, posing, strutting, bullying, muscle-flexing, employing all of the exceptionalist weapons of the tallest, baddest bully pulpit on the planet, Obama has and continues to make a total fool of himself. And it's such a blow to his hyper-inflated ego that Vladimir Putin won't bow before his childish barbs, Obama simply can't handle it. Poor wittle boy!

We have seen in his State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress, then his speech before the U.N., and just recently his remarks to the G-7 __ using these extremely visible and internationally honored forums __ our President leveling vituperative taunts and personal insults at the leader of a great world power.
Personal insults!

This is our Nobel Peace Prize President.

This is our "don't do stupid stuff" President.

My eyes were opened to how shallow this man is during a recent interview. I had always been in awe of Obama's vast talents as an orator, delivering noble and moving sentiments, always putting himself in the best possible light, such that many believe him to be a truly great and noble man, a president who cares about the world, the people, world peace. What a shock it was to see the man in the stark personification of a self-absorbed sociopath who evidently has now lost perspective on his own public persona.

He was asked what it's like being President of the United States.

The first words out of Obama's mouth and I quote:  "It's a fun job."

Do I have to break this down for you? Let's just ignore how blatantly arrogant that remark was. The President has vast responsibilities and powers. His decisions affect everyone on our planet. He literally has life-or-death power over millions of people.

And he thinks it's a fun job.

As if we give a flying fuck whether he's having fun or not.

Obama has kept up a good front for longer than I would have expected. Many would have buckled under so much constant attention and adoration. But for seven years, he managed to fool a lot of people, even the people who are now suffering under his catastrophic lack of vision and leadership.

Obama may be a sharp guy. But it always seems that in the end, good judgment inevitably snaps under the dogged badgering of closeted narcissism. And now we have it, though it might have taken a little longer this time around. 

If talk is cheap, and the preferred use of the bully pulpit is self-congratulation over the greater good of the country __ or even an occasional nod to reality __ then the rumors of this President's greatness for the history books are grossly exaggerated, and will inevitably blow away like mere belches of hot air.

Just what the already overheating planet needs . . . more hot air.



[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

This Is War

1992 © Kenneth Jarecke (Contact Press Images)

Until recently, this photo was never seen in the U.S.
It's a soldier making a last desperate attempt at climbing out of a
military vehicle after it had been hit by an incendiary bomb. This was
during Desert Storm in 1991.

This is the side of war our leaders don't want you to see. For us they want it
to be all about waving flags, marching bands, grandiose speeches,
stars-and-stripes lapel pins.

Remember Bush's order that there be no reporting of coffins flown in from 
Afghanistan and Iraq containing the remains of our dead soldiers?

But this photo is what war is really all about. That scorched corpse could be
your son or daughter, one of your grandchildren, an uncle, cousin,
nephew or niece, that freckled neighborhood kid that used to ride by on a
bike.

When our politicians speak about some new crisis that requires our military
intervention, some challenge to our national interests or terrorist
threat to the homeland, then with the appropriate somber expressions and
deeply furrowed brows reel off patriotic slogans and chest thumping
battle cries that beg for our bravado and self-sacrifice, they want you
to imagine proud soldiers in clean pressed uniforms, glorious fireworks
reflecting in the pool of the national mall, the flag majestically
waving in the background atop the White House, they want you embracing
that triumphant feeling of being a citizen of the greatest country in
the world. They most certainly do not want you thinking about that
photograph.

Sure, our leaders claim that they want to avoid at all costs sending our brave
soldiers into harms way. They claim to value every young man and woman
in uniform as they do their own children __ though for some reason their
own kids never get sent into battle.

They claim the decision to wage war, even to commit our troops to  "limited
engagement", is a very serious one, that putting "boots on the ground"
is something we do only when every other conceivable option has been
duly explored, considered, weighed, exhausted.

Warning! When you hear any of this talk about war as a last resort, be VERY
AFRAID. Because it means the bombs are about to drop and the bullets are
about to fly. Last resort is now pure cover, a charade, just one
component of a PR game to tenderize public opinion, just more cynical
role play to get people ready for the slaughter.

When our leaders say they hate war, be VERY ANGRY. Because their actions betray
their love __ their worship! __ of military power.  Just look at their
priorities.  Just look at the national budget. Just take out a world map
and try to identify the 1000+ military bases
the U.S. has in over 140 countries across the globe. If they really
wanted peace, these would be Peace Corps camps, not military
installations.

When they talk about "humanitarian war" and "R2P" __ responsibility to protect __
LAUGH, then CRY. Because any humanitarian concern is not about you. And
when you're getting your ass shot at, the only reason they want to
protect you is so you can shoot back.

On the increasingly rare occasions, when our leaders do give their token nod to
promoting peace in the world, be INDIGNANT __ be OUTRAGED __ at the
blatant hypocrisy. Why, our Nobel Peace Prize winning president even
used his award acceptance speech to make the case for "necessary wars".

Let's see . . . necessary wars. When I was in college, it was Vietnam. Commies
would take over the world if we didn't stop them. Then we had to stop
Saddam Hussein from taking over Kuwait, even though 9 out of 10 American
thought Kuwait was a tropical fruit. Then, of course, we had to bomb
the shit out of Afghanistan to catch Osama bin Laden, though he strutted
around the caves and continued to make threatening videos for the next
eight years. Then, we really had to get Saddam Hussein, this
time before he dropped an atomic bomb on Baltimore or Orlando, even if
he didn't have one and if he did had no way to lob it further than the
Sea of Galilee. Then there was Libya because we had to get rid of that
pesky Gadaffi. And Syria because . . . well, just because. And of
course, we've been having  a regular hissy fit about Iran for decades
now, so they're high on the hit list. And now we have the Ukraine, for a
lot of reasons, including Snowden, and Putin's making Obama look like a
warmonger, which frankly is not that hard, and the BRICS, and the
abandonment of the dollar, and the deranged neocons running amok in the
State Department, and the piles of military hardware which we're
bankrupting the country to buy __ after all, you can't just leave that
stuff laying around, because it's dangerous, so it's imperative we use it. Hell, 
let's throw some ordnance at the Russkies, and the Chinese . . . and . . . and . . .

Whew! All these "necessary wars" are exhausting!

As anyone who reads my blogs knows, I have never recommended any 
organization and directed readers to support its activities. There are hundreds __
thousands __ of good, hard-working, well-meaning, probably extremely
worthwhile groups out there trying to make a difference. My reluctance
stems from observing that despite their best efforts, not a lot seems to
be getting done.

But now, since time is running out and this might be our last best hope, I'm going to break tradition.

Please go to the website for World Beyond War. One of the founding members and its current director is a man I greatly respect and admire, David Swanson, who I've written about before. There is much more on the web site itself but here is a quick summary of their agenda:

• Creating an easily recognizable and joinable mainstream international movement to end all war.
• Education about war, peace, and nonviolent action -- including all that is to be gained by ending war.
• Improving access to accurate information about wars. Exposing falsehoods.
• Improving access to information about successful steps away from war in other parts of the world.
• Increased understanding of partial steps as movement in the direction of eliminating, not reforming, war.
• Partial and full disarmament.
• Conversion or transition to peaceful industries.
• Closing, converting or donating foreign military bases.
• Democratizing militaries while they exist and making them truly volunteer.
• Banning foreign weapons sales and gifts.
• Outlawing profiteering from war.
• Banning the use of mercenaries and private contractors.
• Abolishing the CIA and other secret agencies.
• Promoting diplomacy and international law, and consistent enforcement of laws against war, including prosecution of violators.
• Reforming or replacing the U.N. and the ICC.
• Expansion of peace teams and human shields.
• Promotion of nonmilitary foreign aid and crisis prevention.
• Placing restrictions on military recruitment and providing potential soldiers with alternatives.
• Thanking resisters for their service.
• Encouraging cultural exchange.
• Discouraging racism and nationalism.
• Developing less destructive and exploitative lifestyles.
• Expanding the use of public demonstrations and nonviolent civil resistance to enact all of these changes.

Is it naive to think that the human race can rise above its long history of savagery?

Noam Chomsky says we are a "strange species which attained the intelligence to discover
the effective means to destroy itself, but __ so the evidence suggests
__ not the moral and intellectual capacity to control its worst
instincts."

Let's hope he's wrong.


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]