Hobson's Choice
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, John Tenniel (1871)George W. Bush will be remembered as an asterisk
in the history books, and not a very big asterisk
--Heard on a Saturday morning talk show
You can be a Baptist and go to hell. A survey was taken at the
Huntsville Penitentiary in Texas and 72% of the inmates were Baptists
--The Road Unseen, Peter and Barbara Jenkins
___________
Ranger attended a New Year's Eve party that was slap filled with limp-wristed liberals, and of course the talk centered on Campaign 2008 and how salvation is in sight.
It all depends on how you calibrate salvation. Since nuance is beyond Ranger's capabilities, he will talk about what salvation is not, in the Old Testament paradigm of his youth.
Ranger views the 2008 campaign as an exercise is futility. Regardless of party affiliation or orientation the field of leading candidates represent the problem rather than the solution, as they are all members of the power elite. Campaign '08 is not about revelations, nor is it about crushing the status quo.
America faces critical issues on all fronts -- with the economy screaming at the front of the pack -- yet terrorism remains the central rhetorical focus. One of the would-be saviors proposes invading Pakistan to attack al-Qaida targets there. This ignores the realities on the ground in this shaky nation (theirs, not ours.)
Another favors winding down Iraq and winding up Afghanistan. All seem to favor the Phony War on Terror (PWOT©) in one guise or another. The election is not about addressing the dire financial straits facing our country at this moment.
The fate of America will not hinge upon Afghanistan and Iraq or the minimal threat posed by terrorism. However, there are plenty of key issues upon which the country does hinge, and which are being ignored by all the major candidates, so caught up are they in playing the national game plan laid out by President Bush and the Generals.
We the electorate allow them to shower us with meaningless patter, which is meaningless because they lack substance, and perhaps we do, too. Our media, such as the average American consumes, does not encourage rigorous thought.
The U.S. electorate continues to accept the fiction that our president actually can control international events to the benefit of the average citizen. These can-do smiling leaders are naught but Elmer Gantrys, 2008-style.
America must get real and elect leaders who address the key issues that actually affect the quality of our lives. A start is to get back where we were $2 trillion dollars ago.
Problems galore right here in River City. Phony wars are part of the problem, not the solution.
Terrorism is not a high-level threat to America, but it is dictating U.S. presidential politics. This overreaction is their goal, and we've taken the bait, hook. line and sinker. The choices are between tweedle dee and tweedle dum. Not exactly democracy when all the same horses are running, just wearing different colored silks.
It is a Hobson's choice.
Labels: election 2008, no viable candidates
posted by Lisa at 3:12 PM
19 Comments:
I'm not sure they were saying salvation was in sight. Maybe salivation. At the sight of the food. Alrighty, then!
Alright, baxtux, you can be forgiven this malaprop as we know you must always be angling for your next mackerel (!)
I really don't understand this post.
First. It appears to be written by Ranger but was posted by Lisa. Help me out here, who is speaking? Ranger, Lisa or both?
Second. Are you really saying that there's no difference between Edwards , Clinton, and Kucinich, or Guilianni, Mccain and Paul, or have you limited the field to a few front runners?
If so, who are you including for our consideration?
Some specifics would be helpful.
Obama/Lieberman 2008 No change in sight. Business as usual.
jo6pac
Damm
"Terrorism is not a high-level threat to America, but it is dictating U.S. presidential politics."
Amen, brutha, but this is why George Bush will not be the asterisk he so richly deserves to be. Ah, if only. Instead, Mr. Bush has managed to exert so much influence over the American scene that he's exposed we brave Americans as the craven cowards we essentially are. It was all papered over before 9/11, but now we know the truth about ourselves.
Maybe you will get your wish in the next life. In this life, you will have to live with candidates who actually know much more about our national character than we ever give them credit for. They know us very well
Pity.
Well, I just finished watching "Bill Moyers Journal "on PBS. Tonights guests Ron Paul, then Dennis Kucinich. Both seem to be insane in that they speak the truth in plain English in public.
Each had a lot to say that was both true and interesting. The video and transcripts should be available at PBS.org. These horses seem to have escaped from Hobson's stable.
Kevin,
Clarification:
I forgot to change the tagline and you are correct--this is from Jim.
However, as we are of the same mind on the issue, I can say the intention of the piece is that the heavily-funded candidates differ little; though the ponies are the same, only the silks are of a different color.
We will have another more specific piece on the matter tomorrow.
As you note, Kucinich does not toe the line, and is the only candidate who qualifies as an Everyman.
IMO, his articles of Impeachment against Cheney were eloquent and spot-on. I like him, but you can't tell the truth in America, and you have to look "Presidential". Otherwise, you become a laughingstock, sadly.
Lisa, I suggest that you compare Obama's health care plan with that of Edwards and Clinton before you say things like that. His health care plan is significantly weaker than either Edwards's or Clinton's. Now, it's true that the Clinton plan is, well, Clintonian, with some pork for everybody in the famous Clinton triangulation strategy. But other than that, it's a reasonable plan, though I have doubts it would ever be adequately implemented. Obama's plan, on the other hand, sucks. It doesn't even guarantee coverage for all Americans -- which is sorta the whole point of health care reform, right?
My vote and money is going to Edwards at the moment. But if Clinton gets the nomination, I'll have no problem at all voting for her. As for Obama... meh. Pretty face, no substance.
-- Badtux the Health Care Penguin
badtux,
I'm with you--the absence of universal health care is an abysmal shame in this supposedly mighty country.
Clinton does propose a plan, as does Edwards. Our question is: Where do the funds to finance these programs come from? It all sounds nice, but where's the beef (or the bacon)?
Speaking only for myself, my personal hieracrchy:
Kucinich-->Edwards-->Clinton. Like you, I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination.
See tomorrow's post for our view on Obama.
I've donated money to Kucinich, he's the only one who realizes that the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. We are spending 15% of our GDP for health care, we could eliminate that by imposing a 5% health care payroll tax, re-allocate current Medicare and Medicaid monies, and save 5% out of our pocketbooks spending 10% of GDP for the same quality health care through a Medicare-for-All plan. I'd rather have 10% taken out of my pocketbook for health care than 15%, regardless of who is taking it out of my pocketbook -- a private insurer, or government.
However, reality is that Kucinich is running for the office of "gadfly", not for President. He isn't even on the ballot in all 50 states.
Finally, regarding funding, that is the issue if you leave the insurance companies in the equation. It is estimated that a large proportion of the 1/3rd of our medical costs going to medical administration and profits is caused by our insurance industry. A larger pool of insured people should drive down costs for everybody, thereby allowing the current Medicaid tax to handle the subsidy for those who cannot afford insurance otherwise (there's already that payroll tax on my paycheck), but that's assuming that insurance companies get heavily regulated as part of the bargain -- i.e., no cherry-picking, profits regulated similar to back in the old Bell System days, etc. That's a big assumption.
In short, the money is already there for universal medical care for all. We're spending 15% of GDP on medical care, more than any other nation on the planet, and getting less for it. The problem is not money. The problem is allocating it wisely. The Edwards and Clinton plans could be workable if they follow, say, the Dutch example (all Dutch are required to purchase insurance or if too poor to do or unemployed are covered by their equivalent of Medicaid, but the Dutch insurance companies are *very* heavily regulated and are virtually arms of the government), but the fact that they already caved to the insurance companies to the extent they have is worrisome...
-- Badtux the Health Care Penguin
Kevin, Ranger here.Lisa and I are on the same page here EXCEPT she believes that the democratic party candidates differ. I believe they are as stated in the blog.I will not endorsee or believe any of their patter.I limit this cmt. to the frontrunners, all of whom are
establishment elite.Edwards is the only sespousing US exit from Iraq but with qualifying caveats.It's all words and posturing.//Ranger does not5 include anyone for your consideration,this is up to the individual voter to determine and decide.//My observations are general in nature. Other sources are specific,mine are more clearly seen as personal reflections. jim
Publius, It's the handlers and not the candidates that have the pulsebeat of America.One thing from Clinton is still true, IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID.jim
Badtux,I do not believe the health plan rhetoric is anything but mindless chatter./Let's get real here , the DVA can't get properly funded and we're supposed to believe that the new plans will somehow magically find funding.It's a arguable point that the cost will come out of the pockets of the insured. Great plan BUT if they had the money to do so they'd already have insurance.People are loosing homes due to lack of funds to pay mortgages ,and somehow we believe the monies will magically pop up.Good luck. The dems have been promising health care since I can remember and they never pony up. The repubs promiser tax breaks for the upper echelons of our society , and they deliver.The dems rhetoric is simply empty words.//It comes down to choices;funding PWOT's or taking care of the welfare of America.Realistically the money is not going to magically appear unless we elect Harry Potter.
Badtux.It's not only the insurance companies, it's the compliance of the Congress.Look at the credit card legislation, who benefits?Surely it's a creation of the credit card consortiums and America swallows it as democracy in action.It's corporate America in action and all the major candidates are whores or pimps for special interests.Included is the religeous right as a special interest group.//If the money is there as you contend then it's being spent prodigeously by Brother Bush.God bless him.//The sad truth of America is that it's easier to buy a Congressman than it is to buy affordable health insurance.jim
Badtux.It's not only the insurance companies, it's the compliance of the Congress.Look at the credit card legislation, who benefits?Surely it's a creation of the credit card consortiums and America swallows it as democracy in action.It's corporate America in action and all the major candidates are whores or pimps for special interests.Included is the religeous right as a special interest group.//If the money is there as you contend then it's being spent prodigeously by Brother Bush.God bless him.//The sad truth of America is that it's easier to buy a Congressman than it is to buy affordable health insurance.jim
Kevin, an admin note. Ranger lives 35 miles from Lisa. Ranger has no computer at home.All articles are hand delivered to Lisa for editing and posting ,so we have a delay built into the system. Lisa doews all the posting and site upkeep etc.W/o this assistance this blog would not get published.She works hard on this project with little reward. Ranger apologizes for any confusion this causes but it's the best we can do.We are not paid professionals nor would we want to be. best ,jim
I am unhappy with the campaign...even running off to Mexico didn't save my angst-attacks. I don't believe ANY candidate is seriously invested in attacking the real problems, tho' my personal lean is that Edwards would want to, Obama lacks the stamina, and Clinton---while knowing how it IS done, is unlikely to do it. And much as I hate being a Liberal, with choices like Huckabee, Romney, and Rudy, I would REALLLLLY hate to be GOP.
labrys,
Welcome back. I count myself a thinking American (a rara avis?), not partisan in the least. It is just that any thinking, compassionate, inclusive and evolved individual would have to hew to the democratic line. However, it is not always the case.
We will be posting a piece later on further campaign thoughts. I will borrow from the left and right to make my point. A thinker must be highly allusive, no?
Jim and Lisa,
Please don't think that I was being critical of you in my previous post asking for clarifications. I am easily confused and I really wasn't sure about the intent or scope of the Hobson's Choice post.
I very much appreciate the work you are doing with this site and it is apparent that you both work hard at it.
Thanks
Post a Comment
<< Home