Is Bush Actually A Socialist?

Is George W. Bush a socialist? Is George W. Bush a fascist? Did George W. Bush purposely destroy the United States economy so that the government would have to nationalize everything? What does it mean to nationalize a bank?

From The Financial Crisis: Will the U.S. Nationalize the Banks? by Dan La Botz:

The economy is already in a recession. Whatever the ultimate bailout plan, the financial situation could well continue to unravel, curtail credit, and shrink the broader economy, leading to a deep recession or depression. The U.S. Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, might then be forced -- despite their deep aversion to any form of government ownership -- to not only bail out the banks but to buy them. The increasingly popular sentiment that the bankers should be made to pay for the crisis opens the door to the notion of nationalization of the banks. What would it mean to have the government own the banks?

Historically the Populists, various labor parties, and the Socialist and Communist left have raised the slogan of nationalization of the banks as part of a process of bringing about socialism. Their argument has been that if the banks were owned by the government, and the government were controlled by the people, we could democratically plan an economy to meet the needs of all. Nationalization of the banks would form part of a plan of socialization of the economy -- banks and corporations, mines and factories, airlines and railroads -- brought under the control of a combination of citizens, workers, and consumers. We would put our children, the elderly and the infirm first, and organize the economy to provide jobs, housing, health care, education, and retirement benefits for all. Bank nationalizations in reality, however, have usually just been a stage in the boom-bust cycles of modern economies, a period when the state lends its strength to finance to see it through hard times, and once finance has recuperated, the state returns it to its private owners so they can continue to reap the benefits of wealth plus interest.

Read more here.

From U.S. is getting a socialist economy by Gwynne Dyer:

After Comrade George W. Bush nationalized the two giants of the U.S. mortgage market, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, earlier this month, Anatole Kaletsky wrote in the Times of London that "the most capitalist administration ever, in the world's most capitalist country, (has) decided to wipe out the private owners of its biggest and most important financial companies and replace them with state-appointed bureaucrats."

Wikipedia defines "nationalization" as "the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government. It is a central theme of certain brands of estate socialist' policy that the means of production, distribution and exchange, should be owned by the state ... Nationalization may occur with or without compensation to the former owners. If it takes place without compensation it is a case of expropriation."

Read the rest here.

From Yet another wignut pundit claims Bush is a “socialist” by Paul:

Since we socialists can’t seem to agree on even the colour of shit, there are about as many different interpretations of socialism as there are socialists. But the one thing that we have in common (along with some anarchists such as Noam Chomsky) is that we believe that the state can (and should) be used for a time to curtail the power of capitalists, to remove them from their position of ridiculous power and to redress the gross imbalance in wealth that they have accumulated for themselves while 18 million people (3 times 9/11) die globally every year due to poverty.

Fascists on the other hand believe in using the power of the state to preserve and enhance the power of capitalists (see, for instance, the collusion between Nazi Germany and the infamous Krupp family or Mussolini’s Corporatist régime) at the expense of workers.

I know, I know, it’s hard. They both deal with the state AND capitalists! It’s so confusing. But here’s an easy mnemonic device to help remember the difference between the two for next time.

Saying that Bush’s fascist move this week is actually the same thing as “socialism” just because it involves the state and capitalists is a bit like saying that cancer-causing cigarettes are the same thing as chemotherapy because they both involve cancer and its spread.

Are there wignuts out there, or is that just a spelling error? Paul definitely thinks outside of the box. I’m not sure that I agree with him, but I find what he has written about the financial crisis to be interesting. What do you think? Is all of this socialism or fascism? Or neither?

Paul has a link to this video. I assume the wignut/wingnut pundit he refers to is Andrew Sullivan:


Both Sullivan and Naomi Klein bring up some good points. One thing that bothers me about Sullivan’s point about personal responsibility is his denial of outside pressure. The advertising business is based on outside pressure. It wouldn’t be as large of an industry as it is if outside pressure didn’t work. People were inundated with outside pressure to use credit for all kinds of things. And after all the problems that going into too much debt have caused for all of us, the outside pressure still continues. My home loan is with Countrywide. Nearly every month I receive a letter telling me how much available home equity I have, and asking me if I am interested in refinancing. I just received another one the other day.

From Bush Embraces Obama’s Socialism by Cliff Kincaid:

The point was that Obama is a socialist. Biden called the accusation “ridiculous.”

The problem for the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin is that their fellow Republican, President George W. Bush, may do more damage to American-style capitalism during his last months in office than Obama could ever do in a four-year term as president.

In short, we already have a socialist president―and his name is Bush.

The irony is that the same socialist process begun by the Republican president, Bush, could be dramatically expanded under a Democratic President, Obama. This time, the “bailouts” and “rescues” will be global in nature and used to benefit the rest of the world, using U.S. tax dollars.

The inevitable result will be global government financed by global taxes. The last time this was tried in America was when King George attempted to impose taxes on what became the founders of the greatest country in human history, the United States of America.

The cry of “no taxation without representation” led to a revolution.

I find all of this to be very interesting, but it does make my head hurt.

I plead ignorance. I really don’t know what the solution is to the financial crisis. What scares me is that either the people in charge of fixing things know as much, or less, than I do. Or they know what they’re doing, and the only people that will benefit from their solutions are the rich and powerful. Either way, the word “screwed” comes to mind.

I also plead confusion. Is George W. Bush a radical right-wing nut (my definition) or is he, as described by Andrew Sullivan) a left-wing socialist?

Maybe he is simply an immoral, fascist asshole.

Update:
But wait, there’s more! It appears that perhaps “the people in charge of fixing things know as much, or less, than I do.”

Peace Be With You

I wonder what the fighting was all about? Something religious, or something secular?

From Monks brawl before religious ceremony by Shira Medding:

An unusual sight greeted Jerusalem police as they entered one of Christianity's holiest sites Sunday morning: dozens of monks punching and kicking each other in a massive brawl.

Monks from the Greek Orthodox and Armenian denominations were preparing for a ceremony at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in the Old City when a disagreement led to a full-fledged fist fight.

Read the rest here.

The only useful purpose of religion is to divide us. And that’s not very useful.

God On Trial

Tonight, as part of their Masterpiece Contemporary series, PBS is broadcasting God on Trial. Here are descriptions from the PBS website:

Faced with the terrors of Auschwitz, prisoners put God on trial for abandoning His chosen people. Antony Sher, Dominic Cooper, and Stellan Skårsgard star in this moving drama.

Why is there so much suffering in the world and what kind of God would allow it to happen? Universal questions about faith and philosophy are at the heart of God on Trial, which was inspired by the legend that a group of concentration camp prisoners conducted a mock trial against the Almighty God. From all walks of life, a physicist, a glove maker, rabbis, a law professor and at least one criminal weigh the evidence and offer thoughtful arguments taken from history, science, theology and personal experience.

Bible Verse For Sunday 11-09-08

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.

And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.

And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.

And Jacob called the name of the place Peni'el: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

And as he passed over Penu'el the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh.

Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day; because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank.

What the hell? Why did Jacob and God wrestle? Was Jacob winning? How strong is God anyway that a mere mortal could face him and prevail? Why didn’t Jacob want more from God than just God’s blessing? Why the hell did God change Jacob’s name? Why is it that God doesn’t show his face anymore? What was it that was so special about these Old Testament guys, were they all high on something and hallucinating? If you eat “of the sinew which shrank,” do you go to hell?

“We don’t have a god telling us what to do”

From In the name of no father by Rob Cullivan:

However, she and her atheist companions agree on one thing – morality doesn’t depend on theism.

“What keeps a society safe and running smoothly is what morality is all about,” Knox says. “I think what we have to answer to is our society and how much you want to be part of that society.”

Like Tuppman and Smythe, Knox questions relying on a higher power to make oneself a good person.

“When you do not have daddy in the sky telling you what to do and waiting for you to be responsible, you take responsibility for yourself,” she says.

‘Religulous’

To varying degrees, all three people enjoyed comedian Bill Maher’s film “Religulous,” still in theaters. Maher’s movie takes satirical aim at Western monotheistic religions as well as such beliefs as Scientology. On the other hand, they all took issue with Maher’s ridicule of believers.

“As a Unitarian, I think we would not ridicule somebody else for their beliefs,” Knox says. “We’re humanitarian. We believe in compassion.”

Which is one reason why Tuppman, for example, says she’s never liked the Christian story of a loving God sending Jesus to die on the cross for our sins, nor for that matter, the doctrine of original sin, the idea humans are conceived in a state lacking holiness resulting from Adam and Eve’s fall.

“I didn’t ask to be born, and I thought why should I have guilt on top of it,” Tuppman says.

Although all three believe humans suffer because of ignorant religious beliefs and have chafed under theocratic governments, they acknowledged that when militant atheists are in control – for example, in the former Soviet Union – humanity doesn’t always advance either.

Knox adds she opposes coercion in general, whether in the name of God or the name of no god.

“Separation of church and state is the best approach in the world,” she says.

There are so many right-wing religious fundamentalists who equate atheism with communism, yet it is obviously not true that they are the same thing. I believe that what Carol Knox says so well is true of most atheists, that we oppose “coercion in general, whether in the name of God or the name of no god.”

Blind obedience to communism (or any other political organization) or to God (or any form of deity) is not the answer.

I wish that we could all find common ground. I believe that we may agree on more things than we realize. I also believe that some of the things that atheists believe can be found in the Bible, and some of the things that right-wing religious fundamentalists believe can be found in socialism. To throw the baby out with the bath water is not very smart. Condemnation of the whole of something just because you disagree with a part of it does not seem very wise. Let’s take the good out of things wherever we can find it. Tolerance does not mean submission, and tolerance does not mean silence.

Tolerance Doesn't Mean Submission

From What is an “atheist community”? by PZ Myers:

One of the essentials of community building is the construction of principles of tolerance. We don't have to agree with each other on everything, nor can we, and as we all know, freethinkers are going to be especially diverse and fractious. Learn to take the best that each subset of us offers — you do not have to swallow all of the Communist party line to see that some of what they say is useful. You do not have to be a member of the RRS to see that we share some common goals, and that we can work together. Heck, there are Christians who share some of our goals (secular government, religious liberty, good science education, and so forth), and we can and must work together with them. And at the same time, as skeptics and science-minded people, the principles of tolerance we adopt are going to have to include frank disagreement and criticism of ourselves and others. That should be a central part of who we are, that we do not muzzle our ideas and that we can go up to our fellow atheists and say, "you're wrong" on just about anything, but without simultaneously implying that they're going to be ostracized from the community.

My Word Choice Is "Immoral", But What Do I Know

“Don’t follow leaders
Watch the parkin’ meters” Bob Dylan

From Historians: Bush presidency 'battered,' 'incompetent,' 'unlucky' by Ed Hornick:

With record low approval ratings and intense criticism for his handling of the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina and the economy, the word most used to label George W. Bush's presidency will be "incompetent," historians say.

"Right now there is not a lot of good will among historians. Most see him as a combination of many negative factors," said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School.

"He is seen as incompetent in terms of how he handled domestic and foreign policy. He is seen as pushing for an agenda to the right of the nation and doing so through executive power that ignored the popular will," he added.

But like so many presidents before him, Bush's reputation could change with time.

Harvard University political history scholar Barbara Kellerman said when President-elect Barack Obama takes over in January, people may view Bush in a new light.

"I think it's possible when people have stopped being as angry at the Bush administration as they are now ... that they will realize that some of this is just ... the luck of the draw."

Kellerman, author of the book "Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters," noted that Bush has not had luck on his side for the past eight years.

"He [Bush] has been a quite unlucky president. Certain things happened on his watch that most people don't have to deal with -- a 9/11, a [Hurricane] Katrina, the financial crisis, being three obvious examples," she said.

"And yet they happened on his watch. He is being blamed," she said.

Read the rest here.

Barbara Kellerman is insane, if she thinks that the atrociousness of Bush’s choices as president can be explained away by bad luck! Yes, bad things happened while Bush was president, and he chose to make them worse by his actions and his words. Not to mention the fact that he created more bad things, again by his actions and his words, when he didn’t have to.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt had the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, and World War II to deal with. Did these things make him a bad president?

Why does Harvard have this idiot on their faculty?

Is The "God Gap" Where God Buys His Clothes?

From US election: Obama narrows 'God gap' and attracts religious US voters by Suzanne Goldenberg:

Barack Obama managed to narrow the "God gap" with Republicans in the election, performing better among every religious group than Democrats in 2004, it emerged today.

The gains for Obama among religious voters are a testament to an ambitious outreach effort - one that managed to overcome a disastrous slip by Obama on the critical issue of abortion.

Obama, in his election strategy, had made a concerted effort to reach out to religious voters. Unlike other Democratic candidates, Obama is comfortable with the language of the Bible.

On the campaign trail, he regularly shared his conversion story, and spoke about issues of sin and personal responsibility.

The Democrat became a Christian in his 20s after being raised outside organised religion.

Read the rest here.

Surly Mood

Barney, the First Dog, has bitten a news reporter. Supposedly the dog was in a “surly mood.” Having to put up with George W. Bush seems to put everyone in a surly mood, even animals.

From First Dog takes a bite at White House reporter by Kathleen Koch and Erika Dimmler:

President-elect Barack Obama's daughters have been promised a puppy for the White House — President Bush's dog, Barney, demonstrated his technique for dealing with the media Thursday…sinking his teeth into Reuters TV White House correspondent Jon Decker.

Call it a case of biting the hand that covers you.

First Dog Barney and his handler were out on the front lawn for a walk when Reuters' Decker and another reporter approached.

"He looked very nice and friendly," says Decker. "I bent down to pet him and he just snapped at me."

Read the rest here.

Did Anyone Do This When Bush Became President?

Slim Odds For Sara Palin

From History suggests Palin's political future is dim by Joshua Spivak:

Though Sarah Palin's vice presidential run came to a losing end on Tuesday, many of her supporters are already touting her as a candidate in 2012.

Despite her poor performance in the media and in some polls, Palin, unlike McCain or the other Republican primary candidates, managed to excite the party's conservative base.

But history has a cruel lesson for anyone counting on her presidential aspirations: the losing vice presidential candidate has usually met the end of the line for a national office run.

Based on recent history, this may seem counterintuitive. After all, the winning vice presidential candidate is handed a gilded path to the nomination. Since 1952, seven of 11 vice presidents have gained their parties' presidential nomination in the next election. There is an obvious reason for this -- the vice president is running effectively as incumbent, cloaked under the mantle of the previous president. The vice president has also managed to stay in the public eye for the last four or eight years, gaining invaluable name recognition and respect from the party faithful.

But the losers have a sadder story to tell. Throughout the entirety of American history, only three losing vice presidential candidates have managed to ever come back and win their parties' nomination. And all three have exceptional stories.

Read the rest here.

Private Equity Myth

From Myth-busting Blackstone by David Weidner:

The myth that private equity firms make their money from making portfolio companies leaner and meaner is in danger of getting busted.

Blackstone Group LP posted a net loss of $340.3 million, or $1.27 a share, compared with a net loss of $113.2 million, or 44 cents a share, a year earlier. Revenue was negative $160.3 million, compared with $526.7 million a year ago amid lower values for its portfolio holdings across its corporate private equity, real estate and alternative asset management businesses. See full story.

The losses suggest that despite the industry's claims to the contrary, private equity companies - especially firms as big as Blackstone - are as vulnerable as their corporate counterparts to the deep economic crisis. In essence these firms are little more than souped-up conglomerates that enjoy a tremendous tax break because their portfolio companies are considered investments.

Read the rest here.

From Off To On

Shepherd Smith: Now that the election is over, Carl, tell us more about all those reports of infighting between McCain and Palin staffers.

Carl Cameron: Well, I wish I could have told you back at the time but all of it was put off the record until after the election. There was great concern in the McCain campaign that Sarah Palin lacked the degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, and a heartbeat away from the presidency. We’re told by folks that she didn’t know what countries were in NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, that being Canada, the US, and Mexico. We’re told she didn’t understand that Africa was a continent rather than a country just in itself ... a whole host of questions that caused serious problems about her knowledgeability. She got very angry at staff, thought that she was mishandled… was particularly angry about the way the Katie Couric interview went. She didn’t accept preparation for that interview when the aides say that that was part of the problem. And that there were times where she was hard to control emotionally there's talk of temper tantrums at bad news clippings…

Put off the record by whom? Why isn’t it off the record anymore? Did Carl Cameron and Fox News want another idiot to be president?

I Wouldn't Mind

Here is one of David Letterman’s reactions to Barack Obama’s presidential victory:

“Anybody mind if he starts a little early?”

A New Dawn, A New Day

Dignity. What a concept.

Why did John McCain wait until after he had lost to act dignified and presidential?

Apparently, the citizens of the United States of America took notice that Barack Obama has been dignified and presidential since he began his campaign… and things were no different last night.

Here is my favorite part of Barack Obama’s speech last night:

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election, except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons — because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America — the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes, we can.

At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes, we can.

When there was despair in the Dust Bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes, we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes, we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes, we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes, we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves: If our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

What will we give to the future? What a concept. In this day and age of the here and now, we need to think about and do something about the bigger picture. Knowing this is the first step.

What will the next one hundred years bring us? Most of us will never know. Hopefully we will move forward in seen and unforeseen ways that will make us more civilized and humane.

We do know what the last eight years have brought us. We have taken too many giant steps backwards. Our leaders have succeeded in making us all less human, less humane. Hopefully we can now begin to crawl out of the sewer that they have cast us in, and restore some dignity to the United States of America. That is my dream of a new tomorrow.

Update:
If you’re like me and you like to sprinkle your hopes and dreams with a dash or more of skepticism and cynicism, then might I recommend PZ Myers and Dennis Perrin. One of the things that I like about Obama is that he reminds us that progress is up to us. It is not all up to Barack Obama. We need to be active in the political process as well, beyond simply voting. It is also up to us to hold him accountable. This is as it should be. Let’s try to remember these things. Electing Obama is only the first step, there are many more to be taken.

Maybe She Voted For Obama, That Would Be Really Cool

From Who did Sarah Palin vote for? by Joan Walsh:

On MSNBC just now, Sarah Palin took a few questions from reporters clustered outside her Wasilla, Alaska, polling place. Unbelievably, she refused to tell them whom she voted for. Here's what she said: "I am also exercising my right to privacy, and I don't have to tell anybody who I vote for, nobody does, and that's really cool about America also." Verbatim.

The Best Thing About Today

George W. Bush is not on the ballot.

Religious Whack Job?

Is Sarah Palin a religious whack job? Let’s not forget that George W. Bush is a religious whack job. Sarah Palin appears to be even more of one than Bush is. Max Blumenthal has given us the information we need to decide the extent of Sarah Palin’s whackjobbery.

From Best of the ’08 Campaign V: Northern exposure by Scott Horton:

We see in some clips Palin delivering an address in which she equates religious missionary work with her political career. A series of vital political projects—ranging from the war in Iraq to a pipeline project—are described as being divinely ordained, and thus beyond discussion. In another clip, Bishop Thomas Muthee lays hands on Palin and prays, “Bring finances her way even for the campaign in the name of Jesus… Use her to turn this nation the other way around and to keep her safe from every form of witchcraft.” In another segment that Blumenthal recorded in the church, Muthee sermonizes about “the enemy,” using violent language. What these clips reveal is material to understanding Palin’s political and religious views. They suggest that the Wasilla congregation and Palin follow “dominionism,” a conviction that society must be governed exclusively by the law of God as set forth in the Bible. Biblical texts are to be construed and applied with a right-wing twist that reveals plenty of conservative social prejudices and little sensitivity to the original texts themselves. Moreover, dominionists share a millennial vision of the Rapture, coming great upheavals and political change leading to the creation of the Kingdom of God on earth. Dominionists do not embrace the separation of church and state, and tend to approach political issues from a highly dogmatic stance, often focused on particular charismatic individuals they see as ordained to govern. Indeed, dominionists widely embraced George W. Bush as an “anointed” leader whose decisions were beyond debate. They form a large chunk of the 20 percent rump group that continue to give Bush a positive performance evaluation. Blumenthal interviews one of Palin’s followers who equates her with Queen Esther, the biblical figure who bravely protected the Jews during the Babylonian Captivity.

I'm Voting For The Muslim Socialist

From Q&A: Ron Reagan:

Reagan: That's one of the more remarkable aspects of this, this whole Muslim thing, and Colin Powell addressed it the other day, I thought quite eloquently, when he said that, you know, as a matter of fact Barack Obama isn't Muslim, he happens to be Christian, but what if he was Muslim? You know, in America that's not supposed to make a difference. We don't have a religious test for public office in America. So if he were a Muslim it shouldn't make any difference to anybody. But of course, apparently it does.

Reagan: And "socialist." Yeah, you know. Apparently if you give money to oil companies it's not socialism, but if you give it to, you know, poor people or spread the wealth around then you're a socialist.

Jingoistic John

From Palin On Democrats: "Do They Think The Terrorists ... Are The Good Guys?" by Greg Sargent:

What American presidential campaign has been more crassly militaristic and jingoistic than this one? Bush in 2004 pales in comparison. TPM's resident trivia fanatic, Eric Kleefeld, suggests James Polk's 1844 campaign, based on an appeal to expand America's borders by force, or George Wallace's 1968 campaign, in which he chose as his running mate someone who helped pioneer carpet-bombing. Thoughts, anyone?

Should Obama win this thing, the depths McCain-Palin have sunk to will only make Obama's victory that much more rewarding and momentous.