Obama is not
interested in changing anything; he's interested in becoming the President of
the United States. He's a member of one of the two controlling parties in the
US. Both parties are controlled by corporate interests. Why else has the
congress not reined in Bush? We will see more of the same under a different
brand name. Why else did Obama change his mind less than two weeks after
winning the primary election and vote for Bush's illegal domestic spying
operation?
Why else does he
side with state agencies when they are in violation of state or federal law?
No, there is
nothing fancy about Obama, he's just another self serving politician. He'll get
the votes because McCain is just the last gasp of a dying generation and people
will hold their noses and vote for something marginally better than the open
criminality of Bush. The leadership we are offered is a very good explanation
for the condition of our country. But then, we keep voting for them.
What would we
have to do to elect someone besides a person prepped by the two ruling parties
and sponsored by corporate interests? We would have to take the money out of
our election system. Money is spoken of more than any ideas during election
season, but who would have to make the changes in law? Well, the seated elected
officials of course, and time has shown that they have no interest in evening
the playing field. I actually think that we are too far down the road for that
type of solution. It's clear that the people in power would resist any attempt
at a constitutional change in government even to the point of violence, the
attacks on the US.
Constitution in
the last 8 years and to a lesser extent over the past 3 decades demonstrate the
lengths that the people benefiting from the status quo will go to maintain
power.
I notice that
young folks are somewhat tired of the same old financial games played at their
expense. This is something that the younger generations have in common world
wide. The receptions given to Bush and the Chinese Olympics representatives in
Europe was very heartening. The youth are aware that the very same people who
gave us Vietnam trotted out the very same tired old MO and started a war for
profit in Iraq. It's no accident that the UK was supportive in this operation,
BP has a financial interest in the plundering of the region.
It was heartening
to see the youth of the UK objecting loudly to their own government's
involvement in Iraq. And that's where the "change" will come from.
Not from Obama, who is part of the problem. The change will come from another
generation with eyes wide open and hands on their hips as they audit the
condition of the planet we've left them. They see through the televised shell
game performed by the very same people who are gathering wealth through the
abuse of oil, processed food and pharmaceuticals. I predict they won't have
much patience with the last of the dinosaurs who think they can fob off a
perpetual war for profit on them whether it's called a war on drugs or a war on
terrorism. I believe that we will then see fundamental reforms in government,
and the global village concept will be based on humanity, not the WTO.
Richard Wales is a US based engineer.
Related materials from the Atlantic Community:
- David Francis: By Giving a Speech in Berlin, Obama is Playing with Fire
- Matthias Stephan Fifka: Obama's European Voters
- Rüdiger Lentz: A New Political Messiah?
- 9
July 31, 2008
Michael Schuster, University of Vienna, Silver Contributor (69)
Isn't his success based on small donations by millions of Americans?
Here's more thoughtful critiicism of Obama from Zbig Brezinsik and Steve Clemons:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/07/brzezinski_says/