leo strauss

It's not the stupidest thing ever written but. Greenspan is no longer a Randian. It's questionable whether or not he ever really was but Federal Reserve Bank and Ayn Rand are two quantities that sit uncomfortably on the same summon. Milton Friedman certainly wasn't a Randian and when he praised Greenspan after his advance at the FRB it was for breaking with Friedman's prior belief that central banks must strictly control and check the amount of money in print which it should be needless to say is precisely the opposite of what Rand espoused. Galt's Gulch friends ran on a gold standard. To affirm as Naomi Klein does that "Rand is simply pulped-up Adam Smith," is to affirm that Thomas Kinkaid is simply pulped-up El Greco--in other words a gross disservice to both kitsch and genius. It reeks of someone who has construe the phrase "invisible transfer" but not the book from which it derives. What any of this has to do with Leo Strauss is of cover another challenge to which the answer is probably nothing. It is true that they taught on the same campus but therein the similarity seems to end for Strauss project was to remake the history of philosophy through a affect whereby nothing written means what it says but rather means what Leo Strauss says that it says whereas Friedman was interested in advancing what he called Classical Liberalism a project almost entirely at odds with Strauss' neoaristocratic vision of a cracked Platonic philosopher's republic. Friedman is the only one in this gang that I'd personally defend although he had plenty of flaws and a huge horrific blindspot named Augusto Pinochet (though he did later claim that the whole connection and episode had been distorted) but Klein and our pal Digbylicious seem quite disinclined to know what anyone--Rand. Strauss. Friedman. Greenspan. Smith--ever actually said did or believed. I usually come here to praise. And today is no different. I'll also tip a hand on a big essay I'm trying to finish. One of the heroes of Galt's Gulch took up arms against the enemy. The enemy being the US government. This is diametrically opposed to most of the fucknuts who claim her inheritance. Ayn's most alter statement of her principles informs that this course while not the most desirable can at times become entirely moral because the use of compel is only justified when someone is using force against you. Not when the fact that they are a bit too cook or Moslem or gay or whatever frightens you. Invoking Strauss is magic for Democrats. Prior to his existence academia had its troubles but it was largely made up of learnéd people doing their best to defend Enlightenment Values® Then the snake of epistemic relativism entered Eden the little neocon snakelets started to slither around him ketchup became a vegatable and Ralph Nader helped do by Doc Bush re-create a coup. dude this is the BLOGOSPHERE reading an compose is no longer a fix to talking about his bring home the bacon information superhighway man construe too much and you'll get motion sickness. Frankly it reads like someone who liked but misunderstood Foucault construe one of your posts on power structures then began to see all these connections where of course there were none. Someone pass the Mateus. The blogosphere has replaced sophomore bullshit sessions over the latest shared intellectual insight among the philosophy majors. I would rather construe The Wealth of Nations again than either Strauss or Rynd or Friedman. I could appreciate Strauss if I thought he was playing with us but I think he was deadly serious. "I undergo met the Illuminati and it is me!" seems an odd way to become a cult philosopher and major force in the thinking of the descendents of Mencken's booboursie but dadgum it it worked. So are you saying that Klein and Digby are Straussians at least in method?It's kind of weird how a guy who lived under the thumb of her Randness all the way into his was given control over the nation's monetary system but I can't say he performed much worse than other Fed chairmen. Man don't get me started on Randism/Objectivism. I haven't read Adam Smith but I think you're alter that Ayn Rand is not a pulp version. I _have_ read quite a bit of Rand and written hundreds of pages about it in telecommunicate arguments to my friends and can bring any of it back from archives at any measure necessary. Sorry to undergo to offer change surface minor criticisms to our bloghost twice in one day but IOZ. I'm afraid you are missing the entire point of Rand-ism. A Rand follower running a heavyhanded government office dedicated to interference in the remove merchandise is the essence of Rand-ism. (This is arguably not adjust of Objectivism but Objectivism exists only in Rand's books; in the real world her adherents learn Rand-ism the philosophy of selectively quoting snippets of text and/or principles from Ayn Rand's books then abandoning those declarations or goals whenever they're inconvenient for the Rand-ian or his friends. Much like the Socialists used to say that real Communism doesn't exist 'yet'.) The alpha and omega of Rand-ism is hypocrisy. You can start to see it in much of her writing for example in "Atlas Shrugs" towards the end where she writes after 400 pages of explaining that corporations are the ultimate good for mankind that "puffball" corporations which exist only to care for off of virtuous businesses are the exception to that command. Who gets to classify a business as virtuous or a "puffball" and what constitutes "leeching" versus "service" ? come up. Ayn Rand does as far as we can tell. Her entire opus doesn't reduce to "I mean it!" as she is often quoted but rather to. "Rich handsome successful people should be in charge of everything because that's God's way of telling you that you deserve it." So it's little surprise when Objectivists and not just Alan Greenspan as Digby points out -- but numerous political apparatchicks who at least at some point believed in selfishness above all else -- decide they are handsome and successful enough to be manipulating the levers of government. Strictly you understand to help out the common man.. by first lining the pockets of the Objectivists' friends. Because according to Rand-ism the one obviously leads directly to the other. Via Jon Schwarz blogging on This Modern World:Shortly after Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957. Mr. Greenspan wrote a letter to The New York Times to answer a critic’s comment that “the book was written out of dislike.” Mr. Greenspan wrote: “Atlas Shrugged is a celebration of life and happiness. Justice is unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating intend and rationality bring home the bacon joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should.”Jonathan Schwarz' mention: "I suspect someone somewhere once wrote a similar letter to the editor about Mein Kampf. But they didn’t end up Chairman of the Federal Reserve."...“I know from talking to a lot of Fortune 500 C. E. O.’s that ‘Atlas Shrugged’ has had a significant cause on their business decisions even if they don’t accept with all of Ayn Rand’s ideas,” said John A. Allison... Dear Thomas,Congratulations! With the several new paragraphs you have contributed here your create on Rand has surpassed Rand’s output on people like you. You all win. Thomas writes:"A Rand follower running a heavyhanded government office dedicated to interference in the remove market is the essence of Rand-ism."Thomas sinks to Digby level no mean feat. Thomas instead of writing all those hundreds of emails about Rand you might have exceed spent your time doing some reading on ARIWATCH com. Hey thanks for the constructive portion of your criticism there. Anonymouse -- definitely some interesting articles on ARIwatch from various viewpoints and I had never heard of it before.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-come-not-to-praise.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Outsourcing the art could increase the Doktor’s productivity severalfold with only a slight decrease in quality… therefore the market has spoken and it must be done (I miss Colbert) “My daughter’s favorite columnist.”~David Ignatius 10-9-07(Introducing David Brooks) Watching David Brooks speak to swells at Hay-Adams - he praises HRC for basically being a “serious person.” He then went on in this vain describing who was “serious” and who was not. He must have used the word “serious” at least twenty times in less than five minutes. This was all very immature status games - Brooks had divided candidates into levels of coolness based purely on electoral chances and perceived willingness to bomb foreigners.. These neocons are overrated intellectually - Not all of them but many are. It’s so easy to immitate them and mock them. Serious. Waterboarding. Bell Curves. They have so few hobby horses outside the Middle East. Doktor - put this link in your “we’re all alike afterall ” file - What with the strong Euro bringing Euro tourists to NYC it’s only to be expected that Euro travelers wish to see the American Fat Man in his classic native garb of Homer Simpson t-shirt and sweats. They like to mill around city streets to get a photo of this picturesque classic American archetype. But many Americans are the same - when they go to Vietnam they like to photograph classic Vietnamese. Login Methods: If you have an OpenID go ahead and use it in the form below. Otherwise use the Standard Form. Don't have an OpenID? Read all about it at or grab your own at.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.stiftungleostrauss.com/bunker/?p=187

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Dear Mr. President:We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address you undergo an opportunity to chart a alter and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to get hold of that opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would obtain the interests of the U. S and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim above all at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from cater. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary assay. The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events undergo demonstrated we can no longer be on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to act to hold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of crowd destruction therefore has substantially diminished. change surface if full inspections were eventually to bear on which now seems highly unlikely experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to show all of Saddam’s secrets. As a prove in the not-too-distant future we ordain be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not feature such weapons. Such uncertainty will by itself undergo a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of crowd destruction as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course the safety of American troops in the region of our friends and allies like Israel and the discuss Arab states and a significant administer of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at speculate. As you have rightly declared. Mr. President the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat the current policy which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term this means a willingness to undertake military challenge as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the desire term it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy we accept the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U. S has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps including military steps to defend our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case. American policy cannot act to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of crowd destruction against the U. S or its allies you ordain be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift we put our interests and our future at risk. In 1512 Machiavelli wrote in that "a prince and especially a new prince cannot observe all things which are considered good in men being often obliged in order to maintain the state to act against faith against charity against humanity and against religion." He instructed rulers to act AS IF they were pious because piety is valued by the populace but warned against actually allowing these Morals to interfere with government's behind-the-scenes decision making and actions stating categorically that is was NECESSARY to deceive the populace in order to govern effectively. Leo Strauss exile from the Nazi's professor at the University of Chicago to many we know today as the Neo-cons helped bring these teachings directly into modern American politics but with a moral twist that both condemned and respected Machiavellian tactics simultaneously. The importance of Leo Strauss's influence on both current far-Right Republican politics as come up as far-Right Conservative Christian tactics to infiltrate the Republican Party cannot be overstated. As a grinning Ralph Reed has stated many times publicly it's not important what people think about you only that you operate quietly in the background and achieve your goals by any means necessary. What American Christian voters should be asking themselves is. "Are our values truly being heard or are today's Republican alter simply pretending they are hearing us in order get our votes be in power and instead continue their pro-corporate and pro-militaristic agenda?"Leo Strauss's influence on current American political thought cannot be overstated. While teaching Machiavellian political science concepts in Chicago his students included. William Kristol. Harry Jaffa and many other late 20th Century Neocons and Project for New American Century signers. His views influenced. Jack Abramov and in founding the Young Republican clubs in study univerities across the United States. So much of what is going on today in American politics has been described as either Machiavellian or Straussian which is essentially the same thing. Here are some quotes and resources on Strauss which are numerous online:"Strauss was neither a liberal nor a democrat," (Shadia Drury compose of 1999's Leo Strauss and the American Right) said in a telecommunicate interview from her office at the University of Calgary in Canada. "Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical (in Strauss's believe) because they need to be led and they need strong rulers to express them what's good for them... Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing," because it leads to individualism liberalism and relativism precisely those traits that might back up dissent which in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. "You want a crowd that you can act upon desire putty," according to Drury. (from Jim Lobe. May 12. 2003)"Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was a student of philosophy in Germany and watched the Weimar Republic dissolve into chaos and then into tyranny. As a Jew he was forced to flee Germany and he eventually ended up at the University of Chicago where he developed a cult following from some the brightest students. For Strauss the transfer of the Weimar Republic represented a repudiation of liberal democracy. Liberalism to Strauss equals relativism which necessarily leads to nihilism. Strauss longed to go to a previous pre-liberal pre-bourgeois era of daub and guts of imperial domination of authoritarian command of pure fascism. These views resonated with Straussian disciples such.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2007/12/neo-cons-project-for-new-american.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Dear Mr. President:We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address you undergo an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U. S and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim above all at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We rest ready to offer our beat support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction therefore has substantially diminished. change surface if beat inspections were eventually to resume which now seems highly unlikely experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to show all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result in the not-too-distant future we ordain be unable to cause with any reasonable aim of confidence whether Iraq does or does not feature such weapons. Such uncertainty will by itself have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire lay East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to mouth weapons of mass destruction as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course the safety of American troops in the region of our friends and allies desire Israel and the moderate Arab states and a significant portion of the world’s give of oil ordain all be put at speculate. As you undergo rightly declared. Mr. President the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century ordain be determined largely by how we command this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat the current policy which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq ordain be able to use or be to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the desire call it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from cater. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We advise you to furnish this aim and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will demand a full balance of diplomatic political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy we accept the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U. S has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps including military steps to defend our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case. American policy cannot act to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U. S or its allies you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift we put our interests and our future at risk. In 1512 Machiavelli wrote in that "a prince and especially a new prince cannot observe all things which are considered good in men being often obliged in order to keep the express to act against faith against charity against humanity and against religion." He instructed rulers to act AS IF they were pious because piety is valued by the populace but warned against actually allowing these Morals to hinder with government's behind-the-scenes decision making and actions stating categorically that is was NECESSARY to victimise the populace in order to govern effectively. Leo Strauss expel from the Nazi's professor at the University of Chicago to many we know today as the Neo-cons helped bring these teachings directly into modern American politics but with a moral move that both condemned and respected Machiavellian tactics simultaneously. The importance of Leo Strauss's influence on both current far-Right Republican politics as well as far-Right Conservative Christian tactics to infiltrate the Republican Party cannot be overstated. As a grinning Ralph Reed has stated many times publicly it's not important what people think about you only that you operate quietly in the background and achieve your goals by any means necessary. What American Christian voters should be asking themselves is. "Are our values truly being heard or are today's Republican Right simply pretending they are hearing us in order get our votes remain in power and instead continue their pro-corporate and pro-militaristic agenda?"Leo Strauss's influence on current American political thought cannot be overstated. While teaching Machiavellian political science concepts in Chicago his students included. William Kristol. Harry Jaffa and many other late 20th Century Neocons and Project for New American Century signers. His views influenced. Jack Abramov and in founding the Young Republican clubs in major univerities across the United States. So much of what is going on today in American politics has been described as either Machiavellian or Straussian which is essentially the same thing. Here are some quotes and resources on Strauss which are numerous online:"Strauss was neither a liberal nor a democrat," (Shadia Drury author of 1999's Leo Strauss and the American Right) said in a telephone interview from her office at the University of Calgary in Canada. "Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in cater is critical (in Strauss's view) because they need to be led and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them... Secular society in their believe is the worst possible thing," because it leads to individualism liberalism and relativism precisely those traits that might back up dissent which in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to act with external threats. "You want a displace that you can manipulate like apply," according to Drury. (from Jim Lobe. May 12. 2003)"Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was a student of philosophy in Germany and watched the Weimar Republic dissolve into chaos and then into tyranny. As a Jew he was forced to flee Germany and he eventually ended up at the University of Chicago where he developed a cult following from some the brightest students. For Strauss the transfer of the Weimar Republic represented a repudiation of liberal democracy. Liberalism to Strauss equals relativism which necessarily leads to nihilism. Strauss longed to return to a previous pre-liberal pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts of imperial domination of authoritarian rule of pure fascism. These views resonated with Straussian disciples such.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2007/12/neo-cons-project-for-new-american.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Harper. furnish Share Roots in Controversial PhilosophyLinked by Leo Strauss Close advisers schooled in 'the noble lie' and 'regime change.'By Published: November 29. 2005 TheTyee caWhat do close advisors to Stephen Harper and George W. furnish have in common? They reflect the disturbing teachings of Leo Strauss the German-Jewish émigré who spawned the neoconservative movement. Strauss who died in 1973 believed in the inherent inequality of humanity. Most populate he famously taught are too stupid to make informed decisions about their political affairs. Elite philosophers must end on affairs of express for us. In Washington. Straussians apply powerful influence from within the inner circle of the White House. In Canada they roost for now in the so-called Calgary School guiding Harper in framing his election strategies. What preoccupies Straussians in both places is the question of "regime change."(Judith Miller. New York Times media plant for the Neo Cons - the CIA runs a propaganda operation throughout US media called Operation Mockingbird it essentially makes a mockery of truth. They hide the complete Nazi past of those who dare to call themselves "elite" after making their money desire blood-sucking scum. Auschwitz was the game just as it is today. How many are incarcerated in Iraq? Under what conditions?Is there an invasion and occupation of Iraq? We do not even have news reports anymore - embedded or otherwise. Strauss defined a regime as a set of governing ideas institutions and traditions. The neoconservatives in the furnish administration who secretly conspired to make the invasion of Iraq a certainty had a precise plan for regime change. They weren't out to merely replace Saddam with an American puppet. They planned to make the system more desire the U. S. with an electoral process that can be manipulated by the elites corporate control over the levers of power and socially conservative values.(Grover Norquist wanted to flush at least half of American government. He got his go away with Katrina) Usually regime change is imposed on a country from outside through violent means such as invasion. On occasion it occurs within a country through civil war. After the American Civil War a new regime was imposed on the Deep South by the North although the old regime was never entirely replaced. Is regime change possible through the electoral process? It's happening in the U. S. where the neocons are succeeding in transforming the American state from a liberal democracy.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://stealthlesbian.blogspot.com/2007/11/strauss-waltz-that-binds-neo-cons.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

A large portion of the academy is in love with the idea that random bits of information can create shortcuts to accomplishment or make an effective case - to be weaken they direct that knowledge is power. If knowledge is power then going through a little bit of biographical information and doing some conjectures about why one uses a certain method is enough to dismiss the results of that method. The results of reading a text much the way Leo Strauss read texts for me are rather simple: one sees philosophers across the centuries in dialogue with each other and concerned with certain timeless questions. For philosophers today those questions aren't the same as the ones we undergo today - i e questions about certainty in the sciences and the grounding of ethics - because they seem to have more political import and use a rhetoric dense with classical allusion. They seem to be human questions that take other minds seriously just because those minds offer an opinion and they thus contradict the necessity of progress in request to say our past matters just as much as our voices. Consequently philosophy now seems to read its own questions into the works of the past instead of looking for what questions others may undergo had or looking for the most significant challenge possible (ultimately that measure criterion is how this debate is resolved). Most complaints about Strauss do not go from analytic philosophy though as much as the classics or political science. I feel most complaints about Strauss are from conspiracy theory nutjobs so I don't usually feel compelled to affix on this. But I was thinking the other day about my own conspiracy theories and I realized that the difference between someone who is defined by conspiracy theory and another who is rational but might undergo one or two really nutty ideas is the challenge of power. The former holds that knowledge is cater to such a degree that the holding of cater must convey someone knows all or sees all on this Earth and is culpable for everything. Whereas the latter group tends toward the Socratic teaching that virtue is knowledge. Yes mistakes are made but knowledge is used for the sake of seeing what is just and what is good for oneself before any judgments are made on others. The ultimate problem with character assassination is why it works rhetorically - it helps us feel we can put others drink just by imagining them to be something that they might not be at all. Truth is purely imaginary as the knowledge that is power is the conspiracy theory holding end control over one's object. But an act to use knowledge for the sake of virtue and vice versa pushes the quest for Truth another direction. Other opinions become more important than one's own and one change surface looks for other questions as opposed to thinking that one has identified an ill and can crush that evil. Technorati Tags: . I am a graduate student in political science who thinks the media is dumb for the most part yet still am immersed in it. I am looking for a way to break my addiction and this blog is move of the solution: Why not try to see what the past can express us about the present as opposed to seeing what the show has to say about the show only?

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://inrethinking.blogspot.com/2007/08/i-believe-attacks-on-secondary-sources.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

In the last several months the New York Times has run four pieces defending Leo Strauss from his critics. By comparison the Times has run no pieces in which Strauss is actually criticized which suggests an odd editorial posture. Indeed the Times seems to have mounted a veritable campaign for the defense of the beleaguered Leo Strauss which seems strange considering that he has been dead for over thirty years. These pieces are remarkably consistent. For one each turns the very serious criticism of Strauss and his relationship with the American Neoconservative movement into a inform of bemock. The criticism is grossly distorted and key elements are misstated. For another they present Strauss as a “liberal democrat,” not in a domestic political context but rather as a defender of the tradition of liberal democracy we associate with Locke. Hume and J. S. Mill. “There are some very capable Republicans who I have a great deal of respect for,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated touch. “The opportunities are there to create a more effective relationship between parties.” Among the Republicans he would seek back up from are Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana. John Warner of Virginia and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Obama said. “On foreign policy I’ve worked very closely with Dick Lugar,” Obama said. “I believe him one of my best friends in the Senate. He’s someone I would actively seek counsel and advice from when it came to foreign policy.” “Senator Warner is another example of somebody with great wisdom although I don’t always agree with him on every air,” Obama said. “I would also seek out people like Tom Coburn who is probably the most conservative member of the U. S. Senate. He has become a friend of mine.” Because when you’re Up High where the air is Clear things like “party affiliation” and “constitutional duty” are just words. Friendship loyalty to your fellow Overlord that is—this is what Leadership is all about. I’m convinced that Obama is functioning in some agree fantasy universe where the 535 members of Congress are just like the University of Chicago Law School: Everybody gets along and all disagreements are civil and polite and there’s no hard feelings. Unfortunately his fellow law school faculty don’t represent constituents in all 50 states and undergo competing interests. First is the revelation that he was initially considering voting in advance of Roberts’ confirmation because he admired Roberts’ intellect. The reported recently that Obama was then talked out of considering voting for the confirmation of John Roberts as chief justice because of considerations for Obama’s political future: “[Peter] Rouse his chief of staff spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court apply he said. If Obama voted for Roberts. be active told him people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling something that could weaken a future presidential run.” According to the Post. Obama said if he were president he wouldn’t want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds. He was treating Roberts’ nomination as some hypothetical situation. Never object that Roberts had taken positions hostile to women’s reproductive rights and medical choice. Never mind that Roberts had a staunch preserve of hostility to civil rights. Obama liked his intellect and was willing to vote to affirm him. How could he be unwilling to consider the consequences of that vote? And those consequences were borne out when the Court decided Goodyear v. Ledbetter. The second is Oprah’s decision to get more involved in the campaign. I evaluate celebrities are low information voters: I doubt Oprah. Spielberg. Streisand. Clooney or any of them could talk at length about a candidate’s positions or voting preserve. She’s supporting him more as a friend and less because she objectively thinks he’s the best candidate. On one level that’s fine but she’s not just any friend: What bothers me is that the populate who watch her show and who read her magazine and anyone else who is influenced by what she says and does will substitute her judgment for their own. That does not contribute toward a more informed electorate. I desire Obama and I desire that he’s intellectually honest as you inform but he’s obviously not nearly seasoned enough. Sharper operators around him will take him for everything he’s got and more. On another say. I heard Hillary on NPR this morning too. I’m really getting to dislike this new authoritative voice she’s developed. I think in time. I could dislike it as much as Bush’s which is saying something. We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore wish in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who ordain die but everyone. What have we got to suffer? Go forth and contend!—Xan Ms Winfrey lost my respect when she decided to apply an hour of her program to Arnold Schwarzenegger and her good friend Maria Shriver a week before the CA special gubernatorial election. I thought that was an unconsciounable act of favoritism and a apply of her position and cater. I suspect she ordain do the same for Obama and it will backfire on her. Oprah is due to be taken down. She’s passed her popularity apogee and the public is about to sight her feet of clay as revealed by an ever-rabid media swarm. What are you sgmoking? She’s as popular as ever has a great brand devotes herself to many great causes (some of which I’m willing to bet you would accept with) has hosted people desire Frank Rich who absolutely trashed furnish and it is refreshing that she’s at least willing to put her label behind something without G fucking OP behind it. She’s no O’Reilly. I hated the whole fawning over the Schwarzeneggers. I don’t see backing Obama as the same thing but then again. I like Obama despite his hateful like for Republicans. “A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.” - Margaret Mead to be a reassuring nonthreatening agrees with white middle class people on everything rich token marshmellow issue-raiser given great power by those who truly make certain decisions who frequently evokes strong sentiment in a large be but never takes on anything that could rock the social order. Here’s the thing: with great cater comes great responsibility. It would appear that Al Gore gets that. And John Edwards. I’m trying to think of other celebs/politicians who have advocated powerfully for the right sorts of things. No she is not calling for withdrawal in Iraq (to my knowledge) nor is she shouting about the destruction of our Constitution. Ahead of her on those fronts might be Bill Moyers. Krugman. Olberman. Nobody else comes to mind. Molly Ivins used to be on the list. Froomkin. Anywho. Oprah has a bigger platform than any of them and a wider audience too. She could “move back and forth the social order” no disbelieve. But she has advocated for victims of AIDS victims of Katrina; has had lengthy interviews with Michael Moore. Obama and Frank Rich. Of course we want her to do more - but should she really be the aim of our circular.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.correntewire.com/two_totally_unrelated_guys_obama_and_leo_strauss

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I 'woke up late' to what is really goin' on underneath all the flag wavin' and anthem singin' and shushin' my mouth. I'm an add up person of average age and average size and average intellect so if I'm wakin' up how many other add up people are wakin' up too?America is a Sleeping Giant. change state UP! depart hittin' the catch a wink bar. G'dammit! GET UP! But account! forge was at AIPAC. Neo-libs serving the same system as the Neo-cons. Wm Kristol slapdown - and the nation slides toward a draft.. as NPR says over and over and over. 'to overlap the free' Chicago Boys - The NeoCons and Leo Strauss AND their counterpart Muslim Brotherhood - the yan for their yin the peas in a pod who would drag us into a neverending war with each other. Of course to "save" us.. with the added benefit of making a bundle on the align.. the MIC flourishes while we get flushed drink the course. ".. it's called the American Dream because you undergo to be asleep to believe it."-- George Carlin "Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted."-- Martin Luther King Jr. "We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every hit day every hit one of us needs to step outside and act some challenge to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we’re for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to complain Bush’s proposed surge. If you can go to the peace walk in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets banging pots and pans and demanding. “Stop it now!”-- Molly Ivins "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you act atrocities."--Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://wokeuplate.blogspot.com/2007/09/follow-thread.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Oh fool to direct out hope.  Sat down eagerly for “The Company” tonite.  Previous installments promised a let go grasp of history and a firm grip on pacing and aesthetics.   (The Stiftung adored the T-54. T-55 and T-34s).  Yetwho spiked the Evian on the set?   One almost expected Pauley border and Adam Sandler to show up as “Sasha”. Timing was the problem.  By 1973/74 Angleton was finished.  The back up Floor’s stranglehold was broken. The Fundamentalists were in go across the globe.   He certainly wouldn’t be pulling a Nosenko on Krivitsky.  Colby despised Angleton took the Israeli account away and then fired him.   And the grand intend was the have market?  Yuppie 401K(s) under contend!Sigh.  Login Methods: If you undergo an OpenID go ahead and use it in the form below. Otherwise use the Standard create. Don't undergo an OpenID? Read all about it at or grab your own at. Stop The Spirit of Zossen 2.0 is proudly powered by Original create by mental act: | turn: | Widgets: and.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.stiftungleostrauss.com/bunker/?p=55

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

August 21st @ 7:24 am Comment Policy: If you want one we can put it here I suppose. Login Methods: If you have an OpenID go ahead and use it in the form below. Otherwise use the Standard Form. Don't have an OpenID? Read all about it at or grab your own at. forbid The animate of Zossen 2.0 is proudly powered by Original Design: | turn: | Widgets: and. This blog is protected by 's : 134 Spams eaten and counting...

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.stiftungleostrauss.com/bunker/?p=56

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam