Prometheus 6

"the deep structures that inform his thinking aren't out in the open for anyone to see, the way they are with McCain"

This argument is just so much b.s. The person who wrote this is not able to tell the "deep structure" that informs the thinking of his spouse or his father or anyone he has ever known. All we ever know is how people behave and what they tell us about what they believe and how they behave. The "deep structures" don't reveal themselves to us.

I think you are right about why folks are confused in terms of considering Obama. They are trying to place him into a category and they are not able to do so. Consequently, they argue that he has spent his life trying on personalties. They believe, for example, they see McCain's core but they're wrong. McCain fits into, as you state, a recognizable typology for them.

[strike]Al Gore[/strike] Barack Obama doesn't know who he is!!

Obama is no great mystery. This is bullcrap. Look at his record. Now, you can either like or dislike what his 11 year political voting record says, but it says what it says. The record wasn't written in invisible ink. Now, we're back to the same old, ' can you trust his him', 'he's so inexperienced' BS from the beginning of this campaign.

They really, truly don't have anything on Obama, do they?

"They really, truly don't have anything on Obama, do they?"

If the other side had something that would derail his candidacy they would have used it. What they are adept at doing is raising pseudo questions of this type for which there never are any objective answers and getting the MSM to repeat it over and over again. The "deep structures" of our minds cannot be revealed to or apprehended by others. People have spent decades in Freudian analysis or some derivative form of it trying to discover the "deep structures" of their own minds with only limited success.

Hi, occasional lurker here; I get here via JJP. Interesting post and interesting comments!

The grain of truth in the smear (twisted and distorted of course) is that yes Senator Obama's deep structure thinking doesn't fit into US dominant culture's categories. The backlash from the left reveals this just as much as the backlash from the right.

But if you know where to look, it is IMO extremely obvious where he's coming from. He's clear and he's consistent. But when people/groups lack categories for something it becomes invisible. That's not his fault though.

Politically, I am so far to the left of the man I am practically on another planet. And yet, I strongly support his candidacy for President. And on the deeper levels of things, he has my loyalty SO MUCH MORE than, for example, the progressive movement that doesn't know how to actually learn and see complexity of the landscape.

Random example about this in general: looking at the media headlines today, I am seeing some confusion about what he is saying re: Iraq. There is no operating and truly recognizable category in this culture for real, ground-up inductive logic, real and ongoing learning and decision-making from the ground up. So what he is actually saying -- and its consistency with what he has been saying all along -- seems to go invisible. So it's like, what does he mean, "refine" his stance/plans? Is he or is he not flip-flopping

Also, speaking of identity -- here is a great daily kos diary (great dailykos diary is like jumbo shrimp to me these days but really this one is good -- starts with a James Baldwin quote and has excellent analysis about Senator Obama and identity):

The Nakedness of Barack Obama, by Craig Hickman

Welcome Michelle,

"The grain of truth in the smear (twisted and distorted of course) is that yes Senator Obama's deep structure thinking doesn't fit into US dominant culture's categories."

If his "deep structure thinking" could be known (He is not, after all, a philosopher working out the creation of a system for knowing and understanding the world. He is a politician.) I would say the correct answers are yes and no. Yes, some aspects of his thinking is closely aligned with our dominant cultural or geopolitical categories, e.g. unquestioning support of Israel and veiled threats to Iran. In other respects, the answer is closer to no. Some examples are his speech on race in Philadelphia and the entire way that his campaign, including its predominant form of fundraising, do not correspond to the expected narratives.

BTW, Obama's position and the positions of his advisors on FISA are flat out wrong and border on being disingenuous. I'm voting for him but what's right is right.

Thanks for the welcome.

I'm thinking less about policy issues (where like I said I tend to be so far to the left of him ....) more about the underneath. Maybe underneath is not the right way to put it though. It's not so much narratives as it is categories, for me.

You wrote: "He is not, after all, a philosopher working out the creation of a system for knowing and understanding the world. He is a politician."

Well, everyone IMO is working from some way(s) of knowing and understanding the world, you don't have to be a philosopher for that! Trying to perceive that stuff may be rarer, but it's not like it's not there in everyone, whatever the specifics are. Some try to hide it, others are more upfront. I've read his books and some interviews, watched his campaign over time, and I find him to be extremely upfront about this. That's to my eyes.

I'm shocked to recognize in him a capacity for complexity I would never ever have thought could possibly be present in someone running for President. It's messing with my own categories of understanding! But in a good challenging kind of way I think.

I could be wrong. Nothing I see in this is complete.

"everyone IMO is working from some way(s) of knowing and understanding the world,"

Yes, this is true but the people around them are not concerned about their "deep structure thinking." They are concerned about their behavior and how they are affected by the behavior. We are, generally speaking, only concerned about the "deep structure thinking" of people who are trying to work out some systematic way of explaining why things are the way that they are. We are more interested in what Marx or Plato was trying to tell us about the world than in how they were perceived by their friends.

I do agree that we probably have not had anyone for running for president as intellectually engaged in examining and thinking about the world and what it means to be human as Obama since JFK.

This is why we need a President Obama. He is cauterizing the infected mass which occupies the brains of these racists. What I am able to gather from the Sailer article was that while its author acknowledges Barack Obama's prodigious gifts, ultimately he is cool and uncertain because Obama is undeniably black.

By exploiting every available racial stereotype, the author inadvertently reveals that he himself operates in an intellectual silo where white nationalism informs his own thinking while casing Barack as a closet black nationalist. In spite of copious evidence to the contrary, even the closing statement "Whether his head or heart would prove stronger in the White House remains unknown, perhaps even to Barack Obama." encapsulates white anxiety about black men expressed most eloquently in the oeuvre of F. Scott Fitzgerald and William Faulkner.

By exploiting every available racial stereotype, the author inadvertently reveals that he himself operates in an intellectual silo where white nationalism informs his own thinking while casing Barack as a closet black nationalist.

It's not inadvertent. It's Steve Sailor.

"Whether his head or heart would prove stronger in the White House remains unknown, perhaps even to Barack Obama."

I wish that I had a nickel for all the ways in which Obama continues to be defined as The Other.

"...white anxiety about black men expressed most eloquently in the oeuvre of F. Scott Fitzgerald and William Faulkner."

I knew that Faulkner's anxiety about Negroes, real and imagined, bordered on the pathological (In the 1960s he once publicly declared his intention to "shoot Negroes" if necessary.). I always thought it was ironic too that Fitzgerald whose novels so helped to define what came to be called the Jazz Age was so deeply ambivalent about the people who were the principal creators and innovators of the music that he and Zelda danced and drank to.

unknown, perhaps even to Barack Obama

This is the meme I notice...that not even Obama knows Obama.

I can guarantee none of these conservative pundits can figure me out (I can point out more than a few online discussions to support that), but I'm pretty knowledgeable about me. I can't figure out why they lie, but I'm pretty sure they know.

This is the meme I notice...that not even Obama knows Obama. ***********************

I know...he's written 2 books and has an 11 year public record, and is 46 years old...

But, apparently Obama doesn't know himself.

Whatever.

"Whether his head or heart would prove stronger in the White House remains unknown, perhaps even to Barack Obama." *************

Um, what's the difference between the head and the heart. They are a part of the same body.

To be blunt, it boils down to this:

Will Black folk treat White folk the way that they have treated us?

Honestly, I think we know the answer is NO, but it's very telling that they don't trust us on that.

LOL

And why would anyone White fear a Black Nationalist? They are more pre-occupied with helping Black folk than doing anything to White folk. They are among some of the most conservative (small c) folk that I know.

To be blunt, it boils down to this:

Will Black folk treat White folk the way that they have treated us?

Bit of a sidetrack, but if we did I wonder if it would be due to following head or heart?

Not ha ha funny, but damn, that's so good, I don't know the answer to that.

In the back of their minds they fear that all of their lies about the Reconstruction period will come true. Negroes will be lounging on the porch of the White House sipping mint juleps and scarfing watermelon. A regular coon carnival! Do these folks suspect that a black president is going to order the military to incarcerate all white civilians and then all white military personnel will turn over their guns and consent to being locked up as well? These folks are tormented souls.

Um, what's the difference between the head and the heart. They are a part of the same body.

They're afraid we feel about them the way they think about us...,

head and heart are metaphors for deeply compartmentalized and entirely different aspects of human conscious experience - these muhphukkas are projecting a VERY sincere fear that what goes around comes around.

'Head' = Logic= White people
'Heart=Emotion=Black people

don't fool me.

Closet black nationalist is my euphemism for Sam Greenlee's protagonist.

rikyrah, yes I know what 'they' think. But seriously, when has that ever been the guiding impulse around here? And yes Craig...that's real fear we smell.

Can I point out my question had nothing to do with how white folks see it? Can I point out that you two are not unique in raising 'their' opinion reflexively? Can I point out that this IS the dual consciousness DuBois was talking about?

BOY am I wandering far...

There are connections between those in-groups that bypass the political plane altogether. So if you want to model his behavior correctly, your model has to include a connect to the identity groups he actively approached.

I suspect that Obama's alleged opacity is attributable to the fact that he serves and represents a TEP faction and agenda encompassing a scope and depth of structural reorganization that is simply ill-served by the tried and true instruments of popular political theatre.

Obamamandius defies conventional reference frames much as the pending economic collapse defies conventional reference frames....,

His opacity is pure spin. See if you find a single supporter who doesn't understand his positions. See if you find an opponent who does.

Seems to me that a fair number of Obama supporters don't understand his positions on;

1. Israel

2. Cuba

3. FISA

4. Gun Control

yet are perfectly willing to reconcile themselves to an acceptance of whichever way the political winds blow him because they credulously accept his maneuverings as practically necessary instances of him tacking into politically expedient winds.

Personally, I tend to agree with your assessment of Obama as a psychological drama attractor - in fact - I believe myself to have been the very first to explicitly call him out for this unusual rorschachian proclivity. That said, I boil the McCain/Obama candidacies down to a very simple dichotomy. The former is all about a full-scale WW-III debt repudiation and reorganization via force majeure. The latter is about a negotiated liquidation of assets and bankruptcy reorganization.

I don't believe that many of Obama's supporters or detractors view their candidate in these somewhat stark and atypical terms. Since either scenario is going to pose immense economic and identity hardship for the American public at large, it really does all boil down to which man is more "likeable" across the long, rough, and bumpy ride ahead.

If you assess Barack Obama the human before Barack Obama the politician, you'll see he's approaching the identity groups he personally identifies with.

I don't see this - at all. I see him operating as an arch-pragmatist - as a pure politician.

That said, I ain't mad at him. He still gets my vote - simply because I'm opposed to that force majeure horseshit coming from the opposition. It's long overdue time that the U.S. acknowledged and submitted to the facts of its international interdependence and the even more obvious speciousness of its "exceptionalism".

Can I point out my question had nothing to do with how white folks see it? Can I point out that you two are not unique in raising 'their' opinion reflexively? Can I point out that this IS the dual consciousness DuBois was talking about?********************

Dual Consciousness is a fact of life and survival for us, isn't it?

"Dual Consciousness is a fact of life and survival for us, isn't it?"

Yes. If we did not have bicameral minds, i.e., an awareness of our own consciousness, we probably could not survive and would not be human in the way that we have come to understand what it means for us to be human. We might be human in other ways but it is doubtful that we would know it or be able to talk about it.

Seems to me that a fair number of Obama supporters don't understand his positions on;

Whose fault is that?

If we did not have bicameral minds, i.e., an awareness of our own consciousness

That's not the dual consciousness DuBois talked about. In fact that is consciousness, singular. Dual consciousness is when you give any external system equal consideration with your own understanding and preferences. It's a fact of living...it is NOT a fact of survival.

Seems to me that a fair number of Obama supporters don't understand his positions on;

1. Israel

2. Cuba

3. FISA

4. Gun Control

1. His stance on our 51st state is just something we have to deal with. He's been fighting the Muslim smears, and the ' Obama has a problem with the Jews' memo that came out every 10-14 days since his campaign began. The average American doesn't exactly disagree with his stance on our 51st state. Only the small activist minority who'd like to tell AIPAC where to stick it does.Only know he won the nomination WITHOUT the AIPAC money.

2. They've found OIL in Cuba. IF he wins the Presidency WITHOUT Florida, count on the announcement of a complete reversal BEFORE he takes office. IF he wins with Florida, then it'll come within the first 6 months. But, it is my belief, that no matter who becomes President, the embargo against Cuba is GONE by December 2009.

3. I disagree with him on this. Period.

4. I disagree with him on this, but understand his position. As I said, the 2nd Amendment isn't fuzzy, and all you need to alter it is to begin to sponsor Crispus Attacks Gun Clubs (thanks pt) from coast to coast in the Black community.

It's by design. Obama is doing exactly what his campaign - and all that that entails - intends for him to do. In fact, I'd take that a step further to note that there is more campaign architecture at work in maintaining the public face of the candidate than there is of Obama's subjectivity and personality.

Interestingly,. Obama IS the architect of the kernel of the revolutionary community organizing approach to campaigns and elections that has decisively differentiated his campaign from the campaigns and elections status quo of the DNC establishment. It's really a very interesting dichotomy.

Seems to me that a fair number of Obama supporters don't understand his positions on;

Whose fault is that?

Obama is doing exactly what his campaign - and all that that entails - intends for him to do.

Okay. More precision. Has the Obama campaign released enough information through the customary channels that his supporters should be fully aware of his positions?

Anyone with access to a computer can find a policy paper on practically anything. And, if you don't have access to a computer, call 4-1-1, get the number for the local Obama office, and tell someone, I need to be sent info om Obama's policy on A-B-C, and it will be sent to you in the mail. Along with follow up calls.

Sorry about the slow response.

Has the Obama campaign released enough information through the customary channels that his supporters should be fully aware of his positions?

Absolutely not!!!

Even given full access to his documented positions, and relatively high-ranking campaign officials, when pressed on specifics, partisan elders with whom I recently dined defaulted to confidence in his lengthy membership at TUCC. The official made it perfectly clear that BHO's personal take on a number of issues is being institutionally constrained by professional campaign staff, and, that there exists NO grassroots loop through which BHO routinely and systematically obtains feedback directly from the community.

Take for example the dichotomy between the DNC's systematic use of blogospheric *luminaries* and the BHO campaign's nearly total disconnect from the same. Communications are so tightly scripted as to be stilted - and any functionary deviating from the tight perception control scheme is swiftly expendable.

As far as substantive issues go - it's all as fluffy as meringue. Essential case in point. Energy policy.

Clearly THE MOST crucial issue of the era, and BHO is damn near as handwavy and limp-wristed on this as it's humanly possible to be. Bottomline, I don't see clearly defined policy prescriptions as much as I see a carefully architected cult of personality. The alternative to that still sucks so mightily as to be beyond serious consideration.

Even given full access to his documented positions, and relatively high-ranking campaign officials, when pressed on specifics, partisan elders with whom I recently dined defaulted to confidence in his lengthy membership at TUCC.

Which is to say these elders are sharing their judgement based on their observation. Cool and appropriate.

The official made it perfectly clear that BHO's personal take on a number of issues is being institutionally constrained by professional campaign staff,

Which is to say Obama is prevented from giving his personal take by his campaign staff?

and, that there exists NO grassroots loop through which BHO routinely and systematically obtains feedback directly from the community.

My best guess would be that he's right about the lack of connection to Black progressive (for Conservative) grassroots.

Take for example the dichotomy between the DNC's systematic use of blogospheric *luminaries* and the BHO campaign's nearly total disconnect from the same.

Seriously, you got an example of what you're saying the DNC is doing? I may have a different view of the blog network than you. The DNC's job is different than the job of a single campaign.

Essential case in point. Energy policy.

Oh hell, nobody got one of those.

Which is to say Obama is prevented from giving his personal take by his campaign staff?

Both information in and information out are rather tightly constrained. No different in essence from a hollywood studio production.

I may have a different view of the blog network than you. The DNC's job is different than the job of a single campaign.

Not really, as I've essentially formed my impression of blog networking via your posts over time. f'zample;

http://www.prometheus6.org/node/21171

My point was that as the now putative head of the party - the BHO campaign is significantly less interested or inclined toward blog outreach (that's an official quote) than its predecessor(s) in party leadership. I consider this a profound weakness and entirely at odds with David Brooks breathless characterizations of the BHO campaign as "open source".

Outside of its on the ground tactics, (superb), egalitarian fundraising (superb) - from a policy formulation and articulation perspective, this campaign is a decidedly closed and proprietary affair. it is a rorschachian cult.of.personality by design and intends to stay that way.....,

Which is to say Obama is prevented from giving his personal take by his campaign staff?

Both information in and information out are rather tightly constrained. No different in essence from a hollywood studio production.

So your issue is the methodology rather than the content.

My point was that as the now putative head of the party - the BHO campaign is significantly less interested or inclined toward blog outreach (that's an official quote) than its predecessor(s) in party leadership.

The blog network is a social capital network made manifest.The first guys in were media and political players. Obama's initial support and funding came from outside that network, and it intended to sow new grass roots. It makes sense they'd be less interested in it.

That said, I'm pretty comfortable thinking there's a few folks wandering the net with a direct connection.

and its formulation methodology.

To your point, there are definitely salaried cheerleaders wearing out some comments sections of sundry blogs, but they're pretty obvious and don't deviate from the vapid talking points - and consequently shed no new light.

Bottomline, there's a major dearth of sharp, non-insular black folks involved at the level of I/O control and policy formulation - and their absence seems conspicuous.

nah, I'm disappointed in the policy content and its formulation methodology.

Way different statement than

The official made it perfectly clear that BHO's personal take on a number of issues is being institutionally constrained by professional campaign staff,

I understand your disapproval of his stated policy and the way it was constructed. Do you think his personal take is different than the policy he sets forth?

"Bottomline, there's a major dearth of sharp, non-insular black folks involved at the level of I/O control and policy formulation"

This situation pretty much reflects the role that blacks play in policy formulation in Washington, D.C., every state capital and major and minor cities throughout the United States. Fourteen years ago when I worked for a national trade association in D.C. I was the only black person whose job was specifically related to policy matters who worked for a public interest group. African Americans are largely excluded from these positions. I had hoped that Obama's campaign would be different but...

Do you think his personal take is different than the policy he sets forth?

Not only that, but I believe there to be a faustian dimension to his candidacy which will only intensify should he be elected to office. By rough analogy, the Chairman and CEO of a privately held corporation operates under far fewer constraints than the CEO of a publicly held corporation.

Frankly, I'm very much at ease with what I suppose to be the core of the man's identity. On the other hand, some of the key stakeholders to which BHO must cater in his role as candidate and as president are rank, stank, dank and highly unaccountable to the rest of us.

I'm very concerned about those busters because the biased interactions of formal institutions and informal corruption systematically distort and subvert our so-called democracy. The extent of feedback and distortion thus far evident in the man's candidacy does not auger well for what's in store should he be elected.

While it'd be a dangerous gambit, a truly open-source candidate and president might have the means to popularly buffer and moderate some of that powerful stakeholder influence.

I'm very concerned about those busters because the biased interactions of formal institutions and informal corruption systematically distort and subvert our so-called democracy. The extent of feedback and distortion thus far evident in the man's candidacy does not auger well for what's in store should he be elected.

Sounds ominous. Who is it he must cater to? So far all I see is your standard political players with your standard political argument: not so much about the goal as the method and who will lead.I don't see any special reason to fear his coalition.

- and lots of folks have uncritically swallowed that tent revivalism - ponying up their offerings and their faith. why pretend?

here's the scope of what he has to be in order to deliver;

Ultimately, power holders must be convinced that [energy transition] policies, if obnoxious to them now, will be far less destructive to their interests than a complete breakdown of society and biosphere - which is the very real alternative. For a historic example of a similar conversion of elites think of the 1930s New Deal: then the titans of industry had to sacrifice some of their financial power in order to keep from losing it all. Many wealthy individuals never forgave Franklin Roosevelt, whom they regarded as a "traitor to his class," but most of them reluctantly agreed that redistribution represented the lesser of evils.

Compared and contrasted with those interests to which he has already paid obeisance, or as you put it;

Who is it he must cater to?

The Central Bank, fin d'siecle smokestack bidnis, and the middle-eastern meat shield.

How can you ask people to believe in change, but have nothing to say about the pending meltdown of the financial system?

How can you be about change, but not have a coherent energy policy?

How can you have tough talk, but no peace talk?

At a time when folks should be more acutely vigilant than ever, attuned to more dynamic innovation than ever, looking for as much of a New Deal as possible, and the candidate who professes to embody these qualities doesn't - to me that seems a recipe for disaster.

Lying and pretending are very ominous portents at this juncture...,

why pretend?

Good question. So in light of what you've just written

Frankly, I'm very much at ease with what I suppose to be the core of the man's identity.

You wanna take that back?

or as you put it;

Who is it he must cater to?

Credit where due...that was you, too.

On the other hand, some of the key stakeholders to which BHO must cater in his role as candidate and as president are rank, stank, dank and highly unaccountable to the rest of us.

...though you named "what"s instead of "who"s. I was hoping firm opinions weren't based on nebulous statements. Long as you don't vote McCain though.

Rather, they go to a long-standing dialog - principally between Submariner and I - on where the man begins and ends and where the production mounted on his behalf begins and ends. I'll try to make it simple - my concern is with the production and the extent to which it subsumes the man.

When you hear Ron Paul hold forth on policy issues, it's all Paul. Like the several times he's spanked Bernanke. Ron Paul has been marginalized on the flimsiest of grounds having little enough to do with his policy positions. If he's made out to be a racist crank, then it's easy to skirt the core institutional positions he's staked out - and those get no hearing whatsoever.

Bro. Obama OTOH - has never to my knowledge staked out any institutional positions that are clearly and discernably his own. Rather, he's an attractive personality occupying the marquee for a Brookings Institution candidacy that is as establishmentarian as the day is long, but which operates under quasi-populist mimetic cover.

With all these institutional old hands gatekeeping around Obama - and having done so from the time he was an obscure though exciting speechmaker at the party convention - one should always wonder how much of his candidacy is him and how much is the institutional "them" which has tapped him for and backed him in this role?

So if you want to model his behavior correctly, your model has to include a connect to the identity groups he actively approached.

Agreed, and nothing about the brother's character gives me pause for concern. What concerns me instead, and what warrants much closer scrutiny in my opinion, is that to understand him as a candidate and potential office holder, your model has to include the groups that have actively approached, recruited, deployed, funded, and organized on his behalf to manage their interests in this role for which he's been tapped.

THAT'S where the emphasis should go. Trying to define this role in terms of him rather than "them" seems silly to me. Failure to model the "them" aspect of the production seems naive and in the category of "I'm asking you to believe"...,

Craig,

"If he's made out to be a racist crank..."

Why the conditional phrasing?

Bro. Obama OTOH - has never to my knowledge staked out any institutional positions that are clearly and discernably his own. Rather, he's an attractive personality occupying the marquee for a Brookings Institution candidacy that is as establishmentarian as the day is long, but which operates under quasi-populist mimetic cover.

Would that not make a propensity to falsehood part of his character?

Would that not make a propensity to falsehood part of his character?

Is it even possible for a genuinely honest person to be a politician?

That highly principled jibe aside, as a practical matter, I would submit that the answer is No. No more than if NBC news tapped you tomorrow to fill Tim Russerts shoes - both as moderator and division manager - would incline you toward falsehood. Were you to assume that platform and accept that mission, there would of necessity have to be a lot less you and a lot more GE/NBC in the expanded steez you'd be fronting. Honestly, a lot of your time would be spent in operational OJT just trying to get up to speed while you crafted the sunday morning interrogatory - all with an eye toward institutional propriety.

Now apply the exponential amplifier function to that proposition and voila - out pops the Obamamandian conundrum. This is where I believe the interesting grist for the interrogatory mill lies...., where the modeling and expectation setting needs to focus, but that's just me.

"Would that not make a propensity to falsehood part of his character?"

Or, that the very act of running for the office of president requires adopting and promoting falsehoods in order to enhance one's chances of being elected. In fact, we could argue that a candidate's willingness to offer a banquet of untruths about certain issues, e.g., Iran's nuclear capabilities, are considered essential to be taken seriously as a candidate. The American presidential race is perhaps the least appropriate forum we have in this country for actually judging the character of a person since it is all show and pretense. A candidate's success is almost wholly dependent on their willingness to suspend any principles they may have previously held dear and debase themselves in any way that advances their candidacy.

Because of the uncompromising policy positions....,

"Because of the uncompromising policy positions....,"

Do you mean Ron Paul's unwavering opposition to any civil rights legislation, especially to those addressing racial discrimination, that has been proposed in Congress over the past 50 years?

Were you to assume that platform and accept that mission, there would of necessity have to be a lot less you and a lot more GE/NBC in the expanded steez you'd be fronting.

Only until I learned the ropes. And they would know that before hiring me. 

Sounds like you should vote for McKinney.

Do you mean Ron Paul's unwavering opposition to any civil rights legislation, especially to one's addressing racial discrimination, that has been proposed in Congress over the past 50 years?

Had I meant that PT, I would've cited it.

Having been schooled by Bircher/Libertarians and knowing them as intimately as I do - I'm not advocating anything beyond a principled policy stance. I understand from whence that emanates and I will neither defend or become particularly alarmed by that aspect of the now thoroughly marginalized Dr. Paul's stance.

Meandering back on topic...,

This situation pretty much reflects the role that blacks play in policy formulation in Washington, D.C., every state capital and major and minor cities throughout the United States. Fourteen years ago when I worked for a national trade association in D.C. I was the only black person whose job was specifically related to policy matters who worked for a public interest group. African Americans are largely excluded from these positions. I had hoped that Obama's campaign would be different but...

I wanna see the brother transcend the brand superficialities and do something commensurate with the level of the challenges at hand. I'm afraid that that's not going to happen because he's been subsumed and that the spectacle trumps the substance and that's flawed personal/institutional human nature, not a characterological defect on his part.

However, I expect that reality is a surefire disappointment for errbody wanting to believe. This is the non-digressive aspect of the discussion I would enjoin with you - if you are so inclined. If not, I've managed to express the totality of what I set out to express in under 200 comments - and am content to call it a day.

No.

I've articulated a simple enough, non-specialist approach that a POTUS could take to have a profound effect and be within his existing authority and purview.

I'd very much like to hear him articulate decisive policy in the three critical meltdown areas:

1. Energy

2. Finance/Banking

3. Military

In fact, I'd like to see 3 (under the control of the commander in chief) apply its mass to the solution of 1, which solution might help pave the way for the long-term stabilization of 2.

As things presently stand, *cool* is a purely stylistic rather than substantive posture.

The office of president has the means and the authority to move on these issues - and I want to see the brother do some good rather than simply look good in the role. No rocket science here and all the necessary elements for significant change agency will be at his immediate disposal on day one in the job.

Surely, if I can figure this out from the comfort of my armchair, then the prospective brother preznit's clique can line these elements up and bring the concretes too. Make the case, bring the case, and move the crowd.

Craig,

I know that you are a serious person and I take you seriously but you missed the irony of my initial question about Ron Paul. He is a racist.

I'd very much like to hear him articulate decisive policy in the three critical meltdown areas:

1. Energy

2. Finance/Banking

3. Military

Hell, nobody is doing that.

Why you keep going there????

You straight slaying me with that plaintive rejoinder.

You feel alright? LOL!!!

SOMEBODY - intending to function as the titular head of the American republic on a platform of "Change you can believe in" - had best saddle the phuk up and ride on these issues - otherwise all the contingent drama in the political theater is already just window dressing well down the road to hell in a handbasket.

Then it's all window dressing. You chose the three issues where there are no good options. The military is physically damaged, undermanned, and full of non-scientists. The only energy options are to build new refineries (at last). And finance ain't going to change its nature until the USofA does.

"I wanna see the brother transcend the brand superficialities and do something commensurate with the level of the challenges at hand."

I know that you are not arguing that having minorities in policy making or analyst roles is little more than "branding superficialities" are you?

Craig,

These are some important issues that you raised:

"Still, a closer look at Obama's online effort reveals many opportunities for work, and few opportunities for what I consider to be intelligent participation. We can sign up to make phone calls, send emails, volunteer in the streets, or become precinct captains. But where's the participatory democracy wiki? Where do we get involved in the conversations that help shape his policy positions? How is he incorporating the massive intelligence of his support network into his philosophy of governance? BarackObama.com is a great example of crowd-sourcing, but it's a far cry from even a fledgling effort at open source democracy."

I have been troubled too by the lack real participation and penetration.

How is he incorporating the massive intelligence of his support network into his philosophy of governance? BarackObama.com is a great example of crowd-sourcing, but it's a far cry from even a fledgling effort at open source democracy.

Praise jeezus hallelujah PT!!!

This is ALL I'm talkin bout.

The tactical exploitation of an open source funding source and workforce is deeply subverted by the lack of effort to tap into the massive intelligence of the support network. Putting the insular, proprietary, establishmentarian and largely monochromatic *brain* trust on top of the open source labor and funding force is wrong on so many levels that it makes me want to spit.

But this is PRECISELY what the campaign and election production company (Brookings) has managed to do - and it does not auger well for what's headed down the pike from a policy and programs perspective.

You chose the three issues where there are no good options. The military is physically damaged, undermanned, and full of non-scientists.

The USAF has been underutilized and marginalized to the extent that the Army is in the process of organizing and deploying its own air strike assets and capabilities. That said, the USAF remains the number one consumer of petroleum in the U.S., comprising 71% of the 1% of total American gross petroleum consumption that the military industrial drinks up per annum. Its sheer mass means that it is uniquely positioned to move the entire energy market. It's command structure means that that can happen decisively on a uniformly yet highly distributed basis.

The USAF is WAAAAY deep in technical resources, not the least of which is NASA. So to learn that the USAF is going to turn to Sasol and Fischer-Tropsch on a massive scale - sucks beyond belief.

The U.S. Navy is the number one funder of research and development at MIT. It is also the pre-eminent designer and user of compact nuclear technology and advanced power systems in the world. Has been ever since Admiral Rickover's nuclear navy.

There is no comparable social network on the planet, much less under the control of the POTUS that is capable of doing what the USAF and the Navy are capable of doing. The non begging-assed options available to the POTUS in this space are profound and will prove decisive - but only if a highly intelligent, motivated, well-informed and truly change oriented commander in chief ascends to the helm.

Building new refineries is not going to make a whit of difference because there's no shortage of distillates and petro-energy transports. There's a shortage of dollar valuation and the early stages of an actual underlying petroleum supply shortage massively exacerbated by loosely regulated and unregulated market speculation.

It is imperative that the POTUS stop the masturbatory GWOT and use those underutilized and highly expert branches of the military at his disposal to engage the energy crisis on a massive scale. This will in turn provide a foundational basis for long-term recovery in the marketplace.

Going past fischer-tropsch for half a hot second, to something really visionary, only the USAF/NASA have the heavy lift capabilities required to make open ended solar thermal solutions possible beyond the private desert-based solutions that are currently under construction. Orbital solar thermal would be the shizznit worldwide. Who else gonna put those massive concentrators in orbit?

There is no comparable social network on the planet, much less under the control of the POTUS that is capable of doing what the USAF and the Navy are capable of doing. The non begging-assed options available to the POTUS in this space are profound and will prove decisive - but only if a highly intelligent, motivated, well-informed and truly change oriented commander in chief ascends to the helm.

So you'd have major weapons research cancelled in favor of energy research. I'll admit that's creative.

What energy related research are these services best qualified to provide? How do you sell the idea to the American public? You really think, after the years you've been saying a peak oil related collapse is inevitable, that Obama can do something about it?

And we still got no banking/finance system options, right?

U.S. force projection capabilities are entirely dependent on energy. The U.S. military is globally arrayed to *defend* and uphold access to the petroleum flows which serve as the material basis for the value of the dollar. There is no force projection via major weapon systems without an ample and affordable energy supply, and, there is no funding for hegemonic military operations absent a very strong dollar.

It's all of one piece.

Peak Oil IS inevitable and already upon you. The collapse of human civilization - OTOH - is not necessarily inevitable, but in order to avert it, you humans must begin the large scale transition to alternative energy sources pronto. The U.S. DoD is the only institutional construct with the scale, knowhow, and command structure required to effect that transition.

What energy related research are these services best qualified to provide?

The only ones that I currently see as viable using existing infrastructure are;

1. Coal gasification (what the USAF has already determined to do anyway) - you got the coal, you got the industrially scalable chemistry, you got the distribution infrastructure already in place. This is the low hanging fruit option that will serve, but not optimally serve longterm national interests. It's dirty.

2. Craig Venter ramping up his engineered high octane producing microbes to an industrial scale - same as above, with microbes substituting for coal seams. There is a significant element of uncertainty here.

3. Space and desert based solar concentrators (which systems would also potentially form the basis for some pretty fearsome WMD's, as well) highly doable and in keeping with the USAF's heavy lift and space capabilities and the Navy's advanced power storage and distribution capabilities.

You realize that over 80% of all working U.S. physicists are employed by the DoD, right?

How do you sell the idea to the American public?

Cheaper energy sells itself to everyone but those who have a vested interest in driving you all into the pavement, and there are more than a few such interested parties.

You really think that Obama can do something about it?

Tell me who besides the POTUS has executive control over the DoD?

And we still got no banking/finance system options, right?

Strengthen the dollar by bringing new, alternative sources of cheap energy online and a HUGE part of your dollar devaluation problem goes away with the quickness. Failing this, there WILL be a catastrophic worldwide bankruptcy and debt reorganization program such as the one enacted from 1939-1945. Elements of the USAF and the Navy - to be quite honest - are completely down for this programmatic option, as well - because they are not structurally suited to wage longterm counterinsurgent conflicts and the preoccupation with the same has begun to marginalize them.

The collateral die-off involved with a worldwide bankruptcy and debt reorganization a la 1939-1945 will be mind boggling.

Truth be known, because I saw the writing on the wall years ago, I'm reasonably well positioned as against either contingency. I don't believe, however, that most of you all want the latter option to come to pass.

I could of course be mistaken....,

You really think that Obama can do something about it?

Tell me who besides the POTUS has executive control over the DoD?

Not an answer.

So these are the things Obama's handlers won't let him say.

I think these are things that Obama is not even aware of regardless of whether his advisors (or handlers) would recommend that he talk about or not. Shoot! Most of the people around him -Brookings or no Brookings - have probably not thought about the things that Craig has mentioned above. I think you have to not be in the box in order to think outside the box.

and - that the presidential production company gatekeeps and obstructs the possible and the desirable, to wit;

1. Where do we get involved in the conversations that help shape his policy positions?

4. I have been troubled too by the lack real participation and penetration.

So what is it that Obama's handlers won't let him say?

(With apologies to Gil Scott-Heron!)

You will not be able to stay home, brother.
You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
You will not be able to lose yourself on crack and skip,
Out to the corner 7-11 for beer during commercials,
Because the real Barack Obama will not be televised.

The real Barack Obama will not be televised.

The real Barack Obama will not be brought to you by GE
In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
The real Barack Obama will not show you pictures of George Bush
blowing a bugle and leading a charge by Dick
Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice to eat
hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.

The real Barack Obama will not be televised.

The real Barack Obama will not be brought to you by Inside the Actors Studio
and will not star Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.
The real Barack Obama will not give your mouth sex appeal.
The real Barack Obama will not get rid of the nubs.
The real Barack Obama will not make you look five pounds
thinner, because real Barack Obama will not be televised, Brother.

There will be no pictures of you and Barry Bonds
pushing those steroids down the block on the dead run,
or trying to slide that wide screen surround sound plasma television
into the back of a stolen ambulance.
NBC will not be able predict the winner at 8:32
or report from 29 districts.

The real Barack Obama will not be televised.

There will be no pictures of the LAPD shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of the LAPD shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of Al Sharpton being
run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.
There will be no slow motion or still life of Colin Powell
strolling through Watts in a Red, Black and
Green liberation jumpsuit that he had been saving
For just the proper occasion.

Desperate Houswives, Days of Our Lives,
and The Young and the Restless
will no longer be so damned relevant, and
no one will care if Dick finally gets down with
Jane on Search for Tomorrow because Black people
will be in the street looking for a brighter day.

The real Barack Obama will not be televised.

There will be no highlights on the eleven o'clock
news and no pictures of hairy armed women
liberationists and Hillary Clinton blowing her nose.
The theme song will not be written by Eminem,
Francis Scott Key, James Weldon Johnson nor sung by
Celine Dion, Whitney Houston, 50 Cents, Diddy,
Englebert Humperdink, George Clinton,
Earth, Wind & Fire or the Rare Earth.

The real Barack Obama will not be televised.

The real Barack Obama will not be right back after a message
about a white tornado, white lightning, or white people.
You will not have to worry about a dove in your
bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl.
The real Barack Obama will not go better with Microsoft.
The real Barack Obama will not fight the germs that cause bad breath.
The real Barack Obama will put you in the driver's seat.

The real Barack Obama will not be televised, will not be televised,
will not be televised, will not be televised.

The real Barack Obama will be no re-run brothers;

The real Barack Obama will be live...

Family Clone -

Love it! Great job!

As I write this I'm in Virginia Beach watching a bootleg video of Iron Man. (Sure glad I didn't bother to go to the theater for this one.) If memory serves me correctly, the comic book origin had Tony Stark sufering at the hands of Chinese Communists. Today its Arab Muslims.

Even the most ardent and successful revolutionary of the Twentieth Century, Mao Zedong, had to accomodate entrenched interests. The historical record shows that he desired modest land reforms and if not for the ineptitude and venality of Chiang Kaishek was willing to abide a coalition government.

The enthusiasm of Barack Obama's supporters shouldn't be construed as unsubstantiated fanaticism. Instead it's a desire to return to the baseline established by FDR and puctuated by LBJ. For the if we in the entrenched middle class don't have a share in the political system, then America as we know it will cease.

The American experiment has been successful precisely because of the capacity of its ruling class for compromise. For example, car manufacturers went from violently breaking up strikes and eliminating union leaders to incorporating them into their business model and using them to advocate for protectionist measures masquerading as populism.

The truth is that enduring solutions to the most critical areas identified by Craig Nulan will not be determined domestically but from an unprecedented degree of international cooperation. Ultimately, this is where Barack Obama would exert his greatest influence as POTUS.

Faustian bargaining is the essence of politics. And there is always a divergence between campaigning and governing. Of course Obama can't say certain things. While campaigning, Richard Nixon never divulged that he would seek a settlement with USSR and China. But that is indeed what he did.

I'm re-posting these comments I made at Subrealism.

Bro. Makheru, we havin us a big chew on this one over at P6's.—Nulan

Yes sir I read it. The CNu was throwing down in a stellar-command performance which should be read and acted upon by every Obama supporter.

I know a lot of Obama supporter’s who are quite upset and some who are even morally outraged by some of the positions he has taken. Yet they are deathly afraid to raise their voices in dissent, because they fear that it might harm his campaign.

One Obama supporter confronted me about some of my admittedly harsh criticism’s asking “why are you doing white folks work?” I said, I’m doing what I’m doing because you refuse to do it. Why would the masses of grassroots people who have invested their hopes and dollars in Obama’s campaign sit back and allow themselves to get slam-dunked by shot-calling oligarchs and plutocrats?

Indeed this is already happening:

Dr. Colin Kahl, a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security-- http://www.cnas.org/ -- runs Obama's working group on Iraq. In a paper written for CNAS, Dr. Kahl calls for an “overwatch force of between 60,000 and 80,000 soldiers” to remain in Iraq. For how long? Who knows?

Mr. Kahl's paper, which was written for the moderately leftish Center for a New American Security, is not an Obama campaign document. Nor has it been publicly released, though it was reported on by the New York Sun's Eli Lake. But it offers a useful window into what serious Democratic policy wonks think is a workable U.S. strategy for Iraq in the next administration.

Titled "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," Mr. Kahl presents a middle way between the extremes of "unconditional engagement" – basically, the Bush administration's approach – and "unconditional redeployment," which is, or perhaps was, Mr. Obama's recipe.

On the latter point, Mr. Kahl warns that unconditional redeployment "is insufficient to encourage political accommodation because it offers no 'carrot' to groups that would prefer not to accommodate or assurances to those who fear abandonment. It also risks . . . driving the Sunnis back to the insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq, reigniting sectarian violence and regional tensions."

Still, as many as 80,000 troops would remain in Iraq by the end of 2010 in Mr. Kahl's plan, or halfway into the next administration. How much longer till those troops are withdrawn? Two years? Twenty? --

http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB...days_columnists

I suppose this is the price some of our people are willing to pay for a symbolic victory.
Makheru Bradley | 07.08.08 - 1:46 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------