BS: Recipe for disaster?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 09:08 AM

A look at the rules will show us who they are aimed at. They are aimed at any lobbyists who might contribute financially to the transition, who might work with the transition while lobbying at the same time, and lobbyists who might want to give gifts to members of the transition team.

These rules would apply to any lobbyists, including Rikki Ott. The reason they are not aimed at lobbyists like Rikki Ott is because lobbyists like her would not be likely to do any of the above listed things. However, if they did, the rules would apply to them, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 05:16 AM

While she would be called a lobbyist, she wouldn't be one of the people those rules are aimed at.

That's what I had in mind - I'd be concerned if restrictions aimed at those lobbyists-for-hire were to affect the work of people engaged in non-commercial lobbying, either on a voluntary basis or as paid workers in a community group engaged in lobbying for or against political change.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 11:57 PM

I think the big problem is when people who have worked on Capital Hill become lobbyists and take jobs at lobbying firms. I think those are the ones that Obama's new rules are aimed at. For instance, after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Rikki Ott, who had previously been a fisherman in Alaska, and whose fishing business was destroyed by the oil spill, became a lobbyist on behalf of the towns in Alaska that were affected and also for people with environmental concerns about the oil industry. While she would be called a lobbyist, she wouldn't be one of the people those rules are aimed at, because she wouldn't have the kind of incestuous relationship with the government that the K Street lobbyists have.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Alice
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 10:15 PM

This article will help explain what the professional lobbyists do.
K Street in Washington, DC, is where most of the offices are of professional lobbyists.

Read the full article here... Washintgon Post

note that the article is from 2005
We've gone through scandals of lobbyists like Jack Abramoff, who is now in federal prison. Click the link and read the whole article to get an idea of what Lobbying has been all about in the last 8 yeas under Bush.

"The Road to Riches Is Called K Street
Lobbying Firms Hire More, Pay More, Charge More to Influence Government

...Wednesday, June 22, 2005; Page A01

To the great growth industries of America such as health care and home building add one more: influence peddling.

The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy.

The lobbying boom has been caused by three factors, experts say: rapid growth in government, Republican control of both the White House and Congress, and wide acceptance among corporations that they need to hire professional lobbyists to secure their share of federal benefits.

"There's unlimited business out there for us," said Robert L. Livingston, a Republican former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and now president of a thriving six-year-old lobbying firm. "Companies need lobbying help."

Lobbying firms can't hire people fast enough. Starting salaries have risen to about $300,000 a year for the best-connected aides eager to "move downtown" from Capitol Hill or the Bush administration. Once considered a distasteful post-government vocation, big-bucks lobbying is luring nearly half of all lawmakers who return to the private sector when they leave Congress, according to a forthcoming study by Public Citizen's Congress Watch.

Political historians don't see these as positive developments for democracy. "We've got a problem here," said Allan Cigler, a political scientist at the University of Kansas. "The growth of lobbying makes even worse than it is already the balance between those with resources and those without resources."

continued at link

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 09:22 PM

McG of H, when I said, "who represents someone else" I meant representing some organization, or perhaps representing some multimillionaire, probably for pay.

The little "folk club" example you posited could, I suppose, justify calling the letter writer "a lobbyist" (I wouldn't use that expression myself), especially if the club had authorized him/her to speak for them, but that's not what is being talked about here. Ordinarily I think when people use the expression "lobbyist" or "lobbying activity" it would have to do with much more ambitious activity than writing a letter, such as arranging personal office calls on a number of legislators, or sending a blanket mailing to an extensive group of legislators. Or paying for travel junkets for Senators to "study" Latin American conditions in Rio de Janiero. Or paying for a "seminar" held at a famous golf club.

In the case of a club-authorized writer of a letter or two, especially where the writer is a member of the club, even if the term "lobbyist" is to be used, the writer is merely exercising his/her Constitutional right of petition. No problem.

It's almost always with hired, professional lobbyists whose main connection with the client is that a hiree that the questions and perhaps problems arise.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 04:44 PM

the individual who represents someone else...

So someone agrees to write a letter on behalf of other members of a folk club, calling for a change in the law affecting folk clubs, or opposing a proposed change and they count as a lobbyist in this context? There has to be more to it than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 04:32 PM

McG of H asked:

What's the definition of "a lobbyist"? If you write a letter to a politician about some political issue, that is lobbying. So does that make you "a lobbyist"? Or do you have to be paid for it as a living?

Writing a letter or calling on one's own behalf is not lobbying, at least as used in this connection. In any case, even if you call such action "lobbying", it's okay, and protected by the Constitution.

I believe the kind of lobbyist we're talking about here is the individual who represents someone else (individual or organization), usually for pay but not always. Such paid lobbyists quite commonly are lawyers, and they represent clients in a professional capacity.

Lobbyists can be extremely helpful to legislators and/or regulators, by providing bodies of information they or their clients have access to. The flip side of this is, of course, since they represent interested parties they tend to provide data with a slant favorable to the client. Because such "information services" to a legislator can be helpful, it tends to help the lobbyist gain greater access to influential ears than you or I might have. This is all legal, so far as it goes.

But when the issue to be influenced has large financial consequences there's often a lot of pressure for lobbyists to push the envelope, so to speak, possibly getting into impermissible political pressures which come close to or equal extortion, the supplying of outright false information, the provision of "favors" to legislators which may be difficult to distinguish from bribery, and of course outright bribery.

There are regulations that require lobbyists to register as such, depending on such things as number of contacts, hours/days spent, and compensation received. I'm not sure how those apply to volunteer lobbyists who may represent an organization they belong to. By and large, such volunteers are less likely to have the big war chests in hand that the professionals so often do (and thus may have less power to do harm), but volunteers can be effective with a legislator because they often are the legislator's constituents.

Please excuse me if I've expatiated too much on the obvious.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: jeffp
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 04:08 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbyist

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 03:42 PM

I think that among the criteria for lobbying are x amount of time, whether of day or year. I don't think it has to do with amount of money garnered.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 03:36 PM

What's the definition of "a lobbyist"? If you write a letter to a politician about some political issue, that is lobbying. So does that make you "a lobbyist"? Or do you have to be paid for it as a living?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Alice
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 09:09 PM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 05:35pm EST / in Press Releases
Obama Transition Announces Rules for Lobbyists in Transition

During a briefing today at the Presidential Transition Team headquarters, Obama Transition Co-Chair John Podesta announced the strictest, and most far reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history.

The rules are:

    * Federal Lobbyists cannot contribute financially to the transition.

    * Federal lobbyists are prohibited from any lobbying during their work with the transition.

    * If someone has lobbied in the last 12 months, they are prohibited from working in the fields of policy on which they lobbied.

    * If someone becomes a lobbyist after working on the Transition, they are prohibited from lobbying the Administration for 12 months on matters on which they worked.

    * A gift ban that is aggressive in reducing the influence of special interests.

Statement of Thomas Mann
Brookings Institution

"The ethical guidelines released today for the Obama transition are tough and unequivocal. They will prevent some honorable people with rich experience from serving in the transition. That is a real cost but it is more than balanced by the strong signal sent by the President-elect. He aspires to attract to government able individuals whose highest priority is to serve the public interest. This is a very constructive step in that direction."

Statement of Norm Ornstein
American Enterprise Institute

"Restoring trust in government is a prerequisite to enacting good policy and the tough choices the country needs. This ethics policy for the transition is a far-reaching, bold and constructive step to do just that. The policy may exclude some good people with deep experience in their fields, but it will also exclude those who see government service as a springboard to financial success, or who are more intent on pleasing future potential employers or clients than making tough choices in the public interest. As much as anything, this ethics policy is a statement about the tone and tenor of the Obama administration. It is a good sign."

Statement of John Podesta
Co-Chair of President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden's Transition Team

"President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to change the way Washington works and curb the influence of lobbyists. During the campaign, federal lobbyists could not contribute to or raise money for the campaign. Today, the President-elect is taking those commitments even further by announcing the strictest, and most far reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history."

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 08:33 PM

Speaking of demographics and the election, you'll be able to find out how much your neighbor contributed to what's-his-name here (click). I was pleasantly surprised to find that an acquaintance contributed $650 to Obama. My stepson swore she was Republican.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:56 PM

Probably.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:55 PM

Do Amish people believe that Obama is the Antichrist?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:38 PM

Since I don't watch or listen to "the preachers, televangelists, and Christian radio commentators" they are not who I refe to when I think of the 'end times', the 'rapture', the 'antichrist' and the like. What I grew up with, along with the devout people I know, is of a much smaller, less flashy sort.

And they do believe it. They will continue to believe it. Any and every attempt to 'educate' them out of it is taken as evidence of evil forces, and of the blind stubbornness of those who espouse a different view. We don't understand them, but they certainly do not understand us, either.

Furthermore, at least some of these people distrust the flashy, glitzy halls and polished performances that are found on televisions.

The US, for whatever reason, is much more overtly religious than the UK or Europe. Religious belief is not derided, by and large, in this country, even outside the bible belt. Inside the Bible Belt, of course, not only do they not deride it but going to a physical church is expected; even musicians and other performers are comfortable giving it lip service. Bubba loves God.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:59 PM

The reason some of us address the whole Antichrist nonsense is because the people who believe that sort of thing (I expect that Sarah Palin is probably one of them) are currently in control of the government of the US, and they will work very hard to regain control of it after Obama takes office. Which is why they are promoting the idea that Obama is the Antichrist in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:58 PM

McG of H:

Great one!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:53 PM

It all sounds like an extreme version of Special Rendition.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Jayto
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:52 PM

"I cannot believe that the rest of you can give any thought to the anti-christ rubbish, how can your opinions be respected when you feel you must address such nonsense. "

It is interesting I think. I am not justifying or damning anyone I think it is an interesting social observance. I did state in some crazy and things like that. I strongly disagree with the view but it really interests me as to why they feel that way. Plus I have heard this statement so much from so many people I think it is a relevant discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:48 PM

The whole Rapture myth was, IIRC, developed by a blind drunk shepherdess in the nineteenth century and has nothing to do with the Bible.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:34 PM

Yes, I should have said "the preachers of the people who believe that kind of thing". Which is what I actually meant but wasn't clear about.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Wesley S
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:32 PM

Carol - Blanket statements like yours about preachers lend themselves to prejudice - as you would be willing to point out if the word Muslim had been used. Could you have perhaps used words like "some" or "many"?

And Amos - what I love to point out to people who believe in the Rapture is that the word "Rapture" never appears in the bible - anywhere. They tend to sputter a little after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:32 PM

Some excellent posts above, especially from Guest (Neil D) heartwarmingly good.

Emma, as concise, thorough and even handed as ever.
Even McGrath is taking the blinds off.

I cannot believe that the rest of you can give any thought to the anti-christ rubbish, how can your opinions be respected when you feel you must address such nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:32 PM

Corporate America and Theocracy

"The connection between the Christian Right and US corporations has a long and disturbing history. From prayer-breakfasts sponsored by right-wing churches to the massive donations from corporations to those same churches, it often seems as though the two are covertly working together toward the same goal. I once saw a painting in a real estate broker's office above her desk which showed two men in suits in a lusciously-appointed office suite shaking hands with Jesus. On the bottom it said something to the effect of 'Deals go better when Christ is your partner'. I was struck by how close it was to a Coca-Cola ad tagline of the time--'Things go better with Coke.'"


Economics from the Religious Right

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:29 PM

"the Christian right" is a term I'd question. You're talking about a particular variety of deviant religion which is active in some parts of the United States.

Most Christians in the world, including those with right-wing views, would regard them with disdain and some revulsion. I'd suspect that that is very probably true even in the States.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:27 PM

The nutball troupes of the Rapture belief system are more than a human heart can bear in their smugness and saccharine superiority.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:21 PM

I also know from having heard such people spreading that kind of crap myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:18 PM

Not prejudice. Just experience. I have enough family and friends who believe that stuff to know where they're getting it from.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:18 PM

They believed Bill Clinton was the Antichrist, too, BTW. Here's just one example...

http://www.soundanalarm.net/ClintonSetsthePatternofantichrist.html

The leaders of the Christian right will proclaim every non-Republican president to be the Antichrist from now until people stop listening to those kinds of charlatans.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: pdq
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:16 PM

"...preachers, televangelists, and Christian radio commentators are largely shills for corporate America..."

Nope, no prejudice in that statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:12 PM

I think a lot of people who believe Obama is the Antichrist do so because their preachers, the televangelists, and Christian radio commentators tell them to believe it. And the preachers, televangelists, and Christian radio commentators are largely shills for corporate America, so it's not surprising to me that they would want to create this kind of fear toward Obama among their followers.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 03:30 PM

From the link:

"B. Hussein Obama's church is the liberal Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, pastored by the racist Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Wright preaches a message of black separatism and is a racist in every sense of the word. The UCC is one of the most liberal denominations there is. They ordain practicing homosexuals, support slaughtering babies, and preach the social Gospel of the religious left, having abandoned the inspiration of the Word and preaching the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. The queen of the New Age witches, Oprah, also calls Trinity UCC her church.

"A modern day foe of God, Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is ordained thru this liberal and ungodly denomination. Lynn has made it his life's work to try and silence and destroy true works of God, and last year came after Liveprayer for my stand on satanic cult member Mitt Romney, by trying to get the IRS to take away our tax-exempt status. His efforts failed because we did nothing wrong. The fact is, Lynn has tried to get the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of over 70 churches and ministries over the years, and has failed to be successful even once!"


Good gracious! He doen't like MItt Romney or Oprah either!

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Jayto
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 03:08 PM

Check this out. You talk about crazy.

Crazy Obama Antichrist site

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 03:00 PM

It just occurred to me what may be fueling some of that fearful conjecturing.

At the urging of family members I read one of the 'Left Behind' books; couldn't stomach any more than that. This is a series of thrillers written by two men, LeHays or somehing like that is the name of one of them. Their premise is that at a certain time the 'Rapture' occurs wherein the 'saved' are caught up and spirited away (literally- their clothes are left in a neat pile. It appears that clothing offends God. *g) while those 'left behind' are temporarily abandoned to face the 'tribulation'.

The Anti-Christ is a charismatic young man who has fooled almost everyone into believing that he is the hope of the world; the good guys struggle against him and his evil regime.

This Anti-Christ is postulated to have been born in the Middle East. I think he is born in the 1960s.

I don't know when the first of the series came out- at least 10 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Alice
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:53 PM

At snopes.com, this is one of the many emails circulating to try to create fear about Obama.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/antichrist.asp

So people read this stuff forwarded to them in email, rumored word of mouth, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:48 PM

I suppose they must have SOME reason,

The assumption that fundagelical idiots need a reason to believe something displays an incredible degree naiveté.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Jayto
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:45 PM

Fear plain and simple. That is what fuels it in my opinion. I have not heard anyone make a decent argument for the case. Even the ones I have heard speak about it that are consumed with the notion can't make a decent case for why they think that. Fear is the only thing I can think of.Change from the norm is another aspect. They are fearful when things aren't exactly as they have always been. Bush has fed on these fears hard core for 8 years now. People are truly scared and it comes out in odd ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:41 PM

Nostradamus said it, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:15 PM

I guess I just don't understand. What kind of allegations or perceptions lead the so-minded to think that Obama = Antichrist? I suppose they must have SOME reason, but I can't remember or even manufacture any kind of argument for that.

Of course Mudcat may not be the place to ask the question.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Jayto
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:06 PM

I hate to say it but the Obama=Antichrist is a real perception that some hold. I have heard it since 2004. I want to make it clear I don't hold that view but I have heard a bunch of people say that with total conviction. ScI to think they actually believe that. I do have to add that I live in part of the US they refer to as the "bible belt". So religious singificance is a common topic. End times prophecy has surged for a few years around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 01:39 PM

True enough, Obama can't walk on water.

And for better or worse, he's not Che Guevara. Whatever his opponents may have said, he's no kind of Socialist. (But unlike Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, he doesn't make out that he is.)

There are realistic hope that he will be significantly better than McCain would have been, and a great deal better than Bush has been (and still is, God help us...).

Obama has been elected with the support of most American voters - a majority made up of a slightly higher proportion of "white" voters than Bush ever received, a slightly higher proportion of "black" voters, and a very much increased number of "Hispanic" voters (of all colours).

It all doesn't really add up to a much of a "Recipe for Disaster". Let's just see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 01:21 PM

On Wikipedia 'Corporate America' is defineds as

- 'an informal phrase describing the world of corporations within the United States not under government ownership.

Its negative connotations imply financial or ideological self-interest, greed, resistance to entitlements and the irresponsible promotion of counter-socialist self-interest at the expense of government and competitors.

Its positive connotations imply a liberal and productive capitalist free-market society that creates wealth, directly and indirectly lifts the people's standard of living, rewards individual ability, and provides a ladder to financial success.'

Taking up the subject of health care again Ben Rowley, writing under Student Voices in mid July observes...

'The American health care system is said to be market-based. This means (whether admitted or not) health care decisions are often influenced more by the financial outcome for the provider and insurance company than the health of the patient.

This profit seeking is ruining the health of far too many Americans.

In the quest for increased profits, insurers and hospitals have resorted to practices that lead one to question whether any sense of ethics remains in corporate America.'

In May a new survey by consulting firm Watson Wyatt found that 84% of large U.S. employers do not support a single-payer system such as universal health care coverage. Of the 453 companies surveyed between November 2007 and January 2008, 78% favor private-sector solutions.

The report concludes

'it remains to be seen whether Congress and the new president can enact significant reform,'



'

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 01:03 PM

Ake:

You are mistaken, sir. He has been elected as the leader of the United States.

That leadership governs some aspect of the lives of millions of people, many of whom are not capitalists except by reason of holding mortgages and working for companies which, in turn, depend on capital for their day-to-day operations.

Those who have an influence in the operation of your fantastic generality "Western Capitaslism", in turn, comprise hundreds of thousands of people each of whom makes their own decisions, exerts their own pressures, and has their own hopes for the future.

In short, your simplistic pigeonholing is far too narrow, shallow and abstract to impart any meaning.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 12:48 PM

The USA is a capitalist country and as such "Corporate America"
for good or ill is a fact of our political life. Every national politician, including presidents, must deal with that reality. They must to a certain degree "play ball" with "business". That doesn't mean they have to give away the proverbial "Keys to the
Kingdom". FDR, in another time of economic crisis, had the ability to
get "Corporate America" to mostly step in line with his New Deal programs, while at the same time knowing just how progressive he could get away with being. His distant cousin Theodore was able to push through quite a bit of anti-trust legislation and put limitations on "Corporate America" that they chafed under, but in the end, tolerated.
   Some on the right say both men were Socialists while some on the left say they were exerting just enough control on business interests to keep the country from disintegrating into class warfare. That both men, scions of the elite themselves, were really working for the best interests of Corporate America even though many
business leaders couldn't see it at the time. That may be so but at the end of the day ALL Americans were better off in say, 1940 than in 1932.
   Now John McCain says Barack Obama is a Socialist and Akenaton says
he is right of center. I say, if we are better off in 2016 than we are in 2008 then who cares. I think that he is above all a
pragmatist of great intelligence who will surround himself with the best advisors and will think his way to the right solutions. Then with calm leadership he will bring us all, corporate CEO's to hourly workers, along with him to a better America and we won't care wether he's right, left or center.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 12:44 PM

Akenaton asserted:

Mr Obama is a lawyer, who will do the bidding of Corporate America,
just like every other president in modern times.

That statement just shows Ake's fuzzy thinking, lack of knowledge of logic, and prejudice. On examination, it is a fallacious syllogism which flows like this:

First premise:   EVERY lawyer* is crooked and willing to do the
    bidding of "Corporate America".
Second premise: Obama is a lawyer.
Conclusion:      Therefore, Obama (as president) will do the
    bidding of "Corporate America".

It mixes his prejudice against lawyers as a class with his virulence against Obama in particular. Since the first premise is clearly false even as to the class "every lawyer" (not to mention being false as to Obama, whose history makes him one of the legion of exceptions), the whole syllogism falls. *The first premise MUST refer to "every lawyer", in order for Ake's statement to fly.

The phrase "do the bidding of Corporate America" is way too vague to be the basis for a meaningful charge. What constitutes "Corporate America"? Every business which is organized as a corporation? Fortune 500 companies? The very expression "Corporate America" is a pejorative abstraction (at least as Ake uses it here), meaning that there exists a cohesive body called "Corporate America", which speaks and acts with one voice (by implication, usually if not always against the nation's interest). There is no such entity in the real world as "Corporate America". There are corporations and corporations, then there are corporations, with different interests, modes of action, and desires with regard to public and governmental action.   

Then in addition, of course, the last eight words, about "every other president in modern times", would have to be examined critically. And even if that clause were to be deemed true, it would destroy the meaning of the initial syllogism by making the first premise irrelevant.

In short, the italicized statement is merely an ill-tempered insult, carelessly issued without consideration of its own external or internal accuracy. Or possibly, (which is worse), knowingly wrongly issued.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 12:31 PM

Ake, do you think things would be better had McCain won?

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 12:05 PM

So. And so. And thus. And therefore.

OK. I get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 11:45 AM

If this was ten years ago, Mr Obama MAY have been able to influence American policy in a meaningful way.
Unfortunately we are about to enter the deepest recession that any of us will have experienced, brought about by the greed and stupidity of Western Capitalists.
Mr Obama is about to become the leader of Western Capitalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Wesley S
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 10:45 AM

"The lady who advised me, is a registered Democrat, very much darker than Mr Obama and in posession of two tickets for his inauguration."

Oh well then that's different - whatever she says has to be correct. Although I'm not quite sure what makes her so impeachable - her party, her darker color or the tickets to the inaguration.

Subject: RE: BS: Recipe for disaster?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 10:42 AM

Ake:

Your inside track notwithstanding, it is, IMHO, completyely inaccurate to try and capture Mr Obama's nature in such a trivialized and shallow buzz-phrase.

Corporations have to be dealt with, in government. For one thing, it is from corporations that most people gain their pay. Cut that lifeline off and you are in serious trouble.

But Isuspect your barbs are directed against the unfeeling high-level inhumane decisions which are often used to characterize large corporations with their armies of suits, funny mindless argot, and their heavy handed lobbyists.

These, too, will be part of the Washington scene which will have to be dealt with. But assuming these powers will "capture" Obama and enslave him to their wills is really meretricious and simpleminded, I am afraid.

If you have not read "The AUdacity of Hope", please do--you'll understand the man better and will find he is quite aware of the kind of traps you are so certain he will be taken in by.


A