Ig Nobels

[Joseph Tracy]

I appreciate the reasoned argument here.  I am not looking for a  
savior and my vote cast for Obama was not a product of naivete though  
every vote expresses some degree of wishful thinking . But something  
important happened in the financial meltdown that created an opening  
for dynamic leadership and change. The opportunity was squandered, a  
great lie was perpetrated and Obama became a participant in the   
biggest financial fraud in history. This was followed by escalating a  
failed military policy in Afghanistan, continuing to hire  
mercenaries, to  practice torture and to fail to prosecute war  
crimes, backing off his stand on Israeli settlements, refusing to  
honor the UN investigation into war crimes in Gaza, and recently  
undermining climate change protocols.  Somewhere along the line  I  
came to realize that putting a friendly smart  Democratic party,  
multicultural face on the US colonial enterprise  and the corporate  
state was  as meaningless as I had begun to suspect.

I also agree that change is a local enterprise  and I find myself  
working for that change with others in my Vermont town. But I refuse  
to give praise where none is due. Justifying failed leadership does  
not change its miserable ineffectiveness. The problem is not that  
Obama tries and fails to make the serious changes which are needed in  
the US. The problem is that he has not tried in a single area to  
contend for the best possible outcome.  Obama's support is dwindling  
not for the lack of awards but for the lack of courage, he does not  
support the best interests of voters and they are losing interest in  
supporting him.



> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 8:33 PM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> if no one is gonna rock the boat, what's the point? Yes, I understand
>> the vampire like suck the entrenched interests have in the US but if
>> the prez can't do it, who is?
>>
>> we want more--that so hard to understand?
>>
> You are quite right, if, perhaps a bit overzealous, given that you are
> actually preaching to the choir. Yes, we want more, but are we willing
> to make that more happen? National change does not happen from the top
> down, as zealous Alice likewise overstates, change of the sort you are
> on about is a national thing that requires more than a vote, more than
> a man with a few allies.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 8:33 PM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> if no one is gonna rock the boat, what's the point? Yes, I understand
>> the vampire like suck the entrenched interests have in the US but if
>> the prez can't do it, who is?
>>
>> we want more--that so hard to understand?
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 7:55 PM, alice wellintown
>> <alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But surely you understand that Presidents of the US don't have the
>>> power needed to make the kinds of changes we would love to see,  
>>> right?
>>> Having a set of brazen Brunswicks doesn't mean the Prez can knock  
>>> the
>>> pins down. He doesn't get to roll in most frames. And, some of the
>>> pins are glued to the lane. It ain't as easy as it looks on TV. The
>>> Nobel folks might just hekp the guy get re-elected. Right now it  
>>> looks
>>> like he's lost a lot of support from the Peace vote, the gay voter,
>>> the anti-wall street vote, and other left, liberal, democractic,
>>> Reagan Democratic working class folk. The Nobel may help him win  
>>> some
>>> of that vote back. He needs more support not less. Otherwise, it's
>>> back to Bush & Co. full tilt boogey.
>>>
>>