I was apalled to hear the upbeat tone on Al Jazeera about the negotiations over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling. Obama's stand has been very simple, and correct. He should not have to make any concessions to end the shutdown and raise the debt ceiling. Because making concessions is rewarding hostage taking.
AG: But you say there should always be negotiation when you are talking about the middle east.
Me: First, there's no moral equivalency here, US Republicans are far worse than Al Qaeda. At least you could say with regards to the latter, that they have claims to represent the true grievances of many moslems, arabs, persians, and others in the middle east. Those true grievances do exist: those peoples in general have been the victims of western neo-imperial dominance and direct and client state aggression. For the Republicans, whose interests do they represent? Well, with respect to those I just mentioned, they are far more consistently the aggressors, not the aggrieved. And more generally, the interests of never allowing taxes on the wealthy to increase, or benefits to the poor be anything but slashed, it's clear the Republicans represent the most direct interests of the plutocracy as well as the neo-empire and are willing to do anything (because they know their backers will reward them well) to serve those interests--at the expense of everyone else.
OK, so no concessions, but talks are OK. And maybe Obama could negotiate over this: the abolition of the mandatory budget (budget act) for continuing operations, and the abolition of the debt ceiling, both of which should be (as I have argued) unconstitutional.
Anything less that that would be leaving a destroyed democratic system of government, because future terrorists could apply the same tactics, and the precedent will have been established for it to be an effective approach.
But we hear negotiations are over a mere 4 month suspension...then more hostages. That's not worth a damn thing. When will it end?
AG: But you say there should always be negotiation when you are talking about the middle east.
Me: First, there's no moral equivalency here, US Republicans are far worse than Al Qaeda. At least you could say with regards to the latter, that they have claims to represent the true grievances of many moslems, arabs, persians, and others in the middle east. Those true grievances do exist: those peoples in general have been the victims of western neo-imperial dominance and direct and client state aggression. For the Republicans, whose interests do they represent? Well, with respect to those I just mentioned, they are far more consistently the aggressors, not the aggrieved. And more generally, the interests of never allowing taxes on the wealthy to increase, or benefits to the poor be anything but slashed, it's clear the Republicans represent the most direct interests of the plutocracy as well as the neo-empire and are willing to do anything (because they know their backers will reward them well) to serve those interests--at the expense of everyone else.
OK, so no concessions, but talks are OK. And maybe Obama could negotiate over this: the abolition of the mandatory budget (budget act) for continuing operations, and the abolition of the debt ceiling, both of which should be (as I have argued) unconstitutional.
Anything less that that would be leaving a destroyed democratic system of government, because future terrorists could apply the same tactics, and the precedent will have been established for it to be an effective approach.
But we hear negotiations are over a mere 4 month suspension...then more hostages. That's not worth a damn thing. When will it end?
No comments:
Post a Comment