“People can look at the same thing and see different realities.”

Liberals know that, but Conservatives refuse to believe it.

Chomsky is supposedly a fine linguist and semantician, but he has a one-track mind when it comes to politics. I also believe nations act out of political motives, which in turn are driven by economics. But I also believe other factors come into play also,
some of them are even commendable.

I don’t agree with him on the war on drugs, but neither do I think it is a crusade from the Lord either. It is a combination of self-interest (drugs cause crime which costs money and lives), morality (both legitimate and of the loony tunes fundamentalist variety)as well as culture (drugs cause hippies, Communism and sex). And let’s not forget all the people getting rich supplying the weapons for the war on drugs. Hell, even the drug gangs themselves don’t want drugs legalized. Like Al-Quaeda, they need a war to justify their existence and their methods! I don’t think imperialism plays a major role, but I don’t deny it may help to get funding in Congress.

In other words, national policy is often driven by a variety of constituencies and agendas, and many different interests, and often has its own bureaucratic inertia that exerts pressure long after all the players have become disillusioned. Sometimes these factors are so intertwined it takes historians generations to sort them all out–and by then, its too late to verify the truth. History is to a great extent powered by its own internal logic, it isn’t all conspiracies and Great Men.

To blame something like the War on Drugs on American Imperialism is overly simplistic. That does not mean it doesn’t play some role.

Cubans have a saying: No tan calvo que se le vean los sesos. Not so bald the brains are visible.

You’re right about Krauthammer.
But that don’t mean he’s stupid.

For instance, his claim that the “War on Drugs” isn’t about drugs but about keeping an American military presence in those areas explains a lot. I suppose it may seem crazy to some people, though.

However, if it were about drugs it’s been a lost cause and would have been given up. So what else makes sense?

People can look at the same thing and see different realities.

Arf

Beware of Chomsky. He’s smart, but he’s also crazy. He’s sort of a lefty Krauthammer.

The IQ over 80 plus morals cohort may be the majority, but the majority does not vote as a bloc, the minority always does. They’ve kept the Republican Party afloat since the Nixon years.

I think that’s true, and bode’s ill for Obama. However, Perry is so completely hypocritical, as are Palin and Bachmann, that I can’t see how he’s viable in a population with an average IQ of over 80 and any morals at all.

Leaving Romney, who would be an attractive candidate. However, having read the Book of Mormon, I’m afraid of anyone who claims to believe it. Not bad people, by the way, but suckers for strange conspiracies.

The Tea Party stuff I’ve seen distributed against Obama is vicious, easily disproved and believed by them. I’m thinking that particular insanity won’t spill over to the General Population. And Perry will be saddled with, or allied to, the Tea Party.

I’d bet on Obama right now. The Presidency is a hard thing go run against and when push came to shove he did all right. The only problem he has is trying to negotiate with people who advocated killing him and blocking every thing he tried to do.

Arf

Obama has lost a lot of support from Liberals, myself included, but its not because we believe he’s too Socialist, or hates America, or is a Muslim Kenyan Mau-mau Makaka anti-colonialist. We are disappointed because he has not stood up to Republican thugs in congress and has actually tried to meet them halfway and deal with them while they deliberately tried to sabotage the country so they could put it all on him.

We may be disappointed with Obama but that does not automatically translate to adopting the nihilism of the Tea Party. And people who run for President don’t give it up. LBJ inherited the office, he was primarily a creature of the legislature.

A primary challenge is unlikely, not because Democrats aren’t disillusioned, but because there is no one in the wings to replace him except Hillary, and I don’t think she wants any part of it.

So whether we stay with a good man but a weak President who has failed to meet his promise, or we deliberately go with someone of unknown competence but unquestioned villainy and lunatic political philosophy. That is our choice.

Not that all Republicans are totally unacceptable. Romney will be another Obama, colorless and bland, but the nation would survive him. Huntsman would probably make a good President, but his own party will never nominate him. He comes across as a sane and compassionate intellectual. He’s the only one in that gang with any brains except for Gingrich, and he is an unprincipled opportunist even other Republicans can’t stomach. Bachmann and Perry are out to lunch, but one will probably get the nomination.

My prediction is Perry will be our next President, my confidence level is 70%. Stand by for heavy rolls.