Blogs ou should be reading……

Blogs ou should be reading……

…When you are aware what is your job you will be more successful than when you have no ideas…..

[...]some interesting sites worth visitng. We recommend all our readers go and check these out[...]……

[...]below you’ll find the link to some websites that I think you should go and see, some are related to my site and others are unrelated but definitely worth visiting[...]……

I am starting to believe that a substantial part of that whole dynamic was just people being effectively used — calling on and receiving that energy and money was an effective strategy to meet the goal of being elected. Now that the goal is met, that kind of energy and effort isn't necessary anymore, not now and not in 4 years. It was necessary for the underdog at the time of the first run for president, and will not be necessary for the president seeking re-election.

In other words: My take right now is that PE Obama needed all that energy and time and money from people in order to get elected in 2008. So, talking about grassroots and change from the bottom served that goal at that time because it activated what was needed for him to reach the goal of being elected.

Now, elected, he is in a new arena and will likely not need that kind of effort “from below” the next time around. Strategically, then, that intense energy and ass-busting is now relatively expendable — and the really important thing is orientation toward and discussion with other powerful political people.

By sheer comparison, Barack Obama's election campaign revealed the relative dead-ness and ineffectiveness of social movements in this country. It is an important demonstration we have just witnessed IMO. When the most effective and huge organizing effort we have seen in this time served to get someone elected to this position of huge structural power, it is probably safe to assume that that person, once elected, will not face mass organized resistance from the center leftward, simply because without whatever he was doing to organize so effectively, such things do not happen in this country at this time. To me, this situation further demonstrates the strategic expendability of the supportive mass of people now that we have served our purpose.

Many people have lauded president-elect Obama for being a skilled chess player. I think that is an apt metaphor and description. So. Who are the pawns on the board?

Hillary is just a shythouse rat and twice as crazy. Period.

“HRC has contentious and drama filled confirmation hearings that reveal Clinton ethics once and for all as opportunistic, shady and in conflict with the position of SoS.”

And she can't be considered until she officially resigns from the Senate, because the Constitution prohibits her appointment or confirmation until she's given up her Senate seat (could a Con Law Scholar provide clarification here?)

I have had too many experiences with the dynamics of mindf***ing to be okay with any leader who has so much real structural power relying on the dynamics of “rule by disorientation.”

I don't care who it is. No one is so wonderful, wise and/or godlike that it is a good thing for them to have such structural power AND rely on rule by disorientation.

But then, compared to the overt dynamics of the Bush administration, this is going to look very good. Easy to overlook dissonance when the comparison is so stark and the effects haven't shown themselves yet.

To state the obvious, I am incredibly harsh when I am not being trusting. Often, though, when I feel this way, I am onto something that isn't apparent til later.

But feel free to disregard this because whatever I currently feel is going on is not visible in its effects at this time. Hopefully I am wrong and it will not ever be. (I have noticed that I am usually not wrong when I feel things like this, but when things aren't visible in their effects, it's always a possibility)

I am starting to believe that a substantial part of that whole dynamic was just people being effectively used — calling on and receiving that energy and money was an effective strategy to meet the goal of being elected. Now that the goal is met, that kind of energy and effort isn't necessary anymore, not now and not in 4 years. It was necessary for the underdog at the time of the first run for president, and will not be necessary for the president seeking re-election.

In other words: My take right now is that PE Obama needed all that energy and time and money from people in order to get elected in 2008. So, talking about grassroots and change from the bottom served that goal at that time because it activated what was needed for him to reach the goal of being elected.

Now, elected, he is in a new arena and will likely not need that kind of effort “from below” the next time around. Strategically, then, that intense energy and ass-busting is now relatively expendable — and the really important thing is orientation toward and discussion with other powerful political people.

By sheer comparison, Barack Obama's election campaign revealed the relative dead-ness and ineffectiveness of social movements in this country. It is an important demonstration we have just witnessed IMO. When the most effective and huge organizing effort we have seen in this time served to get someone elected to this position of huge structural power, it is probably safe to assume that that person, once elected, will not face mass organized resistance from the center leftward, simply because without whatever he was doing to organize so effectively, such things do not happen in this country at this time. To me, this situation further demonstrates the strategic expendability of the supportive mass of people now that we have served our purpose.

Many people have lauded president-elect Obama for being a skilled chess player. I think that is an apt metaphor and description. So. Who are the pawns on the board?

Hillary is just a shythouse rat and twice as crazy. Period.

“HRC has contentious and drama filled confirmation hearings that reveal Clinton ethics once and for all as opportunistic, shady and in conflict with the position of SoS.”

And she can't be considered until she officially resigns from the Senate, because the Constitution prohibits her appointment or confirmation until she's given up her Senate seat (could a Con Law Scholar provide clarification here?)

I have had too many experiences with the dynamics of mindf***ing to be okay with any leader who has so much real structural power relying on the dynamics of “rule by disorientation.”

I don't care who it is. No one is so wonderful, wise and/or godlike that it is a good thing for them to have such structural power AND rely on rule by disorientation.

But then, compared to the overt dynamics of the Bush administration, this is going to look very good. Easy to overlook dissonance when the comparison is so stark and the effects haven't shown themselves yet.

To state the obvious, I am incredibly harsh when I am not being trusting. Often, though, when I feel this way, I am onto something that isn't apparent til later.

But feel free to disregard this because whatever I currently feel is going on is not visible in its effects at this time. Hopefully I am wrong and it will not ever be. (I have noticed that I am usually not wrong when I feel things like this, but when things aren't visible in their effects, it's always a possibility)

I am starting to believe that a substantial part of that whole dynamic was just people being effectively used — calling on and receiving that energy and money was an effective strategy to meet the goal of being elected. Now that the goal is met, that kind of energy and effort isn't necessary anymore, not now and not in 4 years. It was necessary for the underdog at the time of the first run for president, and will not be necessary for the president seeking re-election.

In other words: My take right now is that PE Obama needed all that energy and time and money from people in order to get elected in 2008. So, talking about grassroots and change from the bottom served that goal at that time because it activated what was needed for him to reach the goal of being elected.

Now, elected, he is in a new arena and will likely not need that kind of effort “from below” the next time around. Strategically, then, that intense energy and ass-busting is now relatively expendable — and the really important thing is orientation toward and discussion with other powerful political people.

By sheer comparison, Barack Obama's election campaign revealed the relative dead-ness and ineffectiveness of social movements in this country. It is an important demonstration we have just witnessed IMO. When the most effective and huge organizing effort we have seen in this time served to get someone elected to this position of huge structural power, it is probably safe to assume that that person, once elected, will not face mass organized resistance from the center leftward, simply because without whatever he was doing to organize so effectively, such things do not happen in this country at this time. To me, this situation further demonstrates the strategic expendability of the supportive mass of people now that we have served our purpose.

Many people have lauded president-elect Obama for being a skilled chess player. I think that is an apt metaphor and description. So. Who are the pawns on the board?

Hillary is just a shythouse rat and twice as crazy. Period.

“HRC has contentious and drama filled confirmation hearings that reveal Clinton ethics once and for all as opportunistic, shady and in conflict with the position of SoS.”

And she can't be considered until she officially resigns from the Senate, because the Constitution prohibits her appointment or confirmation until she's given up her Senate seat (could a Con Law Scholar provide clarification here?)

I have had too many experiences with the dynamics of mindf***ing to be okay with any leader who has so much real structural power relying on the dynamics of “rule by disorientation.”

I don't care who it is. No one is so wonderful, wise and/or godlike that it is a good thing for them to have such structural power AND rely on rule by disorientation.

But then, compared to the overt dynamics of the Bush administration, this is going to look very good. Easy to overlook dissonance when the comparison is so stark and the effects haven't shown themselves yet.

To state the obvious, I am incredibly harsh when I am not being trusting. Often, though, when I feel this way, I am onto something that isn't apparent til later.

But feel free to disregard this because whatever I currently feel is going on is not visible in its effects at this time. Hopefully I am wrong and it will not ever be. (I have noticed that I am usually not wrong when I feel things like this, but when things aren't visible in their effects, it's always a possibility)