To drone or not to drone and why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDErbA_rsgM&feature=player_embedded

To me this whole topic reads like a latter day Federico Fellini version of Machiavelli's 'The Prince' gone wrong.

It is clear to see why Obama has taken this line ....simply put it stops or slows the secret pictures of returning US military coffins. So unpopular with Joe and Joan Average and let's not forget it robs the rabid peace-niks from their effective focal point. The USA is between a rock and a hard place largely of its own making

National Pride is based on a palpable lie. That of the 1940's mentality, to be the biggest power in the world all they need is the biggest military to back expansionist grab of world resources. Which in turn makes them the largest economy which allows them the best living standard and the biggest military. With being the biggest the corporatist golden rule applies i.e. "he who has the gold rules!" and that means making the rules to suit that end, political expedience, obfuscation, hair spitting , deception, if all else fails claim exceptionalism. After all who is going to object to the largest military force?

A truism of power nothing bring a disparate group together better than a common enemy. First it was communism now ....well terrorism. Pity about morality, equity and democracy that must be curbed for Security . This of course ignores the wise words " those who sacrifice freedoms for security invariably end's up with neither". Sadly 911 and the ensuing quicksand wars clearly illustrate that.

The problem is that the US military war machine is designed to fight massed battle field wars (so 1940's) . the only thing they learned from Vietnam was the 1933+ Nazi propaganda conditioning of it's public.

As they say 'after a common enemy nothing else motivates better than self interest'.

The USA has enjoyed the fruits of their hegemonic empire and been conditioned by its media which is little short of but marginally more sophisticated than Herr Goebels.

It should be of no surprise that this propaganda conditioning is a consequence of Corporate MSM desire for the profit and its invariable route pandering to the emotions and comfort of the masses rather than objectively showing the public an accurate reflection of it's self rather than deliberate conspiratorial intent. That came with the political system that has been bought by those with the most to lose at the hands of change.

The public now believe beyond almost any level of serious doubt that the health of their depends on the success of their corporation influenced government ergo their 'lifestyle' (to me an [dis]honorary four letter word). As the FIRST, most important, 'exceptional' nation.

Under this conditioning they are Right (justified) in all they do to protect that status. It is so entrenched into the average American psyche arguing with them by presenting reality the facts simply makes one an undesirable and if severely enough believed the dissenter becomes a target for the myriad of Alphabet soup of 'security organisations' and maybe on some matrix. Ergo drone attacks.

The nearest analogy is a version of the way the Japanese are (not) dealing with their WW2 atrocities in as much the core of the USA citizens never really hear objective reporting nor will they accept their compliance if not culpability for the list of atrocities done in their names.

What isn't discussed in this video is that because of USA's exceptionism (i.e. it have veto in the UN it doesn't accept the international court and it is the biggest military) who at the end of the day is going to enforce any adverse findings?

One should never forget “world pressure ?” is unlikely to achieve the significant changes in the core of the US voters to make any realistic changes in their foreign policy or the protectionism of their perceived rights to that exceptionalism. Objectively one only needs to consider the USSR (the only other mega power).

Contrary to US dogma it wasn't the skill of Reagan that caused its demise ...in reality it collapsed under its own weight of military expenditure and administrative sclerosis.

I detect the same sclerotic cracks forming in the US monolith. One only needs to look at its budget, its mounting military related cost cracks ( the drones are the other reason for their escalated deployment and proliferation) . Mankind being the perverse inventive entity it is one can or should sensibly ask how soon before there is anti drone technology …. (anti drone drones?) Micro electronic technology being what what it is, all those qualified computer/technologists that are un or under- employed in “the non US GOVERNMENT friendly nations” and with Moore's law firmly in mind, not that long. Of course how long before crude versions are cobbled together by the disaffected are brought into play?

The question is how many unnecessary deaths will there be before the crash or some conditioned terrified set of nut bags cause the unthinkable ...keep also in mind many's the wars that have been started by simply ramping up the tension to the point a seemingly unimportant spark sets off a set of catastrophic consequences. And no I'm not going all escalogical ….just emphasising the the point that unnecessary mass deaths are a catastrophic for many someones, beyond the actually killed ...i.e. if one of your children is caught in the cross fire how sure are you that you'd be all that philosophic. Based on the response to 911 I'd have to say the statistical probabilities are very low. Now imagine if tens of thousands/ hundreds of thousands are killed consider the exponential effects. The west has already killed hundreds of thousands it is naïve to think that 'the others' are all going to say “oh well the wars over so lets kiss and make up” without the afore mentioned motivator self interest.

The video told us that stopping this back lash is too hard. What it is is ego deflating nothing more. The problems are solvable but thus far the US shows no interest in wanting to do That.

I have many  pragmatic concerns with the 'one state' solution every being anything other than the formalisation of Israel's  ethnic cleansing of greater Palestine/Israel.

Three  key musings come to mind.

1. Israel's continued existence in 'its current form' (read bulwark against Arab (sic) regionalism) is almost exclusively, by the USA in that it 'suits' * Their perceived* national interests i.e. a non dominated Muslim state in the Middle East. If this weren't so they wouldn't insist on being a party (3rd wheel) to any peace plan etc. As opposed letting Israel and Palestine (2 parties) as equal partners say with a Non aligned moderator.

The US fears a 'Muslim' Cuba so to speak, that is a Muslim influenced state( read a platform for Arab regionalism ) that might jeopardise their control (Commercial ?) over Middle Eastern OIL.

One should note here that the US has a long standing record of supporting Tyrannical regimes regardless of their religion so long as they can control the Tyrants that control the population. You pick the country from Central America, as much of Europe they can get away with, Asia generally (including Indonesia... west Papua), Middle East and even Africa. The common factor in all of these countries is their ( largely Commercial) interests. [ Specifics by request].

One should not forget three important points

1. Not all of which are 'Arab' states e.g. Iran is Persian and has a different underpinning culture and drives. Not all Muslims march to the same drum either religiously or in interests. The same as not not all “Christian” countries are the same.
2. That there is external non US forces playing Proxy games with Palestine, It is *these forces * that concern the US . This is by all regards a faux fear in that even if Iran had Nuclear bomb capability it doesn't really represent any existential threat as any aggressive attack would mean the total annihilation of Iran while the US would survive largely in tact. What it does mean is that the US simply won't be able to attack it at will.
3. It seems self evident that what Israel may want to do is largely irrelevant. The US will be the ultimate Authority to which Israel will ultimately accede. It has no choice, If it doesn't, one only needs to look at what happened to NZ when it insisted on knowing if US visiting naval ships visiting their ports  were Nuke armed. It's interesting to note that the US ignored the ANZUS treaty and refused to share 'intelligence', a clear misnomer (spin) read spying details. One can reasonably argue that the US doesn't display too much of that with regards to Non Americans. 
   Israel would not survive without US support and the US both knows this and WILL use that against them. As one of the US founding fathers aptly put it "any one who relinquishes freedom for security invariably gets neither'.
1. Subsequently, the 'one state' debate is largely both a distraction to the *main * stumbling block to a permanent solution ( changing the US' hard opposition to a Non Christian  aligned state.), one that gives hope for self determination and some modicum of Justice .
2. From a negotiating point this whole debate puts the Palestinians in a weaker negotiating position. Effectively made the first part of the Zionist/US for the elimination of the Palestinian as a self determined identity. The option (right or left) they will choose would be . And once it becomes official then the matter is an internal one and will be orders of magnitude harder to change. (they'll argue “ they (the Palestinians) negotiated this conclusion and we Israel (right wing version) have the right to seek out and deal with “internal dissenters”... any guesses what will constitute an “internal dissenter?

Rule 1. of negotiation Don't make a concession without getting an equivalent concession in return. Frankly the elimination of the two state option is a 'Huge' bargaining chip to give it away/ taken away before the negotiation begins.

Israel ..".one state" a solution .... really ?

The pro  Israel  'one staters' don't seem to understand the reality of your solution.

What exists now is two things and it's wider implications to the *Individual *

1. An apartheid state that has institutionalised this fact. i.e. even those Palestinians (aka Arab Israelis) who live in the state of Israel are second class citizens. NB the Cultural extinguishable of the title, Arab is a generic term like 'black' but based on the Language ... And the Israeli (Jew). It's Like calling an Aussie, English. Good luck with that. It's interesting to note that Aussies (whites) are doing the same thing with the term 'Aboriginal', the reality is that Australia wasn't one singular nation but Something like 200 each with their own ancestral land history myths(religions) . Just a test name just 3 of these clan nations...my money is on 98% whites not having a clue. Now tell me our current policies aren't that of acculturation. Israel by name and definition is a secular(?) state for JEWS a Jewish homeland... a contradiction in terms . If it's a Jewish homeland it can't be a Palestinian homeland especial if they have to give up their identity.
2. It's currently a de-facto one state they have annexed the rightfully Palestinian land and systematically forced them into 'reservations' albeit illegally (by the USA's dominance in the UN (veto)) .It's systematically and deliberately disenfranchised the Palestinians via acculturation.

That is the pragmatic reality. What the one state will do is set this into accepted international law.

The reality beyond that the Palestinians will still become entrenched second rate citizens. The entrenched religious prejudice by the Jews will continue. In the minds of the Zionists they will have won and they will be emboldened to further persecute the Palestinians more, in all practical ways with almost impunity. The Palestinians will become the systemic underclass.

The Palestinian youth is already suffering from functional deprivation, via lack of opportunity. Their one remaining salve is the hope their identity and religion. In short their strength is in their shared suffering/sense of being the aggrieved, shared goal i.e. .. one “day they'll have a homeland and it will get better all we have to do is rid ourselves of the 'Jewish' over class”. (wasn't that the Jewish dream?). This is not dissimilar to that of the black Africans pre the fall of apartheid in their countries. Keep in mind too,5 that the Palestinians AREN'T tribal Africans with a culture rooting them to the earth in the same way. They are Socially, religiously and Culturally poles apart. Seems to me the 'one staters' are actually 'zionists (lite)' hiding behind 'pragmatism' (sic) .

Putting aside the inherent this hypocrisy we should look at the historic record of ...Successful (?) integrations they are VERY thin on the ground.

What the 'one staters' are naively (at best) selectively ignoring (at worst) is the sociological consequences for the Palestinians as individuals.

The bare truth is that there isn't enough opportunities for a growth (over night) to preclude the entrenching of sociological problems that will occur with an instant 3 million Palestinians (citizens). The vast majority of which live in appalling conditions compared to the average Israelis this inequity and given that 25% isn't a majority ergo a large portion of (hobs choice) citizens. Of them there is a high proportion of unemployed or under educated. Look around the world then ask your self what happens when you have the following.

• Ghettoised disadvantaged?
• A * LARGE * disadvantaged minority?
• A large portion of first generation migrants who suffer prejudice and lack of personal identity?

Think fundamentalist religion/ race in lieu of an personal identity, racial/ religious prejudice, violence gangs. Rampant crime. are the short answer and the bigger that minority the greater the problems are.. Imagine if Anders Brevik was to happen in say the UK and the victims were not white ? Well that is more likely in a one state Israel... After all the current Zionist government is voted in by a substantial minority of more than average right wingers (30% ish) ? Imagine what they will think when 40% more non Jews are incorporated in the state? Gerrymander comes to mind and with that unfair legislation etc.

My view is we're targeting the wrong cause ….not the current Israeli regime but rather the USA. After all they are the primary obstacle to UN forcing the abandonment of illegal settlements

Peace in our time in Israel (one state solution) and other Myths

The logic in this article is so one sided it almost flies around in ever decreasing circles and that it's prone to disappearing up its own fundamental rectum. Frankly the dilettante nature of this 'pro Israel/ USA ' is wantonly naive if not biased.

The whole article is focused on ISRAEL'S security and assorted paranoid fears..

What makes you think that the "Arabs" are thrilled or cool about the USA dominance in Israel or that a nutter strategic right minority in the new Israel could bomb Palestine/ Arab states ....oh wait it exists now?

And Israel has track record of giving a shit about international law ( when it comes to extra territorial adventures). 

Simply put NO COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST is safe from the paranoid nationalism of another...there are no absolute guarantees anywhere...

All meaningful negotiations are based on good faith...where's the good faith here?

 If I were a Palestinian/ Arab negotiator why would I accept the underlying biased assumptions, that status quo = albeit in a Bigger state is good?

The truth is that the USA has and will continue to be the spanner in the works...so long as it's hegemonic interests holds the Veto, no solution is really possible.

Just for interest what say both sides and the meddlesome and petulant mental Gorilla (USA) were to agree on a two state solution pre 67 borders and THEIR ONLY international protectorate for their international airport ... um, in between the two nations. i.e. paid for by both sides and staffed by UN troops.. and managed by a tripartite committee (Israel, Palestine and the UN, chaired/ controlled by UN) ? I'd ask where are the RISKS any different that anywhere else in the Middle East. 

 

["A one-state solution is only way forward for Israel and Palestine"] if you are a Jewish extremist or a settler. Is what is more honest.
What the “one staters” are suggesting has 4 MAJOR Flaws.
First, it rewards(encourages) those who have dispossessed the Palestinians in the West bank etc. Illegal is illegal. How are they going to unpick a litany of case law precedents fairly? Possession is 9/10s of the law …if you are Jewish.

Second. As the General's son said 'Arab ' neighbourhoods already have a dearth or absence of resources/ services how is this going to change in a greater Israel? Like the rump Zionists etc are going to accept 'their budget share facilities down graded (i.e. settlers lose currently enjoyed water levels for lessor amounts so the Palestinians can have more) to allow for the money to be spent where it's most needed on the Israeli Arab ghettoes or to provide the new population to the same currently enjoyed level of services/facilities etc
The devil is in the detail national budget.

Third. The Jews already have the Best property/land. By what mechanism, given Israel is already a receiver of USA ($ 2 billion p.a. Admitted to), are Palestinian refugees after 60 years of destitution going to be able to buy properties. Instant underclass.

In Australia the Conservatives resent Social Security and 6000 queue jumpers (sic) refugees and the 'hand outs' (sic) as it is . Imagine if suddenly 14 million( similar proportions) became citizens over night ?
By what fanciful notion do these people think Israelis are any LESS self interested, resistant to change/difference i.e. are more generous human-beings than Aussies. They sure don't have a history of such altruism/ generosity of spirit..... in short they are people. Not inherently good or bad just people.
Time for some reality. It must go two states if only to maintain any sense of fairness and to establish a rule of law in Israel with regards to ownership of land in the occupied/squatter settlements.

I don't accept that the Two state 'solution' (sic) (read reality ) is dead ...not until every last Arab and or Palestinian is dead.
All that will be achieved by the One state (sic) will be temporary, in historic terms, and the apartheid will be further institutionalised. The only ones who will be 'temporarily content' will be the extremist Zionists buoyed by this success they will still play the 'existential threat' (fear) card and will do so until they control all the land in described in the Torah … perhaps beyond. Of course the Arabs will oblige for their own fears making it a self fulfilling prophecy . Can anyone point to a nation once 'secure ' in their own boundaries didn't go for hegemonic empire 'by necessity to ensure resources' (aka greed)? e.g USA .

It is functionally naive to suggest otherwise. Therefore the notion that a larger Israel will solve anything .
Neither will the Arabs simply say well that's that and not harbour resentment . Even the Jewish history should tell the Zionists and others that....How many years did they live in 'exile' ? human nature isn't a light switch!
Let me be clear about where I stand .To me the whole debate is a nonsense , it ignores the realities in that it has been couched by the extremist Jewish Zionists V the equally emotionally motivated Muslims. No one has seriously asked what is the problem that needed solving ...Answer ...a 'homeland' where Jews are such that they can't be deported ( THE holocaust sic)* .
What I'm disputing is the sloppy logic and the flawed (loaded)*methodology * that ignores the above Human Nature.

It seems to me that there is two options .
1. Israel gets its act together and puts the extremist back in their proportional box and acknowledge the reality that a Zionist Israel is treading water in a hostile sea in which case it WILL disappear by 'the sword' (in a 'spring', 'summer' what ever)
2. Or become an integrated part of the by then less hostile sea ...One state one in which no minority can be deported.
So where's the disagreement you ask ? The key is in the fine print. FIRST Israel has to get it's act together.... etc. There is a rapidly closing of opportunity to do this to avoid well internal war....( including Arab) Israeli V Zionist ….the settlers etc become too greater mass. My point here is that while the issue is manageable the two states declared, heading off a serious conflict that would involve the wider Arabs resulting in destruction of Zionist Israel and therefore failure of the original objective. A one state REVOLUTION now would simply compound the problem.
Practically, any such change within Israel would have to be EVOLUTIONARY. Declaring two states back to the 67 boarders would bring the electoral gerrymander giving the extremists (the controlling minority) into proportion of the total Israeli electorate. Both side would win.
I have no doubt that once Israel becomes truly Democratic and in time Israel will become the more stable Israelisine in which expulsion could be constitutionally impossible. The original objective would be therefore guaranteed NOW and in both the 2 state interim stage and ultimate inevitable and only long-term stable solution.

*[N.B. I'm not denying the mass extermination of Jews and OTHERS or the totally obscenity of it ..just the assumed proprietary (PR) ownership of the term and the virtual ignoring of the equally horrific extermination of others (e.g. including Gypsies.. Romany ). Question where is their 'homeland'?.. their problem? Why the difference? But that's another question.]

Capitalism, Libertarianism and other myths

I obviously agree with the ability to say to a boss or any authority figure 'no, it's not my choice' or even 'no it's not my need'... And yes, I sound a bit like a Buddhist on cranky pills.
To me the KEY issue is a little more fundamental to the continuation of life and the under pinning moral imperatives.
I look at it like freedom of speech we nominally have that right to express our views BUT it's the HOW we use/abuse that right that is determined by greater imperative(s)that is the important defining factor.

ergo we have the right to jump on a plane buy BS products for PERSONAL conditioned illusionary happiness. The question is SHOULD we do so with out regard to the truth and the reality of the larger imperatives (as per the previous paragraph)

One should never forget the most irrefutable fundamental truth of everything....In *closed* environment (societies and the EARTH) EVERYTHING effects EVERYTHING else.
I have given the examples of traffic flows along highways and through malls that when taken in CONTEXT of the WHOLE one minor action has cumulative effect leading to seemingly disproportionate consequences. I'd STRONGLY RECOMMEND everyone Read "Critical Mass... how one thing leads to another" by Philip Ball. This book clearly demonstrates this principal with everything from electrons to you name it.
The problem with commonly touted Chaos theory is the Massive Misinformational, over simplistic "butterfly effect".
Back to the prosaic one person buying an Iphone 5 because it's cheap or even free with a encouragement to spend more on The cell.
Firstly 'your' individual decision is insignificant even to Apple they want millions of insignificant individuals to decide for a myriad of JUSTIFICATIONS although the key motivator is the deliberately stimulated (Cromagnon/Neanderthal Emotion/instinct) want. The Emotional temporary pay off makes the decision ... polluted reason JUSTIFIES it.
Apple do this to make a profit... they have NO regard or interest in the 'externalities' read consequences. Argue what you what you will on the emotional level but the moral reality is that " can the world afford the CUMULATIVE effect of 80% of the world's resources (read ability to support the continuation human existence) by 20% of the population (i.e. the 'developed world/ western world)?
You pick the major philosophy/religion all have a similar thrust ....biblically speaking "yes YOU are your brother's keeper"... Yet again I also repeat It isn't that you indulge your emotions ...an inherent human trait, but HOW and by how MUCH.
There in lies the inherent flaw in the much admired Libertarianism and or Capitalism (not exclusively)as they are practised today they are predicated on Absolutes and were formulated BEFORE the science of everything relates/effects or leads to another. However both these philosophies tend to focus on the individual ignoring or treating the self (the individual) gratification as the sole purpose/objective of life relegating all other factors as 'externalities' and therefore irrelevant , having no effect on the 'self' . Which in a closed environment and under the first law of thermodynamics ...impossible if not wantonly inane.
I don't dispute the 'right' to anything merely caution about the dismissal of The MORAL DIMENSION what is now 'myopic focus' on the use (abuse) of that right in isolation of the indisputable cumulative effect.

What's the matter with U.S. media it seems worse than other countries?

What is the matter with U.S. Media it seem to be worse than other countries ? In two senses it is.

The most important isn't at first as obvious to the US citizen until one stands off from being an American and look with a incisive mind at to what is different about American public (consumers of news [sic]).

To wit I've included the following piece.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/patrick-pexton-what-about-israels-nuclear-weapons/2012/08/31/390e486a-f389-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_print.html

To someone from outside the US this is as I wrote on another site

[With all respect.., I would rate the piece as worthy of a high school 'journalism' (?) effort.

Who amongst us didn't know virtually everything written in the article and more? Then again he is writing for USA and it's citizenry not to mention under their paranoid military manufacturing complex and assorted Corporates' domination.

A trawl through the 'Guardian' archives goes a lot further actually discussing the nature of the nuke site, how the Israelis fooled the USA and the inspectors way back.....What this says about Israel's paranoia duplicity towards its friends I'm not entirely sure.

What is missing is the simple logic that the USA (probably Russia, France et al) has for years been able to monitor from space and via sophisticated seismic equipment can tell any underground or air testing of nukes anywhere in the world. Yet we're lead to believe by this article that the US et sec doesn't have very convincing evidence either way. What? A piss ant country with what 6 million people (same population of Iraq) like Israel which is the US's biggest recipient of aid, particularly military aid, hold off US dominance? I know the US myopic supply of weapons has a history akin to like a water buffalo with a bad attitude, (all bull and no long term smarts) …. But really...they (US) don't know ?

The only alternative is that if Israel has nukes they haven't tested them tested above ground since the 70's or underground since the late 80's … That I find very hard to believe.

The implicit relevant point is that American's are generally so jingoistic they are more often than not wilfully ignorant/ disinterested in anything that doesn't pertain to the US or them personally. The horrific implications of the Israel/ USA V the “Arab” (sic) (Iran is Persian...not Arab) world conflict is more obvious to the rest of the world but not the average American....they believe they'll be safe,they're not ! 911 AGW the rise of China (they are the U.S.A.'s primary bankers and it's in the process of losing it's $ dominance).

The U.S. Public seem to believe that they invented resistance to larger powers and the concepts in their Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The reality is they didn't! One wonder what they think will stop the hegemonic nations from doing exactly what the U.S. founding father's did at the first available option. What makes them believe that watching their dead coming home from a U.S. initiated war of perceived interest (corporate interests most likely), a war they were pressured into, is going to endear them to the U.S.their trade practices don't help either. The U.S public believe they are safe from human nature...again they're not!   

Once one accepts this limitation 'America’s exceptionalism' all the other disasters/ limitations are emotionally justifiable. Keep in mind unless we guard against it the sales maxim holds true “ emotion decides and logic simply justifies”. If one assumes one is superior to others then “people who don't conform to my conflated criteria keeping them in their place (subservience) becomes logical.” e.g.  I got rich by hard work (sick) therefore anyone less than me is deficient in some way and needs punishing or my patronising." i.e. I got rich so the fact that they aren't means they're lazy so force them to work ' (like there's an endless chance of jobs).... 

Let's get real there isn't because corporations et al want it that way it forces down wages (less overheads) making more profit. And when the current host country's population demand more wages the corps will simply move to a cheaper employee market. 

 Even America's famous military market dominance is being challenged...Other countries are competing and the corporations are selling weapons to increasingly dubious purchasers .....e.g. the mercenaries/weapons dealers who have No allegiances except to the $ . I.e. the biggest private army in the world is training Somali jihardists etc.

  

As for his finish about 'if he was a child of the Jewish Holocaust' ...relevance? Justification for what he knows ? (i.e. HE READS PAPERS OUTSIDE THE U.S. PERHAPS)...the existence of Israel's nukes.]

The final point can be gleaned from analysing the author's most banal comment about ' because it is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done' what a cop out! Tell the truth sir it isn't done because the powers to be (the military manufacturing complex, Commercial and Jewish commercial interests with whom they deal, don't want it done. They have already punished a media outlet of broadcasting an Israel “unfriendly” story by cancelling ads. There is little doubt in my mind of the US government (regardless of side) is a captive of these interests.

Sadly the party system (either side) encourages this.

what's with personality fetish in lieu of substance

I've been recently taken to task by yet another poster on a site. At the root of his criticism was the fact that I objected to a comment that was clearly racist. i.e. it was in the context of Obama's acquiescence to the powers that be in USPolitics ...he called Him an Uncle Tom.

This is based on Harriet Beecher Stowes book of the same name. It referred to a subservient 'nigger' (slave) who is willing to sacrifice his life etc for the white 'massa'.

In this , the only, real context... it introduce colour as a pejorative.

I would argue that one wouldn't refer to Bush or any other Prez as white uncle toms. Thus the term is demeaningly used,and as such my criticism was/is valid.

This obviously stung the poster in such a way he continued the attack later. But this time as a tit for tat attack on me personally.

Now here is the conundrum, One of his criticisms was that I'm verbose in my responses and using the site as an ego therapy. The first is valid (from his perspective), the second isn't.

Clearly the reader has made the non existent link between making a racist comment and him being racist.

Hence his response.

My problem is that see the difference between the two i. e. I don't believe that one swallow = spring . Put another way if I hit my thumb with a hammer and let out with an expletive, that doesn't mean that I am a simple minded foul mouthed individual prone to bad language in public or in print.

By that reasoning I don't believe the commenter is a burning cross or closet racist bigot. Merely that the terminology is offensive to me and that I consider it unacceptable, not to mention that coloured people reading would find it so too.

It is one thing to attack an action or words but not the personality of the person doing /making them. Especially given that I'm reasonably sure Obama is personally unknown to both of us.

I would further argue that such terms or personal attacks are unproductive in getting a discussed compromise or working conclusion. It is psychological fact that repetition forms opinions. One only needs to watch the news on politics or ads to hear/see the 'staying on message' and the incessant repartition.

The problem is that not enough people draw the line between personality and function.

i.e. Obama's fate will largely depend on the public's impression of him personally, their personal disappointments ( they over expectations about what he can functionally do), rather than the impressive list of positive things he has done... This is further emphasised by Romney's campaign being largely ' that he is not Obama'. The truth is if Romney is successful he will be beholden to simply a 'different'

group of Plutocrats.

The media in fact the whole Capitalist edifice is based and bolstered by the vagaries of Personalities/emotions not substance.

i.e. Gem stones ...diamonds in particular aren't all that rare rather the high prices/value is artificially kept high by restricting their availability by the DeBeer's cartel the consequences of which are diabolical.( blood diamonds)

Perhaps my most trenchant disgust is how the media focuses on the sensational or personalities rather than the un adorned facts . i.e. An US Senator visiting Israel went 'skinny dipping' and that is a scandal? Why? Because the media has said so again and again and Again. People have had natural tendencies deftly hyper sensitised to whereby such trivial actions has bearing on public opinion on his ability to do his job.

When in truth it has absolutely none.

Essentially I'm rebelling over the over simplification , the personality V competence to lead a country which leads me to How do I communicate with others if all they want is over simplified, glorified, sanctimonious gossip and personalised attacks in lieu of reasoned in context analysis of topics perhaps to arrive at a solution?