How Quickly We Change

You guys amaze me! In what retro-hippy universe do you guys reside? Stop singing and clapping and just think for a moment. Ask yourself : why was Obama given the privilege to give the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention – when he was an unknown first term state legislator? Why on earth would the “establishment” create, front and fund a candidate that wants to “change” the establishment? Did you ever ask yourself who was bank-rolling Obama and why. I simply cannot imagine that the establishment wants to change itself! While we are at it, let’s have a little reality check: Obama [who himself earned $4.2 million last year] raised more campaign funds - a whooping $780 million – which is more than any other candidate in American political history. In fact, it is more than all candidates of both parties raised in 2004. Also, the Democratic Convention spent $100 million [paid for mostly by corporate sponsors] to anoint the most blessed, holy and chosen “community organizer” Obama. If someone genuinely cared about the people, imagine what could have been done with that money. How many scholarships could have been awarded, how many soup kitchens and food pantries could have been stocked, and how many boots and jackets could have been provided to poor children this school year? So, do you suppose that all this money came from the grateful poor and downtrodden that our great “community organizer” claimed to have helped? I doubt it! Who is giving this well-tailored empty suit so much money, and why are they giving so much? What do his donors expect in return? No one in their right mind gives away so much, expecting nothing in return. Any progressives who believe that Obama is out to help the poor are deluding themselves. I am glad that you are beginning to see the light. Oh, and by the way, are U.S. troops out of Iraq ? Has Guantanamo been closed? Has Federal spending been reduced? Has the “Defense of Marriage Act” been repealed? Just asking... John Galt

Gosh yeah I sure do think about all that. Appreciate your anger on all fronts and would guess from this that don't know very much about us. Dig  a little deeper.

It is worth examining the POSITION of president as much as the president himself-- how much can an American president actually change? And if we all know the answer is "not very much" then lets figure out why  so many people put so much of their energy into it.

I have never put any sizeable hopes or faith in the presidency. Ever. However I do think Obama is far less dangerous to the world than Bush/Cheney, and if you are trying to say they are exactly the same and nothing whatsoever has changed than you should probably spend a little more time in the sunlight.

However I'm guessing from your sign off that your just another cynical Ayn Rand freak-- I read all those books before I was 15 and thought they were vacuous middle brow  %$#@^#%$  then. John Galt?  Devil get thee behind me! Here is some typical soul killing Ayn Rand  #^%#@&^% drivel:

Oh god I am with you- Ayn Rand was a lunatic. Her circular logic was so transparent- I have to wonder how anyone could swallow her BS. However, when I was younger, I made a point to study her 'philosophy' as an exercize in discipline. Here are excerpts from James T. Baker's "Ayn Rand":

"Rand and Branden had by 1968 collected an intimidating host of true believers. Jerome Tuccille, one disenchanted member of the clan, later recalled that they were all jutjawed, humorless, competetive types who tended to ape Rand by wearing capes and dollar sign pins and smoking cigarettes (nonsmoking was 'anti-life') from silver holders. They were all expected to agree with every word Rand or Branden said; and they were all required to follow the Atlas creed, which they recited at initiation: 'I swear-by my life and my love of it-that I will never live for another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.'"

"Tuccille dropped out of the movement in the late 1950s, as he found Rand's behaviour growing even more bizarre; as one member was read out of fellowship because his wife could not bring herself to be an athiest; as another was denounced as 'anti-life' because he did not take up cigarettes; and finally as Rand became so entranced by a cha-cha dance instructor that she required her followers all to learn Latin rhythms, the 'most rational' of music, the kind most compatible with Objectivism."

Another example of her bizzare form of logic can be found in her "An Open Letter to Boris Spassky", which can be found here: afterdark-afterdark.blogspot.com/2008/01/capitalism-vs-communism.html

Anyway, the real issue here is not some long dead pseudo-philosopher. I have had many of the same reservations about Obama that 'Galt' has pointed out. I never believed Obama would be the agent of change that many seemed to hope he would be. After the Bush years, I think people would have voted a crippled horse into office rather than deal with 4 more years of Neo-Con lunacy. Obama became a symbol, and some people pinned unrealistic expectations on him. Bottom line: he's a Democrat, and therefore part of the two party system that is bringing this country to its knees. Personally, I like his personality and style, and was a little tempted to vote for him, but thank god I didn't. Inroads into the the Tongass Wilderness? This makes me ill.

No anger here, I’m simply calling it as I see it. And really, who has ever gotten into a fist fight over Ayn Rand and with a Blackfeet companion no less? I wonder how many bar brawls are caused every year in this country by people spewing out their opinions concerning Objectivism? As for Obama, I wouldn’t say that he is the same as Bush and Cheney in spite of the fact that Obama has continued nearly all of the Bush/Cheney policies that he claimed to oppose – in spite of the fact that he voted for some of them when he was a Senator! After all, we still have the “Patriot Act”, warrantless wiretaps, extreme renditions, the “Military Commissions” Act, Gitmo, etc. It appears that Obama doesn’t want to give up all of the power that Bush/Cheney grabbed! However, in many ways Obama is far worse than Bush. Most people knew that Bush was a dunce but what is it about Obama that makes people believe that he is so brilliant and impressive? Imagine if Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," or if Bush referred to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, or made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would anyone have brushed it off as a minor slip? Suppose that Bush had mis-spelled the word “advice” , as Obama did, he would have been hammered for years - just ask Dan Quayle. Imagine if George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, as Obama did, would you have concluded that he’s a hypocrite? Keep in mind that Obama is the first President to need a teleprompter installed in the press room to be able to get through a press conference. Imagine if George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would anyone have approved? Obama has proposed to double the national debt, a debt which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year! Is this a good thing? Why do people put so much effort into becoming President? My guess is power and, in Obama’s case, narcissism. Keep in mind that Obama gave the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches – which was embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky. I pretty much get what you guys are all about, especially in light of your reference to Ayn Rand’s “Pyramid of Ability” as “drivel”. I guess that comes from being at the bottom of the pyramid – living off of the “fat of the land” while producing nothing that is of any real value – except for a form of street comedy that appeals to the adolescent mind – insulting the system which produces enough economic surplus on which you survive. While your “Church” attempts to make mockery of sincere Christians, it is nothing more than an exaggerated version of the Church that you wish to mock – complete with extreme self-righteousness, fanaticism, hypocrisy, and an uncontrollable desire to tell others how they should live and what they should think. After all, for a group that opposes materialism and consumption, you guys sure have a lot to sell! It must be nice to be able to afford trips to Europe ! As with organized religion, you have made a fetish out of what you consider “sinful”, and then obsess over it. I am amazed with the people who follow you - their lives must be very meaningless and boring. I simply don’t understand why people would devote so much time and effort to belong to a faux Church while performing for someone else’s fame and profit. Why not join a real Church, especially one that feeds the hungry, clothes the needy, and comforts the sick? Wouldn’t that be more productive than being happy-clappy protestor outside of a Starbucks? Your “Church’s” choice of “demons” is also very interesting. Of all of the evil corporations on this planet, you guys go for Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and Victoria ’s Secret! Really now! These companies are far from perfect, but they are not smelting lead, or making nuclear weapons, or running death squads in the Niger Delta. Please allow me to submit my analysis of this observation. Your “Church” is driven by two of the strongest liberal instincts: the need to feel superior to those they deem “less-enlightened”, and the need to promote “awareness” of a problem rather than working to solve the problem. It really boils down to a “status game”. Your choices of the targets, at which you aim your scorn, are merely “props”. White liberals especially love to use minorities as “props” , such as your Blackfeet Ayn Rand brawl buddy, to demonstrate the degree that they are so superior and enlightened compared to other whites. Some of my best friends are Blackfeet! Wal-Mart is an easy target. You don’t run Wal-Mart or own its stock, so you can feel superior to those blood-sucking corporative exploiters who do. You don’t work at Wal-Mart so you are superior to those low skilled folks with their dead-end jobs. You don’t shop at Wal-Mart, so you can feel superior to those low-income hillbillys who shop there. What would you do if Wal-Mart vanished? Go after Target, K-Mart, or Key Foods? But let’s be honest for a moment. Who hates Wal-Mart the most? Labor Unions! Unions would love to make Wal-Mart a union store – regardless of the opposition from Wal-Mart workers and customers. Why do the Unions want Wal-Mart workers? Unions are also a business; more members bring in more money in the form of dues allowing union bosses to live the high life – helping the “working class” without being a member of it. The same holds for Starbucks. It must be fun to walk around New York and somehow feel superior to someone who is probably better educated and earns way more than you or I and can pay nearly $5 for a cup of coffee. Your “Church” also uses “mom and pop” stores and the decline of “main street” as a “prop”. In most of the U.S. , outside of New York City , “main street” died decades ago, long before Wal-Mart arrived on the scene. Department Stores, 5 and 10s, strip shopping centers, and malls displaced most “mom and pop” stores long ago, just as “big box” stores are currently taking business from malls. It is all about choice, if people did not wish to shop at malls, they could have continued to shop at the down-town department store. The second instinct is even more interesting. Instead of putting on street theater to raise “awareness”, why not think outside of the box and provide an alternative. Why not do what Sam Walton did when he started Wal-Mart? He saw a better way to do business and he brought it into fruition. Wal-Mart it not a charity, but it is probably the must successful anti-poverty program in history, saving the average American family $2000 a year, creating jobs and opportunities in rural towns and in the inner city, and creating jobs for the poor in the developing world. Why don’t you and your ”Church” come up with something better? John Galt

I can't take the time to get into your crazy Mr, Galt, and don't really want to, your a deeply cynical person and you already know what you think about everything.

Sea Q was right to point us back at the question of Obama and the question at hand, roads in the Tongass wilderness.

I do want everyone to know Harmon was a good freind, not a prop and I mentioned him because he was there, and involved in the conversation.

But mainly I can't understand why you come to this site so much, I think I know who you are and your barking up the wrong tree.  It didn't work last time either. Ciao! John Galt or whoever....

Rands philosophy is a failure because it attempts to radically rewrite the social contract. Like Marx, her vision of society ignores human nature and attempts to replace it with an abstract ideal.
Human beings are both cooperative and competitive, more akin to wolves than to ants or spiders. To deny the inevitability of compassion indicates Rands rejection of the "reality" she claims to hold so dear. "A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others" is unrealistic; many people are not 'creative' in this sense, and are in fact motivated by vanity, etc. Therefore, Rands imagined society would quickly devolve into a situation where the social contract crumbles, and people are reduced to predator/prey relationships. She expects a generation of Nietzschean supermen  to rise up out of nowhere as soon as they are freed from having to deal with the rest of pathetic humanity. Perhaps this is why she was so fond of capes. 
"Every aspect of Western culture needs a new code of ethics - a rational ethics - as a precondition of rebirth". Is this realistic, or is it the same type of idealism that she constantly damns people for? In any case, I would hardly call it an 'objective' point of view - she really should have named her pseudo-philosophy "Subjectivism", but I guess that was already taken.
Rand is also the West’s laughable answer to the rich philosophical tradition developed in Russia during the19th/ 20th centuries. The way she was paraded around West Point, TV, etc. is suggestive of the same type of petty bullshit that both the Soviets and Americans engaged in during this period. Her subtle and not-so-subtle theatrics, as well as the support she garnered from the powers that be, earned her a cultish following, and she became a pop culture darling (remind you of anyone?). She gave people an ethical foundation for selfish behavior, and naturally they embraced it. As far as I'm concerned, Rand, as a thinker, is no better than a dancing bear (and yes, that is a poke at her heritage).
Now, on to your behavior. Do you see how I made my argument without attacking your character, "John"? Are you here to transform the way people think, or simply to piss people off? Are you just venting your own frustrations? I, for one, am simply going to cease engaging you until I see that you’re willing to participate in a mature, productive exchange of ideas.

"The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the ‘competition’ between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of ‘exploitation’ for which you have damned the strong.”

I can think of at least one benefit the 'man at the top" gets in exchange for contributing to society: a stable environment. He doesnt have to worry about waves of looters or food rioters destroying his life because, contrary to what Rand believes, people don't just "starve in (their) hopeless ineptitude" for very long; they tend to react violently if deprived of the necessities of life. In this (and in many other areas), Rand disregards the lessons history has taught us about the over consolidation of power -  which is exactly what her principles lead to when applied in the real world.

Sorry to get so off topic (we should be discussing the important issues), but Ayn Rand and her bullshit are push buttons for me.

Here's what I think.

Barack Obama lied. Yes, this makes him a hypocrite. If Barack Obama was your good friend who you go grab a beer with and he's your friend and everything and he was doing things he said he wouldn't do, you would be mad at him. But you can't judge Barack Obama the same way you would judge a person. He's a politician. It's his job. He supported environmentalism so he could get enough votes to make a difference for another cause. It sure might feel like a betrayal and it is one but of all the things you could backstab someone for, attempting to make a difference in health care or the war in Iraq isn't the worst.

"but of all the things you could backstab someone for, attempting to make a difference in health care or the war in Iraq isn't the worst."

true establishmentarianism in its total lack of consideration is no match even for most cracked out econo-libertarian diatribe.