Culture of Corruption

A nation built with African slaves inaugurates an African-American President.

A nation driven by culture wars born out of the Vietnam era moves into hope for more pragmatic, if still partisan, politics.

A nation fallen into the darkness of torture, of "collateral damage" of hundreds of thousands of lives, of ends justifying any means returns to an age of striving for the highest of American ideals.

A nation seduced by the fantasies popularized by Ronald Reagan, that markets are God, that government is evil, that global warming is a myth, that liberalism is out to destroy America, a nation almost paralyzed with the shock of the revealed lie of those fantasies -- a long nightmare, really -- returns to a reality-based vision of the world.

A nation coming off of one of the more ugly racist federal elections puts a black man into office.

Barack Obama is a pragmatic progressive whose intellect brings us hope that his leadership can guide the cumbersome bureaucracy and conflicting interests and influences into actions that make sense, based on reason.

It was truly audacious two years ago to believe this could happen. It took a lot of hope and the hard work of millions, and the faith of many more. But here it has happened.

Barack Obama is about to become President.

How unlikely.

How amazing.

The world is astonished. Today America returns to the light.

In case you missed it, here is tonight's 60 Minutes report on the financial crisis, and how we got here.

No doubt this is not the whole story, but it's enough: $60 trillion enough!

Warning: You may find this frightening or depressing.

Think of this when you hear John McCain and the Republicans try to blame too much regulation for the current mess we're in.

In a classic case of missing the point to strike a righteous pose, this:

Twice in two days now, I’ve come across news articles using the term “Big Brother” to refer to private sector information practices that affect privacy. Big Brother is not an appropriate shorthand here. In his book 1984, George Orwell gave the name “Big Brother” to the oppressive government that observed and controlled the lives of the book’s protagonists. The unique oppressive powers of this governmental entity were a central motif of the book.

Jim Harper, of the Technology Liberation Front, a pseudo-libertarian tech blog opposing Net Neutrality, points out that George Orwell's dystopic 1984 was about Communism, and therefore using the Big Brother phrase in the context of corporate invasions of privacy is inappropriate, thus rendering specious, apparently, such perspectives.

This misses the point, though, doesn't it? After all, what was the primary difference between the totalitarian control of Communism in the Soviet Union and the totalitarian control of Fascism in Nazi Germany? In the latter, corporations collaborated and cooperated with the government in exercising power over the people.

Perhaps it might be safe to assume that Mr. Harper would not appreciate life under Fascism, either, where claiming it was "Big Brother" would be technically incorrect, but pretty much describe otherwise the same result for the citizens.

The important distinction, I submit, is not between Communism and Fascism, but between authoritarian and totalitarian trends and values vs. privacy and choice and liberty and even the pursuit of happiness by the people.

Ironic how people proclaiming "liberation" keep excusing and rationalizing and apologizing for anti-competitive, government-protected corporate power.

Next we're going to hear how wonderful it would be to have government-financed but purely non-government corporate mercenary forces like Blackwater ruling the streets of America. After all, it wouldn't be "Big Brother," would it?

TPM.

How about some "straight talk" about this? I'd like to know what John McCain is about here.