In assessing global and national events, while it is true one must observe not only one’s inherent limitations of perspective, one must also respect the fact that others’ approaches to them may have underlying truths, or, simply, other plans that, in some instances, might, in fact, far outstrip our own limited vision/versions of them.

This, indeed, may—or may not be—the case with President Obama. He may prove, farther down the road, to have been far superior in his long-range judgment and actions than I am now prepared to give him credit for.

...

For the moment, let me examine an issue, which, for me, is clear cut, drawn in the sand and blood and across the cosmos, as it were. This is the issue of Mountain Top Removal (for the low-hanging fruit of the coal below). For many, including myself, from its very beginning it has been a desecration, akin to a man-made “natural” disaster, such as the shores retreating before rising water of a melting icepack, and all that would mean for human, etc., habitation. As I said, and, again, many, many others concur, this “problem” could be summarily stopped by a single signature from Obama. But there is nothing to indicate this is forthcoming.

And following the thesis of this essay, follows the question: Does he, in fact, have a truly “good” reason for doing nothing in West Virginia? I’m fully aware of its pressing local economic woes (if it is, in fact, being well-served economically by the mining versus tourism to the region’s natural splendor). But, really, since this issue goes to the very heart of the state of this nation’s heart lands, wouldn’t it be money well-printed to simply underwrite their economy, particularly as there was barely a squeak from Rockefeller or Byrd, or any of the politicians against the two trillion, approximately, (it may be more), already advanced to the Wall Street humanists? This against a planetary crime offensive even to God, whether or not there is one.

Is Obama’s absence here, then, because of some far-reaching vision whose worth, if such could ever be imagined, is still somehow superior to this permanent disfigurement of our lovely countryside—at any rate, topographically? How could it be so? Or is this merely cowardice and expeditious political economic calculation?

And what, if it wasn’t so obvious, is his “other” calculation behind his refusal to ask, no, demand, the Israelis vacate their settlements in the West Bank and that they stop treating, gestapo-style, Gaza as the world’s largest concentration camp, and to seriously begin negotiating a Palestinian state, thereby gaining, by returning to the ’67 borders, their own legitimacy among their Arab neighbors? What hath we wrought out of what truly began in this country as our compassionate pity for the Jews’ plight in Europe, where, at one time or another (even twice in England) they had been so cruelly kicked out of those countries, culminating in the Nazis and the Holocaust, which, incidentally, has been allowed over the years to have become so sacrosanct (regards the six million alleged to have been exterminated) that any historian, or otherwise, who dares even take issue with that inviolate number is, at best, ostracized as Anti-Semitic. (Was I the only one who recently heard the official number, released by the government in Berlin to the Holocaust museum in NY, was somewhat more than six-hundred thousand Jews living in pre-War Germany?) And I would respectively submit that perhaps the worst treatment of the Jews during the war was at the hand of Stalin.

But I would not argue the point at this late date, only to add the current shame of the frightening emulation of the Nazis in the present day on the part of the Israelis towards the Palestinian survivors.

Obama remains silent on the subject mostly, led, of course, by our pathetic congress all in their pews sitting on their hands with their well-fed arses.
No new news there, boys.

I guess it’s only because Evo Morales is an Indigenous he has so much hair on his. Speaking of which, whatever in the world happened to all those Americans who had so much hair on theirs? Sing it, Kansas,
“Dust in the Wind.”

I once pointlessly hinted Obama had a disguised Utopian plan. Unless he begins very soon (on a wide-front), I regret ever having held out any hope he represented something new and progressive in American politics. Ralph Nader’s canned, corporate duopoly appears to be again hard at work lying, cheating, and stealing from you and me and the national treasury, while always covering its hairlessness.

P.S. And, once again, even the fool asks, precisely what are we doing
in Afghanistan?