Dissonant Thoughts about Banks and Drones

    Correct me if I am wrong but the largest under touched elephant in the room during this election cycle has been the global economy.

    The GOP used to be all in your face about this kind of thing but the complete collapse and reboot of the banks after 2008 has them singing at a higher octave. A significant chunk of their previous coalition dissociated themselves from the idea that the party has their best interest in mind. The Libertarians have been overrun by the Nativists. More is involved than banks but imagine the world where the coalition just marched on forever or longer than it did.

    The Democratic Party engineered that bank reboot and is deeply divided about whether it was necessary or not. There are also deep divisions regarding the capacity of government to step in with a New Deal kind of new deal or something else to shape the future market. This is an odd election cycle in that nobody from the GOP has put forward a more nuanced view than how much we should bomb the crap out of the "opposition", whoever they decide they are.The "moderates" were voted out of the conversation.

    So, It has fallen on the Democratic Party to discuss policy that was previously a part of the bipartisan game. The fight between Sanders and Clinton is much larger than previous inter-party divides.

    What I wonder about is how do we change our course as a nation. People have the power. There are politics well beyond politics.

    And there are drones. A means to kill people at a distance without or before judicial review. We are all connected. If we are a global society, who will start acting like that is true first?


    Moat, you kill me sometimes; hell most of the time.

    I shall always correct you when you are wrong. hahahahaha

    ​I read this three times (plus)!

    You give no links. hahahahaha

    But I hereby render unto Moat the Dayly Blog of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, given unto you from all of me.


    I cannot assimilate this, even after three reads.

    I wish I could write like this. Es[ecially when I am all pissed off. hahahahaha

    Well done!

    All I got is Revolver?


    Oh and I never liked the lead, Taxman.

    But the rest of album just awed me; kind of like this blog

    And I was a Dylan nut. ha



    Thank you, Richard.

    Speaking of the Tax man, ranting season is now open for the American version:



    Now we have the bombings in Brussels, in the very shadow of the EU., a tragic contrast between the successful for whom the global economy is essentially working, and the world of the poor and disaffected, as represented by the bombers and the neighborhoods which spawned them. I think we can look at the bombers as employing a form of direct and indiscriminate "drone". Their's are rogue, ours are sanctioned.

    There is a connection between banks and drones, but I don't think this election process is going to address it.

    These are spoiled European brats, not the poor and disaffected. It's ideology/shit self-serving philosophy, not seeking sustenance. Salah Abdeslam was born in Belgium, a gay hooker and ran a dope bar, along with various robberies. Not sure Europe has to shift to accomodate him or discuss Clash Of Civilizations.

    o.k., then, stand corrected.

    I needed a laugh and I do not know whether to thank you or Peracles.


    An ideology 'spawned them'. It's an ideology that totally destroyed the beautiful Shia Awis al-Qarni mosque in Raqqa, Syria (below). Those that did it were not natives of Brussels neighborhoods. That ideology also sanctions a theology of rape of Yadzi sex slaves.  And execution of Shia, Christians and others.

    If you believe drone attacks on the leaders and purveyors of this ideology are like airport bombings, I would disagree.

    No, they are not equivalent. Thanks.

    Most big wars begin with  the sort of massive support that exists for droning Isis targetsl Which right now includes me. But....

    The question behind the question is not whether it's correct to drone Isisland. It's whether it's correct for Obama to do that without endorsement from Congress. 


    Are you serious?  Congress won't "endorse" one single thing that the President puts forth, or haven't you noticed?  Despite the fact that they disparage him for not saying that we are at war with "Islamic Extremism" they won't support his request to go after ISIS.  They tried desperately to "tear him a new one" for not rushing back from Cuba (where they are scandalized that he went in the first place).  Like he could do more on Air Force One or in DC than he could do in Cuba about Belgium?!?!?!  (I think he has a pretty good communications system, no?)

    So, seriously, your question seems a little petty and unrealistic.

    I take your point that Congress is supposed to be involved with authorizing acts of war. Drone attacks certainly fall under that category. In terms of our global society, I was thinking more about the practice in the context of the international order of States.

    Hannah Arendt spoke clearly about the problem of stateless people in a system where they have no status by definition. Ben Reynolds cast doubts that international laws can overcome the problems the system creates:

    The fundamental solution to the problem of refugees cannot be found within the current confines of the international legal order. The basic components of statehood – including the right to grant and deny citizenship – are responsible for the existence of stateless persons.

    The practice of drone warfare circumvents the restraints of state sovereignty. No matter how "legitimate" it is made out to be by international agreements or resolutions in our system, the method creates more stateless people. The demonstration of power from outside shows of how little local authority the State built from within borders really has. To save the village, we had to destroy it.

    The above is not a demand that this or that policy be pursued. It is a reminder that the tactic has a hefty price tag when it is generally regarded as an item on the take-it-or-leave-it table. Global citizens should pay for what they buy.

    Latest Comments