Of Tea Parties and Teleprompters
Is it possible that the regressive right has, given its electoral unraveling of late, decided to swap the whole politics thing for vaudeville?
‘Cause if it hasn't, I'm really having a hell of a hard time explaining what's going on with these guys.
I mean, I've seen circus acts that were less hilarious. So I'm assuming that the right has simply decided to become a sort of public service provider in this most depressing at times. Presumably, they got together and concluded that if they couldn't win elections, at least they could make themselves useful by treating the public to a hearty laugh. Or six.
What else can you make of last week's tea party hysteria, for example? I suppose you could find a less spontaneous, less authentic expression of public sentiment if you looked really hard - perhaps by going to the latest Hannah Montana movie, for example - but I don't think it would be very easy. Fox (Hardly Any) News literally ran about a hundred segments on the tea parties in advance of the magical date, a promotional tsunami masquerading as news reporting that would've made any Soviet minister of propaganda blush.
I suppose you could also find political elements more incoherent and less grounded in reality if you tried really hard - perhaps by attending services at some new age mega-church, for example - but that would also be pretty difficult. If the low rent, low IQ, low on laundry detergent (non) masses attending these events looked familiar, it was because we saw them on the campaign trail last year, angrily spouting utter fabrications and fulminating their vaguely anti-government screeds at Sarah Palin rallies. What they lack in quality dental care or concern about the health effects of obesity, they fully make up for in sheer gullibility and lumpen selfishness masquerading as vulgar capitalism.
My favorite bit from the coverage of the tea parties was the inadvertent reality intrusion episode, where some smart-ass got up at one of the rallies, got the crowd all excited about taxes and deficits, and then asked them to applaud Barack Obama for cutting their taxes. That little bit of cognitive dissonance produced a long, pregnant, troubled pause, and you could almost hear the rusty gears in their brains jamming into one another, screeching like a subway train, and ultimately shattering from sheer lack of prior use, as the attendees decided to stick with their advance programming after all, booing the mention of the shifty Negro in the White House despite the fact that he is cutting their taxes, just like they claim to want him to.
On the other hand, perhaps the most amazing sight of all was the Republican governor of Texas, successor to George W. Bush, and would-be successor again in Washington, not so vaguely hinting at the possibility that Texas might secede from the union, and falsely claiming that the state had a special legal right to do so. Golly, I thought we had settled that matter a century and a half ago, but then I'm one of those odd people who always thought Lincoln got it wrong. He should have let the backward, racist, theist, regressive South go its own way.
Of course, only if deceit happens to be a moral problem need one worry about the hypocrisy of all these red states bitching about taxes and the oppressive federal government while simultaneously receiving far more dollars from Washington than they kick in. But if they do check out, I only hope that Obama doesn't make the same mistake Lincoln did. Imagine the last several decades without names like Bush, DeLay, Gingrich, McConnell, Armey, Lott and other fine specimens of Southern hospitality running the country into the ground. Let them have their little experiment in trying to form a more perfect union within their breakaway Confederacy. Maybe they'll put Bobby Jindal in charge. You want to have a good laugh? Come back a generation later and see what it looks like. My guess is something like a crystal meth theme park, with nice colored folk to clean up after the revival meetings. "LeeLand", perhaps?
You know who else showed up at tea parties, besides Rick Perry, the sesesh governor of Texas? That's right! Joe the Plumber! And, just to make sure that no political sophistication of any sort whatsoever inadvertently crept into the crowd, Ted Nugent came as well. With head-liners like this, it's hard to figure how these guys aren't winning elections, eh? On the other hand, I can name at least one guy more clownish and more scary who was president of the United States and leader of the Free World for eight years running. And just recently too. Ironically, the explanation for the odd fact that the exact same stuff that seemed so great to Americans in 2002 seemed so awful in 2008 was of course George W. Bush himself. Yep, politics is truly weird sometimes, but it's on the right were the weird absolutely turn professional.
All of this is emblematic, of course, of a political movement in utter free fall, and completely lacking any sense whatsoever of what to do about it. This week it was tea parties. Before that, he was Obama bowing to the Saudi king. Before that, it was the president giving the Queen of England an iPod. Or was it the fact that he uses Teleprompters when he speaks? Or was it the connection to Rod Blagojevich that was sure to be exposed any minute now?
Seriously, though. Where's the outrage? Is there a surer mark of the end of Western civilization than that the American public is indifferent about the fact that its president - like every modern president - uses a Teleprompter when he gives speeches? Remember the burning anger on the right, when Ronald Reagan would use his ubiquitous 3 x 5 note cards at every meeting or event, even for small talk about the weather, and sometimes absentmindedly using the wrong set of cards for the wrong gathering of people? Talk about your Armageddon! It's weird, though. I guess I need to lay off the drugs for a while, because I don't remember any conservative umbrage about any of that. You'd almost think they were being ridiculously hypocritical in attacking Obama for using a Teleprompter, given what Reagan did...
And how about that business with the Saudi king? Doesn't that represent Obama selling out America? Or apologizing for something United States did? He probably didn't even have a flag pin in his lapel when he bowed to the king. He probably didn't even thank Jesus for his falafel, before breaking bread with the monarch. Not George Bush, though. He would never do that. His family would never have close relations with the House of Saud, that's for sure. He would never be photographed, say, holding hands with the old man, ‘cause that would disrespectful to America. And kinda gay, too. And, for sure, Bush would never inform Prince Bandar, lifetime buddy and Saudi ambassador to the US at the time, that the United States was invading Iraq, before he informed his own Secretary of State. And you know why? Because the right wing in America would be outraged if that ever happened. You can take that one to the bank.
Except, of course, that we don't really have much in the way of banks anymore, after the right wing's deregulatory religion got through with them. Which I guess explains why all those things did happen, and the same people who are now foaming at the mouth over Obama's simple gesture of courtesy were completely silent during the Bush years.
These antics only prove how deeply sunk into it regressivism now is. I assure you, if the right had a better way to attack Democrats and the Obama administration then this pathetic garbage, you'd be seeing it. These guys aren't exactly famous for playing to lose. What we're seeing, instead, is a political movement that is utterly bankrupt, literally and figuratively, and is desperately searching for any sort of remotely plausible line of attack, but only managing to make itself look absurd in the process, at least outside of Appalachia.
Today's conservatives remind me of nothing so much as an elderly lab chicken, used in countless undergrad psychology experiments, but now abandoned in its dotage. Over and over again, it keeps pecking the red bar, even though the last time a food pellet actually appeared was in 2004. Peck! Let's play the race card! Peck! Let's play the taxes card! Peck! Let's play the deficits card! Peck! Let's play the gay card! Peck! Let's play the foreign bogeyman card! Peck! Peck! Peck!
Shit! No food pellets! The red bar is in tatters, the chicken's beak is worn down to a nub, but still it pecks, and still no food pellets.
The frustration and anger you see among regressive politicians and their cheerleaders comes from fifty years of operant conditioning all of a sudden gone massively awry. It's like they fell into some parallel universe or something. Every step forward leaves them two steps backward. Up is down, down is up. White is black, and black is now president. What the hell is going on?
Poor regressives. For half a century they got an entire country full of people to suspend disbelief, and nod their heads in all the right places whenever they were poked with the appropriate stimulus. For half a century, they continued to win elections by fooling people into voting against their own interests. For half a century, they could turn lead into gold. But the alchemy no longer works. Suddenly, precipitously, none of the responses appear anymore when all the old stimuli are trotted out. And it all disappeared so fast. In 2003 they could sell any kind of bullshit imaginable. Three years later, they were handing over control of both houses of Congress to the evil, socialist Democrats.
The great news is that, as bad as it now is, these are still the golden days of the regressive movement. It's gonna get a lot worse from here. As they continue their antics, they only look more and more foolish, while President Obama looks more and more statesmanlike, less and less like his predecessor, and better and better in the polls.
The logical move for the Republican Party would be to abandon the insanity of the last three decades and returned to the days of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller, when people like Ronald Reagan were rightly (very rightly) considered to be the lunatic fringe. But this is impossible today. Indeed, the GOP will be lucky if it is able to even stay where it is ideologically, as opposed to being pulled even further to the hysterical right.
Arlen Specter will provide the archetypical case for the Republican conundrum as he runs for reelection to his Pennsylvania US Senate seat this year and next. As an established, long-standing moderate figure from a swing state, normally someone like Specter should have no problem as an incumbent retaining his seat. In fact, the opposite is now the case. Specter is being challenged from his right in the primary election, and there is no indication that the Republican establishment will come to his aid, while every indication suggests that he's in deep trouble. One recent poll had him fourteen points down among Republican voters behind his primary challenger. Specter will have to tack to the hard right to have a prayer of obtaining the nomination. But even if that make-over can possibly succeed, he will then be stuck in the general election trying to defend the monster he became during the primary in order to placate his party's voters, in a state that is trending the other direction.
Watch and see if the few remaining moderate Republicans don't learn from this experience, and abandon the party. This will leave the GOP in excellent position to succeed everywhere that Jefferson Davis remains a hero, and pretty much nowhere else. Even the governor of Utah, arguably the reddest of red states, has come out in support of gay marriage.
If Republicans want to form themselves into a permanent minority at the national level, I suppose that's just fine with me. But even that isn't terribly sustainable. Situations like these tend toward becoming self-reinforcing cycles, in this case far more virtuous than vicious. Over time, a party that cannot compete at the national level will not attract voters or candidates even within its stronghold. And a party that cannot bring home the bacon because it has been relegated to a permanent minority status in Congress will also drive away voters. A party that is unable to change its stripes because of the viciousness and narrow-mindedness of its base is also a party unable to change its electoral fortunes.
When you see the supporters of the GOP saying, as they often do, that they would rather stick to principle than win elections, they're not kidding. And when you see them describe the likes of George W. Bush as insufficiently conservative, they're not kidding either.
Rather, they're on a suicide mission.
All I can say is: "Hey, works for me!"
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
132 Comments so far
Show AllAs a video blogger, I took the time to capture this "Tea Party"event,in Elizabethtown, Kentucky, not because I believe in what the event stood for, but because I felt it was necessary to show the Kentucky Democratic Party what's going on in the rural areas of the state and sometimes video and photos speak louder than words.
The Republican Party is gearing up for the 2010 election and we had better be ready for the fight of our lives, because these folks are serious. The video will show just how mixed up these folks are.
The link to the video and photos is below:
http://hillbillyreport.org/diary/38/kentucky-tea-party-james-pence-video-and-photos
A fight for control between the two parties is no fight at all...Who really cares which one wins?
Pathetic, thieving lemmings! I read these pathetic posts and lament for our society.
Not that it will matter, but here's a few point to ponder...
Government does not create wealth, it just takes it's cut and doles out the small portion that's left.
Government does not create freedom, it limits it.
People caused the global economic crisis, not banks and corporations. No one forced anyone to live beyond their means!
People caused the environmental issues we are experiencing through their consumptive lifestyle. Corporations would not exist if there wasn't profitability in what they do.
If people are the cause of these issues, allow people to be the solution!
And how many of you, if you can even afford it, have Solar Water, Photo Voltaic, Water Catchment, Grey Water, use a bicycle on a regular basis for short trips, a hybrid for longer ones? Shop at farmers markets instead of the big box stores, freecycle instead of recycle.? I do, and I did it with my initiative and my money. For 6 years I've practiced every one of those points with the exception of our PV system, which was installed 6 months ago. I would have done it years ago, if I had been able to keep more of what I earn. I know many others who feel the same.
How many of you still buy China and other foreign products? Shop at walmart? Starbucks with their 10% post consumer recycled cups and plastic covers?
And by the way,
Taxing the corporations will just encourage more of them to move off shore, further depleting our tax base.
Taxing the wealthy (who already bear 90% of the share of individual tax revenue) will only cause them to move their dollars off shore.
Taxing the two above will just result in less job opportunities for the rest of us and higher costs as well, what, you don't think the rich guy squeezed is going to hire people to do his renovations/parties/etc? You think companies are just going to suck it up and not raise their prices?
HIgher costs, mean fewer choices and, more black and grey market activities.
So good luck to you, may your wishes not come true for the rest of our sakes!
"If people are the cause of these issues, allow people to be the solution!"
But, corporations now have personhood status...so corporations are the cause of these issues!
Easy, huh?
The wealthy bear 90% of tax revenue?
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i15taxnumbers.htm
bamboozler A L E R T
Thanks for the warning.
I've read somewhere yesterday that more than two million people in the USA are PAID by corporations, PACs, and interest groups for blogging and commenting on forums. Someone desperate pays this illiterate maggot.
Nanoo
Perhaps this piece should have targeted the media. After all, it's what they choose to cover and how. By God, the presenters all have dental care and clean expensive clothes. I'm just wondering when they're going to get around to serious issues and debate.
The vast majority of voters of both parties and including those of neither, did not support the bailout of billions for the banks before the election. The bi-partisan, Obama and McCain lent there support for the big bailouts in clear view of the voters. What a set up. Really disappointed more people didn't stick to their principles and vote 3rd party.
Tea baggers, tea parties, vomitoriums on every block!!!
As Sean Penn said the other day; Why is ANYONE still listening to Dick Cheney?
Rush Limbaugh has a private jet.
Who gives a flying fuck about tea parties or their stupid, moronic participants?
Anyone who cares about progress needs to find their own/stay on/reclaim the focus. Screw these idiots who apparently have the ability to steal everyone's attention. Jeez.
Tea parties, please.
As a good friend of mine once replied to someone who said, "Can you believe it, Elvis is dead?", he said, "I can't believe you're telling me".
"low rent, low IQ, low on laundry detergent (non) masses"
WHAT? Sorry Mr Green, those "low rent" masses should be joining unions and anti-eviction committees. They should be voting to the LEFT of Obama. It can happen, and has in the past. But guess what. You're not going to make it happen by insulting them.
Without the support of the low rent crowd we are not going to get 60 Senate votes for the Employee Free Choice Act, for taxing the rich, for massive public works jobs or for single payer health care. And don't think that the Gingrichites are gone forever. If the Obama recovery plan doesn't work, it will because the low renters are not organized to counteract the bankers. If and when Obamanomics doesn't work, it will be 1994 all over again, not despite, but BECAUSE we call our enemies knuckle draggers.
So please. Instead of talking ABOUT the "low on detergent" crowd, take a deep breath and try to learn how to talk TO them. We need each other.
Thank you
Laurence of Berkeley
Deluded Ramblings of a Maniac...
Found on :nc911truth.blogspot.com/2006/07
Friday, July 28, 2006
Mass Hypnosis on 9/11: Waking up from the Trance
************************************************************
The moment of rapid induction of mass hypnosis.
“Truth has to appear only once, in one single mind, for it to be impossible for anything ever to prevent it from spreading universally and setting everything ablaze.”
- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Priest and scientist)
*****
“Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of.
“In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind.”
- Edward L. Bernays (The father of spin)
*****
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
- Herman Göring (Nazi leader at Nuremberg Trials)
*****
“Teilhard de Chardin, Bernays and Göring clearly have much different takes on truth and the way it is manipulated for political purposes. If the truth about 9/11 has been staring us in the face for five years, why have we had such a hard time seeing it, and why is it not already spreading universally and setting everything ablaze? The most plausible explanation for the incredible level of national denial even among otherwise well-informed, left-wing liberals, is that we have all been subject to a mass hypnotic trance induced by the carefully-scripted events on 9/11.
“Even with my background in medical hypnosis, it took me more than 3 years to wake up to the flaws in the official story, which in retrospect, are rather obvious. If you have ever been to a stage hypnosis show, you may be aware of the usual requirements for an effective rapid trance induction.
"The hypnotist picks the most willingly hypnotizable volunteers who put up their hands first, has them focus their concentration for a moment, then makes a sudden rapid movement and/or command to put them into a trance. After trance induction, suggestions are given to deepen the altered state, the trance is tested for depth, and then post-hypnotic suggestions are used to produce effects that last long after the hypnosis session ends.
Steps to hypnosis on 9/11
1) Prior to 9/11 slightly less than half the country had willingly voted for Bush in 2000, and the rest of us had been programmed since childhood that Americans are the good guys through seemingly innocent games such as Cowboys and Indians.
2) When the first plane hit WTC 1, everyone turned on their TV’s, and paid rapt attention; staring at the smoking hole just like watching a pendulum.
3) Rapid induction of mass trance occurred from the sudden shock of watching the 2nd plane hit WTC 2 live on TV generating an immediate altered state of consciousness throughout the country.
4) Trance deepening is often done by having the subject walk down a flight of stairs in their mind, so on 9/11 there were repeated news reports of people running down the steps in the towers, followed by the actual towers coming down over and over again on TV.
5) Hypnotic suggestions were given on TV all afternoon designed to create the desired unconscious programming; in this case fear, by news reports of scary terrorists and stories of heroic passengers fighting hijackers.
6)Testing the depth of trance is usually done with a pin to check numbness of the skin, but on 9/11 it was done with the collapse of smoldering 47-story WTC 7, going largely unnoticed despite the fact that no steel-framed towering inferno skyscraper in history had ever collapsed before including this one in Los Angeles.
7) Post-hypnotic suggestions were installed as anchors such that at the mere mention of 9/11, the masses would go back into trance, squawk with fear, rather like chickens, minus the silly arm flapping, but substituting flag waving instead.
8) The trance was reinforced later by movies like United 93 which trigger hypnotic anchors that prevent people from waking up and discovering the truth, and if necessary, another false flag terrorist attack can be used to rehypnotize the masses.
Waking Up from the Trance!
“What then can be done to wake up a critical mass of voters in time for the next election? Since we do not have access to the mainstream media propaganda machine to perform a formal mass trance termination, we can use our own powerful symbols to catalyze grass roots spread of information through the Internet as has been pioneered by Loose Change....”
It must be pretty strange to call oneself a professor of political science and be ignorant of the currents in geopolitical affairs. The repugs desperately wanted to lose that election and the msm's election coverage proved it. When the brown man (who would be president) stood up in front of the United Nations and declared they had absolute proof of WMD's in Iraq, you can bet that he believed it. And so did all of the others in that government. But they didn't believe it because they had seen new, specific evidence, but because they knew that Hussein was a lot like them and that they would have armed themselves in his situation. And so they let superficial reports deceive them because they wanted to go in there for so long that they just knew that they would find something to use as justification. But when they found nothing, that was when they knew they were in big trouble. And what was worse, they couldn't close the portfolio.
Now the BBC is reporting that Obama said, to the Turks, "...address the facts of the past as part of their efforts to move forward," in relation to Armenian massacres. That is the same Obama who just told all of the western hemisphere to forget all of the past when it concerned U.s. atrocities and invasions.
Have this nugget with some tea and crumpets :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_4eTbfp74o&feature=player_embedded
It makes the "horror" and the "terror" all new again, thank,s to
Tracey Ullman as Campbell Brown
Namaste
Perhaps we should just call US now :
_________ The United States of Goldman Sachs.
Read the depth and breadth of this is amazing
http://tinyurl.com/Goldman-Conspiracy
Namaste
Ted Nugent and Joe the Fake Plumber...the GOP dream ticket for 2012
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
"Classic divide and conquer."
No, it's the elites, the people you obviously look up to, that do just that.
"So you're saying the black man is no better than Macaque monkeys?"
Did you actually read the article? Those were not my words, and there was no racial connotation made. Monkeys are our closest relatives. The author was writing about a study done that showed in hierarchies, those at the bottom tend to use drugs more than those at the top. Their social standing, and the denigration they suffer as a result, makes them more likely to use hard drugs.
"Now, who's the racist?"
I know I'm not. However, you libertarian free-market shills all seem to be white men and middle-class at the very least. Where are the poor libertarians? Where are the black inner-city libertarians? How many of you are there in the barrios and reservations and trailer parks and rowhouses?
"Yeah, drugs are addicting, that's why you don't do them!"
Yeah, that tagline sure helped curb drug abuse. "This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs/Just Say No" was a spectacular success wasn't it?
"Did anyone force these people to this lifestyle?"
In a sense, society did, yes.
"Idiot."
No, anyone of the 99% who supports the interests of the 1% is an idiot. An unchained free market doesn't work for most people. Ask those who lived under Pinochet.
"Where are the poor libertarians?"
Lol! That's funny. I used to be one 20 years ago. I was young and figured they weren't warmongers and wanted to end the war on drugs. At least they had a couple of things right where it seemed the demopublicans and republicrats had nothing right. Now I'm probably just a little right of Eugene Debs.
thegreatrockyhill,
thank you for diplomatically taking the time and patience to be so thorough. your points are both logical and true. as a person who lives in an impoverished neighborhood i can attest to the involuntary nature of addiction to crack cocaine. remember the article by the san jose mercury news about the cia pushing cocaine to gangs on the streets of LA in 1986. wow - the drugs just magically appeared.
America's 'crack' plague has roots in Nicaragua war
Colombia-San Francisco Bay Area drug pipeline helped finance CIA-backed Contras
Published: Aug. 18, 1996 - - BY GARY WEBB - Mercury News Staff Writer
http://www.narconews.com/darkalliance/drugs/start.htm
a time line of cia involvement in crack dealing - from the mid 70's to the mid 90's - can be found at the same site.
a plethora of articles dealing w/ the intelligence communities involvement w/ drug dealing can be found here.
at the site ...cocaine importing agency
http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/news/cia.drug.html
maybe these cia agents pushing crack and heroin in impoverished neighborhoods are just clever businessmen taking advantage of a huge market and a captive audience. maybe any entrepreneur - like say nick shield - would kill for such an opportunity to profit. it's the american way.
...peace...
Hey Rock..Well said....
"The difference was that in America some years ago, the ditch digger could elevate himself through hard work and dedication."
The ditch diggers worked hard, yet very few of them seemed to end up where the elites are. They must not have been dedicated, therefore no elevation for them. :( Hmmm. A pity.
Btw, thanks Sioux.
Sioux Rose
THE ROCKY: You stated your case/the evidence well. There are some too blind to see even when Truth confronts them.
"You talk about fairness, and yet endorse philosophies that provide everything but that.
How is it fair to expect poor and working people to climb out of their circumstances on their own? How is it fair to blast working and poor people for not working hard enough or for implying that they are stupid, undisciplined, and untalented? How is it fair to give the wealthy tax breaks and shift that burden onto everyone else?
"Steal from the rich, give to the poor. Yeah, that's the ticket."
You got that right bud. And if you aren't wealthy yet are shilling for them, you are simply a duped traitor.
"Why don't you use all that energy to create something useful?"
I agree. Workers and the poor need to get together and create a mass movement.
"If you are worthy, you shall be rewarded.
So people like Lawrence Summers must be worthy. Don Trump is worthy. He was born into wealth. He must be worthy by birth.
"If you aren't you won't be. That's fair."
So someone on welfare isn't worthy. Punish them right? What about the guy working two jobs to feed his family or the struggling single mom? They must not be worthy. What about the people affected by Hurricane Katrina? They must not be worthy. The people in Iraq must not have been worthy either. Those who were brought here in chains, suffered under Jim Crow, had drugs funneled into their communities, were redlined and uprooted by "urban renewal" efforts must not have been worthy. Anyone who loses their job and finds themselves unemployed for a stretch of time must not be worthy. The 45 million people sans health insurance must not be worthy. The 3rd world must not be worthy.
"so are you equating humans with monkeys? or just colored folk from a disadvantaged socio-economic strata?"
Apes are our closest counterparts in the animal kingdom. Johann Hari is not a racist nor are the people behind the study he wrote about. You could say the same about people in the Appalachias. The socioeconomically disenfranchised are more apt to be abusing drugs and alcohol.
"But still they choose to do it, don't they?"
Just because they choose to do it doesn't mean that there is nothing wrong with the system. It's about options. What are their options? These people don't come from upper-middle class backgrounds. They don't have the connections.
"Do I really need to answer this?
Yes you do. You need to address inequality. Why do some people have more options than others? Someone from an affluent background has more options than someone who does not. They don't live in neighborhoods plagued by crime, violence, and drugs. They go to better schools. They have more comfortable home lives. They know people that can get them cushy jobs. They don't need to work as hard to get to where they are.
"Well, at least 4 out of 5 isn't bad...and yeah, let's take away the incentives for people to excel and succeed in America."
There are little financial incentives for most Americans to "excel and succeed." The people who do "excel and succeed" tend to have very large headstarts due to their status. True life Horatio Alger tales are few and far between. Our last President spent most of his youth in a stupor. Did he work hard? Most Americans who try to "excel and succeed" find themselves overworked and weighed down with debt.
"You'll end up paying the tab."
Not if we tax the wealthy sharply. Give me a reason why we should let the fatcats off the hook?
"And you still haven't answered the question. How's about just reducing the size of government for a change?"
Why should we? So we can let the capitalist criminals run wild and unhindered? Ask the people in Chile about small gov't. Friedman, Pinochet, and his Chicago Boys did that and only created more poverty. You people who want no safety nets had better hope the rug doesn't get pulled out from under you. You'd better hope your company doesn't fold and that you don't get sick or hurt afterwards.
"Let everyone keep more of what they earn?"
We should let the 99% keep more of what they earn. But we should also tax the wealthy. Beyonce made 40 million dollars last year. If we took half of what she made, she'd still be very wealthy. No one needs to make 125 million a year.
"I mean, really, do I really have to explain this?"
Yeah you do. Explain to me why we should privatize everything and let the rich live w/o paying taxes? Why should the 99% subsidize the 1%? If no one paid taxes, how would we fix roads and pipes? How would public schools be funded? You people want a Wild West economy which will make the wealthy wealthier, widen the gap between rich and poor, and create more poverty.
"Oh, back to Bush again, sorry, you don't get that pass. It's Obama's game now, and everything is on his head. And Obama racked up more debt in 3 months than Bush did in 8 years."
By throwing mere crumbs to the people, continuing to spend more money on defense and militarization, and bailing out corporations among other right-wing moves, Obama's continuing Bush's policies (don't forget the disastrous No Child Left Behind and Faith-Based initiatives) and won't go after the previous administration for their crimes.
"Geez, you don't get it, working is not a right, it's a privilege."
So the homeless, unemployed, and working poor don't deserve jobs that pay more than peanuts? Why is having a job akin to a gym club membership to so many people? Why is having a source of income a privilege that some people deserve and others do not? Do people in Watts or The Ozarks deserve to be poor, to be living in squalor?
"The only right you have is to get off your ass, invest all the time, money and effort to create your own business and see how you like it."
Not everyone can afford to create their own business. You have to have money to make money. It's cruel to suggest that the only way out of poverty for people is to simply work hard and invest. How is someone making minimum wage supposed to start up a business? How many venture capitalists grew up on food stamps?
I work hard and have been doing so for most of my life. Why am I not living the American dream? Why is it that the people who do appear to be living it aren't people who worked hard for anything?
If only there were an actual tea party of protest for us Independents who are so sick and tired of both the Republicans and Democrats. Sigh ... :(
Pretty much everyone interviewed by Fox (not) News at the tea parties claimed to be an Independent...even if true, I'm sure they always vote Republican.
The only way to tell them apart from the real Independents is via the issues it seems.
I'll bring the tea . . .
My first impression before reading comments and going through the whole article was, "What fun can on get out of mocking the "Lumpenproletariat"? The really gross, despicable, deplorable "folks" here in the US that warrant mockery and ridicule neither go around in "Lumpen" nor are they proletariat. They are the "little piggies, living piggy lives".
so are you equating humans with monkeys? or just colored folk from a disadvantaged socio-economic strata?
Nick Shield-Maybe people do choose to try drugs, but the circumstances they find themselves in and the environments in which they live make it more conducive for addiction to take place. People don't choose to be born into poverty, and it's not easy for anyone to climb out of it. It's difficult for someone to stay off of drugs when they're surrounded by them and they feel that they have no options available to them.
**But still they choose to do it, don't they?
Yes, people can "choose" to do what they want? But are they really "choosing" when their options are limited by their socioeconomic status?
**Do I really need to answer this?
"I challenge anyone on this site to clearly articulate how we are going to pay for this massive debt within the next 10, 20 or 30 years."
Tax the wealthy. End all of our wars, occupations, defense spending, and corporate welfare.
**Well, at least 4 out of 5 isn't bad...and yeah, let's take away the incentives for people to excel and succeed in America. You'll end up paying the tab. And you still haven't answered the question. How's about just reducing the size of government for a change? Let everyone keep more of what they earn? I mean, really, do I really have to explain this?
"This president ran on promises of, among other things, fiscal responsibility. He's racked up a debt more than any other president in history combined."
What? Where were you for the past 8 years?
**Oh, back to Bush again, sorry, you don't get that pass. It's Obama's game now, and everything is on his head. And Obama racked up more debt in 3 months than Bush did in 8 years.
"Bush was Uncle Scrooge compared to Obama. Speaking of which, use some intelligent logic and stop comparing everything to Bush! He's out, Obamanation is in. And the financial chickens have not come home to roost yet, but they will. And you will find out what fascism really is."
It's pretty easy to compare Bush and Obama, especially when you consider the bailouts, the continuation of the Afghan and Iraq wars, the aversion to universal single-payer, etc. Obama may not be as bad, but he's no savior that's for sure.
**Well at least we agree on one thing....
"The solution? If you want socialism, move to Holland. You want communism? Forfeit your US citizen status and move to Cuba or China and see how you like it. If you want to live in a country in which people are rewarded for their labors, vote the current idiots out so that new idiots can take their place!"
"Love it leave it!" The typical regressive battle cry. I take it you're a free market fetishist also. If you follow American history, you'll find that workers largely have never been "rewarded for their labors." The only people who are truly rewarded for the labors of working people are the masters at the very top.
**Geez, you don't get it, working is not a right, it's a privilege. The only right you have is to get off your ass, invest all the time, money and effort to create your own business and see how you like it. You talk about fairness, and yet endorse philosophies that provide everything but that. Steal from the rich, give to the poor. Yeah, that's the ticket. Why don't you use all that energy to create something useful? If you are worthy, you shall be rewarded. If you aren't you won't be. That's fair.
Perhaps some dusting up on sociology and the history of people's struggles against an entrenched elite who constantly rigs the playing field to their own advantage is in order....
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Yeah, communism really worked for the russians, didn't it? Or the chinese? There are always the elite and the ditch diggers. The difference was that in America some years ago, the ditch digger could elevate himself through hard work and dedication.
PS God gave us free will and we make our own heavens and hells on earth. That's the truth.
I can't really say which "system" will be the best in the future (mainly because I am not an intellectual), but I can add this little bit below about "communism"(which is just a crappy paraphrase of Chomsky's words)
The term "communism" or "socialism" is used more as an ideological weapon by those in power, rather than portraying the true definition of socialism.
Hitler used the word socialism as a pretense to deceive the population - as did Lenin and Stalin. Neither of these leaders ever came close to implementing the true definition of communism or socialism. The socialist pretense served to legitimate their power and rule, allowing them to exploit the aura of socialist ideals and to conceal their own brutal practice as they destroyed the genuine meaning of socialism.
On the other side of the ideological perspective you have the US who also used the term as an ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the state-capitalist system. They said, "See, look at the ONLY other alternative system, the nasty totalitarian "socialist dungeons" of Russia. Now you see that there is no alternative."
It is not at all clear that you are in touch with much truth, starting with your baseless assumption that "god" exists.
I'll tell the story accurately, which you are clearly too foolish to be capable of. Communism (actually, the dictatorship of the proletarian - a necesary precursor to communism) in Russia was born emaciated, in the wake of "the Great (capitalist) War" of unfathomable barbarism and suffering. They were immediately pummeled by the world's vermin, including the Imperialist USA. Try as they did, the gallant communists of the day could not stop the advance of reaction, which manifested internally with Stalin at the head.
The Stalinists proceeded to gut the International and trash the word "communism" to advance their reactionary, petit bourgeois agenda. Mao and the Stalinist Chinese CP purged and murdered internationalists and critical thinkers of all stripe in thier midst, and advanced an agenda that has by and large turned world opinion against not just them, but even the word communism. Now, it falls upon true humanitarians to correct those misconceptions, and restore communism to its proper exalted place in our common dreams.
Speaking of common dreams, what humanitarians need and want is universal peace, sustainability, equality and affluence - UPSEA. This can only ever be achhieved in the wake of communist revolution. Capitalism cannot deliver it, in theory or practice. THAT is the truth!
I'm troubled by the attribution of negative physical characteristics to Republicans in this piece. If he thinks there are no Democrats who can't afford a dentist's visit, or who are overweight, then he's not looking very hard. On the left we need the truth, not acidic sarcasm.
Mairs,posilutely! it's easy to become obese on cheap carbs when you can't afford protein.Medical care is a luxury to millions,nevermind dental.Poverty does not discriminate between left and right,nor can poor people be labeled as ignorant unwashed masses.I believe the Mr. Green was quite ascerbic in this piece"acidic sarcasm" is a form of agression.Maybe the proff. wishes he was Green and as a Democratic apologist needs to vent his spleen of frustration! peas in?
this article is nonsense. dmg's disdain for the "looney right" is palpable, but he's WORSE THAN THEM. what's his excuse for being on his knees every week banging his head under the desk of Mr. Democratic Party? he has every resource available to him in the modern world, and much of the time comes across as a total goddam idiot, just like the people week in and out he spits upon, nothing more than a mindless cheerleader for the dems. yet he despises the unwashed who do the same exact thing he does, but for a (nominally) different party.
he's far worse than them, b/c he has no excuse.
Hey, Nick Shield. Read this recent article from Johann Hari about inequality...
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/15-8
Here's a snippet concerning addiction...
"It can be easier to see how this model of stress and humiliation affects us by looking at our evolutionary cousins. In a recent study, scientists at the University of North Carolina took twenty macaque monkeys, divided them into groups of four, and put them in separate enclosures. In each little group, they formed hierarchies, with some at the top, and some at the bottom. They then made it possible for the monkeys to give themselves a dose of cocaine by pulling a lever. The dominant monkeys took very little cocaine - while the subordinate, humiliated monkeys took huge amounts. They were, in effect, compensating themselves for being at the bottom of the pile with no way out. Now think about the rates of drug addiction in Detroit, or South Central Los Angeles, or the Ninth Ward of New Orleans."
Classic divide and conquer. So you're saying the black man is no better than Macaque monkeys? Now, who's the racist? Yeah, drugs are addicting, that's why you don't do them! Did anyone force these people to this lifestyle? Idiot.
The poster was making a valid point and you haul out old racist canards. Try thinking instead of responding to the world with two bit accusations.
What's that they say about trying to walk a mile in somebody else's shoes? You may want to try it sometime.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Good post farmgirl.
Maruti-I don't go following him around online, but people wouldn't be bashing DMG here if he weren't putting his foot in his mouth, sucking up to the Dems who are clearly not a whole lot better than the Rep's, and being an elitist, classist asshole. Btw the guy does state that he likes getting feedback on his articles does he not?
Folks who post here simply to put down DMG with a gleeful kind of infantile spite, ought to themselves be stepped on with childish spite. Obviously, this is what they seem to enjoy. Hey, I'm being kind here.
ie, Get a life or just shut yer pie hole!
If you can't critique DMG in a constructive way, enhancing the discussion, rather than sucking the energy out of it - try soaking your head. Who knows? It might help.
P.S. Take a look in the mirror
Nick Shield-Maybe people do choose to try drugs, but the circumstances they find themselves in and the environments in which they live make it more conducive for addiction to take place. People don't choose to be born into poverty, and it's not easy for anyone to climb out of it. It's difficult for someone to stay off of drugs when they're surrounded by them and they feel that they have no options available to them.
Yes, people can "choose" to do what they want? But are they really "choosing" when their options are limited by their socioeconomic status?
"I challenge anyone on this site to clearly articulate how we are going to pay for this massive debt within the next 10, 20 or 30 years."
Tax the wealthy. End all of our wars, occupations, defense spending, and corporate welfare.
"This president ran on promises of, among other things, fiscal responsibility. He's racked up a debt more than any other president in history combined."
What? Where were you for the past 8 years?
"Bush was Uncle Scrooge compared to Obama. Speaking of which, use some intelligent logic and stop comparing everything to Bush! He's out, Obamanation is in. And the financial chickens have not come home to roost yet, but they will. And you will find out what fascism really is."
It's pretty easy to compare Bush and Obama, especially when you consider the bailouts, the continuation of the Afghan and Iraq wars, the aversion to universal single-payer, etc. Obama may not be as bad, but he's no savior that's for sure.
"The solution? If you want socialism, move to Holland. You want communism? Forfeit your US citizen status and move to Cuba or China and see how you like it. If you want to live in a country in which people are rewarded for their labors, vote the current idiots out so that new idiots can take their place!"
"Love it leave it!" The typical regressive battle cry. I take it you're a free market fetishist also. If you follow American history, you'll find that workers largely have never been "rewarded for their labors." The only people who are truly rewarded for the labors of working people are the masters at the very top.
Maybe Nick is caught up in the pride trap over there on the far right. It's extremely difficult to take pride in the outcomes of the far right enterprise and yet the elites love to inflame pride to motivate the troops.
Sioux Rose
ROCKY: At least you do your own thinking, rather than offer the mental equivalent of a Rush Limbaugh recycled knee JERK reaction. As a dear friend once told me (and it fits responses to a certain "type" in this forum), "Never argue with a drunk."
This article is pathetic, and some of the respondents are likewise. I challenge anyone on this site to clearly articulate how we are going to pay for this massive debt within the next 10, 20 or 30 years. This president ran on promises of, among other things, fiscal responsibility. He's racked up a debt more than any other president in history combined. We are still spending in the red on top of all this added debt. And while you're at it, you may want to include the tens of trillions owed in long term social security and medicare benefits.
Bush was Uncle Scrooge compared to Obama. Speaking of which, use some intelligent logic and stop comparing everything to Bush! He's out, Obamanation is in. And the financial chickens have not come home to roost yet, but they will. And you will find out what fascism really is.
The solution? If you want socialism, move to Holland. You want communism? Forfeit your US citizen status and move to Cuba or China and see how you like it. If you want to live in a country in which people are rewarded for their labors, vote the current idiots out so that new idiots can take their place!
PS: "thegreatrockyhill", people don't "find" themselves addicted, they do so of their own choosing!
TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT, TAX THE RICH AT PRE-REAGAN RATES.
You're right Nick, the national debt is going to wreck the dollar. Can we avoid that fate? Sure. Just return to the marginal tax rate of 70%, which existed through the Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations. Under Eisenhower the rate was 91%. Were all those Democrats and Republicans socialists? Nowadays, all Repubs and about half the Dems would say so, supported by the banks and corporations and their mass media.
But don't blame Obama for the coming debacle. He made the fairly modest proposal that companies not be allowed to hide their money from taxes in secret overseas bank accounts. And was shouted down by all Repubs and their Blue Dog Demo allies.
Or would you rather follow the Republican idea of more tax cuts for the rich and less stimulus spending? Isn't that a straight ticket to 1929? (Marginal tax rate in 1929 was 25%)
I know it may not be as much fun. But how about we forgo the big words, "socialism" and "communism," and talk policy and consequences.
Regards,
Laurence
If you throw away the ideology of socialism then you are nothing but a petit bourgeois who wants a minor redistribution of wealth without the concomitant responsibility to every citizen of the nation, or world. Gutting the argument will only create more polarities.
Hello legalalien,
As a long time socialist - anarcho syndicalist I agree with you completely; we need the concept of socialism. But I was talking to Nick, who seems only to use the word as a bludgeon. HE would do better to forget about labels and look at real policy options.
But then, when I think about it, perhaps all of us should be careful in wielding these meat-ax concepts. "Socialism" can mean anything from Pol Pot to, apparently, Holland.
I am more interested in actual workers and communities controlling the local economy and most of the enterprises in it. Whether you call it, "socialism" or anything else, is secondary.
An example. In Venezuela today, peasant leaders are being arrested for trying to seize land, and Chavez isn't doing much about it. Which would you prefer; that land reform be completed, or that the ruling party calls itself "Unified Socialist"? Me, I'm more interested in what happens to actual people than about labels and ideologies.
I don't understand your last paragraph. In Venezuela the government has expropriated over a million hectares of idle or latifundium land and they are distributing it to the people. One of the subsidiary goals in that project is to reach national food self sufficiency instead of having to import half their food at inflated cost, which in real terms is a theft of their oil. Regardless of the name used for the ideology, it has to have a name. Otherwise no one would know which banner to flock to or to which organization each individual really belonged. Of course the imperialists and capitalists will try to impart a sullied inference to Socialism because it is now in the ascendant in a way that was never real before. Concomitant with the whole world society learning what the capitalists are really like, the peoples everywhere are learning of the incredible benefits that accrue from a truly moral society. Socialism is not a name to be denigrated, but one which deserves the admiration of every decent person in the world. The only ideology that is better than Socialism is Humanism, and only one country in the world has reached that exalted condition.
Hi Legal,
Take a look at:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4381
There are still many districts in Venezuela where the local police are working with and for the landowners; and the central government, unfortunately, is very slow to change the situation.
I'm delighted about the million hectares distributed so far. All I am saying is that it is important to look at the detailed situation, and not get blinded by labels. That's happened far too often in history, and is just as dangerous when the word "socialism" is used by its alleged friends, as by its enemies.
"The only ideology that is better than Socialism is Humanism, and only one country in the world has reached that exalted condition."
I hope I'm not too late with my question: which country is/was it?
Hmmmm...! Let's find out by deduction. This will be easy because anybody will be able to discern which country has selfishly given of it's time and resources without expecting anything other in return than solidarity of the peoples.
When they made the new human rights commission, after the total disaster of the previous council, which was heavily influenced by the U.s., Cuba received overwhelming support to be on the inaugural board. The U.s., knowing that it's horrible human rights record would never get them a seat, declined to participate and declared null any judgments against them. Like they always do.
In reality, in congruence with any sense of responsibility to the citizenry, any governing body should supply or provide for the basics for life of it's citizens if it's GDP is capable of doing so.
Thanks for the clarification.
I'm a naturalized American now, came as a refugee from former Yugoslavia which used to be, as you most probably know, a socialist country. That's why I was intrigued by your statement about "the only humanist country".
Human rights, the way it's framed by the West, is not a measure of freedom applicable to both worlds - socialism and western parliamentary democracies. The very notion "freedom" has two opposing meanings: in the West it primarily means freedom of entrepreneurship, while in socialism it means freedom from exploitation.
I know I was more free in Yugoslavia than I am in the USA - by far.
i like your screen name, yevgeny zamyatin's novel brings new meaning to the concept - 'your just a number'. gulag or ghetto does it really matter ? the subtle nuances of language.
i prefer freedom from exploitation.
...peace...
Ha!
I didn't expect anyone to tell the source of my name, simply because I thought it was a long forgotten novel.
Cheers!
Excellent post.
"how we are going to pay for this massive debt within the next 10, 20 or 30 years"
You really wanna know about the elites' public-debt master-plan? In 10, 20, 30 years the current US public debt will look much smaller thanks to carefully expanded inflation, carefully expanded credit, expanded population of US tax-slaves to share the burden, and radically expanded population of peasants and overseas factory slaves producing material opiates at contracted prices to further ease the burden of slavery. Not to mention steady consumption growth in fossil fuels, and high-energy production (and associated jobs/prosperity), making the tax-slavery appear well worth it, with a little/lot of help from the propaganda mills.
As people are already emigrating from Detroit, it probably won't be long until many try to leave the US as well. What we are seeing economically is only the beginning of things to come. And while self-responsibility is important, opportunity is equally important. Also, great imbalances are always--sooner or later--equalized, either by force or submission. The greater the resistance, the more explosive the force once the dam [of equalization] breaks.
"...This article is pathetic, and some of the respondents are likewise..."
- You're also pathetic. Holland is not "socialism," and neither Cuba nor China is "communism."
And what does this sentence mean: "...If you want to live in a country in which people are rewarded for their labors, vote the current idiots out so that new idiots can take their place!.."
- What are you saying there, exactly? If you actually know what you mean, you sure didn't share it with the rest of us. What's the point of being cryptic?
I agree with you about the debt & the financial chickens coming home to roost, but you're kidding yourself if you imagine your post was any better than either the article (which stunk) or most of the respondents.
Appropriate jab, DaveBronstein! Nick's solution was certainly not one. Please share your thoughts on what the solution is.
Lately I'm trying to formulate a call that succinctly captures what humanity must demand of there political leaders. In the hands of a party or individual, this call should be directly followed by a proposal that links the crisis of the moment to the proposed path for realizing the goals of the call. For a silly example: "We want clean kitchens!" could be a call in a typical home, and "For teenagers doing their chores on time!" might be the proposal of the average parent.
We need to quickly articulate goals that are highly appealing, scientifically sound, and readily communicated, ideally with an catchy acronym. At this moment, I think the call should be for "Universal Peace, Sustainability, Equality, and Affluence" - and we should start an UPSEA movement. It focusses on results, like the honorable old United Front of the Trotskyists, and let's the participants hammer out how to get there under the umbrella of a common call. UPSEA captures all of the desired results in five words, or one acronym that isn't too goofy. Does anyone have a better idea?
RedTide-
Good for you! I would use something different other than 'affluence' in the acronym though. I will post something if it occurs to me.
We need a big umbrella movement that gets everyone on board. We need to demand accountability and focus solely on the most important issues.
What we really need to do though is get the word out. We need to do multimedia. I would check out people like Adbusters or even get involved in local theater and take to the street. We need to take back our public square from the CABLE GUYS dominate the debate.
Good luck!
Namaste
Hmm...you may want to go back to geography/sociology 101 about political systems across the globe.
I wasn't being cryptic, just use basic common sense of a 3rd grader and you'll be able to understand what I mean.
Well, someone needs a refresher course:
The Netherlands en-us-Netherlands.ogg [ˈnɛðɚləndz] (help·info) (Dutch: Nl-Nederland.ogg Nederland (help·info), IPA: [ˈne:dərlɑnt]) is a country that is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It is a parliamentary democratic constitutional monarchy. The Netherlands is located in Northwestern Europe, and bordered by the North Sea to the north and west, Belgium to the south, and Germany to the east. The capital is Amsterdam and the seat of government is The Hague.
The Netherlands is often called Holland, which is formally incorrect as North and South Holland are merely two of its twelve provinces (see terminology of "the Netherlands"). The word Dutch is used to refer to the people, the language, and anything appertaining to the Netherlands.
Being one of the first parliamentary democracies, the Netherlands was a modern country from its very foundation. Among other affiliations the country is a founding member of the European Union (EU), NATO, OECD, WTO, and has signed the Kyoto protocol. With Belgium and Luxembourg it forms the Benelux economic union. The country is host to five international courts: the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Court and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. The former four are situated in The Hague as is the EU's criminal intelligence agency Europol. This has led to the city being dubbed "the world's legal capital."[2]
From Wiki
Gosh, it sounds so horribly socialistic! All that dedication to law and order, that's not American at all!
Imagine, justice and economic security as well, who could imagine?
What I see is that the neocons that operated and worked their agendas since the inception of all those neocon think tanks have succeeded in achieving what they went for, the grand larceny of america aided and abetted by corporate american, the pentagon with its upper class of officers and those electorates that are always willing and able to take the bribes from those lobbyists for rearranging our democracy for their benefit and the 'elite's'. And don't think this part of the right are finished, their hacks still in congress remain ever faithful to the neocon agendas along with the bluedogs of which pelosi and reid are the premier leaders and I have seen little of obama making the changes that are needed to fix this country, making him very very close to complicit. They will NOT stop fighting to maintain their criminally obtained possessions from money to the hold on power to the media.
The rest of the republicans are the ones that were hoodwinked into thinking they were all in it together and it is still easy to get them out to act the fools and distract attention from those who duped them so that they continue with their own agendas. Money is the root of all evil and is it any wonder that the reason the 'elite' have a shield of privacy the citizenry don't have is because when is comes out how they have placed themselves in positions of 'elite' the outrage could be very overwhelming.
The T-Bangers' move to the far far right is well underway. I am absolutely convinced they will be back in power sooner rather than later. The Democrats pale and gentlemanly imitation of a reactionary won't cut it for long. The T-Bangers are simply waiting for the next charismatic personality, the next avuncular ass kicking dolt who will promise to be the Lone Ranger without a mask. If there's one thing Americans are absolutely expert at, it's fooling themselves.
"who don't have that disgusting pinkish skin they call 'white'."
And meanwhile they think dark skin is disgusting also. Who's correct? I don't find anyone's skin color disgusting. I guess you do.
Some of you people really get carried away with your anger.
The author brings up some good points, but he's also being smug, acting as if the good guys won, demonizing the South (as if there's no regressivism to be found in the North), and is being rather classist by playing up stereotypes. The whole crystal meth jab got to me. The drug war is hurting rural areas like it is in inner cities. Is he going to make light of the urban black person who finds his or herself addicted to crack cocaine? The poor are the ones who often find themselves with substance abuse problems. The elites want that.
I don't know. Perhaps I'm just not insulated by academia like the Prof is.
Red Rick April 25th, 2009 9:23 am
I find Professor Green's articles to be uneven and shallow. This latest effort is a sort of a distraction from political reality more than an insight into anything of value.
__________________________________________
Occasionally he hits one out of the park, although I can't think of a specific example at the moment-- pre-Obama, by and large.
But I agree. I relate to an aspect of Green's style because I share it: he's a busy thinker for whom writing is a method of "thinking out loud"-- more focused than stream-of-consciousness, but essentially verbose and sometimes meandering in search of a conclusion or point. And I often get a strong between-the-lines sense that Green is really trying to convince HIMSELF of the merit of dubious and shaky analyses or recommendations.
He's renounced the third-party solution, arguing that the only way Amerikan politics can (re-)evolve is for progressives to infiltrate and take over the Democratic Party. But he hasn't come to grips with the reality that the push to elect "better Democrats" can never get enough traction to reach the predicted tipping point.
I think that he really knows that 2006 showed how apparently promising results can fizzle in an entrenched duopoly where newcomers are quickly schooled and co-opted into dialing down support for anything that challenges the status quo.
And, like so many, for a while he was an Obama booster, albeit earnestly and thoughtfully.
Now that Obamania has become passé, and many enthusiastic, hope™ful apologists are appropriately aghast at Obama's embrace of the banksters and endorsement of the policies of his corrupt and criminal predecessors, Green seeks solace in trashing the eminently trashy Republicans.
This is all well and good, and if this hits the spot for some readers, so be it.
But this feels like an attempt to distract and amuse oneself by watching the Insane Republican Clown Posse performing their outrageous and appalling self-destructive fire drills in order to block, or at least dull, the pain of acknowledging the metastasizing evil of the present administration.
I presume he will continue to argue that the Party of Judas is intrinsically morally superior to the Party of Cain, and in any case is mankind's ONLY reasonable hope™ for salvation.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Sioux Rose
OBEDIENT: Expertly analyzed and stated.
I guess that, with a little more effort I could have expanded upon my thoughts. Now I am glad I did not, as your analysis would put my effort to shame. Thanks ever so much for the insight.
Email from Republican acquaintance--What Republicans think:
Subject: Divorce - After 100 days it's time and this seems fair
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two Ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide Other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore andRosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. But we will no longer be paying the bill.
We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.
You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach The World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.
We'll practice trickledown economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other likeminded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you
Thank you John J. Wall. These idiots are the sheeple that will cheer themselves all the way to the gallows. They don't have any clue about the difference between reality and this fantasy world of kumbaya they are looking for. They want to steal from those who have and give to those who don't deserve to have. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. Feed a man to fish and he'll be full today and starve tomorrow. By the way, I hope you've moved your assets off shore as most of the wealthy elite have. That's what's coming, and those that are left will just have to suck wind.
And they get a nice little theocracy. I hope he likes being burned at the stake.
Sioux Rose
EZE: Such neat ridiculous over-simplified divisions by a law student? Law student of Bob Jones "university" would that be? Amazing dis-grace.
Hope he didn't spoil your lunch like he did mine.
"On the other hand, perhaps the most amazing sight of all was the Republican governor of Texas, successor to George W. Bush, and would-be successor again in Washington, not so vaguely hinting at the possibility that Texas might secede from the union..."
Oh, don't toy with me.
I really don't know how helpful this analysis is. I wouldn't dismiss the "teabaggers" so quickly. They have a lot of resources behind them along with some grassroots elements. I would point out that the teabaggers organized more people in a lot more cities than the yearly national antiwar demonstrations.
They don't have to make sense or have any morals to ascend to political power. Even without political power they can still be dangerous too. Chomsky has recently warned us that if our situations doesn't improve a shift to the far right is possible (he compared it to Germany after WWI) and the teabaggers represent that kind of demagoguery.
Without a well organized grassroots left, this movement could potentially pose a threat. I hope I am wrong but I wouldn't count them out so fast. Especially given everything we went through the past 8 years.
"I would point out that the teabaggers organized more people in a lot more cities than the yearly national antiwar demonstrations."
It helps when a national cable channel they all watch anyway carried more than a hundred free promotions for it, and offered to coordinate them via its website.
"They don't have to make sense or have any morals to ascend to political power. Even without political power they can still be dangerous too. Chomsky has recently warned us that if our situations doesn't improve a shift to the far right is possible (he compared it to Germany after WWI) and the teabaggers represent that kind of demagoguery.
Without a well organized grassroots left, this movement could potentially pose a threat. I hope I am wrong but I wouldn't count them out so fast. Especially given everything we went through the past 8 years."
Chris Hedges wrote about this too, just after he hosted a televised campaign debate between Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin. He warned of a religiously-fueled reactionary populism that could lead to a tyranny we can't even imagine.
This piece is sufficiently funny and well written that I almost hate to criticize, but I must.
There is no solution to the major problems of the world within the confines of reformed capitalism. Not now, and not ever. To achieve the fundamental humanitarian goals of global peace, equality afflluence and sustainability will require communism, which will never happen without a successful revolution by organized labor under the leadership of a Leninist party.
To the extent that Lenin sincerely pursued universal equity, the flaw in his strategy was the lack of barriers to the corruption that central command/control attracts. The role of the state (and other institutes) has to be narrowly restricted. This forces public servants to stay busy doing right so there's no time left to do wrong.
I don't think I've ever sen Green this delightfully sarcastic and ornery. I quite liked the article.
That being said, I also agree with Cygnus that Green doesn't recognize that the new president brings much of the same as the last one.
Articles by Green should no longer be posted on this site. We don't need to try and make one criminal gang in Washington look good, by simply ridiculing the other.
I agree, zorex. Green is typical of a large section of Democrats. His vanity makes him want to consider himself "an independent" who's beyond partisanship. He always likes to pretend that he's "tough on the Democrats, too." But in the end, he's just another Democrat, and an essential part of being a Democrat is basing your world view primarily on your loathing of Republicans.
It's remarkable that Green could end this mediocre essay with a glib phrase like "Hey, works for me!" This was a week where Obama capitulated, in front of the whole world, to promising not to investigate torturers. Someone with his head screwed on straight would understand that there's nothing to celebrate, here -- it was a cowardly & blatant admission that the US will not apply the "rule of law" to its own government. Yet the Democrat Green thinks it's a time for chortling happily because Republicans have also made jackasses of themselves.
Sioux Rose
ZOREX: That does seem to be Green's thing. I wonder if, as a college prof, the old "ball game" with its powerful dual team orientation plays into his mindset and spills over into his political analyses?
Why not stay with a reality based perspective, instead of pretending that nothing has changed without Bush, Cheney, and DeLay?
- You're the one who's "pretending." Putting nice new packaging on the same underlying product doesn't change the product. The wars continue, trillions still flow to the banksters, single-payer health care is still off the table, & there's still no accountability for torturers. That means "no real change" -- even if the new president speaks better English.
If we can get the public insurance option into the health reform bill, then down the road it could very well lead to single-payer...if enough citizens buy into the public plan, and discover that it works far better, insurance companies will be finished, in the end.
Sounds like a plan. Can you convince ten red-staters and report back to headquarters tomorrow?