EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Five Preposterous, Persistent Conservative Myths
With the mainstream media in the hands of the mostly conservative wealthy, it's difficult for average Americans to learn the truth about critical issues. The following five conservative claims are examples of mythical beliefs that fall apart in the presence of inconvenient facts:
1. Entitlements are the Problem
Beyond the fact that we're 'entitled' to Social Security and Medicare because we pay for them, these two government-run programs have been largely self-sustaining while supporting the needs of millions of Americans.
Medicare is much less costly than private health care. Social Security, which functions with a surplus, would not be in danger of a long-term shortfall if the richest 10% (those making over the $106,800 cutoff) paid their full share.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently reported that 91% of entitlements go to the elderly or disabled, or to members of working households needing supplemental assistance. Only 9% of entitlement dollars go to non-working but employable individuals, and most of that is for medical care, unemployment, and survivor benefits.
2. Charter Schools are the Answer
Free-market adherents have a lot of people believing that the public school system needs to be 'saved' by charter schools. That belief is not supported by the facts. A Stanford University study "reveals in unmistakable terms that, in the aggregate, charter students are not faring as well as their traditional public school counterparts."
A Department of Education study found that "On average, charter middle schools that hold lotteries are neither more nor less successful than traditional public schools in improving student achievement, behavior, and school progress."
Charter schools also take money away from the public system. For example, the Los Angeles Unified School District loses nearly $7,000 in state money for each student who transfers to a charter. In Florida, the entire $55 million budgeted in 2011 for school maintenance went to charters. Governors in several states plan to direct money to schools that serve upper-middle-income families.
Furthermore, charter school teachers have fewer years of experience and a higher turnover rate, and according to one study were less likely to be certified.
Perhaps most damning are studies by the University of Colorado and UCLA which found that some charter schools segregate students by race and income. Said researcher Gary Miron of Western Michigan University, "Parents are selecting schools where their child will experience less diversity."
3. Corporate Taxes Are Too High
This one is easy. The facts can be found in U.S. Office of Management (OMB) figures, which show a gradual drop over the years in Corporate Income Tax as a Share of GDP, from 4% in the 1960s to 2% in the 1990s to 1.3% in 2010. That's one-third of what it used to be.
Also coming from the OMB is the percent of Total Tax Revenue derived from corporate taxes. The corporate share has dropped from about 20% in the 1960s to under 9% in 2010.
Finally, in a U.S. Treasury report of global competitiveness, it is revealed that U.S. corporations paid only 13.4% of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, compared to the OECD average of 16.1%. A similar PayUpNow.org analysis of 100 of the largest U.S. companies found that less than 10% of pre-tax profits in 2010 were paid in non-deferred U.S. federal income taxes.
Corporate tax avoidance is rampant at the state level, too. A new study by Citizens for Tax Justice, which evaluated 265 large companies, determined that an average of 3% was paid in state taxes, less than half the average state tax rate of 6.2%.
4. Jim Crow is Dead
Even though white Americans are the nation's most frequent drug users and dealers, the people in jail for these offenses are overwhelmingly black. In some states, African Americans make up 80-90% of all drug offenders sent to prison.
As a nation, we lead the world in rates of imprisonment, and drug offenses have accounted for two-thirds of the increase in federal inmates.
Once drug users are in prison, they're stigmatized for life. As stated by Michelle Alexander, author of "The New Jim Crow": "Rather than rely on race, we use our criminal justice system to label people of color "criminals" and then engage in all the practices we supposedly left behind...Once you're labeled a felon, the old forms of discrimination - employment discrimination, housing discrimination, denial of the right to vote, and exclusion from jury service - are suddenly legal. As a criminal, you have scarcely more rights, and arguably less respect, than a black man living in Alabama at the height of Jim Crow."
5. Poverty Is Declining Everywhere
There's something disturbing about World Bank researchers using mathematical functions to determine who's living in poverty. But free-market fanatic The Economist liked the results, proclaiming that "poverty is declining everywhere."
That's easy to say when the World Bank gets to set its own poverty threshold, at $1.25 per day. The organization admits there was little change in the number of people living below $2 per day between 1981 and 2008. And almost half the world lives on less than $3 a day.
Another fact is that the rapid growth of China accounts for most of the global poverty changes. China is where hundreds of millions of starry-eyed young people went from zero income on the farms to a few dollars a day under oppressive factory working conditions. The GDP may show a decline in poverty, but a "quality of life" index wouldn't make that mistake.
6 and 7. Evolution and global warming don't exist.
These are just too preposterous for words.
Progressive activists continue to work toward the day when poverty is down everywhere, and minorities receive equal treatment, and education is properly funded, and tax subsidies rather than entitlements are minimized. But that day is being delayed by make-believe messages from the American conservative.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
109 Comments so far
Show AllThe most preposterous, persistent liberal myth; That Republicans are conservative. Sorry but these people are right wing fanatics, nothing much conservative about them at all.
"The most preposterous, persistent liberal myth; That Republicans are conservative."
And the most preposterous, persistent conservative myth: That liberals are socialists.
Liberalism, the Enlightenment tradition upon which this nation was founded, is based on personal freedom, the rule of law, constitutional government, and the free market (sounds pretty darn conservative, doesn't it?).
Republicanism, the cultural ethos upon which this nation was founded, includes honor, uprightness, civic virtue and participation in the common weal (values which most libertarian conservatives disdain).
In practice the only principle that matters of either is that of the "free market" - every other "value" is distorted in order to serve this one. This is not some historical misinterpretation and distortion of some pure, principled liberalism - this is its natural form. All of the elements of the liberal tradition must be looked at from the historical point of view of the fight of the capitalist organisation of production against feudalism (or its remnants) and that is the only way they make sense - otherwise, liberalism becomes an unprincipled, inconsistent ideological mess. Which it is now in so many people's minds. These are all ideas that were important for capitalism but were framed in a more abstract and ideological way to optimise "mass" (at least from the part of the intelligentsia) support for its development.
Personal freedom, most importantly, is historically about "freeing" the peasant from feudal servitude - not because of some noble principle of equality, but to "free" the commons used by them to produce their own food and simultaneously "freeing" their labour previously used for self-sustenance, both for capitalist exploitation. There is nothing else to it.
Absolutely correct. I'm not defending either liberalism or conservatism - they are two hands on the same levers of industry.
From Why America Failed (2012) by Moris Berman:
Lincoln's vision, according to Gabor Borritt (Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream), was that of endless material progress. The extension of slavery thus had to be opposed, in Lincoln's eyes, because it flew in the face of this economic objective. Lincoln believed the Union "formed an indivisible economic unit". In socio-economic terms, Lincoln regarded "unobstructed upward mobility [as] the most important ideal America strove for".
The Republican Party was united, according to Foner (Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men), by the idea that free (entrepreneurial) labor was socially and economically superior to slave labor and that "the distinctive quality of Northern society was the opportunity it offered wage earners to rise to property-owning independence". Their political pitch throughout the 1850s was that freedom meant prosperity, progress, and upward social mobility, while slavery was an obstacle to all those things. The Republicans held that today's laborers would be tomorrow's capitalists, and that if a man failed to rise above his status he had only himself to blame (the legacy of this, as John Steinbeck pointed out many years later, was that in America the poor regard themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"). Lincoln was the perfect representative of this group, because his life embodied the ideology of the self-made man – an ideology that would be carried into the next century by means of Horatio Alger stories.
Besides denying Global Warming and Evolution this article forgets the other major denial of Republicans -namely Peak Oil and Limits to Growth!
Oh yeah! I forgot! Many so-called "liberals" and "progressives" deny these physical realities also! We will power our cars and trucks which consume almost 70% of the oil we use on swamp gas, or hydrofracking or some other cornucopian scheme.
Although we are all taught in basic Science classes that there is only so much oil, coal, natural gas which are the products of thousands and millions of years of stored solar energy, they will last FOREVER!
Hurray!
So we can walk 10 feet to our driveway, drive a mile to the shopping center or the gym (better yet!), walk across the parking lot, the major landscape item in SprawlAmerica, and become obese, kill over 30,000 people in these cars, injure hundreds of thousands in our cars, slaughter beasts regularly on our highways,generate directly 38% of our greenhouse emissions, pave a football field of asphalt for every 5 cars and waste $140 Billion a year!
Ah even radical progressives dare not attack the sacred Auto - sacred machine of the USA!
Aren't we glad Obomber saved the Auto industry?
Gadzooks, even people born in the Auto spinoff town of Flint, Michigan like Michael Moore were suggesting maybe we should begin building trains, lightrail, trolleys, buses and shuttles instead....
Thank Obama we avoided that horrible fate!
Yes.. what is good for you is to make fabulous amounts of money busting unions, pressing your boot-heel ever hearder of the worker's throats, and spewing poison into the environment with impunity.
Or are you one of those massa-loving slaves?
Hint: the whole world does not revolve around you. You have responsibilities.
Errr, am I understanding you right? Are you making the point that liberal thinking is more "authoritarian" than conservative? I hope you do understand that a lot of what "liberals" want and what you claim to be "decided for you" is in fact based on *democratic consensus*, ie. the "will of the people" to some extent - and that the alternative to democratic majority-based decisions (which in practice are just a shadow of what they should be even in the best cases - but let's ignore this for the time being, along with the fact that in practice what you get from liberals is just a distorted version of what the majority of people want, thrown as a bone to a dog) is not some utopia where "individual freedom" rules, but *power concentrated into the hands of an extremely tiny minority*. Loads of things WILL be decided for you anyway (because in globalised industrial society it is far harder (well, mostly impossible) to be really independent from others than any time before in history and in any society) - but not by a "state" or a "government" (that you can at least theoretically influence, or at least a common line of argument goes this way) but by much more concentrated and unaccountable and very often completely unknown private concentrations of power.
If there is a possibility of taking control, of acquiring social power, *someone* will take it. It will not remain "free" forever by itself - just the opposite. This is I think the nature of power, and this can only be handled, if that's even possible, by sophisticated laws and regulations (which will inevitably require large scale and sustained popular participation in everyday decisionmaking - absolutely the opposite of "I don't give a shit about what's happening around me, what I have is mine and the rest of the world could blow up for what I care" "individualistic" idiocy) - certainly not a handful of simplistic "philosophical" principles (and certainly not through principles that don't even admit the validity and justification of any type of popular control over concentrated individual power). What the structure of the power base that can make these rules actually work consistently and reliably should be is a huge question, although it definitely should be much more reliant on non-concentrated power (ie. democratic decisionmaking) (as opposed to a power-centralising "state" where "representatives" are given large amounts of public power without any degree of accountability whatsoever, in a large degree based on their success in a competition in propaganda and other types of manipulation.)
I know...the NERVE of those derned libs..tellin' us our cars should have safety standards, seatbelts and air bags and whatnot, no more shiny, pointy knobs and dials on a chrome and steel dashboard.
The temerity of thinking that, heck, if we want smart people to do the jobs that need doin', maybe we better educate 'em! I mean really!
And, of course...those silly socialist-leaning terror-symps think just any ole body oughta be able to go to a doctor or get treated, instead of just our representatives in Washington, who obviously deserve our largesse more.
And let's not even go where no man can tread...the Vagina. I mean...the chutzpah of these fem-nazis thinking they have some sort of monopoly on the womb! When will they ever learn: It's not about THEM! It's about the fluffy pink (or blue!) cloud inside of them awaiting a little gift from Heaven. Is there no length to which we should not go to keep that little cloud fluffy and safe, ready for it's little passenger?
ZUZU: I'm glad you brought up the "Womb thing" as that item should be added to the Conservative List, too... under the rubric there's no such thing as sexism, or that Equal Rights have been firmly established in the U.S. Sure. As women are forced to fight the same battles they've already fought--and won, thanks to the pseudo-morality of the Religious Reich juxtaposing itself between every individual woman and her sovereignty over her own body... and destiny! Thanks to their high paid PR people and think tanks they manage to bamboozle millions into mistaking liberty for the rules of an authoritarian State.
Lets not forget the liberal myth that they know what is best for me in all aspects of life.
~ * ~ * ~
yes! we might call politics "the war of the myths" all know, (even those who kick at your simple statement of truth) that politicians promise what they have no ability to deliver. just yesterday i watched some guy explaining that for those areas with schools held down by a high percentage students exhibiting "poor performance skills" we need to "get in there and teach these students the importance of success on the test and MAKE better citizens of them." ( i paraphrase) then a surprise when the moderator jumped in with, "however, many conservatives disagree..."
i sure thought that control freak sounded just like a my-way-or-the-highway conservative! i get it, rwaller, each of us must take responsibility for our own decisions and actions. political one-size-fits-all answers are fit for none! but those who have lost trust in their own intellectual abilities and prefer the lemming path following the edicts of some far unreachable political icon, cannot be forced to put faith in themselves.
And don't forget there are very clear links between poverty (i.e. a depressed standard of living) and test scores. Yet rather than put money into improving economic conditions, it's so much easier to get the Libertarian think tanks to push the memes about "personal responsibility." How much "personal responsibility" did the failed banks assume when they asked for hand-outs to the tune of several trillions dollars? How much "personal responsibility" on the part of the MIC for the billions that went missing in Iraq, added to the human sums accrued from wars of failed purpose (and execution)? How much "personal responsibility" for the designers of nuclear power plants like the one that's endangering all sentient life from Japan? And how much from the oil drillers who go from ecologically costly event to event, seldom managing to avoid more serious accidents in each round of resource extraction?
It's so much easier to blame teachers, schools, and the progeny of vastly under-funded communities. I am so sick of the lies!
Home run, Siouxrose. You are dead on. This toxic solipsism is one of the main poisonous memes bedeviling us.
The propaganda of the inverted totalitarian state preaches to us of personal responsibility while the truly privileged accept government bailouts and (even worse) the numb worship of our mesmerized citizens, who pay deference to wealth and not to character. We are heading for a great fall, and I think, to my sorrow, that those who have molded us to this attitude will prevail, for now.
I only hope that justice will eventually happen, but I don't see it coming yet. I only have this strong feeling that Martin Luther King was right about the arc of justice bending our way eventually. I'm old, but I hope to see it happen. For now, I'm sick at my heart too.
Another right-wing myth is that legislators and public servants are overpaid and that their pensions are too generous, etc. The idea is probably that they should be more vulnerable to corruption. At the same time, it is argued that corporations should be able to make unlimited contributions to politicians.
The only tiny bone I'd pick here is with "Entitlements are the Problem" He is correct, they are not, at least on paper. The real problem is that the money set aside to make it viable has all been stolen by Congress and they don't want to pay it back. And this was likely compounded by the recent cut in FICA payments. They want to make entitlements the problem.
Interestingly, they demanded that the Post Office account for their future retirement liabilities which is what makes the Post Office look financially bad. And maybe that is appropriate accounting, but the same demanders can't seem to do it for themselves.
"The real problem is that the money set aside to make it viable has all been stolen by Congress and they don't want to pay it back."
The money was invested in Treasury bonds, just like money held by Wall Street is sometimes invested like that. All that money is loaned to the government. The crime here is that they want to cancel *only* the bonds bought by Social Security. If they were required also to cancel bonds held by Wall Street at the same time, you'd need ear plugs to block the screams from the Street. You'll *never* hear conservatives describe the bonds held by Wall Street as "IOU's", even though they're exactly the same thing as the bonds held by Social Security.
Canceling any of these bonds is called a default, and it's a very serious step, but they believe they can steamroller Social Security, and call it something other than "default" ...
I don't care what they call it. And buying Treasuries is like lending money to yourself if you are Congress. They sloshed around in that money and got all kinds of military trinkets while they lined their pockets with money from lobbyists. And now they don't want to pay it back.
"buying Treasuries is like lending money to yourself if you are Congress". Congress buys the money, created by the Federal Reserve, with interest bearing bonds with the interest funded by the FORCED CONTRIBUTIONS, withholding taxes, paid by the USG to the Banksters. This is a Rube Goldberg scheme which is comprised by other subset Rube Goldberg schemes. The USG is the preeminent Rube Goldberg system because it forces contributions,withholding taxes to fund all the subset, private and public, Rube Goldberg systems. This is why the USG, the Corporatist CommuFascist Welfare Kings has resulted in a dysfunctional country. This USG Rube Goldberg system is created with debt because the interest bearing Treasury Bonds are debt. All the while the Congress whines about the national debt without which their would be no country. It's complex because without the debt their would be no country to govern. The politicians either don't realize this or use the debt, the cornerstone, a necessary component of our Rube Goldberg systems, used as a diversion for the purpose of deceiving the USAn people.
"they demanded that the Post Office account for their future retirement liabilities which is what makes the Post Office look financially bad. And maybe that is appropriate accounting"
It's not only outrageously inappropriate accounting (no other business has such a requirement), but it was designed deliberately to bankrupt the USPS so it can be privatized or replaced by existing private delivery services.
The "trick" played on the Post Office is much like you taking a 30 year mortgage on a house, then the bank turns around demands that you pay it off in 5 years or so. The Post Office is supposed to fund its pension fund to cover employees who haven't even been born yet! Of course the rest of those American businesses that still provide pensions are only required to do so on a "pay as you go" basis. That is, covering those who are retired, or will be retiring shortly. Not those who won't be retiring for decades yet. I suspect the package delivery companies bribed the Republican Party to do this to destroy the Post Office and thus take over the delivery of mail. Which will be at a higher price than what the Post Ofice is doing it for...
The economic meltdown was caused by the poor, minorities, and democrats - especially Barney Frank. It's amazing how many well educated people believe this.
“The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology.” - Michael Parenti
It hardly matters whether myths are true or not, as if truth alone could deflate them. The question is why they are so compelling and why the right wing promotes them so earnestly. It is because these myths are such a "convenient truth" and provide such a comforting answer--the affirmation of our precious prejudices and beliefs. Truth is hard to get at because truth has an order and priority of its own, because truth only deals in human action and human consequence and has no mercy. Who wants that. We only turn to truth in desparation after our myths have failed us--and that is what has yet to play out. Are you paying attention--you stupid muleheaded Americans.
Tammons: You go from "the right wing promotes them/myths" to the false conclusion that WE believe them. If your allegation was true, why would majorities be in favor of such things as a single payer health-care delivery system, an increase in taxes on the wealthy, or an end to the war in Afghanistan? You know DAMNED well that the owners of media pay their minions to endlessly broadcast messages specifically amenable with their (corporate) interests. Employing experts that span the spectrum from Goebbels to Barnum, they know that lies told often enough work to seduce people. To be shunned or isolated is so painful that it's a punishment that goes back many centuries. Few wish to stand outside of the crowd; and the MSM in its access to tools designed to manufacture consent understands how to create the illusion of consensus. You're playing alchemist in claiming the ILLUSION is the same thing as The Truth, and/or blaming the public for not recognizing the degree to which it's being lied to. When millions are raised in strict, conservative families and taught to respect their elders, they are conditioned NOT to question the veracity of their church leaders, political leaders, or the fresh faces who've risen to the high ranks of media celebrity. In other words, the culture is thick with lies and deception.
I tire of those who always want to place the flaw in those who have been worked over by all sorts of systems intent on their conditioning! Only a few manage to fly over "The Cuckoo's Nest," and these days, the political and legal costs for doing so are growing higher by the minute!
Tammons didn't claim that we all believe such nonsense, only that cultural myths have so much power that people tend to abandon them only when all else fails.
But, once again, you insist you are above delusion and ignorance, when you also hold on tightly to the myths that bring comfort to you.
That many, and sometimes a majority of, Americans prefer the lesser of two evils or a somewhat more progressive option to an obviously broken one, in no way denies that most Americans are firmly wedded to our foundational cultural myths: including the myth of progress.
You misread HIS post and mine; and I'm tired of you interceding as judge and jury as if YOU have some monopoly on truth. Really.
I misread nothing. You misspoke, as is your habit.
So you can spout your judgements, no matter how off-base or ill-considered, but if anyone should dare judge your judgements, that's unacceptable.
Take a look in the mirror SiouxRose. You're so quick to condemn everyone else but incapable of being self-critical.
To the contrary, I have had countless debates in this forum, and IF someone presents a case that trumps my own, I'll concede the point. What I will not countenance, are Johnny Come Lately types like you, who show up as if you hold some type of unimpeachable authority. I AM an authority in my field, and no one here can challenge that. They may not like the field, but that's another story, entirely. I listen with respect to the history buffs because that is NOT my area of expertise, nor did I have much interest in it until some posters brought up interesting perspectives. As a result of comments in these threads, I've learned about--and read--a number of evocative books.
Another thing I have little patience with are those who push the dominant narratives, items that speak generally about humanity's ancient roots without having ever studied ANYTHING written by a feminist author. The generalizations made about human nature that utterly discount the witness and unique experience of women are not worth the paper they're written on. These views are to human history what the 3rd grade primer is to American history.
Similarly, I have a low tolerance for the frauds who inhabit these threads to push Libertarian memes, especially those that present nuclear power as a good thing, still pretend to question the evidence of climate change, defend the racist policies underway in places like Arizona, and attack the foremost voices on the Left.
Because my views are Progressive, while some posters (typically those that attack me) pretend to have Left-leaning sympathies while pushing Other Agendas, I do get embroiled in impassionated arguments with these posers. It's very convenient for this ilk (with numbers that far exceed my singular person) to suggest that I have a "problem" getting along when I challenge their faux Progressive positions. Nice use of duck and cover.
There is also a LONG history of personal attacks directed at me. And while it suits the attackers to suggest that I am guilty of ad hominems, in 90% of the existing cases, the venom of the attackers was hardly equivalent to my attempts at fighting back. Unlike you and other cowards, I use my professional name here. Therefore attacks become very personal and are intended to harm my reputation. Those who hide behind pseudonymns need not think in those terms.
And by the way, genius, the spelling is judgments. Meanwhile, most of your posts radiate a very condescending quality, while you're busy trying to make me look like the one spouting judgments.
And one more thing, I've generally been attacked for 2 things: defending the good name of principled authors, activists, speakers on the Left (and a few IN this forum), and pointing out the nature of orchestrated attacks. Having been both a target and an observer, I find the patterns easy to note... and will continue to speak truthfully about these observations.
Some use multiple screen names and they probably work for an I.T. branch of Homeland Security. Over time, their language patterns and typical insults (added to narrow, poor reasoning skills and generally lousy spelling) become both familiar and redundant. Honest posters deserve to know what's going on. The statistics on the $ being poured into domestic spy campaigns makes it a virtual certainty that there is truth behind my contention. A true Progressive would look for common cause. Instead, you come from EGO and wish to pull me down a few pegs. If we were having drinks in a bar, you'd have my red wine in your face right about now.
Good night, and Good luck.
"The generalizations made about human nature that utterly discount the witness and unique experience of women are not worth the paper they're written on. These views are to human history what the 3rd grade primer is to American history".
Must confess that the generalisations about human nature that utterly discount the witness and unique experience of men are not worth the paper they are written on. And that it is both arrogant and fatuous to discount and disrespect the personal experience and observations of those who have lived and worked in some rather basic environments. And to demonstrate my education, sound judgEment, surprising erudition and recognition of pabulum faux, let me state that ong ngi em ngoi excretae taurorum sompela taim tumas, nheung bel cua em goodpela tru yet, mia cara Rosie. I'd prefer a 2008 vintage, preferably from Australia though a good Yugoslavian red could be bearable.
Reality cannot exist without unreality, which is like the Anti Christ posing as the Christ, which must pose as reality. The Anti Christ cannot exist without the Christ. It is necessary to discern unreality from reality, which requires distinguishing thoughts from facts. This is is the purpose of being human whom are inclined to outsource this responsibility to Churches, businesses, government rather than learning how to think and discern.The aforementioned institutions know this and their Manufacturing Consent propaganda and policies are implemented accordingly.
Concerning nuclear energy, the purpose of which is to boil water. and to perpetuate the monopolies of the utilities. Just how is using nuclear to boil water a good idea.NOT! It's just another Rube Goldberg scheme funded by the forced contributions,, withholding taxes, by taxing labor to pay for the failure of Capital. The capital markets will/do not support nuclear, so the Rube Goldberg dysfunctional USG is used to fund the Rube Goldberg nuclear power system. People are aghast with surprise when I inform them that nuclear is for the purpose of boiling water.
This "Johnny Come Lately" has been actively opposing the status quo for almost all of my 60 years, from the anti-war movement of the Vietnam years to a central role in the anti-nuclear power movement, and to 33 years of public war-tax resistance, including jail time for non-violent civil disobedience and non-cooperation. I think I've earned my cred.
But, unlike you, I don't claim that " I AM an authority in my field, and no one here can challenge that." You could hardly be more full of yourself and more quick to hear any challenge of your ideas as a challenge to your person.
I studied Women's Lit in college, including many prominent feminists, but I've never accepted Feminism because it suffers from the same intellectual blindness of any other ideology, And I've been heavily involved in the men's mythopoetic movement and am schooled in the "other side of the story" (such as the Myth of Male Power, written by a preeminent male feminist scholar). Hence, unlike yours, my perspective on human history is a complete and balanced one.
I agree that it is cowardly to wage intellectual debate under a pseudonym. But, unlike you, I post here under my real name, not a fictitious "professional name".
As is true of any ideologically-motivated individual, you perceive any critique of those ideologies you accept on faith, such as Feminism and Progressivism, as coming from "Other Agendas", as if you don't have an agenda and other's motives must be suspect if they don't agree with your own beliefs.
You "find the patterns easy to note..." even when non-existent, because you perceive any critical response as part of an imaginary counter-revolutionary front, just as you are certain that your opponents must be agents of the Security State.
"Judgement" is one of the two accepted spellings of the word, but it is also a habit of yours that undermines any credibility you might think you have. Judging me as coming from "EGO" is merely a projection of your own habit (as the assertion that "I AM an authority" clearly demonstrates).
And that you would throw red wine in my face for challenging your bullshit proves beyond any doubt the shallowness of your commitment to progressive non-violent social change.
Thank you Siouxrose, you bring a sound mind and clarity to CD. I appreciate and learn from what you have to say.
This remark is a retread of Katrine Lachette's previous published hostilities:
"She also will ban you from this site with censorship if you don't bow down to her."
Had I the attributed power, you can bet that an angry little wasp like you WOULD be banned.
I charge $100 an hour, and am well worth it! Most in my field charge $150. Anyone who has been part of the CD community knows that I spend MANY hours of my time sharing what I know GRATIS in this forum. I have a reliable client base but my major work is writing books that I finance--through self-publishing. There is NO profit in it other than doing what I believe it's my purpose to fulfill. If YOU had that level of altruism, you would not be so keen on seeking to damage my reputation or credibility. It's a very ugly act of overt hostility. And apart from the likeliness that you've attacked me under a different screen name, I have NEVER had any interaction to warrant your grotesque over-reach, "Lynnh."
I suppose you make a living, too? Or is any salary for any job in your book some form of capitalist sell-out? Plus, I never claimed to be a Marxist. There are things free enterprise is good for, and other things that require a sharing of resources as seen in Socialism.
To call someone who CHALLENGES the existing patriarchy angry is a trivial and dishonest appraisal.
And as for your drill team partner, IF academe had a balance of perspectives drawn from both genders, its dominant philosophies would be worthy of respect. When ONLY men have determined what's legitimate or worthy of academic stamps of approval for centuries, and women who enter the ranks must ABIDE BY THESE METRICS, then as I said, the system is lop-sided. The extreme worship of violence and militarism, added to all sorts of class divisions, is a DIRECT product of the asymmetric patriachy.
Instead of working so hard to discredit me, you might take my advice on the many books I've cited in this forum, and actually LEARN something. Needless to say, that would threaten the neat little authoritarian boxes you live in, and from which YOU draw your paychecks.
SKEPTIMIST : Thank you for the nod further up this thread. The attack squad is back. They work VERY hard to silence me, and in spite of the heap of insults they've tossed my way, they paint ME as the angry person given to retaliation. It's right wing bull and strategy ALL the way... also described as: "isolating the radical to neutralize (i.e. control) the discussion." I've been its victim here for more than 3 years.. but these BASTARDS are not going to shut me up or silence the voice of Female Prophecy AGAIN as they've done through violent, crippling, unjust means for CENTURIES.
This is the Age of Truth. They HATE the truth so they seek to slay the truth teller.
NOT this time.
People have to pay extra for charter schools, as I have a friend with kids in one of these. This is something London tried and found wanting. Why do we in the USA need to try what the British have already tried and which failed. Let's stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Public schools do just fine with the funding. I've seen this first hand. They don't too well without funding. "Surprise!"
Boys and Girls, we're going to have to put aside some of these Western oriented, Eurocentric and ethnocentric behaviors of putting personality and ego ahead of all else. We must learn to discuss ideas, to steer clear of oneupsmanship or the women's equivalent, to find more common ground to seek a progressive agenda.
I don't have a clue who Siouxrose is responding to in this rant, but rarely have I seen such blatant egotism here (or anywhere) and such bilious anger expressed through so many CAPITALIZATIONS and so much name-calling.
It's more than ironic that feminism, which began as a liberation struggle, has atrophied into an ideology of victimhood such that its most avid true believers perceive any legitimate criticism as an attempt to oppress into silence. Some are just not happy unless they can believe themselves to be victims.
And, just as the dishonest right wing shifts a centrist like Obama to the far left in order to satisfy their Manichean vision of the world, "Siouxrose" must place far left activists into the "right wing" in order to support her dualistic fantasy of the world.
I always appreciate your thoughtful response and in fact am complimented Siouxrose when you respond to my rants. A day goes by and I read my own response and see that it does sound self righteous. Am I the only truth seeker? Is it possible that my ideology colors my attempt to see the truth and that in that sense I am also wrong? I can only say that every day of my life I encounter such idiocy, that in the context of the community in which I live I am so rejected and even shunned for expressing ideas like Health Care for All, progressive taxation, rejection of war mongering and appear so outspoken, feel so alienated from politics that I am either reduced to sullen self censorship or when I do speak out escalate to increasingly polarized and extreme rhetoric which only further alienates those I am trying to persuade..
When I talk about what "we" believe though I am speaking of the essentially reactionary ideology that for the most part motivates this nation's politics. It may be an inadequate model of reality but what is most fervently believed becomes the operative reality in politics. In fact, the more the "illusion" is challenged, (particularly by an out-liar like me who is not respected in his community) the more strongly it is held until that "reality" becomes so dysfunctional that the system it tries to hold together falls apart. It seems that this is the only course left for us as a nation. It has to fail, only then will those who have been so badly hurt become, in Lincoln's term, "dis-enthralled" and then and only then will they be willing to listen to an alternative. Only then will some of us who are left be able to pick up the pieces and build something better. Even then it depends on whose left and whether they wilh ave a vision compelling enough to get others to follow. This deep pessimism is born out of my own failure to present an alternative which my peers will listen to. I am bolixed, I am bitter and angry but am I right? Siouxrose, if you have an prophetic powers can you show me a way out of this despair?
Dear Tammons: Thank you for writing a post imbued with contagious empathy. Anyone with a beating heart, sentient, caring soul, and curious mind knows things are WAY off their rockers. I'm afraid that speaking Truth today casts one as a prophet of doom. I suppose the most promising truth I can deliver is that all things move through cycles; and while I feel GREAT grief for the state of the Earth Mother, I know this cycle will lead to yet another. Meanwhile I hope that some unpredicted agency--a volcanic eruption, a human invention, even Divine Intervention--may save us from ourselves. Still, when I use a pronoun like us I recognize that there's a vast chasm between the WILL of The People and the machinations used by elites to lead civilization to an ecological abyss.
Trying times CAN bring out the best in us. Recall the proverb that "Necessity is the Mother of Invention." Thus in a sense, necessity acts as invention's catalyst. Could there be any greater necessity than the various and sundry perils confronting much of humanity?
There are MANY diverse prophecies that speak of this time period as THE ONE instrumental to massive changes. The scientific reports of climate change/chaos, added to the uptick in revolutionary movements, added to how far Wall Street's faux instruments of wealth have decoupled from meaningful financial metrics... all of these suggest a trifecta. What will result I cannot say... this IS the time of a Great Transition. Since Aquarius, the sign OF Truth, is next up on the grand cosmic dial of time, honoring Truth and opening the heart are recommended practices.
Peace to you. And I'm sure we'll have further conversations and debates in future threads.
tammons,
'T.H. Meyer is a student of the mystic Rudolph Steiner, whose words spoken on April 4th 1916 now seem chillingly prophetic:
'“Shortly after the year 2000 a kind of indirect prohibition on thinking will emanate from America, a law which will aim to suppress all individual thought”.
'The suppression of individual thought in America, the land of creative individualism, is proving to be a planetary catastrophe.
'Such observations show why the 9/11 covert operation was perhaps the worst crime against humanity ever perpetrated. The gravity of the crime stems not from the scale of the carnage—less than 3000 were killed, compared to millions in other holocausts—but from the scale of the lie, which may, unless quickly exposed, quite literally lead to the destruction of the world.'
--- From Kevin Barrett's review of Meyer's book: Reality, Truth and Evil.
2 issues here to disagree with. Entitlements - the 'paper churners' are part of the problem. The beaurocracy is an abusive wastland. Eliminate 90% and give the money directly to the people in need. End the redundancy of the avalanche of paper work that poor families have to go through. Read POVERTY IN A SMALL TOWN.
Also Education... As the government educational system now exists - it is really bad. For the same amount of money, families could be given choice. That is the only way to overcome the myths about USA history that lead to blind patriotism. We must stop teaching our children lies about how the USA never did anything wrong. Talk to a Native American.........
One of the primary problems with public education, from its philosophical inception by Masters of Industry, is that it is designed more as a vocational program to train youth in living by the clock, obedience to authority, and competition for scores and honors than it is for real education.
Today, both public schools and colleges are becoming even more vocational, when what we need as a nation are liberally educated and well-informed, curious, and questioning citizens. This requires a humanistic, not a vocational, approach to education.
A poll of Americans last year found that only 30 percent knew that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land; 43 percent did not know that the first 10 amendments constitute the Bill of Rights; and two-thirds could not identify America’s economic system as capitalistic or market-based.
In last year's National Assessment of Educational Progress conducted by the DOE, not even a quarter of American students was proficient in US history, and the percentage declined as students grow older. Only 20 percent of 6th graders, 17 percent of 8th graders, and 12 percent of high school seniors demonstrate a solid grasp on their nation’s history. In fact, American kids are weaker in history than in any of the other subjects tested.
It is for this reason that so many Americans will believe convenient myths.
As always, Rosemarie, you've somewhere off the deep end.
While government bureaucracies can always improve their efficiency (and it would have been wonderful if they had taken the Paperwork Reduction Act seriously), it's a demonstrable fact that most government programs (outside the military) are far more efficient and cost-effective than their private counterparts.
While there is vast room for improvement in public education, the primary reason for its failures is lack of funding, caused in part by redirection of funding to charter schools.
As always, I stand in the deep end with Rosemarie. Although government bureaucracies in some instances work more efficiently that the private sector, no doubt exists that many barely function at all, much less well. For example, many bureaucracies that deal with the unemployed barely function.
Although I agree schools need much more funding, without improvement in teachers and in teaching methods, money means nothing. We teach kids things like 1 + 1 = 2 and other rote methods, when marvelous teaching systems for math and other subjects exist, just not in the school context (or very few schools).
A handful of schools have adopted "new" ancient methods for memory and mathematics, that work much better than the non-methods used today.
I was a "bureaucrat" working as a research scientist in the DoD for years. Here's what I know: Most people in the government are trying to do their job, but they are bedeviled by funding shortages and political micromanaging. The problem lies behind the bureaucracies in the political battles around their funding. In my interactions with people in other parts of the government, I have met with many frustrated people who are really trying to do their job, but are prevented from doing it by forces above their "pay grade."
I was educated rigorously in the basics of readin', writin' and arithmetic, and although I also got a generous helping of Roman Catholic delusion along with my good education in the basics, it was that good education which gave me the tools to overcome not only the delusions of catholicism, but of capitalism as well. What I think kids need is education in the basic methods of thought. If people are well educated, they at least have the tools to find their way to truth, even if the education is otherwise flawed. I and my friends who have gone through a catholic education are living proofs of this thesis.
OK class, raise your hands if you know which state publishes most of the history books used by American public schools.
okay, without Googling...Texas?
Talk to a Native American........Or, an African American.
#1 The article itself described the adjustments to the "entitlements" that have to be made. And obviously in this way they are absolutely *not* part of the problem but part of the solution. Also, you're using the world "Luddite" without knowing its background and understanding the social significance of "luddism" - and the overwhelming truth behind it.
#2 Charter schools etc are part of the strategy of sucking money out of public education and putting it into privatised, for-profit education. That public education is getting worse is in fact intentional and part of the same strategy as the push for charters.
#7 What kind of proof would be enough for you about AGW? What is the level of certainty that you think would be enough to make decisions that were actually not making things worse *according to the theory accepted by an overwhelming majority of climate scientists*?
"While I believe in AGW there is absolutely no certitude of proof and it is just too preposterous for words to insist there is no room for doubt. That is what killed the movement."
Absolute total bullshit. Propaganda and people not wanting to give up privilege killed the "movement".
With regards to the funding of Charter Schools, I don't know how funding works nationwide, but in Oregon the districts can retain up to 20% of the monies paid to the district for students who attend a charter school, without any obligation on the part of the district to provide education or services for those students.
So the charter schools have to educate students with up to 20% less funding than the traditional public schools and the school districts end up with additional unearned funds.
One of the Oregon non-profit charter schools that enrolls students based on a lottery is among the top schools in the state, even with the funding discrepancy.
Sorry, I obviously shouldn't just have said "charter schools" in general, as in principle I have no problem with the institution itself. It's more about charter schools being a good technical choice to advance privatisation (ie. private control over education, not necessarily direct profit-making) and reorienting education to serve a "flexible labour market" (and nothing else). Of course I may be wrong about this, but I think that the trend towards this goal is quite visible, and I think that a lot of the current push for charters comes from this direction.